Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025/01/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA JANUARY 21, 2025 6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting – Council Chambers 1. Call to order a.Roll call. 2. Approve agenda. 3. Minutes a.Minutes of December 16, 2024 EDA meeting b.Minutes of January 6, 2025 EDA meeting 4. Consent items a.Resolution approving letter of no default - Beltline Station development - Ward 1 5. Public hearings – none. 6. Regular business a.Resolution approving preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC - Ward 2 7. Communications and announcements – none. 8. Adjournment. 6:15 p.m. City council meeting – Council Chambers 1. Call to order a.Roll call. b.Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Approve agenda. 3. Presentations a.Proclamation observing National Day of Racial Healing b.Proclamation observing International Holocaust Remembrance Day c.Recognition of donations 4. Minutes a.Minutes of December 16, 2024 city council meeting b.Minutes of January 6, 2025 city council meeting 5. Consent items a.Resolution accepting donations to the Access to Fun scholarship program b.Resolution accepting donation from Westopolis for Jason West to attend the 2025 Sports Events and Tourism Association (ETA) Symposium c.Temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license - Church of the Holy Family d.Resolution approving letter of no default - Beltline Station development - Ward 1 Agenda EDA, city council and study session meetings of January 21, 2025 e. Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 f. Approve Housing Authority appointment g. Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 2825 Idaho Avenue South - Ward 1 h. Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3541 Xylon Avenue South - Ward 3 6. Public hearings a. Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management Project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 b. Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation Project (4025-1050) - Ward 2 7. Regular business a. 2025 Social services proposed funding 8. Communications and announcements – none. 9. Adjournment. Following city council meeting – Study Session – Community Room Discussion item 1. PLACES public art Written reports 2. Authority to change the scope and purpose of statutory board roles update 3. Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved. Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end. City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions. The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505. Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 16, 2024 1. Call to order. President Dumalag called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. a. Roll call Commissioners present: President Dumalag, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, Nadia Mohamed Commissioners absent: Margaret Rog Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), finance director (Ms. Cruver), facilities superintendent (Mr. Eisold), recreation superintendent (Ms. Friederich), public works director (Mr. Hall), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), building and energy director (Mr. Hoffman), police chief (Mr. Kruelle), housing supervisor (Ms. Olson), interim fire chief (Mr. Scott), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott- Lerdal), communications and technology director (Ms. Smith), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), engineering project manager (Mr. Sullivan), park superintendent (Mr. Umphrey) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Budd, to approve the EDA agenda as presented. The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Rog and Mohamed absent). 3. Minutes a. EDA meeting minutes of Nov. 18, 2024 It was moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the EDA meeting minutes of Nov. 18, 2024 as presented. The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Rog and Mohamed absent). 4. Consent items. a. Approval of EDA disbursements It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to approve the consent items as listed. Economic development authority meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 16, 2024 The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Rog absent). 5. Public hearings – none. 6. Regular business a. Resolutions 24-20 authorizing the 2025 HRA levy and 2025 budget, and 24-21 authorizing 2025 EDA levy, 2025 budget and capital improvement plan Ms. Cruver presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 24-20 authorizing 2025 HRA levy and final 2025 budget, and EDA Resolution No. 24-21 authorizing the 2025 EDA levy and capital improvement plan. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Rog absent). 7. Communications and announcements a. Business terms for private development contract – Terâsa redevelopment – Ward 4 No action was required on this item. 8. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Sue Budd, EDA president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Minutes: 3b Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Jan. 6, 2025 1. Call to order President Dumalag called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. a. Roll call Commissioners present: President Dumalag, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), community development director (Ms. Barton), interim fire chief (Mr. Scott), redevelopment administrator (Ms. Monson), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott- Lerdal) 2. Approve agenda It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Budd, to approve the EDA agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Minutes – none. 4. Consent items a. EDA Resolution No. 25-01 authorizing EDA bank signatories b. EDA Resolution No. 25-02 authorizing EDA depositories c. Approve EDA disbursements d. EDA Resolution No. 25-03 approving sub-grantee agreement between the EDA and Loffler Crossing for pre-development grant award – Ward 2 It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to approve the consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Public hearings – none. 6. Regular business Economic development authority meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: EDA meeting minutes of January 6, 2025 a. Election of 2025 Economic Development Authority officers (president, vice president, treasurer) It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to elect Commissioner Sue Budd as president, Commissioner Yolanda Farris as vice president, and Commissioner Paul Baudhuin as treasurer as 2025 Economic Development Authority officers. The motion passed 7-0. President Dumalag turned over the meeting to newly elected President Budd, who thanked President Dumalag for her service this past year. 7. Communications and announcements - none. 8. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:09 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Sue Budd, EDA president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Resolution approving letter of no default - Beltline Station development – Ward 1 Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution approving a letter of no-default related to the Beltline Station development. Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to approve the letter of no-default related to the Beltline Station development in relation to the property purchase date and construction commencement and completion dates for the Beltline Station development? Summary: In October 2023, the EDA and city approved amendments to the purchase agreement and redevelopment contracts related to the Beltline Station development requiring Sherman Associates (“developer”) to close on its financing and purchase property from the EDA no later than Jan. 31, 2024. Due to market conditions, the developer has missed certain deadlines in the affordable contract and other agreements between the EDA and the developer related to the development. The developer, the city and the EDA are currently working collaboratively on amendments to the agreements which will bring the developer into compliance. The EDA and city approved a no-default letter in May 2024 stating that the city would not declare the redeveloper in default before September 2024. The developer has requested that the city and the EDA execute a third no default letter as they work to secure the project equity and financing. Sherman Associates remains dedicated to constructing the Beltline Station Redevelopment, although it has taken longer than anticipated to secure required equity for the project due to high interest rates and construction costs. Sherman Associates has indicated that it has an internal path of equity and anticipates closing on all project component’s financing in the second quarter of 2025. Due to strict bidding law requirements related to public bid awards, Sherman Associates and the EDA need to rebid the parking ramp an additional time prior to financial closing. Legal notices related to the public bid process will be published on January 23, 2025 and the bid opening is scheduled for March 4, 2025 at 2 p.m. Since the deadlines in the various contracts and the no-default letter have expired, EDA legal counsel and staff recommend approving a resolution stating the EDA and city will not declare the developer in default prior to May 31, 2025. Financial or budget considerations: All legal and financial assistance costs associated with the preparation of the no-default letter and subsequent amendments will be paid by the developer. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Resolution and letter of no-default Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director; EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Economic development authority meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving letter of no default - Beltline Station development EDA Resolution No. 25-___ Approving a letter regarding certain agreements Be it resolved by the board of commissioners (the “board”) of the St. Louis Park economic development authority (the “authority”) as follows: Section 1. Recitals; authorization. (a)To facilitate the construction of a multi-phase, mixed use development and related parking (the “development”) located at 4601 Highway 7 in the City of St. Louis Park (the “city”), the authority has entered into the following agreements (the “agreements”), including: (i) a loan agreement (the “loan agreement”) with Beltline Development LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Beltline Development”), evidenced by a promissory note (the “note”) and secured by a mortgage (the “mortgage”); (ii) a purchase agreement with Beltline Development (the “purchase agreement”); (iii) a contract for private development (the “mixed use contract”) with Beltline Mixed Use LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Beltline Mixed Use”); and (iv) a contract for private development (the “affordable contract”) with the city and Beltline Station Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (“Beltline Station” and together with Beltline Development, Beltline Mixed Use and other related affiliates of Sherman Development, the “developer”). The loan agreement, note and mortgage have been amended six times, the purchase agreement has been amended four times, the mixed use contract has been amended once and the affordable contract has been amended three times. (b)Due to certain delays, the developer has missed certain deadlines in the agreements and has informed the authority and the city that it will not be in compliance with certain terms set forth in the agreements. The developer, the city and the authority are currently working collaboratively on amendments to the agreements (the “amendments”) which should bring the developer into compliance, and for that reason the authority does not plan to declare events of default under the agreements at this time. (c)On February 5, 2024 and May 20, 2024, the authority and the city approved the execution and delivery of no default letters allowing the developer, the authority and the city additional time to negotiate the amendments. (d)The developer has requested that the city and the authority execute a third no default letter stating the facts above, a form of which is presented to the board (the “letter”). Section 2. Approval of documents. (a)The board approves the letter in substantially the form presented to the board, together with any related documents necessary in connection therewith, including without limitation all documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents referenced in or attached to the letter (the “documents”). (b)The board hereby authorizes the president and executive director, in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents Economic development authority meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving letter of no default - Beltline Station development on behalf of the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the authority and the approval hereby given to the documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the authority and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the authority. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the authority herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. This resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the date of execution thereof as provided herein. (c) In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the board by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or officers of the board as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the board are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on behalf of the board to implement the documents. Section 3. Effective date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority January 21, 2025: Karen Barton, executive director Sue Budd, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, secretary St. Louis Park Community Development Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouisparkmn.gov • Phone: 952.924.2575 • Fax: 952.928.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518 January 21, 2025 Beltline Development LLC 233 Park Avenue South, Suite 201 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Attention: Will Anderson Dear Will: To facilitate the construction of a multi-phase, mixed-use development and related parking (the “Development”) located at 4601 Highway 7 in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) has entered into the following agreements (the “Agreements”): (1) a Loan Agreement with Beltline Development LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Beltline Development”), which has been amended six times (as amended, the “Loan Agreement”), and a related Promissory Note (as amended, the “Note”) and Mortgage (as amended, the “Mortgage”), both delivered by Beltline Development and as amended six times evidencing and securing Beltline Development’s obligations under the Loan Agreement; (2) a Purchase Agreement with Beltline Development (as amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), which has been amended four times; (3) a Contract for Private Development with Beltline Mixed Use LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Beltline Mixed Use”), which has been amended once (as amended, the “Mixed-Use Contract”); and (4) a Contract for Private Development with the City and Beltline Station Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (“Beltline Station” and, together with Beltline Development, Beltline Mixed Use, and other related affiliates, the “Developer”), which has been amended three times (as amended, the “Affordable Contract”). The Developer has missed certain deadlines in the Agreements and has informed the Authority and the City that it will not be in compliance with certain terms set forth in the Agreements including: •Section 2(c) of the Loan Agreement, which states, in part, that: “The entire unpaid amount of principal and accrued interest on the Loan shall be due and payable on the earlier of (i) the date that the Borrower, or an affiliate thereof or entity related thereto, acquires the City and Authority Property as defined and contemplated in the Preliminary Agreement and in accordance with the Purchase Agreement; or (ii) January 31, 2024 (the “Loan Payment Date”).” This term is also reflected in Section 2 of the Note and Paragraph 20 of the Mortgage. •Paragraph 3 of the Purchase Agreement, which states, in part, that: “Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the closing of the purchase and sale of the Property contemplated by this Agreement (the “Closing”) shall occur at the office of Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc. (the “Title Company”), or at another location mutually agreed upon by the Parties, on the Economic Development Authority meeting of January 6, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approve EDA disbursements Page 4 St. Louis Park Community Development Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouisparkmn.gov • Phone: 952.924.2575 • Fax: 952.928.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518 date 30 days after the satisfaction or written waiver of all of the conditions set forth in Section 8 hereof but not later than January 31, 2024, unless extended by agreement of the Parties (the “Closing Date”).” •Section 4.3 of the Mixed-Use Contract, which states, in part, that: “Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall commence site and utility work on the Market-Rate Housing Component Parcel, the Parking Ramp Component Parcel, and the Mixed-Use Component Parcel by February 15, 2024.” •Section 4.3 of the Affordable Contract, which states, in part, that: “Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by March 31, 2024.” The Authority and the City understand that the Developer has faced delays with financing the Development and the Authority, the City and the Developer are currently working collaboratively on amendments to the Agreements and anticipate delivering such amendments by March 31, 2025. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by both the Board of Commissioners of the Authority and the City Council of the City on January 21, 2025, the Authority and the City have determined not to declare an event of default under any of the Agreements prior to May 31, 2025 while the parties are negotiating amendments to the Agreements. Sincerely, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority _________________________ __________________________ President Executive Director City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota __________________________ __________________________ Mayor City Manager Economic Development Authority meeting of January 6, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approve EDA disbursements Page 5 Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Action agenda item: 6a Executive summary Title: Resolution approving preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC - Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution approving the preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC. Policy consideration: Does the EDA support the proposed preliminary development agreement with Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC , which formalizes the respective parties’ obligations relative to preparing a mixed-use development plan and contracts for the Wooddale Station redevelopment site? Summary: At the Dec. 2, 2024 study session, the EDA discussed Roers Companies’ proposal for the Wooddale Station redevelopment site and voiced support for a concept plan which creates a public plaza fronting Wooddale Avenue and the light rail transit station platform. The EDA directed staff to prepare a preliminary development agreement (PDA) between the EDA and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC in which the parties pledge to work together toward a mutually acceptable mixed-use development plan and a purchase and redevelopment contract for the site. The PDA formalizes the parties’ respective responsibilities relative to the Wooddale Station redevelopment project, provides the redeveloper with formal permission to access the site to conduct its due diligence, and outlines requirements for applying for land use, zoning changes and financing assistance. During the term of the PDA, Roers Companies will have exclusive rights to negotiate the acquisition 5950 36th Street W from the EDA. Roers Companies agrees to reimburse the EDA for all reasonable out-of-pocket administrative costs, such as legal and financial consulting fees, incurred in connection with review and analysis of the proposed redevelopment. The PDA would terminate if the EDA has not approved a purchase and redevelopment contract with Roers Companies by June 30, 2026, or by mutual written agreement of the parties or a determination by either party that negotiations have reached an impasse. Financial or budget considerations: The precise purchase price of the EDA ’s property, as well as the amount of financial assistance necessary to bring this latest Wooddale Station redevelopment to fruition have yet to be determined. It is anticipated the proposed redevelopment will require public financial assistance due to the cost of affordable housing with below market rents, building demolition, contamination remediation, and shoring as well as underground and structured parking. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: EDA Resolution; preliminary development agreement Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director/EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Economic development authority meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC - Ward 2 EDA Resolution No. 25-_____ Resolution approving a preliminary development agreement between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC Whereas, pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 and Sections 469.001 through 469.047, both as amended, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) administers its redevelopment project no. 1 (the “project”), for the purpose of facilitating the redevelopment of certain substandard property within the project; and Whereas, the authority owns certain property within the project (the “authority parcel”) and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “developer”) intends to acquire certain other property adjacent to the authority parcel wi thin the Project (the “third-party parcel” and together with the authority parcel, the “development property”), all located on the south side of the proposed Southwest LRT Wooddale Station; and Whereas, the development property has been the subject of certain preliminary negotiations between the parties for purposes of constructing a 6-story mixed-use, mixed- income building with approximately 263 residential units (of which 57 would be restricted to affordable rent levels including 10% at 50% AMI, 10% at 60% AMI, and at least 4 units at 30% AMI), approximately 7,000 to 9,000 square feet of ground floor commercial, one public plaza, surface and structured parking, and several rooftop amenity spaces (the “development”); and Whereas, the authority and the developer have negotiated a preliminary development agreement (the “agreement”), providing for the performance of certain activities on the part of the parties in preparation for the negotiation of a definitive purchase and redevelopment contract in connection with the development property and the development, as presented for the authority’s consideration; and Whereas, the board has reviewed the agreement and finds that the approval and execution of the agreement are in the best interest of the city and its residents. and will spur redevelopment of underutilized and blighted property, encourage commerce and alternative transportation, and enhance the city’s tax base. Now therefore be it resolved by the authority that the agreement as presented to the board of commissioners is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the president and executive director, provided that execution of the agreement by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. It is further resolved that the president and executive director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the authority the Agreement, and any documents referenced therein Economic development authority meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Roers St. Louis Park Apartments II LLC - Ward 2 requiring execution by the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, its obligations thereunder. It is further resolved that authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority January 21, 2025: Karen Barton, executive director Sue Budd, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, secretary Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Presentation: 3a Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing National Day of Racial Healing Recommended action: The mayor is asked to read and present the proclamation. Policy consideration: None. Summary: Racial healing is the experience shared by people when they speak openly and hear the truth about past wrongs and the negative impacts created by individual and systemic racism. It is an ongoing process, supportive of wholeness in individuals, communities and societies. It benefits all people because regardless of background, we live within and are impacted by the narratives and conditions present throughout this increasingly interconnected world. The National Day of Racial Healing is an opportunity for children, teens, neighbors and community members to learn through honest conversations about race. Fundamental to this day is a clear understanding that racial healing is at the core of racial equity. The City of St. Louis Park observes this day on Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: 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. Supporting documents: Resource page Proclamation Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing National Day of Racial Healing Resource page To honor the National Day of Racial Healing, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Learn about Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. o The 15 Year Battle for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day | National Museum of African American History and Culture • Explore more ways to take action for racial healing o https://dayofracialhealing.org/about-ndorh/ o https://healourcommunities.org/day-of-racial-healing/#action-kits City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing National Day of Racial Healing Proclamation “National Day of Racial Healing” Whereas, we must all work to create courageous and supportive environments that promote the healing of wounds created by racism in order to build a community where all residents can thrive; and Whereas, racial healing is the experience shared by people when they speak openly and hear the truth about past wrongs and the negative impacts created by individual and systemic racism; and Whereas, history has shown that even a small group of people can make a change that has a profound impact on our nation’s understanding of racism; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is honoring the National Day of Racial Healing with a community event that provides an opportunity for community members to come together and take action towards racial healing through powerful dialogue ; and Whereas, we can all bring about the necessary changes in thinking and behavior that will propel St. Louis Park as leaders in racial equity and inclusion; and Whereas, observing this date as a city is a part of our commitment to encourage all people to promote truth, racial healing and transformation, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby proclaim January 21, 2025, as National Day of Racial Healing in our community. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 21st day of January 2025. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Presentation: 3b Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing International Holocaust Remembrance Day Recommended action: The mayor is asked to read and present the proclamation. Policy consideration: None. Summary: The International Holocaust Remembrance is a day of commemoration in memory of the six million Jewish adults and children who were murdered, and the millions of others who were killed or suffered persecution at the hands of the Nazi campaign of dehumanization and genocide. Their lives and memory teach us the importance not only of acknowledging the past but acting in the present to educate ourselves and fight antisemitism and hate. This day marks the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1945 and is meant to honor the victims of the Holocaust. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: 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. Supporting documents: Resource page Proclamation Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing International Holocaust Remembrance Day Resource page To honor International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Educate yourself and others about the Holocaust: o Holocaust: Definition, Remembrance & Meaning | HISTORY o https://time.com/5953047/lgbtq-holocaust-stories/ o https://time.com/5719540/roma-holocaust-remembrance/ o https://mn.gov/mnddc/hadamar/index.html o https://tpt.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/amex32ec-soc- eugenicsnazi/american-eugenics-and-the-nazi-regime-the-eugenics-crusade/ • Explore the stories of Holocaust survivors in Minnesota from the University of Minnesota Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies Collection o chgs.elevator.umn.edu/search/s/e500c03c-4063-4ffb-9435-c799f4eaffb7 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing International Holocaust Remembrance Day Proclamation “International Holocaust Remembrance Day” Whereas, the over 245,000 survivors of the Holocaust across the world demonstrate resilience against all odds by continuing to pass on their culture, traditions and faith in the face of persecution; and Whereas, the horrors of the Holocaust represent a tremendous loss of life and humanity, and remains a present memory for the generations of survivors, many of whom live in our community; and Whereas, it is important to acknowledge the painful history of racism and eugenics in the United States that set the foundation for Nazi Germany's campaign of sterilization and persecution of any communities deemed “undesirable”; and Whereas, educating ourselves about the events leading up to and during the Holocaust, including the role of the United States, is part of how we ensure that this horror never happens again; and Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion and strives to be a place of safety and respect for Jewish communities, their faith, traditions and ways of life; and Whereas, honoring International Holocaust Remembrance Day is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to standing against government actions or inactions which dehumanize, displace, and bring violence to any group of people, religion, age, race, ability or sexual orientation, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby proclaim January 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day in St. Louis Park. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 21st day of January 2025. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Presentation: 3c Executive summary Title: Recognition of donations Recommended action: Mayor to announce and express appreciation for the following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda. From Donation For 162 individuals (Full list of donors is located in Consent item 5a, Exhibit A) $1,987 Donations for the Parks and Recreation Department’s Access to Fun scholarship program Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: None. Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Minutes: 4a Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 16, 2024 1. Call to order. Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:16 p.m. a. Pledge of allegiance b. Roll call Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Lynette Dumalag, Yolanda Farris Council members absent: Margaret Rog Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), finance director (Ms. Cruver), facilities superintendent (Mr. Eisold), recreation superintendent (Ms. Friederich), public works director (Mr. Hall), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), building and energy director (Mr. Hoffman), police chief (Mr. Kruelle), housing supervisor (Ms. Olson), interim fire chief (Mr. Scott), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott- Lerdal), communications and technology director (Ms. Smith), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), engineering project manager (Mr. Sullivan), park superintendent (Mr. Umphrey) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Rog absent). 3. Presentations. a. Observance of International Migrants Day Mayor Mohamed read the proclamation. She shared that immigrants have contributed a great deal to the community in St. Louis Park. Council Member Dumalag added she is a child of immigrants and is married to an immigrant. She stated that many people choose to come to this country to leave a difficult political situation at home or in pursuit of more opportunities. Immigrants make many contributions and she is grateful for this proclamation. Council Member Brausen thanked both the Mayor and Council Member Dumalag for their service to the city. He stated it is unfortunate that we have elected a national leader who does City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 16, 2024 not embrace this sentiment and hopefully, their administration will not be as traumatic as we fear. He added that communities will be called to protect the rights of immigrants. Mayor Mohamed added that St. Louis Park residents are in a great state and a great city so that gives her comfort, solace and joy in this situation. Council Member Baudhuin added his thanks to immigrants who serve in local municipal public leadership and stated we are blessed to have a mayor in this category, summarizing that the city is the beneficiary of Mayor Mohamed’s family immigrating to America. 4. Minutes a. Minutes of Nov. 4, 2024 study session Council Members Dumalag and Brausen noted they were absent at this meeting and should be moved to the absent category. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to approve Nov. 4, 2024, study session minutes as amended. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Rog absent). b. Minutes of Nov. 18, 2024 city council meeting c. Minutes of Nov. 18, 2024 study session meeting It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Farris, to approve the Nov. 18, 2024, city council meeting minutes and the Nov. 18, 2024, study session minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Rog absent). 5. Consent items a. Resolution No. 24-154 approving 2025 non-union compensation b. Resolution No. 24-155 authorizing a special assessment for high efficiency window installation at 4040 West 36th Street - Ward 2 c. Resolution No. 24-156 establishing South Oak Pond Water Quality Improvement project (4024-4000) - Ward 2 d. Approve property acquisitions for Cedar Lake Road / Louisiana Avenue Improvements project- Phase 2 (4024-1100) - Ward 4 e. Resolution No. 24-157 regarding cashless business f. Approve temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license - Beth El Synagogue g. Resolution No. 24-158 amending American Rescue Plan Act Appropriation h. Resolution No. 24-159 approving Hennepin County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Council Member Dumalag commented on consent item 5c and thanked staff for their work on this area of focus. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 16, 2024 It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin, to approve the consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Rog absent). 6. Public hearings – none. 7. Regular business a. Resolution No. 24-161 and 24-162 authorizing traffic control changes in Browndale Neighborhood – Ward 2 Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report. Council Member Dumalag asked how stop signs were requested, implemented and installed. Mr. Sullivan stated in the past, a community member would contact staff and ask for a stop sign at an intersection. Staff would then investigate whether the request met criteria. If it did not meet criteria, then staff would deny the request. A petition could be signed, and it would be brought forth to council and then be installed if approved. Mr. Sullivan stated that is why there are more stop signs in some areas than in others. Council Member Dumalag asked if he could explain the role of the traffic committee. Mr. Sullivan stated that staff and the traffic committee, which is made up of police, first responders, engineering, and community development, would weigh in on the discussion and review. The committee’s recommendations were also included in the final report to the council. Council Member Dumalag stated the staff report showed the parks and recreation department was also consulted. Mr. Sullivan confirmed this and noted community feedback stressed how this area is an entrance to Browndale Park, so parks and recreation were also brought into the review. Going forward, if there is a park nearby when a stop sign is being considered, parks and recreation will definitely be brought into future conversations as well. Council Member Baudhuin asked about exceptions. Mr. Sullivan stated there are exceptions made depending on routes and unique offset intersections. Matthew Beach, 4168 Browndale Ave., stated that he lives by one of the stop signs that are being removed. There was a coalition to keep both stop signs, but one is being removed and neighbors disagree with this. Neighbors prefer to keep the stop sign at the front of Browndale Park, and to add another stop sign as well. He stated his concern is the street will now be used as a thoroughfare and the stop sign here would add a value of control. Council Member Dumalag asked how three-way stops are handled. Mr. Sullivan stated that there is usually a T-shaped intersection, and staff looks at higher- and lower-volume streets. Typically, this type of intersection includes a yielding location and this pairs up well with the new sidewalk at Browndale. He added low-traffic volume was another factor and that traffic counts are done on a cyclical basis. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 16, 2024 Council Member Dumalag stated there has been some non-compliance with stop signs, and getting neighbors to sign petitions can be difficult in higher density areas. She stated complaints do come from neighbors about stop signs, and noted the basketweave stop sign process works well in Minneapolis. She stated the city process for stop signs has been in use for a very long time, and we are working on a systems approach for this issue, and she will support the traffic control changes as proposed. Council Member Brausen added he will support this proposal and is glad to see a data-driven approach. He disagreed with neighbors who are concerned about stop sign removal causing their neighborhood to be less safe because too many stop signs lead to “roll-through” stops and increased carbon emissions which pollute the air. It is difficult to balance the tradeoffs, but this proposal does make sense and if it turns out to be unsafe, city staff will revisit. Council Member Baudhuin stated he will support the proposed traffic control changes and asked if there will be any monitoring on compliance and traffic flow. Mr. Sullivan stated staff is discussing what this monitoring will look like to gain a better understanding of improvements or changes. Council Member Baudhuin added he is happy to see uncontrolled intersections transitioning to more control, particularly because of his experiences as a cyclist. He stated the proposed changes will make the neighborhood safer and he is in support. Council Member Farris stated that she had visited the area in question in order to become more familiar with it. During her visits, she shared that she did not feel that traffic was moving safely in the area and is in support of increased intersection control. Council Member Budd asked if the number of cars at 500 was the same as when the sign was put in originally. Mr. Sullivan stated it was most likely for traffic management versus a right-of- way issue. He added in a neighborhood they are not meant for speed control. Council Member Dumalag added the citywide speed limit’s reduction to 20 mph was set in 2020, and this was also a chance to assist with traffic management. It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 24-161 to rescind existing Resolutions No. 2615, 5313, 85-214, 88-174, 20-011 and 20-041 pertaining to existing stop sign controls in the Browndale neighborhood, and to adopt Resolution No. 24-162, authorizing traffic control changes in Browndale Neighborhood – Ward 2. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Rog absent). b. Resolution No. 24-160, 24-163, 24-164 approving 2025 budget, levy and capital improvement plan Ms. Cruver presented the staff report. She noted the policy considerations of the 2025 budget including: City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 16, 2024 • General levies equal to $48,598,532 (general fund, park improvement, capital replacement, employee benefits and debt service) • Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) levy equal to $1,194,133 • Economic Redevelopment Authority (EDA) levy equal to $187,000 Council Member Budd asked whether the revenue stream chart in the staff report includes ARPA funds. Ms. Cruver stated it does not for 2025 because that is no longer a revenue source. She added last year, ARPA funds were visible as transfers into the budget. Council Member Brausen stated that the budget process is always interesting and he experiences relief when the budget is formally adopted. He pointed out that the council has worked on the budget process for over six months. Challenges include the need to maintain the high level of services in St. Louis Park, which citizens have come to expect, while working on new and innovative programs such as addressing climate change and all the while, holding down costs wherever possible. He stated this balance is a challenge, and he thanked staff for all their hard work. He observed that budgets are reflective of community values; 44% of the budget is allocated to public safety, addressing crime, and assisting with first responder services. He added that 28% of the budget will be used to update infrastructure and make roads safer, noting the Louisiana Ave and Cedar Lake Road project. He thanked residents for supporting these priorities and he will support the budget, levy and capital improvement plan. Council Member Baudhuin stated budgets are not his strong suit and he is thankful to staff for their work to help council understand the information. Council has worked hard on this process for many months and he has learned much as a new council member. Everyone he speaks with says that St. Louis Park is a well-run city; it is an incredible place to live and work. These comments are not in spite of the budget, but because of it; a city’s budget reflects the morals and values of the residents. He stated the increase is tough, but it is money well spent, and he will support the proposed budget, levy and capital improvement plan. Council Member Dumalag added that she is also in favor of the recommendations of staff and thanked them for their work. The work on the budget included a great deal of detail; she stressed the council takes this process seriously. This is a very clear report as to what the city is spending money on, especially with the details of the levy expenditures. She will support the proposed budget, levy and capital improvement plan. Council Member Budd thanked staff as well and added there is much “give and take” that goes into the budget process. She stated we do not always get everything we want for all constituents, but the council does need to act responsibly. She will support the proposed budget, levy and capital improvement plan. Council Member Farris added she will also support the budget as proposed and thanked staff. She recalled that the initial estimated levy increase was a higher amount than the final proposed amount before the council this evening. She shared that council asked for the amount to be revisited and staff worked to decrease the amount and to keep council informed of all factors. She thanked staff for their hard work. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 6 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 16, 2024 Mayor Mohamed stated she is very thankful to staff for working with the council on the proposed budget, levy and capital improvement plan. She stated the final product is months in the making and she is happy to support it. Council works hard to justify everything that is done with the budget, and they do take into consideration comments from residents. She will support the proposed budget, levy and capital improvement plan. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to adopt Resolution No. 24-160 authorizing the 2025 final EDA tax levy, Resolution No. 24-163 authorizing the 2025 final HRA tax levy, and Resolution No. 24-164 authorizing the 2025 general fund budget, the 2025 final property tax levy and the 2025-2034 Capital Improvement Plan. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Rog absent). 8. Communications and announcements. Ms. Keller stated there is a Terasă development meeting tomorrow evening from 5-6 p.m. at 1621 West End Blvd. There is also a meeting regarding the zoning code update on Thursday, Dec. 19, 2024 from 6 - 8 p.m. at City Hall in Council Chambers. Council Member Brausen noted the 2025 pavement management open house on Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2024 at Westwood Nature Center from 5:30 – 7 p.m. In reflection, Council Member Baudhuin stated his decision to run for the city council last year was a big one. Over his first year as a council member, he shared he has learned how things are accomplished and is blessed and humbled to be in this position. Mayor Mohamed wished those who celebrate a Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Minutes: 4b Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Jan. 6, 2025 1. Call to order. Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. a. Pledge of allegiance b. Roll call Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Lynette Dumalag, Yolanda Farris, and Margaret Rog Council members absent: none. Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), community development director (Ms. Barton), interim fire chief (Mr. Scott), redevelopment administrator (Ms. Monson), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott- Lerdal) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Farris, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Presentations. a. Recognition of retirement for Fire Captain Mark Nelson Mayor Mohamed read the proclamation recognizing Mark Nelson and thanked him for his 30 years of service to the city. Interim Chief Scott noted Captain Nelson’s many accomplishments and congratulated him on his retirement. Interim Chief Scott also congratulated Captain Nelson on his new career: teaching those entering firefighting careers. Captain Nelson thanked his family, co-workers, the city council, residents and the community as a whole. Mayor Mohamed presented Captain Nelson with a recognition plaque on behalf of the city. Council Member Brausen thanked Captain Nelson’s family for sharing him with the city during these years of service. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of January 6, 2025 Council Member Budd stated that the reach Captain Nelson has had during his career has been stellar, and she thanked him for his service in representing the city. b. Recognition of donations Mayor Mohamed thanked those making donations to the Parks and Recreation Department including: • American Legion Post 282 for $1000 to Westwood Hills Nature Center 43rd annual Halloween party, • Andrea Nyhusmoen for $235.85 to Westwood Hills Nature Center Be the Light Winter Solstice Walk, • Pat and George Foulkes for $8000 for park enhancement or program needs at Westwood Hills Nature Center, and • Linda Mell for $300 for a memorial tree to be placed at Wolfe Park 4. Minutes. a. Minutes of Dec. 2, 2024, city council meeting Council Member Rog requested a revision on page two, to state: “Council Member Rog referenced item 5e and thanked staff for their work on this. She will support the ordinance as presented, but continues to have concerns about prohibiting retail sales within 1000 feet of a school as this takes a number of properties in the Walker Lake district off the market due to their close proximity to the high school. Given the difficulty of finding affordable storefront spaces, this might limit opportunities for small retailers in our city. She hopes staff and council can continue to look at this and make changes in the future if warranted. Council Member Rog requested a revision on page four, to state: “Council Member Rog stated she is supportive of two of the three changes suggested. The third change, which she would like to discuss further with council, regards the Inclusionary Housing Policy not being triggered when there is a comprehensive plan amendment. She stated she would like to make sure that this is, in fact, the direction we want to go - narrowing the criteria for what triggers our Inclusionary Housing Policy rather than broadening it.” Council Member Rog requested a revision on page four, to state: “Mr. Mattick stated the motion to approve the item as amended is acceptable. He confirmed that the comprehensive plan can be discussed further at another meeting and that he will prepare a memo on this topic for council to review. Council Member Rog asked if the memo Mr. Mattick offered to prepare can include information on why other cities are making this choice, given legal concerns.” b. Minutes of Dec 2, 2024, special study session meeting Council Member Dumalag requested a revision to page one, paragraph two, to state: “Council Member Dumalag thanked the developer for acknowledging the letter sent to council regarding the developer's use of general contractors and sub-contractors.” City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of January 6, 2025 Council Member Dumalag requested a revision to page two, second to last paragraph, to state: “Council Member Dumalag asked Roers if they plan to use Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.” Council Member Dumalag requested a revision to page three, second to last paragraph, to state: “Ms. Julia Tollefson with Roers Companies stated that it goes to August 2025, and then there is an extension that goes through December of 2025.” Council Member Rog requested a revision on page one, paragraph nine, to state: “Council Member Rog asked whether the representatives from Roers were familiar with the Building with Dignity and Respect Standards Council, and whether they are willing to engage with this group.” It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Rog, to approve the Dec. 2, 2024, city council meeting and special study session minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. c. Minutes of Dec. 10, 2024, study session meeting It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve the Dec. 10, 2024, study session meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Consent items. a. Resolution No. 25-001 declaring city council meeting dates for 2025 b. Resolution No. 25-002 appointing council members to serve as mayor pro tem c. Resolution No. 25-003 designating official city newspaper d. Resolution No. 25-004 authorizing bank signatories e. Resolution No. 25-005 designating official depositories f. Approve city disbursements g. Resolution No. 25-006 recognizing the retirement of Fire Captain Mark Nelson h. Resolution No.25-007 accepting donations to the Parks and Recreation Department i. Resolution No. 25-008 approving specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for public tree and stump removal j. Resolution No. 25-009 approving specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for private tree and stump removal k. Approve agreement with Hennepin County Sentence to Serve (STS) program l. Resolution No. 25-010 authorizing final payment for 2024 Alley Reconstruction project (4024-1500) - Wards 1 and 4 m. Approve purchase of OpenGov finance software It was moved by Council Member Baudhuin, seconded by Council Member Budd, to approve the consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of January 6, 2025 6. Public hearings – none. 7. Regular business - none. 8. Communications and announcements. Ms. Keller stated tree collection and yard waste collection is Jan. 6-24 and more information can be found on the city website. Ms. Keller shared there is disco ice skating for all ages on Jan. 17 at the ROC, with a DJ from 5:45 – 7:15 p.m. Mayor Mohamed noted National Day of Racial Healing is on Jan. 20. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Resolution accepting donations to the Access to Fun scholarship program Recommended action: Motion to approve a resolution accepting donations from individuals May through December 2024, totaling $1,987.00 for the Access to Fun scholarship program. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on their use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. Exhibit A lists 162 individuals who graciously donated a total amount of $1,987.00 to the Access to Fun scholarship program. Donations were received May through December of 2024. These donations are added to the Access to Fun account, which provides financial assistance for activities to individuals who are experiencing financial hardship. The Access to Fun Donation program was added in 2023 and prompts every individual registering for a parks and recreation program with the opportunity to donate an amount of their choice towards the fee assistance program. The city recognizes the important health and wellness benefit recreation provides to people of all ages, and offers financial assistance for those that live, work or attend school in St. Louis Park that may need financial assistance to participate in our recreation programs. Here is how the program works: •A family member who lives, works or attends school in St. Louis Park can receive a maximum of $200 in fee assistance per calendar year and must pay the first 50% of the activity/program fee. •Eligibility is based on family size and household income. The program uses the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development income limits for state, federal and local programs to determine eligibility. •Special circumstances will be considered if your income exceeds the guidelines or if there are other extenuating circumstances. Financial or budget considerations: These donations are in addition to the budgeted allotment for Access to Fun. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Heidi Batistich, recreation and facilities supervisor Reviewed by: Jason T. West, parks and recreation director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 2 Title: Resolution accepting donations to the Access to Fun scholarship program Resolution No. 25 - ___ Approving acceptance of donations from 162 individuals totaling $1,987.00 to be available for individuals who qualify for financial assistance through the parks and recreation department Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and Whereas, 162 individuals desired to assist the Parks and Recreation Department’s financial assistance program, Access to Fun, by donating a total of $1,987.00; and Now therefore be it resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to the individuals (Exhibit A) with the understanding it will be used toward activity fees for individuals who qualify for financial assistance. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council January 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 3 Title: Resolution accepting donations to the Access to Fun scholarship program EXHIBIT A Donor name Amount Abbey Rosen $ 10.00 Abbie Yun $ 5.00 Alissa Farrell $ 20.00 Amanda J Nickel $ 10.00 Amy Dalke $ 3.00 Andrew Klevay $ 25.00 Angela Amy Pedersen $ 5.00 Angela Bakke $ 20.00 Annetta P Wilson $ 5.00 Anthony Lane $ 4.00 Anthony Lisardo Baquero $ 10.00 Ashley Bergeron $ 4.00 Becca Starr $ 5.00 Blake D Berquist $ 110.00 Bradd Mattson $ 7.00 Branden J Hammann $ 5.00 Bree Vinoski $ 10.00 Brennan Vance $ 10.00 Caitlin D Reed $ 20.00 Caitlin Singh $ 50.00 Calie Ries $ 20.00 Cana Erdem $ 5.00 Carrie Steenlage $ 10.00 Catherine Larson $ 50.00 Catherine Mayer $ 1.00 Catherine Thompson $ 2.00 Catlin A Murphy $ 5.00 Chelsea Fitzwater $ 5.00 Christina Maria Gonzaga $ 5.00 Christine Eddy $ 5.00 Christine Nickels $ 25.00 Clark Porter $ 10.00 Colleen Hellenbrand $ 5.00 Corinne Egan $ 5.00 Dan Nguyen $ 3.00 Daniel Van Holland $ 10.00 Danielle Kopp $ 2.00 Darby Johnson $ 5.00 Deborah Curatolo $ 5.00 Dillon Mancino $ 10.00 Eileen Oh $ 5.00 Elizabeth A Hughes $ 20.00 Elizabeth Andrews $ 26.00 Elizabeth Hanson $ 20.00 Ellie Clifford $ 20.00 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 4 Title: Resolution accepting donations to the Access to Fun scholarship program Emily Brookshaw $ 1.00 Emily Crook $ 6.00 Erin Gonzalez-Bardzinski $ 2.00 Erin Healy Healy Rath $ 5.00 Frances Biel $ 10.00 George Randolph Kennedy $ 7.00 Gianna Rea-Sandin $ 20.00 Hannah Fotsch $ 20.00 Heather Eberts $ 5.00 Jackie Larkins $ 20.00 Jackie Mary Roehl $ 10.00 Jami Gordon-Smith $ 8.00 Jason Hanselka $ 6.00 Jay Jaffee $ 10.00 Jenna Ariana Sund $ 5.00 Jennifer E Nash $ 161.00 Jenny Elliott $ 20.00 Jill Michel $ 10.00 Joanna Hargus $ 20.00 John Kirk $ 5.00 John O. Dizon $ 5.00 Jolissa Skow $ 5.00 Jomi Kramer $ 9.00 Jon A Lee $ 1.00 Jonathan A Sulman $ 25.00 Joseph Arthur Dobberke $ 50.00 Julie Pelowitz $ 5.00 Julie Schanzenbach Canham $ 5.00 Julie Wahlstrand $ 10.00 Kaitlin J Holm $ 5.00 Karen Jean Wettig O'Neill $ 5.00 Karis A Sloss $ 5.00 Kate Blaser $ 20.00 Kathryn Ann Currie $ 10.00 Kathy Gremillion $ 10.00 Katie Douglass $ 15.00 Katie Hayes Antelo $ 5.00 Katie McMurray $ 5.00 Kayla Meyers $ 5.00 Kelli M Barsness $ 5.00 Kelsey T Vatsaas $ 50.00 Kerry Aikman $ 2.00 Kevin Cannon $ 5.00 Kristin Melloh $ 2.00 Laura Bednarczyk $ 10.00 Lauren Lesser $ 4.00 Lauren Werner-Foley $ 5.00 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 5 Title: Resolution accepting donations to the Access to Fun scholarship program Lauren Woods $ 5.00 Leah Brandmarker $ 55.00 Lianiz Sandusky $ 10.00 Lianna McLernon $ 4.00 Lianna McLernon $ 5.00 Libby O'Neil $ 5.00 Liliya Rajs $ 5.00 Linda Jo Hammersten $ 5.00 Lisa Gothard $ 10.00 Lydia Gail Roth-Laube $ 10.00 Lyndsay Finley $ 10.00 Maddy Blaser $ 6.00 Mallory Franklin $ 5.00 Maren K Anderson $ 10.00 Margaret Flaget-Greener $ 5.00 Mark Maggiotto $ 25.00 Marti Sanville $ 2.00 Martin Dusaire $ 20.00 Mary Karius $ 5.00 MatthewTuttle $ 10.00 Megan Swanson $ 2.00 Melissa St. Michaels $ 10.00 Meredith Engelen $ 10.00 Michelle Coleman $ 15.00 Mike Michael McGuire $ 25.00 Miles Silbert $ 8.00 Morgan Maltby $ 20.00 Nichole Ramalingam $ 5.00 Opal Mattila $ 3.00 Paul T H $ 25.00 Rachel Grazulis $ 2.00 Rachel McConnell $ 20.00 Rachel Weigert $ 10.00 Raven DeFilippo $ 5.00 Rebecca Krill $ 10.00 Rebecca Magnuson $ 2.00 Rebecca OBrien $ 10.00 Renee Christina Baker $ 5.00 Rick Aviles $ 10.00 Rod Lauture $ 15.00 Rowan Hiatt Mattila $ 25.00 Ryan P Connelly $ 40.00 Samantha Anna Schellhaas $ 16.00 Sarah Durst $ 5.00 Sarah Goff-Dupont $ 2.00 Sarah Jane Geistfeld $ 5.00 Scott Dyer $ 10.00 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 6 Title: Resolution accepting donations to the Access to Fun scholarship program Shannon Whicker $ 15.00 Shelbi Polland $ 1.00 Shelby Strauss $ 15.00 Sheridan Braun $ 1.00 Sofia Shaw $ 10.00 Sonia Smith $ 20.00 Stephani Seymour $ 5.00 Sudjai O'Day $ 5.00 Susan Melnick $ 5.00 Susan Rockers $ 3.00 Suzanne Schermerhorn $ 10.00 suzy steen $ 25.00 Svetlana Vold $ 10.00 T Stephens $ 2.00 Tatiana Giraldo $ 12.00 Teresa Dondlinger $ 4.00 Tessa Mielke $ 30.00 Tim Zismer $ 5.00 Toby C Brink-Tusen $ 5.00 Tovah Elana Pentelovitch $ 6.00 Victoria Wagner $ 10.00 Yuguang Chen $ 5.00 Zac Ellis $ 5.00 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5b Executive summary Title: Resolution accepting donation from Westopolis for Jason West to attend the 2025 Sports Events and Tourism Association (ETA) Symposium Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Westopolis (formerly Discover St. Louis Park) in an amount not to exceed $2,500 for flight, hotel, transportation and per diem related expenses for Jason West, parks and recreation director, to attend the Sports Events & Tourism Association (ETA) Symposium in Tulsa, OK on April 14 – 17, 2025. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. Westopolis is graciously donating up to $2,500 for flight, hotel, transportation and per diem related expenses for Jason West, parks and recreation director, to attend the upcoming 2025 Sports ETA Symposium held April 14 – 17, 2025 in Tulsa, OK. Jason would attend this event to solicit larger sporting events to St. Louis Park. Jason has attended this event for the past several years and made many connections with large event organizers. Tournaments like national hockey, flag football, major league quadball and lacrosse have made an economic impact on St. Louis Park of over $500,000 per year . The partnership between the city and Westopolis has proven to be extremely successful. The city attorney has reviewed this matter. His opinion is that state law permits the payment of such expenses by this organization, regardless of whether the funds come from primary or secondary sources. It is treated as a gift to the city and needs to be a resolut ion adopted by the city council determining that attendance at this event serves a public purpose and accepting the gift. The resolution needs to be adopted before attendance at the conference. Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used toward the expenses incurred by Jason West’s attendance at the 2025 Sports ETA Symposium held April 14 – 17, 2025 in Tulsa, OK. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Reviewed by: Jason T. West, parks and recreation director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5b) Page 2 Title: Resolution accepting donation from Westopolis for Jason West to attend the 2025 Sports Events and Tourism Association (ETA) Symposium Resolution No. 25 - ____ Accepting donation from Westopolis for expenses for Jason West to attend the 2025 Sports Events & Tourism Association Symposium in Tulsa, OK on April 14 – 17, 2025 Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and Whereas, Westopolis will compensate up to $2,500 in costs for the city's parks and recreation director, Jason West, to attend the 202 5 Sports Events & Tourism Association (ETA) Symposium held April 14 – 17, 2025 in Tulsa, OK; and Now therefore be it resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Westopolis with the understanding that it will be used for airfare, hotel and transportation incurred by Jason West to attend the 202 5 Sports Event & Tourism Association (ETA) Symposium held April 14 – 17, 2025 in Tulsa, OK. Reviewed for administration Adopted by the city council January 21, 2025 Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5c Executive summary Title: Temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license - Church of the Holy Family Recommended action: Motion to approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the Church of the Holy Family at 5925 West Lake Street on March 1, 2025. Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for issuance of a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license? Summary: The Church of the Holy Family applied for a temporary on -sale intoxicating liquor license for a fundraising event taking place on March 1, 2025. The fundraiser will be held at Crusader Hall, 5925 West Lake Street and liquor will be served between 5:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. The police department completed a background investigation on the principals and found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant meets all requirements for the issuance of the license, and staff recommends approval. Financial or budget considerations: The fee for a temporary liquor license is $100 per day of the event. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: None. Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5d Executive summary Title: Resolution approving letter of no default - Beltline Station development – Ward 1 Recommended action: Motion to adopt city council resolution approving a letter of no-default related to the Beltline Station development. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve the letter of no-default related to the Beltline Station development in relation to the property purchase date and construction commencement and completion dates for the Beltline Station development? Summary: In October 2023, the EDA and city approved amendments to the purchase agreement and redevelopment contracts related to the Beltline Station Development requiring Sherman Associates (“developer”) to close on its financing and purchase property from the EDA no later than January 31, 2024. Due to market conditions, the developer has missed certain deadlines in the affordable contract and other agreements between the EDA and the developer related to the development. The developer, the city and the EDA are currently working collaboratively on amendments to the agreements which will bring the developer into compliance. The EDA and city approved a no-default letter in May 2024 stating that the city would not declare the redeveloper in default before September 2024. The developer has requested that the city and the EDA execute a third no default letter as they work to secure the project equity and financing. Sherman Associates remains dedicated to constructing the Beltline Station redevelopment, although it has taken longer than anticipated to secure required equity for the project due to high interest rates and construction costs. Sherman Associates has indicated that it has an internal path of equity and anticipates closing on all project component’s financing in the second quarter of 2025. Due to strict bidding law requirements related to public bid awards, Sherman Associates and the EDA need to rebid the parking ramp an additional time prior to financial closing. Legal notices related to the public bid process will be published on January 23, 2025 and the bid opening is scheduled for March 4, 2025 at 2 p.m. Since the deadlines in the various contracts and the no-default letter have expired, EDA legal counsel and staff recommend approving a resolution stating the EDA and city will not declare the developer in default prior to May 31, 2025. Financial or budget considerations: All legal and financial assistance costs associated with the preparation of the no-default letter and subsequent amendments will be paid by the developer. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Resolution and letter of no-default Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director; EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Title: Resolution approving letter of no default - Beltline Station development Resolution No. 25-____ Approving a letter regarding certain agreements Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”) as follows: Section 1. Recitals; authorization. (a)To facilitate the construction of a multi-phase, mixed use development and related parking located at 4601 Highway 7 in the city (the “development”), the city has entered into a contract for private development (the “affordable contract”) with the St Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) and Beltline Station Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (“Beltline Station”) and together with other related affiliates of Sherman Development (the “developer”). The affordable contract has been amended three times. (b)Due to certain delays, the developer has missed certain deadlines in the affordable contract and other agreements between the authority and the developer related to the development (collectively, the “agreements”) and has informed the city and the authority that it will not be in compliance with certain terms set forth in the agreements. The developer, the city and the authority are currently working collaboratively on amendments to the agreements (the “amendments”) which should bring the developer into compliance, and for that reason the city does not plan to declare events of default under the agreements at this time. (c)On February 5, 2024 and May 20, 2024, the authority and the city approved the execution and delivery of no default letters allowing the developer, the authority and the city additional time to negotiate the amendments. (d)The developer has requested that the city and the authority execute a third no default letter stating the facts above, a form of which is presented to the city council (the “letter”). Section 2. Approval of documents. (a)The city council approves the letter in substantially the form presented to the city council, together with any related documents necessary in connection therewith, including without limitation all documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents referenced in or attached to the letter (the “documents”). (b)The city council hereby authorizes the mayor and city manager, in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents on behalf of the city, and to carry out, on behalf of the city, the city’s obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the city and the approval hereby given to the documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the city and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said officers are hereby authorized to City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 3 Title: Letter of no default - Beltline Station development approve said changes on behalf of the city. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the city herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. This resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the date of execution thereof as provided herein. (c) In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the city council by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or officers of the city council as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the city council are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on behalf of the city council to implement the documents. Section 3. Effective date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council January 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk St. Louis Park Community Development Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouisparkmn.gov • Phone: 952.924.2575 • Fax: 952.928.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518 January 21, 2025 Beltline Development LLC 233 Park Avenue South, Suite 201 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Attention: Will Anderson Dear Will: To facilitate the construction of a multi-phase, mixed-use development and related parking (the “Development”) located at 4601 Highway 7 in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) has entered into the following agreements (the “Agreements”): (1) a Loan Agreement with Beltline Development LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Beltline Development”), which has been amended six times (as amended, the “Loan Agreement”), and a related Promissory Note (as amended, the “Note”) and Mortgage (as amended, the “Mortgage”), both delivered by Beltline Development and as amended six times evidencing and securing Beltline Development’s obligations under the Loan Agreement; (2) a Purchase Agreement with Beltline Development (as amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), which has been amended four times; (3) a Contract for Private Development with Beltline Mixed Use LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Beltline Mixed Use”), which has been amended once (as amended, the “Mixed-Use Contract”); and (4) a Contract for Private Development with the City and Beltline Station Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (“Beltline Station” and, together with Beltline Development, Beltline Mixed Use, and other related affiliates, the “Developer”), which has been amended three times (as amended, the “Affordable Contract”). The Developer has missed certain deadlines in the Agreements and has informed the Authority and the City that it will not be in compliance with certain terms set forth in the Agreements including: •Section 2(c) of the Loan Agreement, which states, in part, that: “The entire unpaid amount of principal and accrued interest on the Loan shall be due and payable on the earlier of (i) the date that the Borrower, or an affiliate thereof or entity related thereto, acquires the City and Authority Property as defined and contemplated in the Preliminary Agreement and in accordance with the Purchase Agreement; or (ii) January 31, 2024 (the “Loan Payment Date”).” This term is also reflected in Section 2 of the Note and Paragraph 20 of the Mortgage. •Paragraph 3 of the Purchase Agreement, which states, in part, that: “Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the closing of the purchase and sale of the Property contemplated by this Agreement (the “Closing”) shall occur at the office of Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc. (the “Title Company”), or at another location mutually agreed upon by the Parties, on the City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Title: Letter of no default - Beltline Station development Page 4 St. Louis Park Community Development Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouisparkmn.gov • Phone: 952.924.2575 • Fax: 952.928.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518 date 30 days after the satisfaction or written waiver of all of the conditions set forth in Section 8 hereof but not later than January 31, 2024, unless extended by agreement of the Parties (the “Closing Date”).” •Section 4.3 of the Mixed-Use Contract, which states, in part, that: “Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall commence site and utility work on the Market-Rate Housing Component Parcel, the Parking Ramp Component Parcel, and the Mixed-Use Component Parcel by February 15, 2024.” •Section 4.3 of the Affordable Contract, which states, in part, that: “Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by March 31, 2024.” The Authority and the City understand that the Developer has faced delays with financing the Development and the Authority, the City and the Developer are currently working collaboratively on amendments to the Agreements and anticipate delivering such amendments by March 31, 2025. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by both the Board of Commissioners of the Authority and the City Council of the City on January 21, 2025, the Authority and the City have determined not to declare an event of default under any of the Agreements prior to May 31, 2025 while the parties are negotiating amendments to the Agreements. Sincerely, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority _________________________ __________________________ President Executive Director City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota __________________________ __________________________ Mayor City Manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Title: Letter of no default - Beltline Station development Page 5 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5e Executive summary Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 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 West End Office Park (Requires four (4) affirmative votes.) Policy consideration: Does the findings of fact and record of decision for the EAW 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 West End Office Park Development located east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive. The city council approved a resolution authorizing the distribution of the EAW for public review and comment on Nov. 18, 2024. Review of the EAW is complete. Based on this review, city staff find that the West End Development does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and further investigation is not necessary. The EAW process requires that regulatory agencies and the public have the opportunity to review and comment on the findings. The city received comments from three agencies (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Indian Affairs Council) and no comments from the general public during the comment period. The city also received comments from Minnesota Department of Transportation after the comment period closed. 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. 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), agency comments and West End Office Park Development EAW Prepared by: Leila Bunge, environmental planner, Kimley-Horn Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager and deputy community development director Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 Discussion Background: The city council received a written report on Aug. 12, 2024 regarding the proposed West End Office Park Development and the need for an EAW. On Nov. 18, 2024, the city council received a staff report and approved a resolution authorizing the distribution of the EAW for public review and comment on Nov. 26, 2024. The purpose of an EAW is to examine the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. If a project is determined to have the potential for significant environmental effects, further environmental review is required in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EAW analyzed the impacts of the West End Office Park Development project, which includes four existing office buildings and surface parking that will be demolished. The site is located east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The project will redevelop the existing parcels into a mixed-use, transit-oriented residential and commercial development. The proposed development includes four new buildings: two 6-story mixed-use buildings containing residential and commercial uses, a 13-story office building, a 20- story residential building, and surface and garage parking within each building. In total, the development will create 659 residential units, 732,000 square feet of residential building area, 51,000 square feet of commercial space, 345,600 square feet of office building area, and 1,205 parking spaces. 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/GHG emissions; noise; and transportation. The city received comments from three agencies during the comment period: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) comments pertain to nighttime noise. The Metropolitan Council comments pertain to transportation analysis zones (TAZ), climate adaption and resilience, greenhouse gas emissions and transportation mitigation. The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council comments pertain to their review of any known or suspected burial sites that may be affected by this project. The city received no comments from the general public. Following the close of the comment period, the city received comments from Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Minnesota Department of Transportation comments pertain to a request that the EAW traffic study be extended to include the Interstate 394 and Park Place Blvd/Xenia Avenue South junction. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 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. Present considerations: Review of the EAW is complete. Based on this review, city staff find that the West End Development does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and further investigation is not necessary. Staff recommends adoption of findings regarding the West End Office Park Development EAW, record of decision and a negative declaration regarding the need for an environmental impact statement (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 distribute the findings per Minnesota Rules to the EQB distribution list, surrounding jurisdictions and individual commenters. The planning commission held a public hearing on Jan. 15, 2025 related to the rezoning application and city council is scheduled to consider a first reading of the PUD ordinance on Feb. 3, 2025. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 4 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 Resolution No. 25-____ Approving record of decision and the negative declaration of need for an environmental impact statement for the West End Office Park Development East of Park Place Boulevard and North of Parkdale Drive Whereas, Hempel Real Estate (“proposer”) proposes to redevelop four parcels in St. Louis Park to construct 659 new residential units and 21,800 square feet of commercial space to create the West End Office Park 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 using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1300; and Whereas, Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. provided a third-party impartial review of the EAW on behalf of the city; 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 November 26, 2024, in accordance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; and Whereas, the EAW comment period lasted from November 26, 2026 to December 26, 2024, and three (3) regulatory agencies and no members of the public submitted written comments during the comment period; and one comment after the public comment period from Minnesota Department of Transportation and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges the comments received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council; Minnesota Department of Transportation; 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 January 21, 2025 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”). 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 West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet in the form which is attached City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 5 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 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 January 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 6 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 EXHIBIT A West End Office Park Development, St. Louis Park Findings of Fact and Record of Decision City of St. Louis Park January 2025 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 7 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 1.Administrative background Hempel Real Estate is proposing to redevelop an approximately 10-acre site east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The project will redevelop the existing parcels into a mixed-use, residential and office development. The proposed development includes four new buildings: two 6-story mixed-use buildings containing residential and commercial uses, a 13-story office building, a 20-story residential building, and surface and garage parking within each building. In total, the development will create 659 residential units, 732,000 square feet of residential building area, 51,000 square feet of commercial space, 345,600 square feet of office building area, and 1,205 parking spaces. 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 Nov. 26, 2024. 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.stlouisparkmn.gov/government/departments-divisions/community- development/development-projects/terasa 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 Nov. 26 to Dec. 26, 2024. Written comments were received from four agencies. No 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. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 8 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 2.Findings of Fact 2.1 Project description Hempel Real Estate is proposing to redevelop an approximately 10-acre site east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The West End Office Park Development consists of four previously developed parcels that include office space, paved parking lots, and manicured lawn. All existing buildings including four office buildings will be demolished. Construction will be conducted over three to four phases and commencement of phase 1 is anticipated to begin by fall of 2025. The proposed development includes four new buildings: two six-story mixed-use buildings containing residential and commercial uses, a 13-story office building, a 20-story residential building, and surface and garage parking within each building. In total, the development will create 659 residential units, 732,000 square feet of residential building area, 51,000 square feet of commercial space, 345,600 square feet of office building area, and 1,205 parking spaces. The four new buildings include: •Six-Story Mixed Use Residential: Located in the northwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a six-story building that includes 245 residential units, 410 parking spaces and 22,968 square feet of retail space. •6-Story Mixed-Use Residential: Located in the southwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a 6-story building that includes 168 residential units, 267 parking spaces and 13,420 square feet of retail space. •13-Story Office Building: Located in the northeast corner of the site, this area will consist of a 13-story office building that includes 345,600 square feet of office space, 274 parking spaces and 5,500 square feet of retail space. •20-Story Residential Building: Located in the southeast corner of the site, this area will consist of a 20-story building that includes 246 residential units, 254 parking spaces and 5,500 square feet of retail space. 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. The following corrections are noted below per Metropolitan Council’s comment to update the roadway network names per the MnDOT Functional Classification map instead of the classifications identified in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan: •Park Place Boulevard is classified as a Minor Arterial (augmenter). •Wayzata Boulevard is classified as a Minor Collector. •16th Street W is classified as a Minor Arterial (reliver) and a Minor Collector east of Park Place Boulevard. •Gamble Drive is classified as a Minor Collector. •Quentin Avenue S is classified as a Minor Arterial (Reliever). City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 9 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 2.3 Agency and public comments on the EAW During the comment period, the City of St. Louis Park received no written comments from the public and three written comments from the following agencies: •Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) •Metropolitan Council •Minnesota Indian Affairs Council •Minnesota Department of Transportation 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)Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Dec. 16, 2024 Comment: “The current description of noise effects, in Section 19, does not provide enough information to determine whether the project will conform with state noise standards in Minn. R. 7030.0040.” Response: Comment noted. The proposed buildings will be built for LEED certification, and the materials used for that certification will also contribute to noise reduction strategies for the residents. The city will review plans to ensure the proposed project complies with the local and state noise regulations. Comment: “The RGU and any other land-use decision makers, should consider language in Minn. R. 7030.0030 that reads “[…] Any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “The Noise section of the EAW does not provide enough detail regarding current sound levels in the project area to determine whether an immediate violation of the state noise standards would occur if the project were approved, and the proposed residential buildings were constructed.” Response: Comment noted. The building design will be required to comply to city and state noise standards. Comment: “The proposer should conduct a noise study or modeling to characterize existing noise levels in the area, assess compliance with state noise standards, and potentially evaluate options to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise at the proposed residential buildings which would be located near MN-100 and I-394.” City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 10 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 Response: Comment noted. The proposed buildings will be built for LEED certification, and the materials used for that certification will also contribute to noise reduction strategies for the residents. Comment: “MPCA staff are particularly concerned about night-time noise at the proposed residential buildings because sleep disturbance can result in detrimental health effects.” Response: Comment noted. The building design will be required to comply to city and state noise standards. 2) Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, Jan. 2, 2025 Comment: “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. I have reviewed this project pursuant to the responsibilities given to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council by the Private Cemeteries Act (Minn. Stat. § 307.08), and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (Minn. Stat. § 138.31-.42). There are no known or suspected burial sites that may be affected by this project. Please have an inadvertent discovery plan in place. If human remains are found during ground disturbing activities, immediately contact law enforcement.” Response: Thank you for your review. 3)Metropolitan Council, Dec. 23, 2024 Comment: “The subject site is part of Transportation Analysis Zone #1376. TAZ allocations are found in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan; the forecast for TAZ #1376 includes growth of +348 households, +756 population and +2,834 employment during 2018 – 2040. Council staff advise that should this redevelopment move ahead, we will adjust Met Council’s database of forecast allocations to add +300 households and +600 population in TAZ #1376 in 2040; the 2030 timepoint is unaffected. This can be offset with forecast reductions in the remainer of the city, leaving city totals unaffected. Please contact Met Council Research staff if there are any questions.” 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: “Met Council staff encourages the project proposer to consider implementing a chloride management plan to mitigate the impact of the runoff generated by this development on water resources. As part of evaluating parking areas, the project proposer should consider using pervious pavers to improve stormwater infiltration and minimize the impervious surface associated with the development’s proposed surface parking.” Response: The developer will look for methods to minimize chloride use and improve treatment of stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts to City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 11 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 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: “Met Council staff encourages the project proposer to consider ways in which site design could encourage the use of nearby transit routes to reduce the VMT associated the project.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “On page 29 under Existing Conditions, the EAW should update functional classifications for the described roadways to match their current classifications and not those identified in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The most up-to-date classifications can be found here: MnDOT Functional Classifications. The following roadways should be correctly described: •Park Place Boulevard is classified as a Minor Arterial (Augmenter). •Wayzata Boulevard is classified as a Minor Collector. •16th Street is classified as a Minor Arterial (Reliever) west of Park Place Blvd. and a Minor Collector east of Park Place Blvd. •Gamble Drive is classified as a Minor Collector. •Quentin Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial (Reliever).” Response: Thank you for your review. This has been noted in section 2.2 of this findings document. Comment: “Page 33: At full buildout of the site, there will be significantly more left turning traffic on Parkdale Drive to the subject site. Under mitigation measures, the EAW recommends evaluating Parkdale Drive to better accommodate left hand turns. This analysis should consider converting one of the eastbound through lanes into a dedicated left turn lane to improve operations for safety and traffic flow. The roadway reduces to a single lane when entering TH-100, so capacity would not be materially impacted from this change.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “Appendix A Site Plan: •The developer should consider package delivery needs for the residential and office towers. This space could be considered along the proposed local streets via pullout areas nearest to the entry points of the buildings. •The city and project developer should consider extending Duke Dr. South through the project site to Parkdale Dr. as the south end of the West End area develops into more dense residential and commercial uses, identifying and extending the street grid would improve walkability and improve conditions for future redevelopment both on the parcels to the east of the subject site, but also City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 12 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 south of Parkdale Dr. Extending Duke Dr. would also allow for consolidation of the driveways reducing conflicts on Parkdale Dr.” Response: Comment noted. 4)Minnesota Department of Transportation, Jan. 9, 2025 Comment: “The proposed development will generate a large number of trips. MnDOT recommends that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) include the junction with Interstate 394 to accurately assess the impacts to the trunk highway system, because a significant percentage of the site traffic is expected to use this interchange.” Response: It is not anticipated that Interstate 394 junction will be impacted during phase 1 of this project; however, the city will require an expanded traffic study to include the intersection at Intersection 394 prior to approvals related to phase 2 of the development. Comment: “Please coordinate with Metro Transit at the following email address to address impacts to routes 9 and 645: Transit-BusOps-StreetSup- AssistManagers@metc.state.mn.us.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “Any work that affects MnDOT right of way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and must be applied at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Upload this letter when applying for permits.” 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. The proposed development would require site re-zoning from Office to Planned Unit Development. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 13 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 •Soils and Topography – A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared to prevent erosion during construction. •Water Resources – There is no surface water located in the project area. 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 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (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. The developer will look for methods to minimize chloride use and improve treatment of stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts to downstream waters. •Contamination/Hazardous Materials - The developer will be completing a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) due to the undocumented fill to understand any further mitigation. •Wildlife and Habitat - Minimal impacts to rare features are anticipated due to the lack of suitable wildlife habitat within the project site. The DNR has completed a Natural Heritage Review for the proposed project. •Historic Resources - There are no known historic or archeological resources on site. No impacts to historic or archeological 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. •GHG Emissions – The development will implement the following to reduce emissions: o Green building certification will be required o Energy efficient appliances and building shells (R-21 insulated exterior walls, spray foam at rim joist, etc.) o LEED Silver required energy efficiency items o Implement waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable o Trees and additional landscaping will be planted as part of the new development o Provide electric vehicle-ready charging infrastructure o 40 KW rooftop solar panel array •Noise – Noise levels will be typical of residential/commercial development and design plans. The proposed buildings will be built for LEED certification, and the materials used for that certification will also contribute to noise reduction strategies for the residents. The city will review plans to ensure the proposed project complies with the local and state noise regulations •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. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 14 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 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. 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 (MCWD) Stormwater Management Permit To be applied for City of St. Louis Park Re-zoning (PUD) 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, if needed Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for, if needed State Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Notification of Asbestos Related Work To be applied for, if needed Water Extension Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Notification of intent to perform a demolition To be applied for, if needed Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if needed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit To be applied for 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if needed City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 15 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation 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. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 16 Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet - Ward 4 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: _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Kim Keller, city manager Agency Comments City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 17 December 16, 2024 VIA EMAIL Laura Chamberlain City of Saint Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard Saint Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 lchamberlain@stlouisparkmn.gov RE: West End Office Park Development – Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Laura Chamberlain: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the West End Office Park Development project (Project) located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project consists of a mixed-use redevelopment of an approximately 10-acre site east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. The proposed development includes four new buildings: two 6-story mixed-use buildings containing residential and commercial uses, a 13-story office building, a 20-story residential building, and surface and garage parking within each building. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. Noise Comments on the Noise section: • The current description of noise effects, in Section 19, does not provide enough information to determine whether the project will conform with state noise standards in Minn. R. 7030.0040. • The RGU and any other land-use decision makers, should consider language in Minn. R. 7030.0030 that reads “[…] Any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use.” • The Noise section of the EAW does not provide enough detail regarding current sound levels in the project area to determine whether an immediate violation of the state noise standards would occur if the project were approved, and the proposed residential buildings were constructed. • The proposer should conduct a noise study or modeling to characterize existing noise levels in the area, assess compliance with state noise standards, and potentially evaluate options to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise at the proposed residential buildings which would be located near MN-100 and I-394. • MPCA staff are particularly concerned about night-time noise at the proposed residential buildings because sleep disturbance can result in detrimental health effects. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 18 We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. 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 actions 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 chris.green@state.mn.us or by telephone at 507-476-4258. Sincerely, Chris Green This document has been electronically signed. Chris Green, Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division CG:rs Attachment cc: Dan Card, MPCA (w/ attachment) Lauren Dickerson, MPCA (w/ attachment) Deepa deAlwis, MPCA (w/ attachment) Innocent Eyoh, MPCA (w/ attachment) Nicole Peterson, MPCA (w/ attachment) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 19 161 Rondo Ave, Suite 919 Saint Paul, MN 55103 MIAC.Culturalresources@state.mn.us Date: 01/02/2025 Laura Chamberlain St Louis Park 9529242573 lchamberlain@stlouisparkmn.gov Project Name: West End Office Park Development EAW Submitter’s Project ID: Known or Suspected Cemeteries ☐ Platted Cemeteries ☐ Unplatted Cemeteries ☐ Burial File ☐ Authenticated Burial Notes/Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. I have reviewed this project pursuant to the responsibilities given to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council by the Private Cemeteries Act (Minn. Stat. § 307.08), and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (Minn. Stat. § 138.31-.42). There are no known or suspected burial sites that may be affected by this project. Please have an inadvertent discovery plan in place. If human remains are found during ground disturbing activities, immediately contact law enforcement. Recommendations City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 20 ☒ Not Applicable ☒ No Concerns ☐ Monitoring ☐ Avoidance ☐ Phase Ia – Literature Review ☐ Phase I – Reconnaissance survey ☐ Phase II – Evaluation ☐ Phase III – Data Recovery ☒ Other - Inadvertent Discovery Plan development If you require additional information or have questions, comments, or concerns please contact our office. Sincerely, Isaac Weston Cultural Resource Manager Minnesota Indian Affairs Council 161 Rondo Avenue, Ste. 919 Saint Paul MN 55103 6125128391 isaac.weston@state.mn.us City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 21 December 23, 2024 Laura Chamberlain, 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) – West End Office Park Development Metropolitan Council Review No. 23030-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 8 Dear Laura Chamberlain: The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the West End Office Park Development on November 26, 2024. West End Office Park is a mixed-use redevelopment of an approximately 10-acre site east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The proposed development includes four new buildings: two 6-story mixed-use buildings containing residential and commercial uses, a 13-story office building, a 20-story residential building, and surface and garage parking within each building. 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. Forecasts (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322) The subject site is part of Transportation Analysis Zone #1376. TAZ allocations are found in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan; the forecast for TAZ #1376 includes growth of +348 households, +756 population and +2,834 employment during 2018 – 2040. Council staff advise that should this redevelopment move ahead, we will adjust Met Council’s database of forecast allocations to add +300 households and +600 population in TAZ #1376 in 2040; the 2030 timepoint is unaffected. This can be offset with forecast reductions in the remainer of the City, leaving city totals unaffected. Please contact Met Council Research staff if there are any questions. Item 7 – Climate Adaptation and Resilience (Mackenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373) Met Council staff encourages the project proposer to consider implementing a chloride management plan to mitigate the impact of the runoff generated by this development on water resources. As part of evaluating parking areas, the project proposer should consider using pervious pavers to improve stormwater infiltration and minimize the impervious surface associated with the development’s proposed surface parking. Item 18 – Greenhous Gas Emissions (Mackenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373) Met Council staff encourages the project proposer to consider ways in which site design could encourage the City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 22 Page - 2 | December 23, 2024 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL use of nearby transit routes to reduce the VMT associated the project. Item 20 – Transportation (Joe Widing, 651-602-1822) • On page 29 under Existing Conditions, the EAW should update functional classifications for the described roadways to match their current classifications and not those identified in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The most up-to-date classifications can be found here: MnDOT Functional Classifications. The following roadways should be correctly described: o Park Place Boulevard is classified as a Minor Arterial (Augmenter). o Wayzata Boulevard is classified as a Minor Collector. o 16th Street is classified as a Minor Arterial (Reliever) west of Park Place Blvd. and a Minor Collector east of Park Place Blvd. o Gamble Drive is classified as a Minor Collector. o Quentin Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial (Reliever). • Page 33: At full buildout of the site, there will be significantly more left turning traffic on Parkdale Drive to the subject site. Under mitigation measures, the EAW recommends evaluating Parkdale Drive to better accommodate left hand turns. This analysis should consider converting one of the eastbound through lanes into a dedicated left turn lane to improve operations for safety and traffic flow. The roadway reduces to a single lane when entering TH-100, so capacity would not be materially impacted from this change. • Appendix A Site Plan: o The developer should consider package delivery needs for the residential and office towers. This space could be considered along the proposed local streets via pullout areas nearest to the entry points of the buildings. o The City and project developer should consider extending Duke Dr. south through the project site to Parkdale Dr. As the south end of the West End area develops into more dense residential and commercial uses, identifying and extending the street grid would improve walkability and improve conditions for future redevelopment both on the parcels to the east of the subject site, but also south of Parkdale Dr. Extending Duke Dr. would also allow for consolidation of the driveways reducing conflicts on Parkdale Dr. 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 Eric Wojchik, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1330 or via email at eric.wojchik@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Anjuli Cameron, Metropolitan Council District 8 Eric Wojchik, AICP, Sector Representative / Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\St. Louis Park\Letters\St. Louis Park 2024 West End Office Park Development EAW 23030-1.docx City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 23 January 9, 2025 Laura Chamberlain City Planner St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 SUBJECT: West End Office Park MnDOT Review #EAW24-006 NW quadrant of MN 100 and Parkdale Dr St. Louis Park, Hennepin County Dear Laura Chamberlain, Thank you for the opportunity to review the West End Office Park EAW. Please note that MnDOT's review of this EAW does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements. As plans are refined, we would like the opportunity to coordinate with our partners and to review the updated information. MnDOT’s staff has reviewed the document and has the following comments: Traffic The proposed development will generate a large number of trips. MnDOT recommends that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) include the junction with Interstate 394 to accurately assess the impacts to the trunk highway system, because a significant percentage of the site traffic is expected to use this interchange. Please contact Eric Lauer-Hunt, West Area Traffic Safety, at 651-234-7353 or eric.lauer-hunt@state.mn.us with any questions. Transit Please coordinate with Metro Transit at the following email address to address impacts to routes 9 and 645: Transit-BusOps-StreetSup-AssistManagers@metc.state.mn.us Please contact Amrish Patel, Transit Advantages Coordinator, at amrish.patel@state.mn.us with any questions. Permits Any work that affects MnDOT right of way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and must be applied at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Upload this letter when applying for permits. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.craig@state.mn.us. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 24 Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 MB (megabytes) per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each email. 2. Files over 20 MB can also be uploaded to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us, and staff will create a shared folder in which files can be uploaded to. Please send an accompanying email with a narrative for the development. You are welcome to contact me at scott.shaffer@state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, Scott Shaffer Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Doug Nelson, Right of Way Eric Lauer-Hunt, Traffic Amrish Patel, Transit Natalie Ries, Noise Kim Zlimen, Area Engineer Michael Kruse, Design Brandon JB Nelson, Surveying Michael Kowski, Maintenance Tristan Trejo, Ped/Bike/ADA Planning Tod Sherman, Planning Cameron Muhic, Planning David Kratz, Planning Joseph Widing, Metropolitan Council City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 25 West End Office Park Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet November 2024 Prepared for: Prepared by: City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 26 Table of Contents 1. Project Title ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Proposer ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ................................................................................................................................. 2 5. Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 6. Project Description.................................................................................................................................................... 2 7. Climate Adaption and Resilience .......................................................................................................................... 4 8. Cover Types................................................................................................................................................................. 8 9. Permits and Approvals Required .......................................................................................................................... 9 10. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms ................................................................................................... 12 12. Water Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................................. 18 14. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features)..................... 20 15. Historic Properties................................................................................................................................................... 22 16. Visual ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23 17. Air ................................................................................................................................................................................. 23 18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint ................................................................................... 24 19. Noise ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 20. Transportation .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 21. Cumulative Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................ 33 22. Other Potential Environmental Effects .............................................................................................................. 34 RGU Certification ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 List of Tables Table 1: Project Magnitude ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptations .................................................................................................. 7 Table 3: Cover Types ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 4: Green Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Trees ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6: Permits and Approvals Required ............................................................................................................... 10 Table 7: Soil Types Within Project Limits ................................................................................................................. 13 Table 8: Sanitary Peak Flow.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 9 State-Listed Species Within 1 Mile of the Project Site ......................................................................... 21 Table 10: Construction Emissions .............................................................................................................................. 26 Table 11: Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................................ 26 Table 12: Trip Generation Forecasts .......................................................................................................................... 30 Table 13: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS ................................................................................................ 31 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 27 List of Figures Figure 1: Minnesota Climate Explorer – Average Temperature Trends for Hennepin County................... 5 Figure 2: Minnesota Climate Explorer – Average Precipitation for Hennepin County ................................. 6 Figure 3: Site Map ........................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4: County Map .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 5: USGS Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 6: Existing Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 7: Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 8: Future Land Use............................................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 9: Soil Types ........................................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 10: Surface Water Resources .......................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 11: Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 12: What's in My Neighborhood Sites ........................................................................................................ 46 List of Appendices Appendix A: Site Plan Appendix B: Agency Correspondence Appendix C: GHG Analysis Appendix D: Traffic Analysis City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 28 December 2022 Version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This most recent Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and guidance documents are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB’s) website at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us. Th e EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Guidance documents provide additional detail and links to 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 21. 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 West End Office Park Development 2. Proposer Proposer: Hempel Real Estate Contact Person: Rick McKelvey Title: Senior Vice President Address: 10050 Crosstown Circle, Suite 600 City, State, ZIP: Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 612.355.2600 Email: rmckelvey@hempelcompanies.com 3. RGU RGU: St. Louis Park Contact Person: Laura Chamberlain, AICP Title: Senior planner Address: 5005 Minnetonka Blvd City, State, ZIP: St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: 952.924.2573 Email: lchamberlain@stlouisparkmn.gov City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 29 4. Reason for EAW Preparation Check one: Required: Discretionary: ☐EIS Scoping ☐Citizen petition ☒Mandatory EAW ☐RGU discretion ☐Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minnesota Rules, part 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 30, Township 29N, Range 24W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River – Twin Cities GPS Coordinates: 44.964410, -93.347917 Tax Parcel Number: 3002924330011, 3002924330010, 3002924330015, 3002924330016 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the EAW: • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-construction site plan. (see Figure 3 and Appendix A) • County map showing the general location of the project (see Figure 4) • US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 5) • List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item-by-Item Guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project during the life of the project (as detailed below in Item 7). 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor (approximately 50 words). The West End Office Park is a mixed-use redevelopment of an approximately 10-acre site east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The proposed development includes four new buildings: two 6-story mixed-use buildings containing residential and commercial uses, a 13-story office building, a 20-story residential building, and surface and garage parking within each building. 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, City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 30 removal, or remodeling of existing structures; and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. A mixed-use redevelopment is proposed on an approximately 10-acre site east of Park Place Boulevard and north of Parkdale Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. See Figure 3 for the project location. The project is anticipated to consist of four buildings: 1. 6-Story Mixed Use Residential: Located in the northwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a 6-story building that includes 245 residential units, 410 parking spaces, and 22,968 square feet of retail space. 2. 6-Story Mixed-Use Residential: Located in the southwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a 6-story building that includes 168 residential units, 267 parking spaces, and 13,420 square feet of retail space. 3. 13-Story Office Building: Located in the northeast corner of the site, this area will consist of a 13-story office building that includes 345,600 square feet of office space, 274 parking spaces, and 5,500 square feet of retail space. 4. 20-Story Residential Building: Located in the southeast corner of the site, this area will consist of a 20-story building that includes 246 residential units, 254 parking spaces, and 5,500 square feet of retail space. Vehicular access to the development will be from Gamble Drive from the north side of the development, Parkdale Drive from the south side of the development, and Park Place Boulevard from the west side of the development Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site will be achieved through crosswalks across Gamble Drive, at the Park Place Boulevard and Gamble Drive intersection, and at the Parkdale Drive and Park Place Boulevard intersection. There are several utilities surrounding the site, including stormwater pipes, water and sewer main. All other utilities are available to serve the site, unless otherwise noted. All existing buildings including four office buildings will be demolished. Construction will be conducted over three to four phases and commencement of phase 1 is anticipated to begin by Fall 2025. c. Project magnitude Table 1: Project Magnitude Measure Magnitude Total Project Acreage 10 Linear Project Length N/A Number and Type of Residential Units 659 studio to three-bedroom residential units Residential Building Area (square feet) 732,146 Commercial/Retail Building Area (square feet) 51,420 Office Building Area (square feet) 345,600 Other Uses – specify (square feet) 1,205 parking spaces City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 31 Measure Magnitude Structure Height(s) Mixed-Use Residential Building: 6 stories Mixed-Use Residential Building: 6 stories Office Building: 13 stories Residential Building: 20 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 existing office space into a mixed-use residential development with office and retail space. 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 If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and past environmental review. Not applicable. 7. Climate Adaption and Resilience g. 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. Trends in temperature, precipitation, flood risk, and cooling degree days are described below for the general project location. Some of the climate projections summarized below use shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) or Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), which are greenhouse gas concentration scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. SSP 245 and RCP 4.5 are intermediate scenarios in which emissions decline after peaking around 2040, and SSP 370 and RCP 8.5 are high-emissions scenarios in which emissions continue to rise through the century.1 Temperature According to the Minnesota Climate Mapping and Analysis Tool (CliMAT),2 the annual daily average temperature in the project area from 1995 to 2014 was 45 .3°F. The annual daily average temperature in the site is projected to increase to 49.3°F from 2040 to 2059 under an intermediate emissions pathway (SSP 245). In 2080-2099, annual daily average temperature is 1 Climate Explorer Metadata. Available at https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate-explorer-metadata.html. 2 Minnesota CliMAT. University of Minnesota. Available at https://app.climate.umn.edu/?output_type=modelVal&scenario=ssp370_2080-2099&model=ensemble&variable=tmax-degF&time_frame=yearly&aoi=none#intro_pane City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 32 projected to further increase to 63.4°F and 65.7°F under an intermediate (SSP 245) and high emissions pathway (SSP 370), respectively. Figure 1: Minnesota Climate Explorer – Average Temperature Trends for Hennepin County Urban Heat Island Surfaces and structures such as roads, parking lots, and buildings absorb and re-emit more heat from the sun than natural landscapes. This can significantly raise air temperature and overall extreme heat vulnerability in urban areas where there are dense concentrations of these surfaces. This is referred to as the urban heat island effect. According to the Metropolitan Council’s Extreme Heat Map Tool, based on the land surface temperature at the project area during a heatwave in 2022, the study area is susceptible to extreme heat.3 Precipitation According to the EPA Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT) Climate Change Scenarios Projection Map, there is a projected 2.9% to 13.7% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a projected 5.6% to 26.6% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2060 for the project area.4 3 Extreme Heat Map Tool. Metropolitan Council. Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx. 4 CREAT Climate Change Scenarios Projection Map. US EPA. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3805293158d54846a29f750d63c6890e City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 33 Figure 2: Minnesota Climate Explorer – Average Precipitation for Hennepin County Localized Flood Risk The Metropolitan Council’s Localized Flood Map Screening Tool 5 identifies localized flood hazards, referred to as Bluespots, which are broken into categories based on potential flood water depth. This tool shows several Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Shallow Bluespots mapped throughout the site with maximum depths ranging from 0.26 feet to 4.57 feet. Primary Bluespots are the first areas to fill with water and are generally considered higher risk, while Shallow Bluespots are separate, isolated low areas generally considered low risk. The city’s ATLAS 2014 stormwater modeling also identified a potential for localized flooding, primarily on the south side of the site, with similar flooding depths. Cooling Degree Days As defined by the National Weather Service, cooling degree days, which are often used as a proxy to estimate cooling needs for buildings, can be examined as a baseline and projected exposure indicator under the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. Cooling degree days are indexed units, not actual days, which roughly describe the demand to heat or cool a building. Cooling degree days accumulate on days warmer than 65°F when cooling is required. For example, if a weather station recorded an average daily temperature of 78°F, cooling degree days for that station would be 13. According to Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota,6 the number of cooling degree days in 2019 for Hennepin County was 408. The number of cooling days in 2050 for Hennepin County is projected to be 482 and 631 for RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively. 5 Localized Flood Map Screening Tool. Metropolitan Council. Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx. 6 Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota. Available at https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat_app/. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 34 h. For each resource category in the table below, describe 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. Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptations Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptations Project Design Aspects of building architecture/materials choices and site design may impact urban heat island conditions in the surrounding area, including changing climate zones, temperature trends, and potential for extended heat waves. In the coming decades, the location of the project site is anticipated to experience: • Increased annual temperatures • Increased annual precipitation and more frequent heavy rainfall events • Increased freeze thaw cycles • Medium urban heat island effect • Building design is subject to the city’s Green Building Policy, which includes a green building certification such as LEED, Green Communities, or B3, as well as certain requirements specifically related to St. Louis Park. • Building shells will be energy efficient • Proposed native trees and landscaping will reduce runoff and mitigate heat island effect • Parking areas will be evaluated to potentially reduce impervious areas within the project site. Land Use No critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) are proposed. The majority of the project site is in an area with low flood risk. Design of the site and stormwater management facilities will be completed to reduce the risk of flooding in the project site. Infiltration areas will be used to improve water quality and reduce stormwater runoff in the project vicinity. Water Resources Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general Water resources in the general project area may become warmer, more polluted, and increase in • Developer will consider using native plants and perennials for landscaping and City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 35 Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptations location of the project may influence water resources. volume due to increased temperatures and runoff. There may be more evaporation and water available when it rains leading to an increase in the flood potential. It is projected that there will be more severe storm events with high, intense rain amounts which will require drainage systems to be adequately maintained to accommodate for the increase in water volume. stormwater features will absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation • Developer will use native plants and perennials for landscaping adjacent to water resource buffers • Stormwater BMP's shall be designed to meet City of St. Louis Park criteria for rate control and runoff volume reduction and criteria for MPCA water quality requirements Contamination/ Hazardous Materials/ Wastes Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the potential environmental effects of generation/use/storage of hazardous waste and materials. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste or materials. Not applicable. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the local species and suitable habitat. The project site is a highly disturbed urban environment. Climate-appropriate native plantings and stormwater BMPs will provide suitable habitat for small mammals, insects, and bird species. 8. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 36 Table 3: Cover Types Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Wetlands and Shallow Lakes (less than 2 meters deep) 0.0 0.0 Deep Lakes (more than 2 meters deep) 0.0 0.0 Rivers/Streams 0.0 0.0 Wooded/Forest 0.0 0.0 Brush/Grassland 0.0 0.0 Cropland 0.0 0.0 Livestock Rangeland/Pastureland 0.0 0.0 Lawn/Landscaping 2.67 1.48 Green Infrastructure (total from Table 4) 0.0 0.0 Impervious Surface 7.06 8.25 Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basin) 0.0 0.0 Other (describe) 0.0 0.0 Total 9.73 9.73 Table 4: Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure Before (Acres) After (Acres) Constructed Infiltration Systems (infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains, swales with impermeable check dams) 0 0 Constructed Tree Trenches and Tree Boxes 0 0 Constructed Wetlands 0 0 Constructed Green Roofs 0 0 Constructed Permeable Pavements 0 0 Other (describe) 0 0 Total 0 0 Table 5: Trees Trees Percent Number Percent Tree Canopy Removed or Number of Mature Trees Removed During Development Approximately 1 acre Number of New Trees Planted - 350 Based on the City of St. Louis Park’s tree planting requirements and the planting schedules of previous developments with similar footprints, it is estimated that the whole site will have approximately 350 new trees. 9. 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 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 37 are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3100. Table 6: Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status Local Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Stormwater Management Permit To be applied for City of St. Louis Park Re-zoning (PUD) To be applied for Preliminary and Final Plat 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, if needed Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for, if needed State Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Notification of Asbestos Related Work To be applied for, if needed Water Extension Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Notification of intent to perform a demolition To be applied for, if needed Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if needed 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, if needed 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, and prime or unique farmlands. Existing Land Use The existing land use of the project site is office space, with more directly east of the site (see Figure 7). Retail and other commercial land use are located directly west City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 38 and south, with industrial and utility (includes storage space, corporate office, publisher, and furniture store) land use also south of the project site. Directly north of the project site are mixed-use commercial uses.7 Parkland and Trails There are no parks or trails within the project limits. Railroad tracks and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail are located south of the project site. 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, the planned land use for the site and the land north and east is Office, and the area west and southwest of the site is to designated as Commercial (see Figure 8).8 As per the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, “the Office land use designation is primarily intended for employment centers of fairly intensive office and mixed-use development with high floor area ratios (FARs) and building heights. Business, professional, administrative, scientific, technical, medical, research and development services are typical uses appropriate for the Office land use designation. The Office designation also allows other limited uses such as hotels, parking ramps, residential, day care, retail and restaurants when part of a larger development. A limited amount of residential uses, 10% typically, fitting the form and scale of a large office employment center are also appropriate as part of a mixed-use office development. Residential uses should be on upper floors with residential densities from 50 to 125 units per acre allowed”.9 iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The project site is currently zoned O (Office) and is within a travel demand management overlay district. It is anticipated that the site will be rezoned to a planned unit development to accommodate the proposed redevelopment and to better align with the city’s vision for the West End area. The planned unit development zoning district will follow livable community goals as outlined by the Metropolitan Council and the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and will have a mix of commercial, residential and office uses. The planned unit development will establish permitted uses as outlined in the concept plans. It will regulate height, setbacks, density, exterior facades, parking, 7 https://www.stlouisparkmn.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15332/637110597442630000 8 https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=18c1071745984c7892b418414522431f 9 https://www.stlouisparkmn.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15332/637110597442630000 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 39 lighting, signage, landscaping and other requirements as outlined in the PUD ordinance and official exhibits. The project site is not located within a shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic river, critical area, or agricultural preserve. iv. If any critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) 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. Not applicable. b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 10a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. Existing nearby land uses include retail and other commercial, mixed-use commercial, industrial and utility, and office. The project proposes mixed-use residential and commercial uses, making it compatible with the nearby land uses. The project is consistent with the planned land use as outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development would require site re-zoning from Office to Planned Unit Development. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 10b above and any risk potential. Not applicable. 11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms 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 County10, the bedrock geology of the stie consists of the Platteville Formation and Glenwood Formation. 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 Twin Cities member outwash, which is typically fine-grained sand to sandy gravel. There are no known sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined shallow aquifers, or karst features present within or near the 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 10 Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County. Available at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/f26b7092 -1c d1 -4a60-bf5e-8d3f72dc7b5c City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 40 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 12.b.ii. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey11, there is one soil type within the site (shown in Table 7). 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. Table 7: Soil Types Within Project Limits Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Farmland Classification Erosion Hazard Rating Percent of Project Limits U6B Urban land-Udorthents (cut and fill land) complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes Not prime farmland Not rated 100% Depth to bedrock on this site is approximately 200-300 feet below grade.12. The proposed project would require approximately 100,000 cubic yards of excavation. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (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. 12. Water Resources a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, shoreland classification and floodplain/floodway, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include the presence of aquatic invasive species and the water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d 11 Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 12 Available at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/eedb207f-d48b -444a-b094 -b6eaa0cc87f3 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 41 Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. There is no surface water located in the project area. DNR Public Waters within one mile of the project site include Twin Lakes, Colonial Pond, and four unnamed waterbodies. Twin Lakes is listed as impaired waters by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency but the project does not discharge to Twin Lake. ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead 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. A review of the Minnesota DNR’s Water-Table Elevation and Depth to Water table data (Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas series HG-03)13 shows that 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 the west portion of the site is within the St. Louis Park Wellhead Protection Area (WPA) (see Figure 11). According to the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH’s) Minnesota Well Index, there are no wells within the project site. If any wells are encountered during constriction, they will be capped and sealed according to MDH 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. The City of St Louis Park owns and maintains the sanitary sewer collection system for the City and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides sanitary sewer treatment at the Metro Plant. The Metro Plant serves approximately 1.8 million people with a plant capacity of 251 million gallons per day (MGD). Currently the treats an average daily flow of 172 MGD of wastewater at the facility. Sanitary sewer is provided to the site by an existing 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) pipe in Parkdale Drive to the south of the site. The sewer pipe in Parkdale Drive then flows east in a 30-inch line and leaves St. Louis Park at MCES meter M120 where it is pumped through a series of trunk sewers and lift stations to the Metro Treatment plant. 13 https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mha/hg03_plate2.pdf City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 42 Currently, the site contains approximately 169,533 square feet of office space, located in 4 separate buildings. The existing and proposed flows from the site are shown in Table 8, which are based on the MCES SAC calculator spreadsheet and using a peaking factor of 3.3 to generate the peak hour flows. Table 8: Sanitary Peak Flow Existing Proposed Average Daily Flow 17,528 247,603 GPD Average Daily Flow 12 172 GPM Peak Hour Flow 40 567 GPM Peak Factor of 3.3 The developer proposes for all flows to be sent south to the existing 12-inch line in Parkdale Drive, which continues along the west side of Highway 100, eventually connecting to the larger system that crosses Hwy 100. City staff have identified the existing 30-inch line at Utica, northeast of the site, to be a preferrable connection. This connection is preferred so flow can run through the MCES pumping station and it removes flow that runs north from Parkdale Dr in the Hwy 100 corridor that is not accessible for routine cleaning, which will benefit the long-term developability of the entire site. The City will continue to work with the developer to finalize sanitary sewer connections, but either alternative has shown to have adequate capacity at the critical 30-inch main that crosses under Hwy 100. 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. If septic systems are part of the project, describe the availability of septage disposal options within the region to handle the ongoing amounts generated as a result of the project. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity, and amount with this discussion. Not applicable. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Not applicable. ii. Stormwater – Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land cover. Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post-construction, including how the project will affect runoff volume, City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 43 discharge rate, and change in pollutants. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity, and amount with this discussion. For projects requiring NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the total number of acres that will be disturbed by the project and describe the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including specific best management practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation during and after project construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans, including methods of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural hydrology of the site using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management practices. Identify any receiving waters that have construction-related water impairments or are classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters. Based on the utility layout received from City staff, most of the site outlets into the existing storm sewer systems along Gamble Drive and Parkdale Drive. The northern half of the site drains north to inlets along Gamble Drive. A small portion of the western half of the site, primarily the open space between the north and south parking lots, drains to an inlet along Park Place Boulevard prior to being routed to the north to outlet into the existing storm system along Gamble Drive. The southern half of the site drains south to inlets which outlet to the exiting storm system flowing to the west on Parkdale Drive. The proposed development area will include stormwater management treatment and rate control measures to meet the requirements of the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The development is expected to be completed in phases. Since the design for each phase will proceed sequentially, each project phase will manage its stormwater individually on-site, without relying on a regional system. Stormwater management is anticipated to utilize a combination of surface and below-ground infiltration systems. Initial geotechnical evaluations indicate that site soils are well-draining and suitable for infiltration. Due to the high development density planned for Phases 1 and 2, below-grade infiltration systems are expected for these phases. Phases 3 and 4 are projected to be slightly less dense, potentially allowing for surface infiltration systems where space permits, in addition to below-grade infiltration systems. Stormwater systems are expected to discharge into a 24-inch RCP storm sewer running south to north along the eastern boundary of Phases 1 and 2, eventually connecting to the public storm sewer on Gamble Drive. Landscaping within the site will further reduce stormwater runoff. Each phase of development will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that complies with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, MPCA General Construction Stormwater, and City of St. Louis Park standards. Erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) may include inlet protection, silt fencing, biorolls, diversion swales, and designated construction entrances. An Erosion Control Plan City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 44 checklist will be followed by the developer to meet city and state requirements, minimize drainage problems and soil erosion, and prevent sediment from entering curb and gutter systems and storm sewer inlets. Additionally, 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. iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, 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. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. Water current is served for the site through the City of St. Louis Park water distribution system, which is supplied by a series of ten ground water wells, six water treatment plants, four reservoirs, and three elevated storage tanks located throughout the city. The city water system has an average daily demand of 5.3 million gallons per day (MGD) and a max daily demand of 9.3 MGD based on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. There are 12-inch watermains to serve the proposed project located on Parkdale Drive, Park Place Blvd, and Gamble Drive. 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. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 45 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, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. 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. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, there are no wetlands within the boundaries of the development site. 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, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. 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. 13. 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. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 46 MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) tool was reviewed to identify potential environmental hazards within the project area 14. Two sites were present within the project site (see Figure 12). The first, Parkdales of West End: Parkdale Plaza, is an active construction stormwater. The second, WEOP Courtyard, is an inactive construction stormwater that was terminated on November 5, 2021. There are several WIMN sites within the project site vicinity. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was also completed (Braun, 2024) to confirm any potential site contamination that exist on the site and identify what mitigation would be needed to be resolved prior to construction. The report found that the site is located within a former sand and gravel mine pit. Mining activities occurred at the site from at least the 1930s through the 1950s and the land was reclaimed by the mid-1960s. Mine pits were commonly filled with unwanted soils and other non-native materials such as demolition debris, fly ash, and/or contaminated soils. Based on a geotechnical evaluation completed at the site, up to 19 feet of fill soil (non-native materials) was identified. Although no buried debris was encountered; there is a potential that the fill soil may include contaminated soils and/or materials that could require management as solid or hazardous waste. The potential presence of contaminated fill soil represents a Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC). The developer will be completing a Phase II ESA due to the undocumented fill to understand any further mitigation. 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. 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. The City of St. Louis Park Green Building Policy requires at least 75% of construction waste be recycled. Hazardous waste products are not anticipated to be produced or stored within the proposed development. During operation, it is estimated that the total waste stream will be 7,499 tons per year for the 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 new above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Indicate the number, location, size, and age of existing tanks on the property that the project will use. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify 14 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/about-mpca/whats-in-my-neighborhood City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 47 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. No above ground or underground storage tanks have been identified within the project boundary. 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. 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. 14. 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 project site has been previously disturbed through construction of the existing office buildings, parking lots, and landscaped areas. Habitats within the project include manicured landscaping areas. Due to 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 Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-2024-006) and/or correspondence number (MCE_____) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage Review 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 2024-006 for the area within approximately one mile of the project site (see City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 48 Appendix B). The database includes the known occurrences of any state endangered, threatened, or special concern species. The review identified four state-listed species that may be found near this area. The species are listed in Table 9. Table 9 State-Listed Species Within 1 Mile of the Project Site Species Group Status Habitat Late Hawthorne Plant Special Concern Mesic loamy soil often in mesic hardwood forests. Edible Valerian Plant Threatened Moist, sunny, calcareous habitat such as calcareous fens and wet meadows Peregrine Falcon Bird Special Concern Bluffs or cliffs, or bridges and buildings in urban areas Pugnose Shiner Fish Threatened Glacial lakes and small-to-moderate-sized streams There are no native plant communities within one mile of the proposed project site. One site of biodiversity significance and one regionally significant ecological area are located at Theodore Wirth Park, approximately 0.9 miles away from the project site. These areas are not located within the project site. Federally-Listed Species A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool was completed (see Appendix B). This review identified five proposed or listed endangered and candidate 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.15 The tricolored bat is a proposed endangered species of bat that roosts among live and dead leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. The trees located within the landscaped areas of the project site may present suitable habitat for the tricolored bat. Tree removal is proposed as part of this project and will occur outside of the active roosting season in June and July. The monarch butterfly is a candidate species of insect that prefers prairie where milkweed and flowers are present. The project site does not contain natural prairie vegetation. The Higgins Eye mussel and salamander mussel were identified as federally-listed species within Hennepin County. The project site does not contain any water resources, therefore no impacts to these mussel species are anticipated. 15 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Map. Available at: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=2716d871f88042a2a56b8001a1f1acae City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 49 c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project, including how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. 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. Wildlife, Habitat, and Threatened and Endangered Species Minimal impacts to rare features are anticipated due to the lack of suitable wildlife habitat within the project site. The DNR has complet ed a Natural Heritage Review for the proposed project (See Appendix B). Tree removal within the landscaped areas of the project site will be required as part of the project. Tree removal will occur outside of June 1 through August 15 to minimize impacts to bat species, including the tricolored bat. 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-range 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. 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. The future development will include approximately 350 new trees and landscaped area that may incorporate biodiverse, native, drought tolerant plant species that could provide pollinator habitat. Section 36-364 of the Zoning Code describes restrictions for tree removal, standards for tree replacement, and guidelines for tree protection that would be required for new development. 15. 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. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 50 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. According to the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) in the Department of Administration16, there is one identified site identified southwest of the project site. 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. 16. 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 four buildings, including two 6-story mixed use buildings, a 13-story office building, and a 20-story residential building. The overall look of the site will be visually similar to the surrounding development, which includes several high-rise office and residential buildings located northeast of the site. No projected related vapor plumes or glare from intense lights are anticipated. No visual impacts have been identified. Due to high-density residential uses 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. Light for the development will be subject to city ordinances. 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 and criteria pollutants. 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. 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 16 https://osaportal.gisdata.mn.gov/ City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 51 measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. The proposed project may 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 project site exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. Additionally, electric vehicle infrastructure will be encouraged to be integrated into the site design to promote electric vehicles use (see Item 18 for more information). 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. 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. 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. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 52 About Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.17 Project Related GHG Emissions This section describes the GHG emissions from the existing buildings within the project site and include an estimated quantification of the following GHG emissions associated with the proposed scenarios. • Carbon dioxide (CO2) • Nitrous oxide (N2O) • Methane (CH4) The projected GHG emissions are provided on an average annual basis using the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and include the proposer’s best estimate of average annual emissions over the proposed life/design service life of future development. The estimates also include emissions from the construction and operating phases of the scenario. Emissions were estimated using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC) (Version 7 June 2021)18 and are summarized in Table 10 and Table 11 by project phase (i.e., construction and operations) and source type (e.g., combustion from mobile equipment, off-site electricity). 17 Summarized from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases 18 Source: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 53 Construction emissions for the two proposed scenarios are based on length of construction and are from mobile equipment including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium and heavy-duty trucks, and construction equipment (both gasoline and diesel). Table 10: Construction Emissions Scope19 Emission Type Emission Sub-Type Project-Related CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Calculation Method(s) Scope 1 Combustion Mobile equipment 6,940 EPA SGEC Tool Total 6,940 -- Table 11: Operational Emissions Scope Emission Type Emission Sub-Type CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Calculation Method(s) Existing Facility Project-Related Scope 1 Combustion Stationary equipment 358.49 1,169 EPA SGEC Tool for Project-Related 2023 benchmarking data for NG converted to tons CO2e Scope 2 Off-site electricity Grid-based 292.57 4,849 EPA SGEC Tool for Project-Related 2023 benchmarking data for grid electricity converted to tons CO2e using local emissions factor Scope 3 Off-site waste management Area 0 2,992 EPA SGEC Tool for Project-Related Total 651.06 9,010 -- 19 Emissions are categorized as either direct or indirect. Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions that are released directly from properties owned or under the control of the project proposer. This includes, for example, the use of mobile equipment during construction. Scope 2 and 3 emissions are indirect emissions. Scope 2 emissions are associated with the offsite generation of purchased electricity and/or steam. Scope 3 emissions are from the offsite provision of waste management services, including land disposal (landfilling), recycling, and solid waste composting. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 54 b. GHG Assessment i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Unless otherwise noted differently, the following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that are under consideration for the proposed development to reduce emissions for both scenarios: • Green building certification will be required • Energy efficient appliances and building shells (R-21 insulated exterior walls, spray foam at rim joist, etc.) • LEED Silver required energy efficiency items • Implement waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable • Trees and additional landscaping will be planted as part of the new development • Provide electric vehicle-ready charging infrastructure • 40 KW rooftop solar panel array Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on code requirements, feasibility, availability of materials, schedule, and tenant considerations. ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred. The proposed mitigation listed in Item 18.b.i. includes best management practices for new construction and additional methods such as installing electric-vehicle infrastructure, energy efficient appliances and building shells, and rooftop solar therefore reducing energy use and GHG emissions where practicable during operations. iii. Quantify the proposed project’s predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons per number 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. The Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 80 percent between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy, energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota. The MPCA’s biennial GHG emissions reduction report from 2021 identifies strategies for reducing emissions in the three economic sectors with the highest emissions – transportation, electricity generation, and agriculture, forestry, and land use. The City of St. Louis Park Climate Action Plan20 , which is more stringent than the Next Generation Energy Act, has also committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gas 20 Source: https://www.stlouisparkmn.gov/our-city/climate-action-plan City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 55 emissions by 2040, encouraging projects to help spur clean energy changes in the community. The Plan also includes seven climate goals, supporting strategies, initiatives, and specific actions to help guide the City toward intermediary progress by 2030 and help the state reach their Climate Action Framework goal of a 50% reduction in emissions by the same year. The expected lifespan of the project is 50 years, this equates to a total estimated 450,500 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development (including both construction and operations phases). The proposer will evaluate implementing the sustainability measures listed in Item 18.b.i to reduce operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed project will be built in compliance with state regulations and city building codes. 19. 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 roads and highways. Existing noise at the site is largely emitted from the surrounding roadways. Sensitive receptors include offices to the east. 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 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 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. 20. 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 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 56 occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Parking 6-Story Mixed Use Residential: Located in the northwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a 6-story building that includes 245 residential units, 410 parking spaces, and 22,968 square feet of retail space. 6-Story Mixed-Use Residential: Located in the southwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a 6-story building that includes 168 residential units, 267 parking spaces, and 13,420 square feet of retail space. 13-Story Office Building: Located in the northeast corner of the site, this area will consist of a 13-story office building that includes 345,600 square feet of office space, 274 parking spaces, and 5,500 square feet of retail space. 20-Story Residential Building: Located in the southeast corner of the site, this area will consist of a 20-story building that includes 246 residential units, 254 parking spaces, and 5,500 square feet of retail space. Existing Conditions The existing roadway network within the study area includes Park Place Boulevard, Wayzata Boulevard, W 16th Street, Gamble Drive, Cedar Lake Road S, Parkdale Drive Quentin Avenue S, and Old Cedar Lake Road. The roadway network is described below: • Park Place Boulevard is a major north-south roadway which serves as one of the primary accesses to the West End area. It is generally a four-lane divided roadway, though the stretch of roadway between 16th Street W and the I-394 Eastbound Ramps is five lanes with three (3) northbound lanes and two (2) southbound lanes. South of the intersection with Parkdale/Cedar Lake Road, the roadway narrows to a two-lane undivided roadway and is called Cedar Lake Road. It is classified as a Major Collector by the City of St. Louis Park’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Park Place Boulevard has an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 25,313 vehicles per day, based on MnDOT data from 2023. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. • Wayzata Boulevard is an east-west city street providing frontage to developments south of I-394. It is a three-lane undivided road west of Utica Avenue, with one westbound travel lane and two eastbound travel lanes. East of Utica Avenue, it is a two-lane undivided roadway. Wayzata Boulevard has an AADT of 4,093 vehicles per day east of Park Place Boulevard, according to MnDOT data from 2022. There is no posted speed limit, therefore it is assumed to be the city’s default speed limit of 20 mph. • 16th Street W is an east-west roadway running through the West End AUAR area. It is a three-lane undivided roadway west of Park Place Boulevard and a four-lane divided roadway east of Park Place Boulevard. The City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies 16th Street west of Park Place Boulevard as a proposed major collector (currently the road is classified as a city street). 16th Street W has an AADT of 5,488 vehicles per day, according to MnDOT data from 2023. The posted speed limit is 20 mph. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 57 • Gamble Drive is an east-west roadway running along the north side of the site. It is a four-lane divided roadway east of Park Place Boulevard and then becomes a four lane undivided roadway at West End Boulevard. The City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies Gamble Drive east of Park Place Boulevard as a city street. Gamble Drive has an AADT of 4,315 vehicles per day, according to MnDOT data from 2022. There is no posted speed limit, therefore it is assumed to be the city’s default speed limit of 20 mph. • Cedar Lake Road S is a primarily east-west roadway south of the study area. It is a two- lane undivided roadway, though both the eastbound and westbound approaches widen to four lanes at the intersection with Park Place Boulevard before merging back to two lanes shortly thereafter. Note that Cedar Lake Road continues southward from the intersection, and Parkdale Drive begins at the east leg of the intersection, connecting to MN 100. The section south of the Parkdale Drive intersection is considered an A Minor Reliever by the City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Cedar Lake Road S has an AADT of 5,000 vehicles per day west of Park Place Boulevard and 7,600 vehicles per day south of Park Place Boulevard, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. • Parkdale Drive is an east-west, four-lane undivided roadway that has full access (one lane) ramps to and from Highway 100 southbound. It is classified by the City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan as an A Minor Reliever. Parkdale Drive has an existing AADT of 14,900 vehicles per day west of the Highway 100 ramps, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. • Quentin Avenue S is a two-lane undivided city street aligned generally north-south. The existing AADT is 14,100 vehicles per day north of Cedar Lake Road, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. • Old Cedar Lake Road is an east-west city street aligned east-west. The existing AADT is 15,600 vehicles per day east of the Highway 100 ramps, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 20 mph. Traffic Generation The trip generation of the development scenario were estimated based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The trip generation is shown Table 12. The full traffic study conducted for the EAW can be found in Appendix D. Table 12: Trip Generation Forecasts Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out Development Scenario 852 516 336 927 385 542 10,379 Availability of Transit The Route 645 limited stop bus operates along W 16th Street approximately ¼ mile of the development site. The route travels from downtown Minneapolis to Mound Transit Station. There is also local route 9 that runs adjacent to the site that travels between Hopkins and City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 58 south Minneapolis with stops in Downtown Minneapolis. There are no additional transit routes currently serving the EAW study area. 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. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in October 2024 based on the projected trip generation of the development scenario. The results of this study can be found in Appendix D. Based on the detailed findings of the West End Office Park TIA, the area’s transportation network is expected to support redevelopment within the EAW study area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts associated with development within the EAW study area. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths. The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at the site access points as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified on Exhibit 1 of the TIA ). Based on the results of the TIA capacity analysis, several intersections operate poorly in Phase 2 without mitigation. Table 13 shows the LOS for the study area intersections in each analysis scenario. Table 13: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Phase 1 LOS Phase 2 LOS 2024 2029 2045 2029 2045 A.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd B B B B A Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave B B B B B Park Place Blvd & 16th St W B C C B B Utica Ave & 16th St W A A A A A Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr B B C B C Park Place & Cedar Lake Rd B B B B C Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S C C C C D City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 59 Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Phase 1 LOS Phase 2 LOS 2024 2029 2045 2029 2045 Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S A A B B C Parkdale Dr & SE Access -- -- -- B C Parkdale Dr & S Center Access -- -- -- A C Park Place Blvd & W Access -- -- -- A A Gamble Drive & NW Access -- -- -- B A Gamble Drive & N Center Access -- -- -- -- C Gamble Drive & NE Access -- -- -- -- A P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd B B B B B Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave C C E D E Park Place Blvd & 16th St W C C C B C Utica Ave & 16th St W A A A A A Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr C C C B C Park Place & Cedar Lake Rd C C C B C Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S A C D C F Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S A B B B D Parkdale Dr & SE Access -- -- -- B C Parkdale Dr & S Center Access -- -- -- B D Park Place Blvd & W Access -- -- -- A A City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 60 Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Phase 1 LOS Phase 2 LOS 2024 2029 2045 2029 2045 Gamble Drive & NW Access -- -- -- A A Gamble Drive & N Center Access -- -- -- -- E Gamble Drive & NE Access -- -- -- -- A c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic analysis for the West End Office Park property. • Phase 1 & 2 – Consider traffic calming measures within the site to ensure that the north- south roadway connection is not used as a route to bypass Park Place Boulevard (developer mitigation—no effect on public right of way). • Phase 2 & 4 – Westbound left turn lanes were found to meet warrants at the two access points along Parkdale Drive. It is recommended to evaluate the Parkdale Drive corridor between Park Place Boulevard and Hwy 100 to determine if there is a holistic approach to accommodate left turns at the site and adject properties access points. • Phase 4 – Relocate the southeast access on Parkdale Drive or consolidate access with the adjacent property because the proposed access point is shown approximately 50 feet away from the existing access for the adjacent property (developer mitigation—no effect on public right of way). • Phase 3 & 4 – Restripe the southbound approach of Quentin Avenue & Old Cedar Lake Road to include a right turn lane (Originally proposed in the West End AUAR). • Phase 3 & 4 – Install a dedicated northbound left turn lane at Quentin Avenue & Old Cedar Lake Road. If possible, this turn-lane should include 300’ of storage. (Originally proposed in the West End AUAR). • All Phases – Signal timings along the Park Place Boulevard corridor should be evaluated as the site phases are developed. 21. Cumulative Potential Effects 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 potential effects are defined as “the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 61 including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”21 The geographic areas considered for cumulative potential effects are those near the project site (within approximately one-half mile), and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future (by 2030). 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. The City of St. Louis Park is planning to add a trail or bike lane on the MnDOT bridge on the east side of Highway 100, connecting Parkwoods Road to Old Cedar Lake Road/Quentin Ave. There are also plans to install roundabouts on 16th Street W at Zarthan Ave and the Costco north entrance in 2027. Both projects are within one-half mile of the project site. MnDOT is planning to repair bridges and ramps along I-394 and I-94 between downtown Minneapolis and Highway 100. Construction is set to take place between Fall 2025 and Fall 2026. A portion of this project will be within one-half mile of the project site. Other transportation improvements that may interact with the project site are referenced in the West End AUAR Update (2023) mitigation plan. Future roadway, trail, and private development projects may result in impacts to transportation, water resources, and utilities. These impacts will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur. 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. 22. Other Potential Environmental Effects If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 21, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. All known potentially adverse environmental impacts are addressed in the preceding EAW items. 21 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 62 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 Senior planner, City of St. Louis Park 11/19/24 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 63 Figures City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 64 Figure 3: Site Map City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 65 Figure 4: County Map City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 66 Figure 5: USGS Map City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 67 Figure 6: Existing Zoning City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 68 Figure 7: Existing Land Use City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 69 Figure 8: Future Land Use City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 70 Figure 9: Soil Types City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 71 Figure 10: Surface Water Resources City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 72 Figure 11: Groundwater Resources City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 73 Figure 12: What's in My Neighborhood Sites City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 74 Appendix A Site Plan City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 75 Phase I | 6-Story Mixed-Use Phase II | 6-Story Mixed-Use Phase IV | 20-Story Residential Phase III | 13- Story Office Proposed Extension of West End Blvd.Park Place Blvd.Gamble Drive P a r k d a l e D r i v e ATM TUSHIE MONTGOMERY Development Summary terasă | 11.15.2024 EAW Plan | 3 5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A SCALE:1" = 100'-0" 1 EAW Overall Plan Phase I |6-Story Mixed-Use Residential Phase II |6-Story Mixed-Use Residential Total Building GSF Retail GSF Residential GSF Total Residential Units Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Total Parking Surface Garage Total Building GSF Retail GSF Residential GSF Total Residential Units Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom Total Parking Surface Garage 273,374 GSF 22,968 GSF 250,406 GSF 245 Units 85 Units 78 Units 74 Units 8 Units 410 Spaces 147 Spaces 263 Spaces 249,095 GSF 13,420 GSF 235,675 GSF 168 Units 13 Units 63 Units 92 Units 267 Spaces 66 Spaces 201 Spaces Phase III |13-Story Office Building Total Building GSF Retail GSF Office GSF Total Parking Surface Garage 351,100 GSF 5,500 GSF 345,600 GSF 274 Spaces 20 Spaces 254 Spaces Phase IV |20-Story Residential Total Building GSF Retail GSF Residential GSF Total Residential Units Total Parking Surface Garage 251,565 GSF 5,500 GSF 246,065 GSF 246 Units 254 Spaces 0 Spaces 254 Spaces City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 76 Appendix B Agency Correspondence City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 77 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 November 14, 2024 Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed West End Office Park, T29N R24W Section 30; Hennepin County Dear Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn), For all correspondence regarding the Natural Heritage Review of this project please include the project ID MCE- 2024-00822 in the email subject line. As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been reviewed to determine if the proposed project has the potential to impact any rare species or other significant natural features. Based on the project details provided with the request, the following rare features may be impacted by the proposed project: State-listed Species • The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed nearby, all of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-November) bats roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15. • Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of these species and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts. Federally Protected Species • To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 78 Environmental Review and Permitting • The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify specific measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance. Sufficient information should be provided so the DNR can determine whether a permit to take will be needed for any of the above protected species. • Please include a copy of this letter and the MCE-generated Final Project Report in any state or local license or permit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's native plant communities, rare species, and other rare features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and does not contain the locations of all rare features in the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location and project description provided with the request. If project details change or the project has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review within one year of initiating project activities. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare features. Visit Natural Heritage Review for additional information regarding this process, survey guidance, and other related information. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist. Thank you for consulting us on this matter and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, James Drake Natural Heritage Review Specialist james.f.drake@state.mn.us Cc: Melissa Collins City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 79 West End Office Park MCE #: 2024-00822 Page 3 of 4 9/26/2024 02:30 PM City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 80 West End Office Park MCE #: 2024-00822 Page 4 of 4 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 9/26/2024 02:30 PM City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 81 10/02/2024 16:43:09 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 Phone: (952) 858-0793 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2025-0000911 Project Name: West End Office Park EAW Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). Threatened and Endangered Species The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. Consultation Technical Assistance Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 82 1. 2. We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below), which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of certain activities to support these determinations. If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act. For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter. If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter. Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys, although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations. Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed Species If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 83 3. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred. Northern Long-Eared Bats Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in determining if your project may affect these species. Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long- eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human-made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be affected. For bat activity dates, please review Appendix L in the Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long- Eared Bat Survey Guidelines. Examples of unsuitable habitat include: Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas, Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas), A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees. If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the following activities are proposed: Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year, Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine, Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine, Construction of one or more wind turbines, or Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains. If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 84 species list report for your records. If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list, the federal project user will be directed to either the range-wide northern long-eared bat D-key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit Administration Indiana bat/ Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. Additional information about available tools can be found on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website. Whooping Crane Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.” Other Trust Resources and Activities Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to survey the area for any migratory bird nests. If there is an eagle nest on-site while work is on-going, eagles may be disturbed. We recommend avoiding and minimizing disturbance to eagles whenever practicable. If you cannot avoid eagle disturbance, you may seek a permit. A nest take permit is always required for removal, relocation, or obstruction of an eagle nest. For communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below. Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings. Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts. Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 85 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. State Department of Natural Resources Coordination While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your proposed project area. Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with questions or for additional information. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds Wetlands OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 (952) 858-0793 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 86 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2025-0000911 Project Name:West End Office Park EAW Project Type:Commercial Development Project Description:The project would involve the demolition of several office buildings and the construction of several mixed use, residential, and office buildings. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@44.9644465,-93.34797066776139,14z Counties:Hennepin County, Minnesota City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 87 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 88 MAMMALS NAME STATUS Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered BIRDS NAME STATUS Whooping Crane Grus americana Population: U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NC, NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV, western half of WY) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 Experimental Population, Non- Essential CLAMS NAME STATUS Higgins Eye (pearlymussel) Lampsilis higginsii No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5428 Endangered Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6208 Proposed Endangered INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 89 1. 2. 3. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper 1 2 3 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 90 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action MIGRATORY BIRDS Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . 1 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 91 1. 2. 3. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Black Tern Chlidonias niger surinamenisis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093 Breeds May 15 to Aug 20 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9643 Breeds May 20 to Aug 10 Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2974 Breeds Apr 22 to Jul 20 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 3 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 92 NAME BREEDING SEASON Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10678 Breeds May 1 to Aug 20 Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745 Breeds May 1 to Jul 20 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Long-eared Owl asio otus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398 Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10633 Breeds elsewhere Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478 Breeds elsewhere Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431 Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 93 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black Tern BCC Rangewide (CON) Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) Canada Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Cerulean Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Eastern Whip-poor- will BCC Rangewide (CON) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 94 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Golden-winged Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Long-eared Owl BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Ruddy Turnstone BCC - BCR SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR Western Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 95 Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. THERE ARE NO WETLANDS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 96 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Private Entity Name:Madeline Roess Address:767 Eustis Street Address Line 2:#100 City:St. Paul State:MN Zip:55114 Email madeline.roess@kimley-horn.com Phone:6128456789 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 97 Appendix C GHG Analysis City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 98 Emissions Summary Guidance (B) The "Go To Sheet" buttons can be used to navigate to the data entry sheets. Organizational Information: Organization Name: Organization Address: Inventory Reporting Period: Start: MM/DD/YY End: Name of Preparer: Phone Number of Preparer: Date Prepared: Summary of Organization's Emissions: Scope 1 Emissions Stationary Combustion 1,169 CO2-e (metric tons) Mobile Sources 6,940 CO2-e (metric tons) Refrigeration / AC Equipment Use 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Fire Suppression 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Purchased Gases 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Location-Based Scope 2 Emissions Purchased and Consumed Electricity 4,849 CO2-e (metric tons) Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Market-Based Scope 2 Emissions Purchased and Consumed Electricity 4,849 CO2-e (metric tons) Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Total organization Emissions Total Scope 1 & Location-Based Scope 2 12,958 CO2-e (metric tons) The total GHG emissions from each source category are provided below. You may also use this summary sheet to fill out the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form as this calculator only quantifies one year of emissions at a time. (A) Enter organization information into the orange cells. Other cells on this sheet will be automatically calculated from the data entered in the sheets in this workbook. Blue cells indicate required emission sources if applicable. Green cells indicate scope 3 emission sources and offsets, which organizations may optionally include in their inventory. Proposed Development 2025 MM/DD/YY By entering the data below into the appropriate cell of the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form, you will be able to compare multiple years of data. If you have multiple Calculator files covering sub-sets of your inventory for a particular reporting period, sum each of the emission categories (e.g. Stationary Combustion) to an organizational total, which then can be entered into the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form . https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-annual-ghg-inventory-summary-and-goal-tracking Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Back to Intro Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)1 of 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 99 Total Scope 1 & Market-Based Scope 2 12,958 CO2-e (metric tons) Reductions Offsets 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Net Scope 1 and 2 Location-Based Emissions 12,958 CO2-e (metric tons) Net Scope 1 and 2 Market-Based Emissions 12,958 CO2-e (metric tons) Scope 3 Emissions Employee Business Travel 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Employee Commuting 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Product Transport 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Waste 2,992 CO2-e (metric tons) Required Supplemental Information Biomass CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Biomass CO2 Emissions from Mobile Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons) Go To Sheet Go To SheetGo To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet Go To Sheet EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)2 of 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 100 Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources Guidance - Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box. (C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion Source Source Source Fuel Quantity ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted Combusted BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu Generator TGenerator Testing N/A Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 600 Gallons Residential Natural Gas Use 659 Natural Gas 11,533 11,533 Commercia Natural Gas Use 51,420 Natural Gas 1,106 1,106 Office Natural Gas Use 345,600 Natural Gas 9,262 9,262 GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type Quantity Combusted Anthracite Coal 0 short tons Bituminous Coal 0 short tons Units (B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. - Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on the "Unit Conversion" sheet. (A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Fuel Type Units Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 101 Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons Lignite Coal 0 short tons Natural Gas 0 scf Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 600 gallons Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons Kerosene 0 gallons Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons Landfill Gas 0 scf Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 6,126.0 246.0 48.0 Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 6,126.0 246.0 48.0 Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Emissions for all Fuels 6,126.0 246.0 48.0 Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 6.1 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0 Fuel Type EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 102 Scope 1 Emissions from Mobile Sources Guidance - If mileage or fuel usage is unknown, estimate using approximate fuel economy values (see Reference Table below). - Vehicle year and Miles traveled are not necessary for non-road equiment. Biodiesel Percent:20 % Ethanol Percent:80 % Table 1. Mobile Source Fuel Combustion and Miles Traveled Source Source Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Units Miles ID Description Type Year Usage Traveled Fleet-012 HQ Fleet NonRoad Ships and Boats - Diesel 1990 500 gal 3,670 Construction Equipment (non-road g Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Gasoline (2 stroke)2007 150,040 gal 0 Passenger Cars Construction Equipment OnRoad Passenger Cars - Gasoline 2007 510 gal 4,368 Construction Equipment (non-road d Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel 2007 535,856 gal 0 Medium- and Heavy- Duty Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Diesel 2007 1,072 gal 1,560 Light Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 2007 1,000 gal 1,560 Reference Table: Average Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type Passenger Cars 24.1 Motorcycles 44.0 Diesel Buses (Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles)7.3 Other 2-axle, 4-Tire Vehicles 17.6 Single unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 7.5 Combination Trucks 6.1 GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CO2 Emissions (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles) CO2 (kg) Motor Gasoline 151,550 gallons 1,330,611.8 Diesel Fuel 536,928 gallons 5,482,036.5 Residual Fuel Oil 0 gallons 0.0 Aviation Gasoline 0 gallons 0.0 Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 0 gallons 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)0 gallons 0.0 Ethanol 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the ga Biodiesel 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the di Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)0 gallons 0.0 - Enter "Fuel Usage" in appropriate units (units appear when vehicle type is selected). (C) Biomass CO2 emissions from biodiesel and ethanol are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. (B) When using biofuels, typically the biofuel (biodiesel or ethanol) is mixed with a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) for use in vehicles. Enter the biodiesel and ethanol percentages of the fuel if known, or leave default values. (A) Enter annual data for each vehicle or group of vehicles (grouped by vehicle type, vehicle year, and fuel type) in ORANGE cells in Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Only enter vehicles owned or leased by your organization on this sheet. All other vehicle use such as employee commuting or business travel is considered a scope 3 emissions source and should be reported in the corresponding scope 3 sheets. - Select "Vehicle Type" from drop down box (closest type available). - Select "On-Road" or "Non-Road" from drop down box to determine the Vehicle Types available. Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Fuel Type Vehicle Type Fuel Usage Units On-Road or Non-Road? Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)1 of 3 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 103 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)0 scf 0.0 Total Organization-Wide On-Road Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Passenger Cars - Gasoline 1984-93 0 0.0 0.0 1994 0 0.0 0.0 1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 4,368 31.4 22.7 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 1987-93 0 0.0 0.0 (Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs)1994 0 0.0 0.0 1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 1,560 16.1 9.5 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Gasoline 1985-86 0 0.0 0.0 1987 0 0.0 0.0 1988-1989 0 0.0 0.0 1990-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 0 0.0 0.0 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycles - Gasoline 1960-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996-present 0 0.0 0.0 Total Organization-Wide On-Road Non-Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Type Fuel Type Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g) 1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0 1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0 1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Type Passenger Cars - Diesel Diesel EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)2 of 3 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 104 1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0 1960-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 1,560 14.8 67.2 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Total Organization-Wide Non-Road Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Type Fuel Type Fuel Usage (gallons)CH4 (g) N2O (g) Residual Fuel Oil - - - Gasoline (2 stroke)- - - Gasoline (4 stroke)- - - Diesel - - - Locomotives Diesel - - - Jet Fuel - - - Aviation Gasoline - - - Gasoline (2 stroke)- - - Gasoline (4 stroke)- - - Diesel - - - LPG - - - Gasoline - - - Diesel - - - Gasoline (2 stroke)150,040 1,863,494 10,503 Gasoline (4 stroke)- - - Diesel 535,856 107,171 251,853 LPG - - - Gasoline - - - Diesel - - - Gasoline (2 stroke)- - - Gasoline (4 stroke)- - - Diesel - - - LPG - - - Gasoline - - - Diesel - - - LPG - - - Gasoline (2 stroke)- - - Gasoline (4 stroke)- - - Diesel - - - LPG - - - Gasoline (2 stroke)- - - Gasoline (4 stroke)- - - Diesel - - - Gasoline - - - Diesel - - - LPG - - - Gasoline (2 stroke)- - - Gasoline (4 stroke)- - - Diesel - - - LPG - - - Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 6,940.1 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 0.0 Notes: 1. Average mpg values from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019 (Nov 2020), Table VM-1. Industrial/Commercial Equipment Logging Equipment Railroad Equipment Recreational Equipment Agricultural Offroad Trucks Construction/Mining Equipment Construction/Mining Offroad Trucks Lawn and Garden Equipment Airport Equipment Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Diesel Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel Ships and Boats Aircraft Agricultural Equipment Heavy-Duty Trucks Buses Light-Duty Cars Light-Duty Trucks Medium-Duty Trucks EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)3 of 3 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 105 Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity Guidance (C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased." https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/ Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location. Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4 Residential Electricity Use 732,146 MROW (MRO West)3,648,224 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>4,007,209.2 434.1 62.0 4,007,209.2 434.1 62.0 Commercia Electricity Use 51,420 MROW (MRO West)725,022 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>796,364.2 86.3 12.3 796,364.2 86.3 12.3 Office Electricity Use 345,600 MROW (MRO West)5,287,680 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>5,807,987.7 629.2 89.9 5,807,987.7 629.2 89.9 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> Total Emissions for All Sources 9,660,926 10,611,561.1 1,149.7 164.2 10,611,561.1 1,149.7 164.2 GHG Emissions CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) Location-Based Electricity Emissions 4,848.6 Market-Based Electricity Emissions 4,848.6 Notes: 1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance - Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016). Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021. (D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0. The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market- based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy. - Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler: (A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1. (B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based Emission Factors Emissions Emissions Market-Based Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method Help - Market-Based Method EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 1 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 106 Scope 3 Emissions from Waste Guidance Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O) Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions (kg) Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 4,764 metric ton 2,257,583 Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 1,235 metric ton 585,310 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 1,191 metric ton 118,129 Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 309 metric ton 30,627 GHG Emissions Total Emissions by Disposal Method Waste Material CO2e (kg) Recycled 148,756 Landfilled - (B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture. (C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a new material type or appropriate disposal method. (A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 107 Combusted 2,842,892 Composted - Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)- Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 2,991.6 EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)2 of 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 108 Appendix D Traffic Impact Study City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 109 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WEST END OFFICE PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Prepared for: City of St. Louis Park Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NOVEMBER 2024 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 110 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WEST END OFFICE PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REPORT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________ November 14, 2024 Jacob A. Rojer, P.E., PTOE Date License No. 56767 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 111 3 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Existing Roadways ................................................................................................................................. 5 Planned Roadway Improvements .......................................................................................................... 6 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................ 6 Background Growth ............................................................................................................................... 7 Background Development ..................................................................................................................... 8 Future Background Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 8 Pedestrians And Bicycles ...................................................................................................................... 9 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................... 9 Site Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 9 Site Access Review ............................................................................................................................. 11 Site Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 11 CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 12 Existing Year (2024) Conditions .......................................................................................................... 13 Opening Year (2029) No-Build Conditions .......................................................................................... 15 Opening Year (2029) Build Conditions ................................................................................................ 17 Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions ............................................................................................. 19 Design Year (2045) Build Conditions ................................................................................................... 21 Design Year (2045) Build Mitigated Conditions ................................................................................... 24 TURN LANE WARRANTS ............................................................................................................................. 25 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................. 27 APPENDIX A. Exhibits B. Turning Movement Counts C. Proposed Site Plan D. SimTraffic Reports E. Turn Lane Warrant Sheets City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 112 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 4 INTRODUCTION Hempel Real Estate proposes redevelopment of the West End Office Park which has four (4) existing office buildings on the site located at the southeast corner of Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The proposed development is a 6-story mixed-use residential building with a supermarket, coffee shop, and strip retail on the ground floor. This development would occupy the northwest corner of the site. There are also three (3) additional future phases of redevelopment. The full redevelopment of the site is included in this traffic analysis which includes the following: Phase 1 (2029): Mid-Rise Residential with ground floor retail (including supermarket and coffee shop). Phase 2 (2029): Mid-Rise Residential with ground floor retail (including fast-food restaurant with drive-through). Phase 3 (2045): High-Rise Office with ground floor retail. Phase 4 (2045): High-Rise Residential with ground floor retail. The study of the traffic conditions in the area includes three (3) analysis years: Existing (2024), the anticipated Opening Year (2029) of Phases 1 and 2, and the Design Year (2045) which includes the completion of all four phases. In addition to the “Build” conditions which includes the redevelopment as outlined by this timeline, no-build conditions were also analyzed which assumes no redevelopment of the West End Office Park occurs and assumes traffic growth only as a result of background growth and external development. This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) examines the traffic impacts of the proposed West End Office Park redevelopment and determines the necessary mitigation measures for the nearby roadway network. STUDY AREA The proposed development is directly south of the area studied in the West End Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The site is currently occupied by the West End Office Park. The development would redevelop the office buildings and reconfigure/modify the access points along the adjacent roadways. The following nearby study intersections were included in the analysis for the proposed development: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave 16th Street & Park Place Blvd 16th Street & Utica Ave Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Park Place Blvd & Parkdale Dr Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave The locations of the proposed development and study intersection are shown in Exhibit 1. Exhibits are included in Appendix A. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 113 5 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 EXISTING ROADWAYS The development will have an impact on each of the surrounding roadways as well as all of the internal roadways. All collectors or higher order roadways which are anticipated to see significant impacts as a result of the proposed development are described below. Interstate 394 (I-394) is an interstate highway which serves as a major regional east-west connector for the west metro. It is a six-lane divided freeway with two general travel lanes and one express lane in each direction. I-394 is classified as a principal arterial by the City of St. Louis Park’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, with an existing AADT of 110,174 vehicles per near the study area, based on MnDOT data from 2023. The posted speed limit is 60 mph. Minnesota State Highway 100 (MN 100) is a north-south freeway which serves as a major regional north-south connector for the west metro. It is a six-lane divided freeway with three travel lanes in each direction. MN 100 is classified as a principal arterial by the City of St. Louis Park’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, with an existing AADT of 121,184 vehicles per day near the study area, based on MnDOT data from 2023. The posted speed limit is 60 mph. Park Place Boulevard is a major north-south roadway which serves as one of the primary accesses to the West End area. It is generally a four-lane divided roadway, though the stretch of roadway between 16th Street W and the I-394 Eastbound Ramps is five lanes with three (3) northbound lanes and two (2) southbound lanes. South of the intersection with Parkdale/Cedar Lake Road, the roadway narrows to a two-lane undivided roadway and becomes Cedar Lake Road. Park Place Boulevard is classified as a Major Collector by the City of St. Louis Park’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Park Place Boulevard has an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 25,313 vehicles per day, based on MnDOT data from 2023. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Wayzata Boulevard is an east-west city street providing frontage to developments south of I-394. It is a three-lane undivided road west of Utica Avenue, with one westbound travel lane and two eastbound travel lanes. East of Utica Avenue, it is a two-lane undivided roadway. Wayzata Boulevard has an AADT of 4,093 vehicles per day east of Park Place Boulevard, according to MnDOT data from 2022. There is no posted speed limit, therefore it is assumed to be the city’s default speed limit of 20 mph. 16th Street W is an east-west roadway located north of the study area. It is a three-lane undivided roadway west of Park Place Boulevard and a four-lane divided roadway east of Park Place Boulevard. The City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies 16th Street west of Park Place Boulevard as a proposed major collector (currently the road is classified as a city street). 16th Street W has an AADT of 5,488 vehicles per day, according to MnDOT data from 2023. The posted speed limit is 20 mph. Gamble Drive is an east-west roadway running along the north side of the site. It is a four-lane divided roadway east of Park Place Boulevard and becomes a four-lane undivided roadway east of West End Boulevard. The City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies Gamble Drive east of Park Place Boulevard as a city street. Gamble Drive has an AADT of 4,315 vehicles per day, according to MnDOT data from 2022. There is no posted speed limit, therefore it is assumed to be the city’s default speed limit of 20 mph. Cedar Lake Road S is a primarily east-west roadway south of the study area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway, though both the eastbound and westbound approaches widen to four lanes City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 114 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 6 near the intersection with Park Place Boulevard before merging back to two lanes shortly thereafter. Note that Cedar Lake Road continues southward from the intersection, and Parkdale Drive begins at the east leg of the intersection, connecting to MN 100. The section south of the Parkdale Drive intersection is considered an A Minor Reliever by the City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Cedar Lake Road S has an AADT of 5,000 vehicles per day west of Park Place Boulevard and 7,600 vehicles per day south of Park Place Boulevard, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Parkdale Drive is an east-west, four-lane undivided roadway that has full access (one lane) ramps to and from Highway 100 southbound. It is classified by the City of St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan as an A Minor Reliever. Parkdale Drive has an existing AADT of 14,900 vehicles per day west of the Highway 100 ramps, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Quentin Avenue S is a two-lane undivided city street aligned generally north-south. The existing AADT is 14,100 vehicles per day north of Cedar Lake Road, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Old Cedar Lake Road is an east-west city street aligned east-west. The existing AADT is 15,600 vehicles per day east of the Highway 100 ramps, based on MnDOT data from 2020. The posted speed limit is 20 mph. Exhibit 2 provides the existing intersection geometry and intersection control for the study intersections. PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS MnDOT has multiple planned projects along I-394 near the study area, including improvements to the Louisiana Avenue interchange west of the study area and improvements to the eastbound collector distributor roadway to Hwy 100. The City of St. Louis Park has plans to reconstruct 16th Street west of the study area. While these projects could affect traffic patterns to and from the network, no geometric changes to the study intersections are anticipated as a result of the planned roadway improvements. VOLUME DEVELOPMENT The analysis of the traffic conditions was conducted for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections in order to determine the effects of the proposed development on the traffic operations of the surrounding roadways during the busiest times of a typical weekday. Analysis is focused on two scenarios “No-Build”, and “Build”. The No-Build scenario accounts only for background growth and other planned developments. The No-Build scenario is used as the baseline conditions for determining the impacts of the project, while the Build scenario models the traffic of the development if it were to be completed as currently proposed. The analysis is focused on three study years: Existing Year (2024), the anticipated Opening Year of the first two phases of the proposed development (2029), and the “Design Year” to study long-term traffic conditions (2045). EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES To analyze the traffic operations of the surrounding roadway network, weekday AM and PM peak period turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections. Traffic data was collected on Thursday, September 27, 2024, at the eight (8) study intersections listed in the Study Area section above. The turning movement data is included in Appendix B. Based on the traffic counts, the AM peak hour of total street City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 115 7 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 traffic at the study intersections is 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM, while the PM peak hour of street traffic is 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM. The Existing (2024) peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 3. Site specific trip generation data (i.e., the number of entering and exiting trips during the AM and PM peak hour) was collected for the existing West End Office Park site. The four-buildings on site were observed to generate a total of 125 trips during the AM peak hour (102 entering and 23 exiting) and 111 trips during the PM peak hour (26 entering and 85 exiting). BACKGROUND GROWTH To determine the change in traffic volumes along the roadways due to external development and regional roadway changes, a background growth rate was applied to the traffic volumes in the study area. The Original traffic study for the West End AUAR from 2007 utilized a 0.5% annual growth rate to represent background growth in the area. To confirm that this background growth rate remains a valid estimate as of 2024, traffic and population forecasts included in the St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan were reviewed. Highway 394 northwest of the study area had an AADT of 142,000 as of 2018 which is projected to grow to 161,000 by year 2040. This is equivalent to a 0.6% annual growth rate. Another means to estimate the background growth is using projected population growth; St. Louis Park had a population of 49,600 in 2020 and is projected to grow to 54,520 by the year 2040, based on the city’s comprehensive plan. This equates to an annual growth rate of 0.5%. Both the population and the traffic forecasts indicate that a 0.5% annual growth rate is a reasonable estimate for background growth in the area. A review of the AADT history of the major study roadways was conducted. A summary of the AADT history of the roadways in the area is included below in Table 1. The historical AADT values indicated growth in the pre-pandemic period of 2013-2017 at an average rate of 0.6%. Data from the COVID-19 pandemic was excluded from the growth rate calculation because this data may be unreliable, as demonstrated by the major shifts in traffic levels during this period along Cedar Lake Road, and Park Place Boulevard. Data for Park Place Boulevard indicated significant growth between 2017 and 2023, though much of this is attributable to the West End AUAR area which saw multiple developments completed during this period. Table 1 – Historical AADT Values Roadway Location Description AADT By Year Growth Rate** (%) 2013 2017 2020* 2023 Park Place Boulevard North of Wayzata Boulevard 18,000 20,600 36,500 25,313 0.7% Cedar Lake Road West of Park Place Boulevard 13,100 13,800 5,000 - 0.3% Cedar Lake Road South of Parkdale Drive 12,200 12,900 7,600 - 0.3% Parkdale Drive East of Park Place Boulevard 9,500 12,400 14,900 - 1.3% *Traffic data collected in 2020 may be unreliable due to the effects off the COVID-19 Pandemic. **Annual traffic growth rate between 2013 and 2017. Based on these three estimation methods, the best estimation of background growth for the study roadways is 0.5% annually. This growth rate was selected for all movements at the study intersections. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 116 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 8 BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT Currently, the nearby West End AUAR area is nearing full buildout, with one parcel remaining to be developed. According to the 2023 West End AUAR Update, the anticipated development of the remaining parcel includes a 350,000 square-foot office building. Buildout of this building is anticipated to be completed in by the Opening-Year (2029) and is included in the no-build scenario as a background development. The expected trip generation of the background development was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Based on review of the West End AUAR, the average rate for Land Use Code 710 - General Office Building was applied to determine the trip generation potential of the remaining development parcel in the West End AUAR. The anticipated trip generation for the background development is shown below in Table 2. Table 2 – Estimated Background Site Trip Generation Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building - LUC 710 350 3,794 468 64 532 86 418 504 Multi-Use Reduction (10%)* -47 -6 -53 -9 -42 -50 Long-Term Development Total 421 58 479 77 376 454 *The West-End AUAR determined a multi-use of reduction of 10% to be an appropriate representation for trips internal trips within the West-End area. The development at the remaining West End AUAR parcel is anticipated to generate 3,794 daily trips, with 479 trips added to the roadway network during the AM peak hour and 454 during the PM peak hour. The distribution of traffic to the proposed development was based on origin-destination data for the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in which the site is located and review of the existing roadway characteristics. Based on the origin-destination data, the following global distribution was determined for trips entering and exiting the remaining West End AUAR parcel: 30% to/from the south on MN 100 20% to/from the west on I-394 20% to/from the south on I-394 15% to/from the north on MN 100 10% to/from the north on Xenia Avenue 5% to/from the west on Cedar Lake Road The distribution of site trips to and from the background development is shown in Exhibit 4. By applying the Background Trip Generation from Table 2 above, the total number of background development trips was determined as shown in Exhibit 5. FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES Future background projections were determined by applying the selected growth rate to the Existing (2024) traffic volumes and adding the anticipated site traffic of the remaining West End AUAR parcels. No-Build traffic volumes described below assume that no redevelopment occurs at the West End Office Park site. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 117 9 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 The Opening Year (2029) No-Build traffic volumes were determined by growing the Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes (Exhibit 3) at a 0.5% annual growth rate over the 5-year period and adding the background development trips from Exhibit 5. The Opening Year (2029) No-Build traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 6. The Design Year (2045) No-Build traffic volumes were determined by growing the Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes (Exhibit 3) at a 0.5% annual growth rate over the 21-year period from 2024 to 2045 and adding the total background development trips from Exhibit 5. The Design Year (2045) No-Build traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 7. PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES The developer should ensure that sidewalks and crosswalks are provided to the proposed expansion which connect to the existing sidewalk system. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The full site redevelopment consists of four different buildings which would be developed separately as four different phases. The characteristics of the four development phases are described in detail below. Phase 1 – Mid-Rise Residential with 245 dwelling units along with a grocery store, coffee shop and miscellaneous retail totaling 27,000 square feet of commercial space. It is anticipated that this phase would be completed by the studied Opening Year (2029). Phase 2 – Mid-Rise Residential with 168 dwelling units, along with a fast-food restaurant with a drive- through and miscellaneous retail space for a total of 13,400 square feet of commercial space. It is anticipated that this phase would be completed by the studied Opening Year (2029). Phase 3 – High-Rise Office with 345,600 square feet of office space, along with 5,500 square feet of ground floor retail space. It is anticipated that this phase would be completed by the studied Design Year (2045). Phase 4 – High-Rise Residential with 246 dwelling units, along with 5,500 square feet of ground floor retail space. It is anticipated that this phase would be completed by the studied Design Year (2045). The proposed site plan is shown in Appendix C. SITE TRIP GENERATION The trip generation for the site was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The average rates of various Land Use Codes (LUCs) were applied to determine the trip generation potential of the proposed development. Internal capture was estimated using ITE data and an internal capture reduction was applied for the proposed development. To be conservative, it was assumed that all external development trips have an origin/destination outside of the study area (i.e., excludes trips between the site and other locations within the west end area). As mentioned previously, peak hour trip generation data of was collected for the existing four (4) buildings that make up the West End Office Park site. The site was found to generate a total of 125 trips during the AM peak hour (102 entering and 23 exiting), and 111 trips during the PM peak hour (26 entering and 85 exiting). Existing site trip generation was subtracted from the anticipated trip generation of the proposed City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 118 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 10 development site (after internal capture reduction) to determine the total external trips added to the roadway network. Table 3 shows the projected trip generation based on the proposed site plan. The land uses are color coded to represent each building, with each building being a separate subdevelopment. Phase 1 is indicated in green, Phase 2 in orange, Phase 3 in blue, and Phase 4 in yellow. The colors also correspond to Exhibit 1 which shows the location of the four proposed buildings within the site. Table 3 – Proposed Site Trip Generation Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Opening Year (2029) Trip Generation Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) - LUC 221 245 1,112 21 70 91 58 37 96 Strip Retail - LUC 822 10 545 14 9 24 33 33 66 Supermarket - LUC 850* 15 2,013 57 40 97 88 88 176 Coffee Shop w/ Drive Through - LUC 937 2 1,107 88 84 172 39 39 78 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) - LUC 221 168 763 14 48 62 40 26 66 Strip Retail - LUC 822 10.4 567 15 10 25 34 34 69 Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru - LUC 934 3 1,402 68 66 134 52 48 99 Phases 1 & 2 Subtotal 7,511 277 326 603 344 305 649 Internal Capture Reduction (20%)** -1,502 -55 -65 -121 -69 -61 -130 Total External Site Trips (Phases 1 & 2) 6,009 222 261 482 275 244 519 Existing Trip Generation (Office Park) Reduction -102 -23 -125 -26 -85 -111 New External Site Trips (Phases 1 & 2) 120 238 357 249 159 408 Design Year (2045) Trip Generation General Office Building - LUC 710 345.6 3,746 462 63 525 85 413 498 Strip Retail - LUC 822 5.5 300 8 5 13 18 18 36 Multifamily Housing (High Rise) - LUC 222 246 1,117 17 49 66 49 30 79 Strip Retail - LUC 822 5.5 300 8 5 13 18 18 36 Phases 3 & 4 Subtotal 5,463 495 123 618 170 479 649 Internal Capture Reduction (20%)** -1,093 -99 -25 -124 -34 -96 -130 Total External Site Trips (Phases 3 & 4) 4,370 396 98 494 136 383 519 Total External Site Trips (Phases 1-4) 10,379 618 359 977 411 627 1,037 Existing Trip Generation (Office Park) Reduction -102 -23 -125 -26 -85 -111 New External Site Trips (Phases 1-4) 516 336 852 385 542 926 *Filtered to include only supermarkets of less than 30,000 square to better represent the anticipated trip generation of a small supermarket **ITE Internal Capture rates were reviewed and were found to range from 13% to greater than 40% depending on the peak hour and development scenario (short- or long-term). Based on knowledge of the site-specific characteristics and consideration of the ITE data, a 20% internal capture rate was selected. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 119 11 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development are anticipated to generate 6,009 external site trips on a typical weekday, including 482 during the AM peak hour (222 entering and 261 exiting), and 519 in the PM peak hour (275 entering and 244 exiting). Phases 3 and 4 of the proposed development are anticipated to generate 4,370 external site trips on a typical weekday, including 494 during the AM peak hour (396 entering and 98 exiting), and 519 in the PM peak hour (136 entering and 383 exiting). In total, the four development phases will add 851 new trips to the network during the AM peak hour (516 entering and 336 exiting) and 926 during the PM peak hour (385 entering and 542 exiting). SITE ACCESS REVIEW The latest site plan indicates a total of seven (7) access points to/from the site: Two accesses on Parkdale Drive – the proposed west full access is approximately 330 feet from the Park Place Boulevard signal and approximately 230 feet from the proposed east full access. The proposed east full access is approximately 50 feet from the adjacent properties access. Three accesses on Park Place Boulevard – A right-in/right-out access at the midpoint between Parkdale Drive and Gamble drive (approximately 350 feet to each intersection) and two right in only accesses for truck/loading only. The current plan proposes right turn lanes at the access points. Two accesses on Gamble Drive – a full access intersection aligned with West End Boulevard to the north, and a full access intersection approximately 150 east of West End Boulevard. Based on access spacing, it is recommended to either remove the eastern most access on Parkdale Drive or consolidate the eastern most access with the adjacent site, if possible. With two accesses within 50 feet, it is anticipated that these access points would be too close to provide safe operations, as vehicles turning left and right out of the access points could conflict with each other. Based on review of the existing access conditions along the roadway and the City’s policy on access management as described in the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2040, the access point should be located no less than 100 feet from the existing access point. Because two of the three accesses along Park Place Boulevard are anticipated to see minimal traffic and are for loading purposes only and the only passenger vehicle access being located the middle of the block, the number of accesses on Park Place Boulevard is acceptable. SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of traffic to the proposed development was based on origin-destination data for the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in which the site is located using Replica data. Replica is a publicly available data set that considers the US Census, land use regulations, aggregate mobile location, credit transaction data, and real estate transaction data. A review of the existing roadway characteristics was also factored into the distribution. Based on the origin-destination data and the existing roadway characteristics, the following global distribution was determined for trips entering and exiting the proposed development: 30% to/from the south on MN 100 20% to/from the west on I-394 20% to/from the east on I-394 15% to/from the north on MN 100 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 120 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 12 10% to/from the north on Xenia Avenue 5% to/from the west on Cedar Lake Road The distribution of trips to Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development is shown in Exhibit 8. It is worth noting that, based on the latest site plan, at least one north-south roadway connection could provide a potentially viable route for north-south vehicles traveling to/from the West End AUAR area. If significant background traffic were to utilize the site’s internal connections, there could be unintended consequences such as poor circulation for vehicles within the site. Traffic calming along these roadway connections between Gamble Drive and Parkdale Drive should be considered to reduce the number of trips passing through the site. For the purposes of the analysis, however, it was assumed that only site traffic will utilize the site’s access points. The total Opening Year (2029) site traffic assignment was calculated by multiplying the trip generation for Phases 1 and 2 shown in Table 3 to the trip distribution proposed for these trips as shown above. The peak hour site trips to Phases 1 and 2 are shown in Exhibit 9. The Opening Year (2029) Build traffic volumes were determined by adding the Opening Year (2029) No-Build Traffic Volumes (Exhibit 6) to the phase 1 and 2 site trips shown in Exhibit 9. The Opening Year (2029) Build Traffic Volumes are shown in Exhibit 10. The distribution of trips to Phases 3 and 4 of the proposed development is shown in Exhibit 11. The Phase 3 and 4 site traffic was determined by applying the Phase 3 and 4 trip generation as shown in Table 3 to the trip distribution for the Phase 3 and 4 site trips shown in Exhibit 11. The peak hour site trips to Phases 3 and 4 are shown in Exhibit 12. The Design Year (2045) Build Traffic Volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 1 and 2 site traffic shown in Exhibit 9 and the Phase 3 and 4 site traffic shown in Exhibit 12 to the Design Year (2045) No-Build Traffic Volumes shown in Exhibit 7. The Design Year (2045) Build Traffic Volumes are shown in Exhibit 13. CAPACITY ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed to quantify the delay and level of service at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Signal timings used in the analysis were provided by MnDOT and the City of St. Louis Park. The capacity analysis was performed using the traffic analysis software SimTraffic within Synchro 12th Edition. The capacity of an intersection quantifies its ability to accommodate traffic volumes and is measured in average delay per vehicle. It is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS) which ranges from A to F, with LOS A as the highest (best traffic flow and least delay), LOS E as saturated or at-capacity conditions, and LOS F as the lowest (oversaturated conditions). The LOS grades shown below, which are provided in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) quantify and categorize the driver’s discomfort, frustration, and travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and the resulting traffic queuing. A detailed description of each LOS rating can be found in Table 4. The range of control delay for each rating (as detailed in the HCM) is also shown in Table 4. Because signalized intersections are expected to carry a larger volume of vehicles and stopping is required during red time, higher delays are tolerated for the corresponding LOS ratings. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 121 13 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 Table 4 – Level of Service Information Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description A 0-10 (Unsignalized); 0-10 (Signalized) Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within traffic stream. B >10-15 (Unsignalized); >10-20 (Signalized) Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream. C >15-25 (Unsignalized); >20-35 (Signalized) 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 (Unsignalized); >35-55 (Signalized) Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average travel speeds continue to decrease. E >35-50 (Unsignalized); >55-80 (Signalized) High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed. F >50 (Unsignalized); >80 (Signalized) Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic flow. To determine the impacts of the proposed development, the following scenarios were included in the analysis: Existing Year (2024) Opening Year (2029) No-Build Opening Year (2029) Build Design Year (2045) No-Build Design Year (2045) Build EXISTING YEAR (2024) CONDITIONS A capacity analysis was performed for Existing Year (2024) conditions to develop baseline operating conditions for the current year. The study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry and intersection control as summarized in Exhibit 2. Signal timings for the signalized intersections were obtained from the city. The Existing (2024) traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit 3. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 5. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 122 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 14 Table 5 – Existing Year (2024) Capacity Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Signal EB - - - B (10.4) - - - B (11.3) WB D (40.3) A (0.4) C (24.0) D (51.4) - C (21.8) NB - A (5.7) A (4.6) - A (7.8) A (7.3) SB C (25.2) A (1.6) - C (25.1) A (3.2) - Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave Side Street Stop EB - A (3.2) A (2.2) A (3.5) - A (3.7) A (2.3) A (4.7) WB A (3.9) A (0.8) - A (5.9) A (1.3) - NB B (10.3) - - C (17.1) A (8.2) - SB - - - - - - Park Place Blvd & 16th St W Signal EB C (30.9) C (32.1) B (12.4) B (15.5) D (37.6) D (35.3) C (23.6) C (22.0) WB D (39.1) D (43.9) A (4.7) D (47.9) D (47.4) A (6.0) NB D (43.3) A (8.9) A (3.1) E (55.2) C (21.8) A (5.1) SB D (36.4) B (10.0) A (3.5) C (33.8) B (16.0) A (6.2) Utica Ave & 16th St W All-Way Stop EB A (5.1) - A (4.8) A (1.9) A (6.1) - A (4.6) A (2.5) WB - - - - - - NB A (4.7) A (0.9) - A (5.4) A (2.8) - SB - A (4.2) A (4.1) - A (2.5) A (4.9) Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Signal EB D (35.8) D (38.2) B (10.3) B (18.9) D (40.8) D (49.1) B (15.6) C (24.6) WB D (37.3) B (14.4) A (4.1) D (42.1) D (53.4) A (5.4) NB D (40.6) B (14.3) A (7.1) D (47.0) B (17.5) A (7.0) SB D (38.2) A (8.0) A (3.3) D (47.6) B (13.7) A (4.2) Park Place & Cedar Lake Rd Signal EB B (19.3) B (19.1) A (2.0) B (16.3) C (22.9) C (26.6) A (2.3) C (21.0) WB B (19.9) C (23.3) A (2.2) C (24.5) C (28.1) A (2.7) NB C (23.1) C (22.0) A (4.4) C (30.2) C (26.7) A (5.1) SB C (24.7) C (27.6) A (1.7) C (29.5) C (29.5) A (2.4) Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S Side Street Stop EB A (4.4) A (1.0) - A (6.0) A (4.5) A (1.4) - A (7.3) WB - A (1.0) A (0.5) - A (1.1) A (0.4) NB - - - - - - SB C (18.7) A (4.4) A (6.8) C (21.4) A (6.1) A (8.7) Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S All-Way Stop EB A (8.8) A (6.1) A (3.3) A (5.9) A (9.0) B (10.4) A (6.0) A (7.4) WB A (4.8) A (5.1) A (5.2) A (6.9) A (5.0) A (3.4) NB A (8.2) A (8.0) A (2.8) A (9.5) B (10.0) A (3.0) SB A (6.1) A (9.6) A (4.6) A (7.7) B (10.5) A (5.4) Based on the Existing Year (2024) capacity analysis, all intersection movements currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the northbound left turn at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W. It is worth noting that this level of delay does not account for nearby locations outside of the study network such as the effects of congestion along Highway 100 or Interstate 394. Delays City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 123 15 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 shown in this report are the estimated delays directly caused by the study intersections but could give the misconception of better operations than actually occur if operational issues occur from nearby ramps/intersection outside of the scope of this project. Based on the SimTraffic queueing results, the following movements are anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths which exceed their allotted storage: Southbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Wayzata Boulevard (AM & PM) Eastbound through/right at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive (AM & PM) Northbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Cedar Lake Road (PM) Most of these instances see 95th percentile queues exceed their storage bays by a small amount, with the exception being the eastbound through/right lane at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive which is anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths of about 165’ during the PM peak compared to only about 100’ of storage length. Based on the surroundings of the Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive intersection, a turn lane extension is not possible with the existing right of way. Queues of this length are not anticipated to impact the nearest intersection to the west which is located 250’ from Park Place Boulevard. OPENING YEAR (2029) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS A capacity analysis was performed for Opening Year (2029) No-Build conditions to develop baseline operating conditions for the opening year. The study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry and intersection control as summarized in Exhibit 2. Signal timings were not modified from the existing conditions but should be considered to account for the background traffic. The Opening Year (2029) No- Build traffic volumes include background growth and the buildout of the remaining West End AUAR area. The traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit 6. The results of the Opening Year (2029) No-Build traffic analysis are provided in Table 6. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 124 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 16 Table 6 – Opening Year (2029) No-Build Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Signal EB - - - B (15.6) - - - B (12.4) WB D (45.9) A (1.3) C (23.0) 51.3 (D) - C (21.7) NB - C (20.5) B (18.0) - A (10.0) A (9.3) SB C (28.5) A (4.0) - C (22.8) A (3.6) - Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave Side Street Stop EB - A (3.1) A (2.4) A (3.6) - A (3.9) A (2.5) A (6.6) WB A (3.9) A (0.6) - A (4.1) A (0.9) - NB B (11.1) A (6.6) - C (24.4) A (8.1) - SB - - - - - - Park Place Blvd & 16th St W Signal EB C (31.0) C (30.5) B (13.0) C (22.0) D (38.5) D (38.0) C (21.2) C (22.2) WB D (38.4) D (43.7) A (4.8) D (46.1) D (46.3) A (8.6) NB D (51.6) C (29.3) A (8.2) E (56.9) C (23.9) A (5.3) SB D (45.9) B (11.8) A (4.4) C (32.3) B (15.2) A (5.8) Utica Ave & 16th St W All-Way Stop EB A (6.7) - A (8.1) A (3.4) A (7.6) - A (5.2) A (4.4) WB - - - - - - NB A (5.6) A (1.3) - A (8.4) A (6.1) - SB - A (4.7) A (4.9) - A (3.6) A (5.1) Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Signal EB C (34.2) D (40.5) B (11.8) B (19.0) D (43.0) D (46.2) B (17.5) C (25.5) WB C (28.6) A (1.9) A (3.3) D (43.8) D (48.1) A (6.9) NB D (39.9) B (16.5) A (9.4) D (47.5) B (19.8) A (7.8) SB D (43.8) C (21.3) A (8.3) D (46.3) B (14.3) A (4.3) Park Place & Cedar Lake Rd Signal EB B (19.8) C (20.2) A (1.9) B (17.1) C (24.5) C (27.6) A (3.0) C (22.4) WB C (20.8) C (25.5) A (2.6) C (23.1) C (31.2) A (3.2) NB C (23.7) C (23.3) A (6.1) C (30.0) C (29.0) A (6.5) SB C (26.8) C (27.6) A (2.5) C (32.4) C (32.6) A (2.5) Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S Side Street Stop EB A (4.8) A (1.0) - A (6.3) A (4.7) A (1.4) - A (8.8) WB - A (1.2) A (0.5) - A (1.1) A (0.4) NB - - - - - - SB C (19.8) A (5.2) A (6.9) C (24.1) A (8.8) B (11.2) Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S All-Way Stop EB B (14.6) A (0.0) A (5.0) A (9.0) B (11.2) B (11.6) A (8.1) B (10.1) WB A (6.6) A (6.5) A (4.8) B (10.6) A (5.9) A (2.5) NB B (10.2) B (10.6) A (3.6) B (13.5) B (14.1) A (3.5) SB A (7.3) B (12.7) A (4.9) A (8.2) B (14.9) A (7.4) Based on the Opening Year (2029) No-Build capacity analysis, all intersection movements are anticipated operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the northbound left turn at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W which is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 125 17 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 Based on the SimTraffic queueing results, the following movements are anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths which exceed their allotted storage: Southbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Wayzata Boulevard (AM & PM) Southbound right at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W (PM) Eastbound through/right at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive (AM & PM) Northbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Cedar Lake Road (PM) Most of these instances see 95th percentile queues exceed their storage bays by a small amount, with the exception being the eastbound through/right lane at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive which is anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths of about 165’ during the PM peak compared to only about 100’ of storage length. Based on the surroundings of the Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive intersection, a turn lane extension is not possible with the existing right of way. OPENING YEAR (2029) BUILD CONDITIONS Capacity analysis was conducted for the Opening Year (2029) Build conditions to determine the near-term effects of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway network. The Opening Year (2029) Build traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 10. The analysis was conducted using the Existing geometry and intersection control as shown in Exhibit 2. Signal timings were not modified from the Existing (2024) conditions but should be considered to account for changes to the traffic patterns caused by the development and background growth. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 7. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 126 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 18 Table 7 – Opening Year (2029) Build Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Signal EB - - - B (10.1) - - - B (12.1) WB D (43.2) A (0.3) C (24.2) D (51.3) - C (21.3) NB - A (5.1) A (4.1) - B (10.0) A (9.8) SB C (25.5) A (2.8) - C (24.6) A (3.7) - Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave Side Street Stop EB - A (3.0) A (2.4) A (3.6) - A (3.3) A (1.8) A (6.6) WB A (4.1) A (0.6) - A (5.6) A (1.3) - NB B (11.7) A (5.7) - D (25.3) A (7.7) - SB - - - - - - Park Place Blvd & 16th St W Signal EB C (29.0) C (34.1) B (14.2) B (18.7) D (38.6) D (38.5) C (23.8) C (22.2) WB D (39.6) D (49.3) A (5.2) D (43.0) D (45.6) A (8.3) NB D (43.8) B (10.8) A (4.1) E (62.2) C (23.4) A (5.7) SB D (44.5) B (12.7) A (4.0) C (33.6) B (16.1) A (6.2) Utica Ave & 16th St W All-Way Stop EB A (5.5) - A (6.6) A (3.1) A (7.9) - A (5.4) A (4.5) WB - - - - - - NB A (5.2) A (1.3) - A (8.0) A (6.3) - SB - A (4.7) A (4.5) - A (4.5) A (5.8) Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Signal EB C (31.4) D (44.9) B (13.1) B (18.5) D (43.7) D (54.4) B (19.8) C (25.4) WB D (35.8) C (34.8) A (5.9) D (49.3) D (46.0) A (6.0) NB D (36.3) B (14.8) A (6.0) D (43.6) B (18.5) A (5.2) SB C (29.5) A (9.2) A (3.7) D (38.9) B (13.8) A (4.1) Park Place & Cedar Lake Rd Signal EB C (22.6) C (24.9) A (2.6) B (18.4) C (26.2) C (29.9) A (2.7) C (23.0) WB C (20.9) C (26.1) A (2.6) C (25.5) C (31.0) A (3.2) NB C (26.9) C (26.3) A (7.2) C (31.8) C (31.0) A (9.3) SB C (27.2) C (25.7) A (1.0) C (32.6) C (29.5) A (1.5) Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S Side Street Stop EB A (4.9) A (1.1) - A (6.7) A (5.7) A (1.6) - A (9.0) WB - A (1.3) A (0.5) - A (0.9) A (0.5) NB - - - - - - SB C (21.9) A (5.3) A (7.3) D (26.4) A (9.4) B (10.6) Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S All-Way Stop EB C (17.9) B (14.4) A (6.6) B (10.8) B (13.8) B (14.0) B (10.0) B (13.2) WB A (5.5) A (7.3) A (5.4) B (13.9) A (7.2) A (6.2) NB B (11.9) B (11.4) A (4.5) C (18.9) C (18.9) A (8.6) SB A (6.8) B (14.3) A (5.2) B (11.2) C (23.7) A (8.4) Parkdale Dr & S Center Access Side Street Stop EB A (7.9) A (3.1) - A (2.5) A (8.3) A (3.1) - A (2.6) WB - A (0.2) A (0.1) - A (0.3) A (0.1) NB - - - - - - SB B (10.7) - A (5.9) C (19.4) - A (8.8) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 127 19 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Park Place Blvd & W Access Side Street Stop EB - - - A (3.0) - - - A (2.9) WB - - A (8.0) - - A (7.1) NB - A (3.9) A (3.6) - A (4.2) A (4.4) SB - A (0.9) - - A (1.5) - Gamble Drive & N Center Access Side Street Stop EB A (2.0) A (0.8) A (0.9) A (2.5) A (3.5) A (0.9) A (0.9) A (2.3) WB A (3.9) A (0.1) A (0.0) A (2.0) A (0.2) A (0.1) NB B (12.1) - A (8.2) B (10.6) - A (4.4) SB A (9.2) - A (4.3) B (14.7) - A (5.5) With the addition of site-generated traffic, the study area intersections are anticipated to see minimal increases in delay. All movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the northbound left turn movement at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W which operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Based on the SimTraffic queueing results, the following movements are anticipated to see 95 th percentile queue lengths which exceed their allotted storage: Southbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Wayzata Boulevard (AM & PM) Southbound right at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W (PM) Eastbound through/right at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive (AM & PM) Northbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Cedar Lake Road (PM) Most of these instances see 95th percentile queues exceed their storage bays by a small amount, with the exception being the eastbound through/right lane at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive which is anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths of about 180’ during the PM peak compared to only about 100’ of storage length. Based on the surroundings of the Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive intersection, a turn lane extension is not possible with the existing right of way. If possible, turn lane extensions should be considered for the southbound left turn lanes at Park Place Boulevard & Wayzata Boulevard, the southbound right turn lane at Park Place Boulevard & 16 th Street W, and the northbound left turn lane at Park Place Boulevard & Cedar Lake Road. Due to the added traffic of the proposed development, the westbound left turn movement at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive is anticipated to be nearing its capacity. It is recommended that the corridor should be retimed as the development occurs to account for the changes in traffic patterns at the study intersections and negate the increases in delay and queueing that is caused by the additional traffic. DESIGN YEAR (2045) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS A capacity analysis was performed for Design Year (2045) No-Build conditions to develop baseline operating conditions for the design year. As was done for the Opening Year (2029) No-Build conditions analysis, the study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry and intersection control as summarized in Exhibit 2. Signal timings were not modified for this analysis. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 128 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 20 The Design Year (2045) No-Build traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit 7. The results of the analysis are provided below in Table 8. Table 8 – Design Year (2045) No-Build Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Signal EB - - - B (16.4) - - - B (12.7) WB D (51.0) A (0.6) C (25.7) D (51.4) - C (22.2) NB - B (19.9) B (18.4) - B (10.3) A (9.9) SB C (30.9) A (4.3) - C (24.2) A (3.9) - Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave Side Street Stop EB - A (3.3) A (2.8) A (3.9) - A (4.2) A (3.1) A (9.0) WB A (5.4) A (0.9) - A (5.5) A (1.5) - NB B (11.1) A (5.8) - E (36.3) A (9.4) - SB - - - - - - Park Place Blvd & 16th St W Signal EB C (29.4) D (35.1) B (13.8) C (23.2) D (39.1) D (37.6) C (21.5) C (22.5) WB D (35.1) D (41.8) A (4.5) D (49.1) D (54.7) A (8.1) NB D (54.2) C (30.1) A (8.8) E (59.4) C (23.4) A (5.3) SB D (48.8) B (12.1) A (4.5) C (33.6) B (15.1) A (6.5) Utica Ave & 16th St W All-Way Stop EB A (6.1) - A (8.4) A (3.4) A (7.9) - A (5.5) A (4.7) WB - - - - - - NB A (5.2) A (1.2) - A (9.0) A (6.5) - SB - A (5.0) A (5.1) - A (4.1) A (6.4) Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Signal EB D (36.1) D (38.4) B (13.2) C (20.0) D (42.8) D (51.2) B (18.6) C (26.5) WB C (30.5) A (2.0) A (4.1) D (47.4) D (47.9) A (6.0) NB D (38.7) B (18.4) A (9.0) D (45.5) C (21.2) A (8.0) SB D (42.7) C (22.7) A (8.6) D (50.3) B (15.7) A (4.5) Park Place & Cedar Lake Rd Signal EB C (20.9) C (23.4) A (2.3) B (18.0) C (26.8) C (30.8) A (2.9) C (24.7) WB C (21.3) C (27.2) A (2.9) C (25.2) C (33.9) A (3.4) NB C (26.6) C (23.8) A (6.2) C (34.7) C (29.7) A (6.3) SB C (27.2) C (26.1) A (2.5) D (36.2) C (34.9) A (2.7) Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S Side Street Stop EB A (4.5) A (1.3) - A (7.6) A (5.3) A (1.4) - A (9.1) WB - A (1.2) A (0.5) - A (1.0) A (0.4) NB - - - - - - SB C (24.0) A (6.4) A (8.7) D (26.2) A (9.9) B (11.1) Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S All-Way Stop EB C (19.7) B (10.5) A (8.7) B (12.5) B (14.2) C (19.8) B (10.6) B (12.8) WB B (10.3) A (6.5) A (5.0) B (12.9) A (6.8) A (4.1) NB B (11.7) B (11.6) A (3.5) C (17.0) C (16.1) A (9.1) SB B (10.0) C (18.5) A (5.0) A (9.0) C (18.5) A (8.6) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 129 21 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 With the addition of long-term background growth, the study intersections are anticipated to continue operating at LOS C or better, with nearly all movements operating at LOS D or better. The following movements are anticipated to operate at LOS E: Westbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Wayzata Boulevard Northbound Left at Wayzata Boulevard & Utica Avenue Northbound left at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W All of these movements are anticipated to be near the threshold for LOS E and are not expected to pose serious operational issues. The overall intersection operations are therefore acceptable. Based on the SimTraffic queueing results, the following movements are anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths which exceed their allotted storage: Southbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Wayzata Boulevard (AM & PM) Southbound right at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W (PM) Eastbound through/right at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive (AM & PM) Northbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Cedar Lake Road (PM) Most of these instances see 95th percentile queues exceed their storage bays by a small amount, with the exception being the eastbound through/right lane at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive which is anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths of about 195’ during the PM peak compared to only about 100’ of storage length. Note that the northbound approach at Quentin Avenue and Old Cedar Lake Road is anticipated to see 200’ queues during the PM peak hour and is getting closer to its capacity during this time, with a volume- to-capacity ratio of 0.78. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D. DESIGN YEAR (2045) BUILD CONDITIONS A capacity analysis was conducted for the Design Year (2045) build conditions to determine the long-term effects of the full development on the adjacent roadway network. The Design Year (2045) Build scenario traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 13. The results of the analysis are provided below in Table 9. Existing (2024) intersection control and geometry was assumed for the analysis, as shown in Exhibit 2. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 130 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 22 Table 9 – Design Year (2045) Build Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Signal EB - - - A (9.5) - - - B (12.3) WB D (46.8) A (0.5) C (20.9) D (49.3) - C (21.1) NB - A (5.2) A (5.0) - B (10.3) B (11.0) SB C (25.0) A (3.4) - C (23.9) A (4.5) - Wayzata Blvd & Utica Ave Side Street Stop EB - A (2.9) A (2.5) A (3.5) - A (4.0) A (2.5) B (10.1) WB A (4.1) A (0.8) - A (6.0) A (1.8) - NB B (10.6) A (5.7) - E (43.3) A (9.5) - SB - - - - - - Park Place Blvd & 16th St W Signal EB C (31.4) C (34.7) B (17.2) B (18.1) D (38.3) D (36.1) C (24.4) C (25.6) WB D (39.3) D (42.6) A (5.3) D (48.2) D (50.8) A (8.8) NB D (37.5) B (10.8) A (4.3) E (65.3) D (38.4) A (7.4) SB D (44.2) B (13.3) A (4.4) C (33.1) B (16.7) A (6.6) Utica Ave & 16th St W All-Way Stop EB A (6.2) - A (6.4) A (3.0) A (9.4) - A (5.2) A (4.8) WB - - - - - - NB A (5.5) A (1.3) - A (8.5) A (6.4) - SB - A (4.6) A (4.6) - A (4.3) A (6.1) Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Signal EB C (33.8) D (42.4) B (12.7) B (19.6) D (53.0) E (62.3) C (27.7) C (29.5) WB D (36.6) C (34.2) A (5.4) D (50.0) D (48.0) A (8.8) NB D (36.2) B (17.0) A (8.0) D (52.1) C (22.8) A (5.7) SB C (29.1) B (10.6) A (3.6) D (39.0) B (16.8) A (4.6) Park Place & Cedar Lake Rd Signal EB C (26.7) C (27.7) A (3.0) C (21.8) C (27.5) D (35.3) A (4.2) C (27.8) WB C (25.6) C (29.6) A (3.4) C (28.0) C (34.4) A (4.4) NB C (29.1) C (32.1) B (12.5) C (32.6) C (34.4) B (14.1) SB C (29.2) C (28.0) A (1.1) D (44.0) D (38.8) A (2.1) Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S Side Street Stop EB A (7.0) A (1.3) - A (9.6) D (31.1) A (7.4) - B (17.1) WB - A (1.2) A (0.6) - A (2.9) A (2.7) NB - - - - - - SB D (29.9) A (7.5) B (11.1) D (29.5) A (9.5) B (11.8) Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave S All-Way Stop EB E (41.9) A (0.0) C (20.5) D (25.6) C (22.9) D (25.0) C (15.8) D (26.8) WB B (12.0) A (7.2) A (5.4) C (21.0) B (11.1) A (5.9) NB C (21.0) C (20.1) B (11.9) F (52.7) F (51.4) E (39.0) SB B (13.0) D (28.4) A (6.1) C (24.4) E (36.5) B (12.3) Parkdale Dr & SE Access Side Street Stop EB A (8.2) A (0.7) - A (1.1) A (6.6) A (0.6) - A (1.5) WB - A (0.6) A (0.4) - A (0.3) A (0.2) NB - - - - - - SB B (14.5) - A (5.6) C (22.4) - B (10.3) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 131 23 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Parkdale Dr & S Center Access Side Street Stop EB A (9.1) A (3.6) - A (3.6) B (11.9) A (4.2) - A (4.4) WB - A (0.5) A (0.4) - A (0.4) A (0.3) NB - - - - - - SB C (19.5) - A (7.7) D (32.2) - B (14.2) Park Place Blvd & W Access Side Street Stop EB - - - A (3.2) - - - A (3.7) WB - - A (9.9) - - B (10.5) NB - A (4.2) A (4.4) - A (4.3) A (4.8) SB - A (1.0) - - A (2.5) - Gamble Drive & N Center Access Side Street Stop EB A (2.3) A (1.0) A (1.2) A (3.2) A (5.0) A (1.2) A (0.9) A (4.5) WB A (7.2) A (0.8) A (0.1) A (3.6) A (0.4) A (0.3) NB C (17.3) - B (10.2) C (19.6) - B (11.8) SB A (7.4) - A (4.3) B (13.8) - A (8.3) Gamble Drive & NE Access Side Street Stop EB - A (0.2) A (0.3) A (0.5) - A (0.2) A (0.4) A (1.4) WB A (4.2) A (0.2) - A (1.8) A (0.1) - NB A (9.4) - A (5.1) A (9.0) - A (5.4) SB - - - - - - With the addition of site traffic and long-term background growth, the study area intersections are anticipated see a significant increase in delay, with the intersection of Old Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue anticipated to see particularly poor operations, with the northbound left and through movements both operating at LOS F with over 50s of delay. Restripe southbound approach to include a separated southbound right turn lane Install a dedicated northbound left turn lane Based on the results of this analysis, these mitigation recommendations remain valid and should be installed to improve the traffic flow through the intersection in the long-term. The SimTraffic Reports are included in Appendix D. Based on the SimTraffic queueing results, the following movements are anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths which exceed their allotted storage: Southbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Wayzata Boulevard (AM & PM) Southbound right at Park Place Boulevard & 16th Street W (PM) Eastbound through/right at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive (AM & PM) Northbound left at Park Place Boulevard & Cedar Lake Road (AM & PM) Northbound right at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive (PM) Most of these instances see 95th percentile queues exceed their storage bays by a small amount, with the major exception being the eastbound through/right lane at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive which is anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths of about 180’ during the PM peak compared to only about 100’ of storage length. As a direct result of the proposed development, the northbound right and westbound City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 132 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 24 left turn movements at Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive are expected to be at or nearing their storage capacity. Note that the northbound approach at Quentin Avenue and Old Cedar Lake Road is anticipated to see 380’ queues during the PM peak hour which would extend into the Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue intersection. The northbound approach at Quentin Avenue and Old Cedar Lake Road is anticipated to see the volume-to-capacity ratio increase to 1.02 (from 0.78 in the No-Build scenario) thus causing a significant increase in delay with the approach is over capacity. Figure 1 below shows how northbound queues at Old Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue can block eastbound left turning vehicles at Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue during busy periods. Figure 1 – Quentin Avenue Queueing This screen capture from SimTraffic shows how northbound left turning vehicles at Old Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue can create queues which force delays for the eastbound left turn movement at Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue to the south. Left turning vehicles are indicated in blue. DESIGN YEAR (2045) BUILD MITIGATED CONDITIONS A capacity analysis at the Park Place & Gamble Drive intersection was conducted with the proposed mitigation discussed in the previous section to ensure the improvements create satisfactory traffic conditions at the intersection. Results of the capacity analysis is given below in Table 10. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 133 25 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 Table 10 – Design Year (2045) Build Mitigated Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Ave S Side Street Stop EB 5.5 (A) 1.1 (A) - A (9.8) 18.2 (C) 6.1 (A) - B (13.8) WB - 1.2 (A) 0.5 (A) - 1.4 (A) 1.1 (A) NB - - - - - - SB 31.9 (D) 7.9 (A) 11.6 (B) 37.8 (E) 9.9 (A) 11.6 (B) Old Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Ave S All Way Stop EB 31.9 (D) 40.9 (E) 16.8 (C) 18.9 (C) 18.8 (C) 18.3 (C) 9.7 (A) 21.1 (C) WB 13.9 (B) 7.7 (A) 6.6 (A) 21.7 (C) 8.4 (A) 3.1 (A) NB 8.8 (A) 10.3 (B) 2.8 (A) 44.2 (E) 18.0 (C) 7.5 (A) SB 16.6 (C) 30.6 (D) 5.3 (A) 14.5 (B) 43.0 (E) 12.9 (B) Results of the analysis indicate the intersection would experience significantly improved traffic operations as a result of the improvement, particularly during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Old Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue would improve from LOS D to LOS C during the PM peak hour with all movements besides the northbound left, eastbound through, and southbound through operating at LOS D or better and none operating at LOS F. The southbound left turn movement at Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The northbound left turn movement is anticipated to see 95th percentile queue lengths of 300’, and thus the turn lane should be as long as is feasible since the Cedar Lake Road intersection is about 350’ feet from the intersection. A two-lane section for Quentin Avenue northbound between Cedar Lake Road S and Old Cedar Lake Road S should be considered to separate left turns from through movements and right turns. Though multiple movements are expected to operate at LOS E, no movements are anticipated to experience excessive delays (LOS F) or major queueing issues and therefore the operations are acceptable given the high levels of traffic present in this scenario. TURN LANE WARRANTS Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the site access points to determine if left or right turn lanes will be warranted based on NCHRP Report 745 methodologies. Turn lane warrants were analyzed for the build conditions. Based on the analysis, the following movements are anticipated to meet the turn lane warrants: Westbound left at the southwest access point on Parkdale Drive Westbound left at the southeast access point on Parkdale Drive Turn Lane warrant sheets are included in Appendix E. Turn Lane warrants along Gamble Drive were not met due to the 20-mph speed limit along the roadway. However, both accesses along Parkdale Drive are anticipated to meet the warrant for left turn lanes. A left turn lane at the southwest access point is warranted under Opening Year (2029) Build conditions, while the southeast access point is warranted under Design Year (2045) Build conditions (when the access point is opened). Parkdale Drive is a four-lane undivided roadway and there may not be right of way to accommodate the left turn lanes into the site accesses. While the existing geometry does not have operational deficiencies at the City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 134 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 26 site accesses analyzed, it is anticipated that at the proposed site accesses on Parkdale Drive would operate acceptably as a single westbound through lane, a two way left turn lane, and two east bound through lanes. However, with the number of existing accesses along Parkdale Drive between Hwy 100 and Pack Place Boulevard, a more holistic approach to the corridor would need to be considered. As mentioned, a northbound right turn lane at the right-in/right-out along Park Place Boulevard is will be provided per the current plans. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Hempel Real Estate is proposing a redevelopment of the West End Office Park which would replace the four existing office buildings located at the southeast corner of Park Place Boulevard & Gamble Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The proposed development is a 6-story mixed-use residential building with a supermarket, coffee shop, and strip retail on the ground floor. This development would occupy about 1/4 th of the site leaving room for three (3) additional phases of redevelopment. The full redevelopment of the site was analyzed for this traffic analysis, with the following subdevelopments included: Phase 1 (2029): Mid-Rise Residential with ground floor retail (including supermarket and coffee shop). Phase 2 (2029): Mid-Rise Residential with ground floor retail (including fast-food restaurant with drive-through). Phase 3 (2045): High-Rise Office with ground floor retail. Phase 4 (2045): High-Rise Residential with ground floor retail. Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development are anticipated to generate 6,009 external site trips on a typical weekday, including 482 during the AM peak hour (222 entering and 261 exiting), and 519 in the PM peak hour (275 entering and 244 exiting). Phases 3 and 4 of the proposed development are anticipated to generate 4,370 external site trips on a typical weekday, including 494 during the AM peak hour (396 entering and 98 exiting), and 519 in the PM peak hour (136 entering and 383 exiting). In total, the four development phases will add 851 trips to the network during the AM peak hour (516 entering and 336 exiting) and 926 during the PM peak hour (385 entering and 542 exiting). A capacity analysis was conducted at the study intersections for three study years: Existing (2024), Opening Year [Phases 1 and 2] (2029), and a Design Year (2045). For the Opening Year and Design Year, build scenario and no-build scenarios were analyzed, with build scenario including the four (4) phase redevelopment following the timeline listed above, and the no-build scenario excluding the redevelopment. Based on the results of the capacity analysis, all operations at the study intersections are generally acceptable under Existing (2024) conditions. Some movements are anticipated to see higher levels of delay (such as LOS E), but delays are not currently excessive. Addition of background growth and development is anticipated to have a minimal impact on the traffic operations and all movements are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS under Opening Year (2029) No-Build and Design Year (2045) No-Build conditions. The addition of development traffic is anticipated to have some impact on traffic operations at the nearby intersections and some mitigations may be required. The following mitigation is recommended based on the results of the analysis and review of the study area: City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 135 27 West End Office Park – St. Louis Park, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ November 2024 Phase 1 & 2 – Consider traffic calming measures within the site to ensure that the north-south roadway connection is not used as a route to bypass Park Place Boulevard (developer mitigation— no effect on public right of way). Phase 2 & 4 – Westbound left turn lanes were found to meet warrants at the two access points along Parkdale Drive. It is recommended to evaluate the Parkdale Drive corridor between Park Place Boulevard and Hwy 100 to determine if there is a holistic approach to accommodate left turns at the site and adject properties access points. Phase 4 – Relocate the southeast access on Parkdale Drive or consolidate access with the adjacent property because the proposed access point is shown approximately 50 feet away from the existing access for the adjacent property (developer mitigation—no effect on public right of way). Phase 3 & 4 – Restripe the southbound approach of Quentin Avenue & Old Cedar Lake Road to include a right turn lane. (Originally proposed in the West End AUAR). Phase 3 & 4 – Install a dedicated northbound left turn lane at Quentin Avenue & Old Cedar Lake Road. If possible, this turn lane should include 300’ of storage. (Originally proposed in the West End AUAR). All Phases – Signal timings along the Park Place Boulevard corridor should be evaluated as the site phases are developed. With the addition of the mitigation measures listed above, the study intersections operate at an overall LOS D or better and no movements are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM or PM peak hours of the Design Year (2045) Build conditions. APPENDIX A. Exhibits B. Turning Movement Counts C. Proposed Site Plan D. SimTraffic Reports E. Turn Lane Warrant Sheets City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 136 A. Exhibits City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 137 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Loading Access Point Proposed Vehicle Access Point Phase 1 Area (2029) Phase 2 Area (2029) Phase 3 Area (2045) Phase 4 Area (2045) All access points full access except along Park Place Boulevard (which are RIRO). City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 138 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Study Intersection Existing Stop Control Existing Signal Control Channelized Right Turn City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 139 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING (2024) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LEVEL OF SERVICE WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Intersection LOS* (A-D / E / F) Approach Worst Movement LOS AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes *LOS Shown for PM peak hour; AM peak LOS generally equal or better. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 140 NOT TO SCALE 394 LEGEND Study Intersection IN% [OUT%] Traffic Distribution Global Distribution Background Development Site EXHIBIT 4 BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 141 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 5 BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT SITE TRIPS WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Trips Background Development Location City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 142 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 6 OPENING YEAR (2029) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LEVEL OF SERVICE WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Intersection LOS* (A-D / E / F) Approach Worst Movement LOS AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes *LOS Shown for PM peak hour; AM peak LOS generally equal or better. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 143 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 7 DESIGN YEAR (2045) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LEVEL OF SERVICE WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Intersection LOS* (A-D / E / F) Approach Worst Movement LOS AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes *LOS Shown for PM peak hour; AM peak LOS generally equal or better. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 144 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 8 PHASES 1 & 2 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access Point Loading Only Access Point IN% [OUT%] Traffic Distribution Global Distribution Phase 1 (2029) Location Phase 2 (2029) Location City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 145 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 9 TOTAL NEW SITE TRIPS (PHASES 1 & 2) WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access Point Loading Only Access Point AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Trips Phase 1 (2029) Location Phase 2 (2029) Location City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 146 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 10 OPENING YEAR (2029) BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LEVEL OF SERVICE WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Intersection LOS* (A-D / E / F) Approach Worst Movement LOS AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Trips Phase 1 (2029) Location Phase 2 (2029) Loaction *LOS Shown for PM peak hour; AM peak LOS generally equal or better. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 147 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 11 PHASES 3 & 4 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access Point Loading Only Access Point IN% [OUT%] Traffic Distribution Global Distribution Phase 3 (2045) Location Phase 4 (2045) Location City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 148 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 12 TOTAL NEW SITE TRIPS (PHASES 3 & 4) WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access Point AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Trips Phase 3 (2045) Location Phase 4 (2045) Location City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 149 NOT TO SCALE 394 EXHIBIT 13 DESIGN YEAR (2045) FULL BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEST END OFFICE PARK REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Intersection LOS* (A-D / E / F) Approach Worst Movement LOS AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volumes Phase 1 (2029) Location Phase 2 (2029) Loaction Phase 3 (2045) Location Phase 4 (2045) Location *LOS Shown for PM peak hour; AM peak LOS generally equal or better. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 150 B. Turning Movement Counts City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 151 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Cedar Lake Road Cedar Lake Road Quentein Avenue Eastbound Westbound Southbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 39 3 0 42 20 5 2 25 2 60 0 62 129 7:15 AM 54 7 0 61 10 17 3 27 8 94 0 102 190 7:30 AM 73 11 0 84 16 14 1 30 9 104 0 113 227 7:45 AM 52 20 0 72 17 17 1 34 24 133 0 157 263 Hourly Total 218 41 0 259 63 53 7 116 43 391 0 434 809 8:00 AM 48 31 0 79 37 42 2 79 53 136 0 189 347 8:15 AM 50 11 0 61 22 24 2 46 19 129 0 148 255 8:30 AM 66 24 0 90 21 20 2 41 15 154 0 169 300 8:45 AM 42 10 0 52 14 6 2 20 19 160 0 179 251 Hourly Total 206 76 0 282 94 92 8 186 106 579 0 685 1153 *** BREAK ***------------- 4:00 PM 93 22 0 115 14 17 1 31 17 141 0 158 304 4:15 PM 67 14 0 81 15 22 1 37 25 152 0 177 295 4:30 PM 93 26 0 119 14 10 2 24 20 141 0 161 304 4:45 PM 79 24 0 103 17 19 3 36 28 185 0 213 352 Hourly Total 332 86 0 418 60 68 7 128 90 619 0 709 1255 5:00 PM 76 21 0 97 18 13 8 31 25 145 0 170 298 5:15 PM 77 23 0 100 15 19 5 34 14 138 0 152 286 5:30 PM 77 18 0 95 13 26 1 39 16 146 0 162 296 5:45 PM 60 21 0 81 24 13 4 37 23 131 0 154 272 Hourly Total 290 83 0 373 70 71 18 141 78 560 0 638 1152 Grand Total 1046 286 0 1332 287 284 40 571 317 2149 0 2466 4369 Approach %78.5 21.5 -- 50.3 49.7 -- 12.9 87.1 --- Total %23.9 6.5 -30.5 6.6 6.5 -13.1 7.3 49.2 -56.4 - Lights 1033 284 -1317 282 278 -560 314 2111 -2425 4302 % Lights 98.8 99.3 -98.9 98.3 97.9 -98.1 99.1 98.2 -98.3 98.5 Buses 4 1 -5 4 4 -8 1 18 -19 32 % Buses 0.4 0.3 -0.4 1.4 1.4 -1.4 0.3 0.8 -0.8 0.7 Trucks 9 1 -10 1 2 -3 2 20 -22 35 % Trucks 0.9 0.3 -0.8 0.3 0.7 -0.5 0.6 0.9 -0.9 0.8 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---12 ---0 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk ------30.0 ------ Pedestrians --0 ---28 ---0 -- % Pedestrians ------70.0 ------ City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 152 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Quentein Avenue [SB] Out In Total 1311 2425 3736 8 19 27 11 22 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 1330 2466 3796 2111 314 0 18 1 0 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2149 317 0 R L P 6030032598Out5710038560In1174006101158TotalCedar Lake Road [WB]R2840024278T2870014282P4028120000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Out In Total Fake Approach [NB]Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total37102731003768In1317510001332Out23932221002436103349001046L2841100286T000000PTurning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 153 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:45 AM) Start Time Cedar Lake Road Cedar Lake Road Quentein Avenue Eastbound Westbound Southbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:45 AM 52 20 0 72 17 17 1 34 24 133 0 157 263 8:00 AM 48 31 0 79 37 42 2 79 53 136 0 189 347 8:15 AM 50 11 0 61 22 24 2 46 19 129 0 148 255 8:30 AM 66 24 0 90 21 20 2 41 15 154 0 169 300 Total 216 86 0 302 97 103 7 200 111 552 0 663 1165 Approach %71.5 28.5 -- 48.5 51.5 -- 16.7 83.3 --- Total %18.5 7.4 -25.9 8.3 8.8 -17.2 9.5 47.4 -56.9 - PHF 0.818 0.694 -0.839 0.655 0.613 -0.633 0.524 0.896 -0.877 0.839 Lights 211 86 -297 94 103 -197 111 544 -655 1149 % Lights 97.7 100.0 -98.3 96.9 100.0 -98.5 100.0 98.6 -98.8 98.6 Buses 1 0 -1 2 0 -2 0 2 -2 5 % Buses 0.5 0.0 -0.3 2.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.4 -0.3 0.4 Trucks 4 0 -4 1 0 -1 0 6 -6 11 % Trucks 1.9 0.0 -1.3 1.0 0.0 -0.5 0.0 1.1 -0.9 0.9 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---6 ---0 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk ------85.7 ------ Pedestrians --0 ---1 ---0 -- % Pedestrians ------14.3 ------ City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 154 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 7:45 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 8:45 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Quentein Avenue [SB] Out In Total 314 655 969 1 2 3 4 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 663 982 544 111 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 552 111 0 R L P 1970000197Out2000012197In3970012394TotalCedar Lake Road [WB]R1030000103T97001294P7160000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Out In Total Fake Approach [NB]Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total93551100951In2971400302Out63847006492111400216L86000086T000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 155 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM) Start Time Cedar Lake Road Cedar Lake Road Quentein Avenue Eastbound Westbound Southbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:00 PM 93 22 0 115 14 17 1 31 17 141 0 158 304 4:15 PM 67 14 0 81 15 22 1 37 25 152 0 177 295 4:30 PM 93 26 0 119 14 10 2 24 20 141 0 161 304 4:45 PM 79 24 0 103 17 19 3 36 28 185 0 213 352 Total 332 86 0 418 60 68 7 128 90 619 0 709 1255 Approach %79.4 20.6 -- 46.9 53.1 -- 12.7 87.3 --- Total %26.5 6.9 -33.3 4.8 5.4 -10.2 7.2 49.3 -56.5 - PHF 0.892 0.827 -0.878 0.882 0.773 -0.865 0.804 0.836 -0.832 0.891 Lights 328 86 -414 60 65 -125 88 606 -694 1233 % Lights 98.8 100.0 -99.0 100.0 95.6 -97.7 97.8 97.9 -97.9 98.2 Buses 1 0 -1 0 2 -2 1 11 -12 15 % Buses 0.3 0.0 -0.2 0.0 2.9 -1.6 1.1 1.8 -1.7 1.2 Trucks 3 0 -3 0 1 -1 1 2 -3 7 % Trucks 0.9 0.0 -0.7 0.0 1.5 -0.8 1.1 0.3 -0.4 0.6 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---0 ---0 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk ------0.0 ------ Pedestrians --0 ---7 ---0 -- % Pedestrians ------100.0 ------ City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 156 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:00 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Quentein Avenue [SB] Out In Total 393 694 1087 3 12 15 4 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 709 1109 606 88 0 11 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 619 90 0 R L P 1760011174Out1280012125In3040023299TotalCedar Lake Road [WB]R68001265T60000060P7700000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Out In Total Fake Approach [NB]Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total1080125001097In4141300418Out666112006793281300332L86000086T000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 157 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Old Cedar Lake Road Old Cedar Lake Road Quentin Avenue Quentin Avenue Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 38 1 72 0 111 2 1 1 0 4 36 4 0 0 40 0 5 13 0 18 173 7:15 AM 39 1 81 0 121 3 2 0 0 5 48 11 0 0 59 1 7 33 0 41 226 7:30 AM 65 2 108 0 175 0 1 0 0 1 72 5 0 0 77 0 7 50 0 57 310 7:45 AM 77 1 134 0 212 5 0 0 0 5 49 13 0 0 62 0 11 54 0 65 344 Hourly Total 219 5 395 0 619 10 4 1 0 15 205 33 0 0 238 1 30 150 0 181 1053 8:00 AM 81 1 193 0 275 2 1 1 0 4 67 20 2 0 89 0 14 6 0 20 388 8:15 AM 76 0 143 0 219 3 1 0 0 4 56 26 1 0 83 0 9 8 0 17 323 8:30 AM 89 0 159 0 248 1 5 0 0 6 62 19 0 0 81 1 9 14 0 24 359 8:45 AM 69 0 169 0 238 1 1 1 0 3 40 9 1 0 50 3 10 9 0 22 313 Hourly Total 315 1 664 0 980 7 8 2 0 17 225 74 4 0 303 4 42 37 0 83 1383 *** BREAK *** - - --- - - --- - - --- - - --- - 4:00 PM 43 2 141 0 186 1 1 0 0 2 91 21 2 0 114 0 13 33 0 46 348 4:15 PM 60 1 161 0 222 1 1 1 1 3 76 10 6 0 92 0 21 29 1 50 367 4:30 PM 50 1 151 0 202 1 3 0 1 4 76 25 6 0 107 0 17 35 0 52 365 4:45 PM 55 2 197 0 254 2 2 0 1 4 85 19 2 0 106 0 22 30 0 52 416 Hourly Total 208 6 650 0 864 5 7 1 3 13 328 75 16 0 419 0 73 127 1 200 1496 5:00 PM 51 3 162 0 216 1 0 0 0 1 77 12 1 0 90 2 18 32 0 52 359 5:15 PM 58 1 147 0 206 1 1 1 0 3 74 19 0 0 93 1 20 38 0 59 361 5:30 PM 63 4 143 0 210 1 1 1 0 3 83 15 2 0 100 2 12 28 0 42 355 5:45 PM 53 3 144 0 200 3 0 1 0 4 65 15 2 0 82 0 13 19 0 32 318 Hourly Total 225 11 596 0 832 6 2 3 0 11 299 61 5 0 365 5 63 117 0 185 1393 Grand Total 967 23 2305 0 3295 28 21 7 3 56 1057 243 25 0 1325 10 208 431 1 649 5325 Approach % 29.3 0.7 70.0 -- 50.0 37.5 12.5 -- 79.8 18.3 1.9 -- 1.5 32.0 66.4 -- - Total % 18.2 0.4 43.3 -61.9 0.5 0.4 0.1 -1.1 19.8 4.6 0.5 -24.9 0.2 3.9 8.1 -12.2 - Lights 959 21 2266 -3246 28 19 6 -53 1042 242 23 -1307 10 206 429 -645 5251 % Lights 99.2 91.3 98.3 -98.5 100.0 90.5 85.7 -94.6 98.6 99.6 92.0 -98.6 100.0 99.0 99.5 -99.4 98.6 Buses 3 2 19 -24 0 1 1 -2 6 1 1 -8 0 1 0 -1 35 % Buses 0.3 8.7 0.8 -0.7 0.0 4.8 14.3 -3.6 0.6 0.4 4.0 -0.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 -0.2 0.7 Trucks 5 0 20 -25 0 1 0 -1 9 0 1 -10 0 1 2 -3 39 % Trucks 0.5 0.0 0.9 -0.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 -1.8 0.9 0.0 4.0 -0.8 0.0 0.5 0.5 -0.5 0.7 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - --- - - -0.0 - - - --- - - -0.0 - - Pedestrians - - -0 - - - -3 - - - -0 - - - -1 - - % Pedestrians - - --- - - -100.0 - - - --- - - -100.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 158 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Quentin Avenue [SB] Out In Total 1207 645 1852 5 1 6 5 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1217 649 1866 429 206 10 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 431 208 10 1 R T L P 58001354Out56001253In1140025107TotalOld Cedar Lake Road [WB]R700016T21001119L28000028P3300002500 1307 3807 20 8 28 21 10 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 2541 1325 3866 Out In Total Quentin Avenue [NB] L T R P 1042 242 23 0 6 1 1 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1057 243 25 0Old Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total47363137004804In32462425003295Out14907120015099593500967L21200023T22661920002305R000000PTurning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 159 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:45 AM) Start Time Old Cedar Lake Road Old Cedar Lake Road Quentin Avenue Quentin Avenue Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:45 AM 77 1 134 0 212 5 0 0 0 5 49 13 0 0 62 0 11 54 0 65 344 8:00 AM 81 1 193 0 275 2 1 1 0 4 67 20 2 0 89 0 14 6 0 20 388 8:15 AM 76 0 143 0 219 3 1 0 0 4 56 26 1 0 83 0 9 8 0 17 323 8:30 AM 89 0 159 0 248 1 5 0 0 6 62 19 0 0 81 1 9 14 0 24 359 Total 323 2 629 0 954 11 7 1 0 19 234 78 3 0 315 1 43 82 0 126 1414 Approach % 33.9 0.2 65.9 -- 57.9 36.8 5.3 -- 74.3 24.8 1.0 -- 0.8 34.1 65.1 -- - Total % 22.8 0.1 44.5 -67.5 0.8 0.5 0.1 -1.3 16.5 5.5 0.2 -22.3 0.1 3.0 5.8 -8.9 - PHF 0.907 0.500 0.815 -0.867 0.550 0.350 0.250 -0.792 0.873 0.750 0.375 -0.885 0.250 0.768 0.380 -0.485 0.911 Lights 319 1 621 -941 11 6 1 -18 230 78 3 -311 1 43 82 -126 1396 % Lights 98.8 50.0 98.7 -98.6 100.0 85.7 100.0 -94.7 98.3 100.0 100.0 -98.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 98.7 Buses 1 1 1 -3 0 1 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -0 5 % Buses 0.3 50.0 0.2 -0.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 -5.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.4 Trucks 3 0 7 -10 0 0 0 -0 3 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -0 13 % Trucks 0.9 0.0 1.1 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.9 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - --- - - --- - - --- - - --- - Pedestrians - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - % Pedestrians - - --- - - --- - - --- - - --- - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 160 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 7:45 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 8:45 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Quentin Avenue [SB] Out In Total 398 126 524 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 402 126 528 82 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 43 1 0 R T L P 600015Out19000118In25000223TotalOld Cedar Lake Road [WB]R100001T700016L11000011P000000675 311 986 1 1 2 7 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 683 315 998 Out In Total Quentin Avenue [NB] L T R P 230 78 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234 78 3 0Old Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total1259513001277In94131000954Out31823003233191300323L110002T6211700629R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 161 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time Old Cedar Lake Road Old Cedar Lake Road Quentin Avenue Quentin Avenue Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 60 1 161 0 222 1 1 1 1 3 76 10 6 0 92 0 21 29 1 50 367 4:30 PM 50 1 151 0 202 1 3 0 1 4 76 25 6 0 107 0 17 35 0 52 365 4:45 PM 55 2 197 0 254 2 2 0 1 4 85 19 2 0 106 0 22 30 0 52 416 5:00 PM 51 3 162 0 216 1 0 0 0 1 77 12 1 0 90 2 18 32 0 52 359 Total 216 7 671 0 894 5 6 1 3 12 314 66 15 0 395 2 78 126 1 206 1507 Approach % 24.2 0.8 75.1 -- 41.7 50.0 8.3 -- 79.5 16.7 3.8 -- 1.0 37.9 61.2 -- - Total % 14.3 0.5 44.5 -59.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 -0.8 20.8 4.4 1.0 -26.2 0.1 5.2 8.4 -13.7 - PHF 0.900 0.583 0.852 -0.880 0.625 0.500 0.250 -0.750 0.924 0.660 0.625 -0.923 0.250 0.886 0.900 -0.990 0.906 Lights 214 7 660 -881 5 5 1 -11 310 66 13 -389 2 76 125 -203 1484 % Lights 99.1 100.0 98.4 -98.5 100.0 83.3 100.0 -91.7 98.7 100.0 86.7 -98.5 100.0 97.4 99.2 -98.5 98.5 Buses 2 0 9 -11 0 0 0 -0 1 0 1 -2 0 1 0 -1 14 % Buses 0.9 0.0 1.3 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.3 0.0 6.7 -0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 -0.5 0.9 Trucks 0 0 2 -2 0 1 0 -1 3 0 1 -4 0 1 1 -2 9 % Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.2 0.0 16.7 0.0 -8.3 1.0 0.0 6.7 -1.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 -1.0 0.6 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - --- - - -0.0 - - - --- - - -0.0 - - Pedestrians - - -0 - - - -3 - - - -0 - - - -1 - - % Pedestrians - - --- - - -100.0 - - - --- - - -100.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 162 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Old Cedar Lake Rd & Quentin Ave Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:15 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:15 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Quentin Avenue [SB] Out In Total 281 203 484 2 1 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 206 489 125 76 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 78 2 1 R T L P 24001122Out12001011In36002133TotalOld Cedar Lake Road [WB]R100001T600105L500005P330000741 389 1130 10 2 12 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 754 395 1149 Out In Total Quentin Avenue [NB] L T R P 310 66 13 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 66 15 0Old Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total1321127001340In88111200894Out44015004462142000216L700007T6609200671R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 163 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Gamble Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Gamble Drive Gamble Drive Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 2 0 4 0 6 11 4 15 0 30 14 29 18 0 61 17 33 15 0 65 162 7:15 AM 7 0 2 0 9 21 5 12 0 38 6 34 22 0 62 31 35 30 0 96 205 7:30 AM 6 0 0 0 6 26 3 11 0 40 13 26 24 0 63 35 35 31 0 101 210 7:45 AM 3 1 1 0 5 17 2 18 2 37 18 39 16 0 73 35 39 34 0 108 223 Hourly Total 18 1 7 0 26 75 14 56 2 145 51 128 80 0 259 118 142 110 0 370 800 8:00 AM 8 3 1 0 12 36 6 20 2 62 17 45 33 0 95 38 54 41 1 133 302 8:15 AM 16 2 4 0 22 33 8 29 1 70 19 43 34 0 96 40 40 51 0 131 319 8:30 AM 9 4 8 1 21 38 5 16 2 59 20 69 35 0 124 41 52 53 1 146 350 8:45 AM 7 2 2 1 11 40 4 28 1 72 17 55 33 0 105 57 40 48 0 145 333 Hourly Total 40 11 15 2 66 147 23 93 6 263 73 212 135 0 420 176 186 193 2 555 1304 *** BREAK *** - - --- - - --- - - --- - - --- - 4:00 PM 35 4 23 4 62 49 4 54 1 107 8 93 30 2 131 74 52 29 3 155 455 4:15 PM 38 5 19 0 62 45 5 57 1 107 12 91 34 3 137 59 56 53 1 168 474 4:30 PM 41 9 29 1 79 50 1 36 0 87 8 91 42 1 141 71 62 41 1 174 481 4:45 PM 43 10 19 2 72 38 7 53 0 98 6 67 28 0 101 66 68 39 2 173 444 Hourly Total 157 28 90 7 275 182 17 200 2 399 34 342 134 6 510 270 238 162 7 670 1854 5:00 PM 36 6 17 0 59 45 6 37 1 88 9 93 33 0 135 82 64 39 0 185 467 5:15 PM 39 8 10 3 57 41 7 51 3 99 3 91 33 1 127 79 67 35 0 181 464 5:30 PM 32 3 17 9 52 39 5 52 2 96 4 77 17 0 98 59 60 35 2 154 400 5:45 PM 15 5 20 1 40 34 5 53 0 92 2 61 34 0 97 68 55 23 0 146 375 Hourly Total 122 22 64 13 208 159 23 193 6 375 18 322 117 1 457 288 246 132 2 666 1706 Grand Total 337 62 176 22 575 563 77 542 16 1182 176 1004 466 7 1646 852 812 597 11 2261 5664 Approach % 58.6 10.8 30.6 -- 47.6 6.5 45.9 -- 10.7 61.0 28.3 -- 37.7 35.9 26.4 -- - Total % 5.9 1.1 3.1 -10.2 9.9 1.4 9.6 -20.9 3.1 17.7 8.2 -29.1 15.0 14.3 10.5 -39.9 - Lights 335 60 175 -570 561 75 538 -1174 173 990 462 -1625 842 786 595 -2223 5592 % Lights 99.4 96.8 99.4 -99.1 99.6 97.4 99.3 -99.3 98.3 98.6 99.1 -98.7 98.8 96.8 99.7 -98.3 98.7 Buses 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0 -1 1 10 0 -11 1 9 1 -11 23 % Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 -0.1 0.6 1.0 0.0 -0.7 0.1 1.1 0.2 -0.5 0.4 Trucks 2 2 1 -5 2 1 4 -7 2 4 4 -10 9 17 1 -27 49 % Trucks 0.6 3.2 0.6 -0.9 0.4 1.3 0.7 -0.6 1.1 0.4 0.9 -0.6 1.1 2.1 0.2 -1.2 0.9 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -2 - - - -3 - - - -1 - - - -1 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -9.1 - - - -18.8 - - - -14.3 - - - -9.1 - - Pedestrians - - -20 - - - -13 - - - -6 - - - -10 - - % Pedestrians - - -90.9 - - - -81.3 - - - -85.7 - - - -90.9 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 164 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Gamble Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 1522 1625 3147 9 11 20 20 10 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 1551 1646 3197 462 990 173 0 0 10 1 0 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 466 1004 176 7 R T L P 8500043843Out5750050570In142500931413TotalGamble Drive [WB]R1760010175T62002060L3370020335P222020001863 2223 4086 10 11 21 10 27 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 1883 2261 4144 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] L T R P 842 786 595 0 1 9 1 0 9 17 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 852 812 597 11Gamble Drive [EB]Total2538222002562In117417001182Out13641150013805610200563L75110077T5380400542R00031316PTurning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 165 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Gamble Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (8:00 AM) Start Time Gamble Drive Gamble Drive Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 8:00 AM 8 3 1 0 12 36 6 20 2 62 17 45 33 0 95 38 54 41 1 133 302 8:15 AM 16 2 4 0 22 33 8 29 1 70 19 43 34 0 96 40 40 51 0 131 319 8:30 AM 9 4 8 1 21 38 5 16 2 59 20 69 35 0 124 41 52 53 1 146 350 8:45 AM 7 2 2 1 11 40 4 28 1 72 17 55 33 0 105 57 40 48 0 145 333 Total 40 11 15 2 66 147 23 93 6 263 73 212 135 0 420 176 186 193 2 555 1304 Approach % 60.6 16.7 22.7 -- 55.9 8.7 35.4 -- 17.4 50.5 32.1 -- 31.7 33.5 34.8 -- - Total % 3.1 0.8 1.2 -5.1 11.3 1.8 7.1 -20.2 5.6 16.3 10.4 -32.2 13.5 14.3 14.8 -42.6 - PHF 0.625 0.688 0.469 -0.750 0.919 0.719 0.802 -0.913 0.913 0.768 0.964 -0.847 0.772 0.861 0.910 -0.950 0.931 Lights 40 10 14 -64 147 23 92 -262 73 208 134 -415 170 175 192 -537 1278 % Lights 100.0 90.9 93.3 -97.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 -99.6 100.0 98.1 99.3 -98.8 96.6 94.1 99.5 -96.8 98.0 Buses 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 2 0 -2 1 3 0 -4 6 % Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 -0.5 0.6 1.6 0.0 -0.7 0.5 Trucks 0 1 1 -2 0 0 1 -1 0 2 1 -3 5 8 1 -14 20 % Trucks 0.0 9.1 6.7 -3.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 -0.4 0.0 0.9 0.7 -0.7 2.8 4.3 0.5 -2.5 1.5 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0 - - - -2 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0.0 - - - -33.3 - - - --- - - -0.0 - - Pedestrians - - -2 - - - -4 - - - -0 - - - -2 - - % Pedestrians - - -100.0 - - - -66.7 - - - --- - - -100.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 166 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Gamble Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 8:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 9:00 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 336 415 751 3 2 5 9 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 348 420 768 134 208 73 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 212 73 0 R T L P 2890010288Out66002064In3550030352TotalGamble Drive [WB]R15001014T11001010L40000040P220000340 537 877 2 4 6 3 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 555 900 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] L T R P 170 175 192 0 1 3 0 0 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 176 186 193 2Gamble Drive [EB]Total5761800585In2620100263Out31417003221470000147L23000023T92010093R000246PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (8:00 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 167 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Gamble Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time Gamble Drive Gamble Drive Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 38 5 19 0 62 45 5 57 1 107 12 91 34 3 137 59 56 53 1 168 474 4:30 PM 41 9 29 1 79 50 1 36 0 87 8 91 42 1 141 71 62 41 1 174 481 4:45 PM 43 10 19 2 72 38 7 53 0 98 6 67 28 0 101 66 68 39 2 173 444 5:00 PM 36 6 17 0 59 45 6 37 1 88 9 93 33 0 135 82 64 39 0 185 467 Total 158 30 84 3 272 178 19 183 2 380 35 342 137 4 514 278 250 172 4 700 1866 Approach % 58.1 11.0 30.9 -- 46.8 5.0 48.2 -- 6.8 66.5 26.7 -- 39.7 35.7 24.6 -- - Total % 8.5 1.6 4.5 -14.6 9.5 1.0 9.8 -20.4 1.9 18.3 7.3 -27.5 14.9 13.4 9.2 -37.5 - PHF 0.919 0.750 0.724 -0.861 0.890 0.679 0.803 -0.888 0.729 0.919 0.815 -0.911 0.848 0.919 0.811 -0.946 0.970 Lights 157 29 84 -270 177 19 181 -377 35 341 135 -511 277 245 172 -694 1852 % Lights 99.4 96.7 100.0 -99.3 99.4 100.0 98.9 -99.2 100.0 99.7 98.5 -99.4 99.6 98.0 100.0 -99.1 99.2 Buses 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0 -1 0 2 0 -2 3 % Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 -0.3 0.2 Trucks 1 1 0 -2 1 0 2 -3 0 0 2 -2 1 3 0 -4 11 % Trucks 0.6 3.3 0.0 -0.7 0.6 0.0 1.1 -0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 -0.4 0.4 1.2 0.0 -0.6 0.6 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -1 - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - -1 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -33.3 - - - -50.0 - - - -25.0 - - - -25.0 - - Pedestrians - - -2 - - - -1 - - - -3 - - - -3 - - % Pedestrians - - -66.7 - - - -50.0 - - - -75.0 - - - -75.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 168 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Gamble Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:15 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:15 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 506 511 1017 2 1 3 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 514 1026 135 341 35 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 137 342 35 4 R T L P 2260000226Out2720020270In4980020496TotalGamble Drive [WB]R84000084T30001029L1580010157P321000679 694 1373 1 2 3 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 683 700 1383 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] L T R P 277 245 172 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 278 250 172 4Gamble Drive [EB]Total8180700825In3770300380Out44104004451770100178L19000019T1810200183R000112PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 169 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Parkdale Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Parkdale Drive Cedar Lake Road Park Place Boulevard Cedar Lake Road Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 7 30 21 0 58 20 41 19 2 80 30 11 15 0 56 16 31 37 0 84 278 7:15 AM 21 19 29 0 69 30 43 15 0 88 44 13 12 0 69 22 40 39 0 101 327 7:30 AM 15 19 28 0 62 32 59 45 1 136 31 13 15 0 59 29 49 43 0 121 378 7:45 AM 17 30 23 1 70 30 52 37 2 119 35 14 18 1 67 33 60 46 1 139 395 Hourly Total 60 98 101 1 259 112 195 116 5 423 140 51 60 1 251 100 180 165 1 445 1378 8:00 AM 15 21 32 0 68 23 32 44 1 99 52 11 23 0 86 33 71 56 0 160 413 8:15 AM 6 32 38 0 76 31 51 36 1 118 62 17 18 0 97 33 67 48 0 148 439 8:30 AM 28 41 38 0 107 31 33 32 3 96 60 21 21 0 102 47 68 42 0 157 462 8:45 AM 13 43 45 2 101 17 31 21 1 69 60 19 25 0 104 50 79 40 1 169 443 Hourly Total 62 137 153 2 352 102 147 133 6 382 234 68 87 0 389 163 285 186 1 634 1757 *** BREAK *** - - --- - - --- - - --- - - --- - 4:00 PM 20 37 45 1 102 21 64 44 0 129 89 35 53 0 177 38 85 31 0 154 562 4:15 PM 17 47 48 1 112 25 40 34 1 99 132 37 47 0 216 42 96 23 1 161 588 4:30 PM 31 41 48 3 120 31 41 53 0 125 105 38 40 3 183 46 90 24 0 160 588 4:45 PM 27 59 44 1 130 31 37 39 4 107 109 43 46 2 198 59 93 23 1 175 610 Hourly Total 95 184 185 6 464 108 182 170 5 460 435 153 186 5 774 185 364 101 2 650 2348 5:00 PM 22 52 72 0 146 38 51 35 0 124 93 19 53 0 165 51 85 23 0 159 594 5:15 PM 20 56 41 0 117 38 28 35 1 101 128 40 52 0 220 44 85 20 0 149 587 5:30 PM 16 35 44 2 95 29 46 30 1 105 103 25 48 0 176 43 84 24 0 151 527 5:45 PM 18 34 38 0 90 35 41 44 0 120 61 24 40 0 125 32 71 24 0 127 462 Hourly Total 76 177 195 2 448 140 166 144 2 450 385 108 193 0 686 170 325 91 0 586 2170 Grand Total 293 596 634 11 1523 462 690 563 18 1715 1194 380 526 6 2100 618 1154 543 4 2315 7653 Approach % 19.2 39.1 41.6 -- 26.9 40.2 32.8 -- 56.9 18.1 25.0 -- 26.7 49.8 23.5 -- - Total % 3.8 7.8 8.3 -19.9 6.0 9.0 7.4 -22.4 15.6 5.0 6.9 -27.4 8.1 15.1 7.1 -30.2 - Lights 290 581 629 -1500 448 671 553 -1672 1183 376 516 -2075 591 1141 537 -2269 7516 % Lights 99.0 97.5 99.2 -98.5 97.0 97.2 98.2 -97.5 99.1 98.9 98.1 -98.8 95.6 98.9 98.9 -98.0 98.2 Buses 0 7 1 -8 11 11 4 -26 2 0 9 -11 21 3 1 -25 70 % Buses 0.0 1.2 0.2 -0.5 2.4 1.6 0.7 -1.5 0.2 0.0 1.7 -0.5 3.4 0.3 0.2 -1.1 0.9 Trucks 3 8 4 -15 3 8 6 -17 9 4 1 -14 6 10 5 -21 67 % Trucks 1.0 1.3 0.6 -1.0 0.6 1.2 1.1 -1.0 0.8 1.1 0.2 -0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 -0.9 0.9 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -2 - - - -6 - - - -1 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -18.2 - - - -33.3 - - - -16.7 - - - -0.0 - - Pedestrians - - -9 - - - -12 - - - -5 - - - -4 - - % Pedestrians - - -81.8 - - - -66.7 - - - -83.3 - - - -100.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 170 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Parkdale Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 2218 2075 4293 15 11 26 17 14 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 2250 2100 4350 516 376 1183 0 9 0 2 0 1 4 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 526 380 1194 6 R T L P 24270022142391Out1523001581500In39500037223891TotalParkdale Drive [WB]R6340041629T5960087581L2930030290P11920001219 2269 3488 4 25 29 13 21 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 1236 2315 3551 Out In Total Cedar Lake Road [NB] L T R P 591 1141 537 0 21 3 1 0 6 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 618 1154 543 4Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total33606332003455In16722617001715Out1688371500174044811300462L67111800690T5534600563R00061218PTurning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 171 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Parkdale Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (8:00 AM) Start Time Parkdale Drive Cedar Lake Road Park Place Boulevard Cedar Lake Road Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 8:00 AM 15 21 32 0 68 23 32 44 1 99 52 11 23 0 86 33 71 56 0 160 413 8:15 AM 6 32 38 0 76 31 51 36 1 118 62 17 18 0 97 33 67 48 0 148 439 8:30 AM 28 41 38 0 107 31 33 32 3 96 60 21 21 0 102 47 68 42 0 157 462 8:45 AM 13 43 45 2 101 17 31 21 1 69 60 19 25 0 104 50 79 40 1 169 443 Total 62 137 153 2 352 102 147 133 6 382 234 68 87 0 389 163 285 186 1 634 1757 Approach % 17.6 38.9 43.5 -- 26.7 38.5 34.8 -- 60.2 17.5 22.4 -- 25.7 45.0 29.3 -- - Total % 3.5 7.8 8.7 -20.0 5.8 8.4 7.6 -21.7 13.3 3.9 5.0 -22.1 9.3 16.2 10.6 -36.1 - PHF 0.554 0.797 0.850 -0.822 0.823 0.721 0.756 -0.809 0.944 0.810 0.870 -0.935 0.815 0.902 0.830 -0.938 0.951 Lights 62 128 150 -340 97 144 131 -372 230 66 85 -381 158 277 182 -617 1710 % Lights 100.0 93.4 98.0 -96.6 95.1 98.0 98.5 -97.4 98.3 97.1 97.7 -97.9 96.9 97.2 97.8 -97.3 97.3 Buses 0 3 1 -4 3 2 1 -6 1 0 2 -3 3 3 1 -7 20 % Buses 0.0 2.2 0.7 -1.1 2.9 1.4 0.8 -1.6 0.4 0.0 2.3 -0.8 1.8 1.1 0.5 -1.1 1.1 Trucks 0 6 2 -8 2 1 1 -4 3 2 0 -5 2 5 3 -10 27 % Trucks 0.0 4.4 1.3 -2.3 2.0 0.7 0.8 -1.0 1.3 2.9 0.0 -1.3 1.2 1.8 1.6 -1.6 1.5 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0 - - - -1 - - - -0 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0.0 - - - -16.7 - - - --- - - -0.0 - - Pedestrians - - -2 - - - -5 - - - -0 - - - -1 - - % Pedestrians - - -100.0 - - - -83.3 - - - --- - - -100.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 172 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Parkdale Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 8:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 9:00 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 524 381 905 7 3 10 9 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 540 389 929 85 66 230 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 68 234 0 R T L P 5670074556Out3520084340In91900158896TotalParkdale Drive [WB]R1530021150T1370063128L62000062P220000259 617 876 1 7 8 3 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 634 897 Out In Total Cedar Lake Road [NB] L T R P 158 277 182 0 3 3 1 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 163 285 186 1Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total743141200769In3726400382Out3718800387973200102L1442100147T1311100133R000156PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (8:00 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 173 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Parkdale Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time Parkdale Drive Cedar Lake Road Park Place Boulevard Cedar Lake Road Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 17 47 48 1 112 25 40 34 1 99 132 37 47 0 216 42 96 23 1 161 588 4:30 PM 31 41 48 3 120 31 41 53 0 125 105 38 40 3 183 46 90 24 0 160 588 4:45 PM 27 59 44 1 130 31 37 39 4 107 109 43 46 2 198 59 93 23 1 175 610 5:00 PM 22 52 72 0 146 38 51 35 0 124 93 19 53 0 165 51 85 23 0 159 594 Total 97 199 212 5 508 125 169 161 5 455 439 137 186 5 762 198 364 93 2 655 2380 Approach % 19.1 39.2 41.7 -- 27.5 37.1 35.4 -- 57.6 18.0 24.4 -- 30.2 55.6 14.2 -- - Total % 4.1 8.4 8.9 -21.3 5.3 7.1 6.8 -19.1 18.4 5.8 7.8 -32.0 8.3 15.3 3.9 -27.5 - PHF 0.782 0.843 0.736 -0.870 0.822 0.828 0.759 -0.910 0.831 0.797 0.877 -0.882 0.839 0.948 0.969 -0.936 0.975 Lights 95 195 212 -502 123 169 160 -452 437 135 185 -757 187 363 93 -643 2354 % Lights 97.9 98.0 100.0 -98.8 98.4 100.0 99.4 -99.3 99.5 98.5 99.5 -99.3 94.4 99.7 100.0 -98.2 98.9 Buses 0 3 0 -3 2 0 0 -2 0 0 1 -1 10 0 0 -10 16 % Buses 0.0 1.5 0.0 -0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 -0.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 -1.5 0.7 Trucks 2 1 0 -3 0 0 1 -1 2 2 0 -4 1 1 0 -2 10 % Trucks 2.1 0.5 0.0 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 -0.2 0.5 1.5 0.0 -0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.4 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -1 - - - -2 - - - -1 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -20.0 - - - -40.0 - - - -20.0 - - - -0.0 - - Pedestrians - - -4 - - - -3 - - - -4 - - - -2 - - % Pedestrians - - -80.0 - - - -60.0 - - - -80.0 - - - -100.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 174 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & Parkdale Dr Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:15 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:15 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 698 757 1455 2 1 3 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 701 762 1463 185 135 437 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 186 137 439 5 R T L P 7010020699Out5080033502In120900531201TotalParkdale Drive [WB]R2120000212T1990013195L97002095P541000390 643 1033 0 10 10 5 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 395 655 1050 Out In Total Cedar Lake Road [NB] L T R P 187 363 93 0 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 198 364 93 2Cedar Lake Road [EB]Total1019163001038In4522100455Out567142005831232000125L1690000169T1600100161R000235PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 175 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & W 16th St Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time W 16th Street W 16th Street Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 4 4 4 1 12 22 1 3 1 26 25 54 43 3 122 6 35 4 1 45 205 7:15 AM 1 2 15 1 18 35 2 5 0 42 24 55 38 2 117 1 55 5 0 61 238 7:30 AM 5 5 11 2 21 40 6 8 5 54 27 50 51 0 128 4 51 5 5 60 263 7:45 AM 3 4 9 1 16 58 16 6 1 80 35 65 76 3 176 6 42 5 2 53 325 Hourly Total 13 15 39 5 67 155 25 22 7 202 111 224 208 8 543 17 183 19 8 219 1031 8:00 AM 4 7 19 0 30 32 11 9 3 52 32 82 56 0 170 17 66 10 3 93 345 8:15 AM 10 2 25 5 37 41 8 9 0 58 43 79 50 9 172 6 67 8 3 81 348 8:30 AM 5 5 20 0 30 40 13 8 2 61 35 106 60 0 201 5 76 15 3 96 388 8:45 AM 12 3 27 1 42 39 9 11 7 59 34 82 67 0 183 8 61 12 7 81 365 Hourly Total 31 17 91 6 139 152 41 37 12 230 144 349 233 9 726 36 270 45 16 351 1446 *** BREAK *** - - --- - - --- - - --- - - --- - 4:00 PM 14 13 43 5 70 111 13 10 2 134 45 107 101 3 253 9 81 21 9 111 568 4:15 PM 13 5 54 2 72 109 19 16 2 144 47 106 105 4 258 5 105 29 2 139 613 4:30 PM 13 20 53 2 86 99 42 15 6 156 41 110 107 6 258 4 97 32 7 133 633 4:45 PM 12 21 45 2 78 108 23 14 4 145 54 89 115 10 258 13 80 29 7 122 603 Hourly Total 52 59 195 11 306 427 97 55 14 579 187 412 428 23 1027 31 363 111 25 505 2417 5:00 PM 11 16 61 0 88 122 22 10 7 154 48 104 98 11 250 10 91 19 5 120 612 5:15 PM 11 18 44 6 73 110 20 12 6 142 37 104 115 7 256 11 87 20 13 118 589 5:30 PM 14 21 50 6 85 121 23 7 4 151 40 80 97 9 217 5 77 27 11 109 562 5:45 PM 4 23 41 0 68 93 34 3 5 130 41 85 117 7 243 9 109 23 8 141 582 Hourly Total 40 78 196 12 314 446 99 32 22 577 166 373 427 34 966 35 364 89 37 488 2345 Grand Total 136 169 521 34 826 1180 262 146 55 1588 608 1358 1296 74 3262 119 1180 264 86 1563 7239 Approach % 16.5 20.5 63.1 -- 74.3 16.5 9.2 -- 18.6 41.6 39.7 -- 7.6 75.5 16.9 -- - Total % 1.9 2.3 7.2 -11.4 16.3 3.6 2.0 -21.9 8.4 18.8 17.9 -45.1 1.6 16.3 3.6 -21.6 - Lights 125 163 512 -800 1163 261 143 -1567 603 1350 1273 -3226 113 1168 253 -1534 7127 % Lights 91.9 96.4 98.3 -96.9 98.6 99.6 97.9 -98.7 99.2 99.4 98.2 -98.9 95.0 99.0 95.8 -98.1 98.5 Buses 10 1 4 -15 10 0 0 -10 1 1 12 -14 0 0 10 -10 49 % Buses 7.4 0.6 0.8 -1.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 -0.6 0.2 0.1 0.9 -0.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 -0.6 0.7 Trucks 1 5 5 -11 7 1 3 -11 4 7 11 -22 6 12 1 -19 63 % Trucks 0.7 3.0 1.0 -1.3 0.6 0.4 2.1 -0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 -0.7 5.0 1.0 0.4 -1.2 0.9 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -1 - - - -4 - - - -4 - - - -1 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -2.9 - - - -7.3 - - - -5.4 - - - -1.2 - - Pedestrians - - -33 - - - -51 - - - -70 - - - -85 - - % Pedestrians - - -97.1 - - - -92.7 - - - -94.6 - - - -98.8 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 176 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & W 16th St Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 2843 3226 6069 14 14 28 24 22 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 2881 3262 6143 1273 1350 603 0 12 1 1 0 11 7 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 70 1296 1358 608 74 R T L P 1134006111117Out826001115800In19600017261917TotalW 16th Street [WB]R5210054512T1690051163L13600110125P343310001618 1534 3152 11 10 21 11 19 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 1640 1563 3203 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] L T R P 113 1168 253 0 0 0 10 0 6 12 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 85 119 1180 264 86W 16th Street [EB]Total31162333003172In15671011001588Out154913220015841163107001180L2610100262T1430300146R00045155PTurning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 177 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & W 16th St Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (8:00 AM) Start Time W 16th Street W 16th Street Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 8:00 AM 4 7 19 0 30 32 11 9 3 52 32 82 56 0 170 17 66 10 3 93 345 8:15 AM 10 2 25 5 37 41 8 9 0 58 43 79 50 9 172 6 67 8 3 81 348 8:30 AM 5 5 20 0 30 40 13 8 2 61 35 106 60 0 201 5 76 15 3 96 388 8:45 AM 12 3 27 1 42 39 9 11 7 59 34 82 67 0 183 8 61 12 7 81 365 Total 31 17 91 6 139 152 41 37 12 230 144 349 233 9 726 36 270 45 16 351 1446 Approach % 22.3 12.2 65.5 -- 66.1 17.8 16.1 -- 19.8 48.1 32.1 -- 10.3 76.9 12.8 -- - Total % 2.1 1.2 6.3 -9.6 10.5 2.8 2.6 -15.9 10.0 24.1 16.1 -50.2 2.5 18.7 3.1 -24.3 - PHF 0.646 0.607 0.843 -0.827 0.927 0.788 0.841 -0.943 0.837 0.823 0.869 -0.903 0.529 0.888 0.750 -0.914 0.932 Lights 28 14 88 -130 145 40 36 -221 142 348 224 -714 33 265 41 -339 1404 % Lights 90.3 82.4 96.7 -93.5 95.4 97.6 97.3 -96.1 98.6 99.7 96.1 -98.3 91.7 98.1 91.1 -96.6 97.1 Buses 2 0 2 -4 4 0 0 -4 0 0 3 -3 0 0 3 -3 14 % Buses 6.5 0.0 2.2 -2.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 -1.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 -0.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 -0.9 1.0 Trucks 1 3 1 -5 3 1 1 -5 2 1 6 -9 3 5 1 -9 28 % Trucks 3.2 17.6 1.1 -3.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 -2.2 1.4 0.3 2.6 -1.2 8.3 1.9 2.2 -2.6 1.9 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0 - - - -2 - - - -0 - - - -1 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0.0 - - - -16.7 - - - -0.0 - - - -6.3 - - Pedestrians - - -6 - - - -10 - - - -9 - - - -15 - - % Pedestrians - - -100.0 - - - -83.3 - - - -100.0 - - - -93.8 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 178 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & W 16th St Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 8:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 9:00 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 498 714 1212 6 3 9 9 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 513 726 1239 224 348 142 0 3 0 0 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 233 349 144 9 R T L P 2300043223Out1390054130In3690097353TotalW 16th Street [WB]R91001288T17003014L31001228P660000412 339 751 2 3 5 3 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 351 768 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] L T R P 33 265 41 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 36 270 45 16W 16th Street [EB]Total49271700516In2214500230Out271312002861454300152L40010041T36010037R00021012PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (8:00 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 179 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & W 16th St Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time W 16th Street W 16th Street Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 13 5 54 2 72 109 19 16 2 144 47 106 105 4 258 5 105 29 2 139 613 4:30 PM 13 20 53 2 86 99 42 15 6 156 41 110 107 6 258 4 97 32 7 133 633 4:45 PM 12 21 45 2 78 108 23 14 4 145 54 89 115 10 258 13 80 29 7 122 603 5:00 PM 11 16 61 0 88 122 22 10 7 154 48 104 98 11 250 10 91 19 5 120 612 Total 49 62 213 6 324 438 106 55 19 599 190 409 425 31 1024 32 373 109 21 514 2461 Approach % 15.1 19.1 65.7 -- 73.1 17.7 9.2 -- 18.6 39.9 41.5 -- 6.2 72.6 21.2 -- - Total % 2.0 2.5 8.7 -13.2 17.8 4.3 2.2 -24.3 7.7 16.6 17.3 -41.6 1.3 15.2 4.4 -20.9 - PHF 0.942 0.738 0.873 -0.920 0.898 0.631 0.859 -0.960 0.880 0.930 0.924 -0.992 0.615 0.888 0.852 -0.924 0.972 Lights 48 61 211 -320 436 106 55 -597 190 407 419 -1016 31 373 107 -511 2444 % Lights 98.0 98.4 99.1 -98.8 99.5 100.0 100.0 -99.7 100.0 99.5 98.6 -99.2 96.9 100.0 98.2 -99.4 99.3 Buses 1 0 1 -2 1 0 0 -1 0 0 4 -4 0 0 2 -2 9 % Buses 2.0 0.0 0.5 -0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 -0.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 -0.4 0.4 Trucks 0 1 1 -2 1 0 0 -1 0 2 2 -4 1 0 0 -1 8 % Trucks 0.0 1.6 0.5 -0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 -0.4 3.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.3 Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0 - - - -0 - - - -2 - - - -0 - - % Bicycles on Crosswalk - - -0.0 - - - -0.0 - - - -6.5 - - - -0.0 - - Pedestrians - - -6 - - - -19 - - - -29 - - - -21 - - % Pedestrians - - -100.0 - - - -100.0 - - - -93.5 - - - -100.0 - - City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 180 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Park Pl Blvd & W 16th St Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:15 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:15 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 1020 1016 2036 2 4 6 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1024 1024 2048 419 407 190 0 4 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 29 425 409 190 31 R T L P 4050002403Out3240022320In7290024723TotalW 16th Street [WB]R2130011211T62001061L49000148P660000510 511 1021 1 2 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 513 514 1027 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] L T R P 31 373 107 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 32 373 109 21W 16th Street [EB]Total110855001118In5971100599Out51144005194361100438L1060000106T55000055R00001919PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 181 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: W 16th St & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time 16th Street Utica Avenue Utica Avenue Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 2 6 3 8 0 1 6 4 7 0 3 1 3 18 7:15 AM 2 10 1 12 0 4 7 3 11 0 3 4 3 26 7:30 AM 4 5 1 9 0 10 2 8 12 2 3 2 5 26 7:45 AM 2 14 4 16 0 16 9 7 25 3 6 0 9 50 Hourly Total 10 35 9 45 0 31 24 22 55 5 15 7 20 120 8:00 AM 2 9 2 11 0 12 15 6 27 1 3 5 4 42 8:15 AM 3 16 1 19 0 14 9 6 23 4 12 1 16 58 8:30 AM 9 11 1 20 0 14 13 3 27 5 8 3 13 60 8:45 AM 8 5 0 13 0 14 6 2 20 6 6 2 12 45 Hourly Total 22 41 4 63 0 54 43 17 97 16 29 11 45 205 *** BREAK *** -------------- 4:00 PM 18 3 1 21 0 6 9 3 15 8 34 5 42 78 4:15 PM 9 5 2 14 0 7 9 2 16 12 21 19 33 63 4:30 PM 18 2 1 20 0 5 12 7 17 13 24 2 37 74 4:45 PM 14 3 2 17 0 6 10 5 16 8 17 3 25 58 Hourly Total 59 13 6 72 0 24 40 17 64 41 96 29 137 273 5:00 PM 19 2 8 21 0 3 12 7 15 13 27 12 40 76 5:15 PM 13 4 3 17 1 4 8 12 13 5 20 7 25 55 5:30 PM 16 2 3 18 0 5 8 7 13 11 29 10 40 71 5:45 PM 20 0 6 20 0 4 9 8 13 5 16 6 21 54 Hourly Total 68 8 20 76 1 16 37 34 54 34 92 35 126 256 Grand Total 159 97 39 256 1 125 144 90 270 96 232 82 328 854 Approach % 62.1 37.9 -- 0.4 46.3 53.3 -- 29.3 70.7 --- Total %18.6 11.4 -30.0 0.1 14.6 16.9 -31.6 11.2 27.2 -38.4 - Lights 149 95 -244 1 125 131 -257 91 230 -321 822 % Lights 93.7 97.9 -95.3 100.0 100.0 91.0 -95.2 94.8 99.1 -97.9 96.3 Buses 10 1 -11 0 0 12 -12 2 1 -3 26 % Buses 6.3 1.0 -4.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 -4.4 2.1 0.4 -0.9 3.0 Trucks 0 1 -1 0 0 1 -1 3 1 -4 6 % Trucks 0.0 1.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 -0.4 3.1 0.4 -1.2 0.7 Bicycles on Crosswalk --5 ----2 ---10 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk --12.8 ----2.2 ---12.2 -- Pedestrians --34 ----88 ---72 -- % Pedestrians --87.2 ----97.8 ---87.8 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 182 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: W 16th St & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Utica Avenue [SB] Out In Total 379 257 636 11 12 23 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 391 270 661 131 125 1 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 88 144 125 1 90 R T L P 100001Out000000In100001TotalFake Approach [WB]220 321 541 1 3 4 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 328 550 Out In Total Utica Avenue [NB] L T P 91 230 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 72 96 232 8216th Street [EB]Total46625500496In24411100256Out2221440024014910000159L95110097R00053439PTurning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 183 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: W 16th St & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:45 AM) Start Time 16th Street Utica Avenue Utica Avenue Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:45 AM 2 14 4 16 0 16 9 7 25 3 6 0 9 50 8:00 AM 2 9 2 11 0 12 15 6 27 1 3 5 4 42 8:15 AM 3 16 1 19 0 14 9 6 23 4 12 1 16 58 8:30 AM 9 11 1 20 0 14 13 3 27 5 8 3 13 60 Total 16 50 8 66 0 56 46 22 102 13 29 9 42 210 Approach % 24.2 75.8 -- 0.0 54.9 45.1 -- 31.0 69.0 --- Total %7.6 23.8 -31.4 0.0 26.7 21.9 -48.6 6.2 13.8 -20.0 - PHF 0.444 0.781 -0.825 0.000 0.875 0.767 -0.944 0.650 0.604 -0.656 0.875 Lights 14 50 -64 0 56 41 -97 11 28 -39 200 % Lights 87.5 100.0 -97.0 - 100.0 89.1 -95.1 84.6 96.6 -92.9 95.2 Buses 2 0 -2 0 0 4 -4 1 1 -2 8 % Buses 12.5 0.0 -3.0 - 0.0 8.7 -3.9 7.7 3.4 -4.8 3.8 Trucks 0 0 -0 0 0 1 -1 1 0 -1 2 % Trucks 0.0 0.0 -0.0 - 0.0 2.2 -1.0 7.7 0.0 -2.4 1.0 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ----0 ---0 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk --0.0 ----0.0 ---0.0 -- Pedestrians --8 ----22 ---9 -- % Pedestrians --100.0 ----100.0 ---100.0 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 184 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: W 16th St & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 7:45 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 8:45 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Utica Avenue [SB] Out In Total 42 97 139 3 4 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 102 147 41 56 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 46 56 0 22 R T L P 000000Out000000In000000TotalFake Approach [WB]106 39 145 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 42 148 Out In Total Utica Avenue [NB] L T P 11 28 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 13 29 916th Street [EB]Total1167200125In64200066Out5252005914200016L50000050R000088PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 185 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: W 16th St & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM) Start Time 16th Street Utica Avenue Utica Avenue Eastbound Southbound Northbound Left Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:00 PM 18 3 1 21 0 6 9 3 15 8 34 5 42 78 4:15 PM 9 5 2 14 0 7 9 2 16 12 21 19 33 63 4:30 PM 18 2 1 20 0 5 12 7 17 13 24 2 37 74 4:45 PM 14 3 2 17 0 6 10 5 16 8 17 3 25 58 Total 59 13 6 72 0 24 40 17 64 41 96 29 137 273 Approach % 81.9 18.1 -- 0.0 37.5 62.5 -- 29.9 70.1 --- Total %21.6 4.8 -26.4 0.0 8.8 14.7 -23.4 15.0 35.2 -50.2 - PHF 0.819 0.650 -0.857 0.000 0.857 0.833 -0.941 0.788 0.706 -0.815 0.875 Lights 56 12 -68 0 24 38 -62 39 95 -134 264 % Lights 94.9 92.3 -94.4 - 100.0 95.0 -96.9 95.1 99.0 -97.8 96.7 Buses 3 0 -3 0 0 2 -2 0 0 -0 5 % Buses 5.1 0.0 -4.2 - 0.0 5.0 -3.1 0.0 0.0 -0.0 1.8 Trucks 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 2 1 -3 4 % Trucks 0.0 7.7 -1.4 - 0.0 0.0 -0.0 4.9 1.0 -2.2 1.5 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ----1 ---2 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk --0.0 ----5.9 ---6.9 -- Pedestrians --6 ----16 ---27 -- % Pedestrians --100.0 ----94.1 ---93.1 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 186 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: W 16th St & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:00 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Utica Avenue [SB] Out In Total 151 62 213 3 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 64 219 38 24 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 40 24 0 17 R T L P 000000Out000000In000000TotalFake Approach [WB]36 134 170 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 137 174 Out In Total Utica Avenue [NB] L T P 39 95 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 27 41 96 2916th Street [EB]Total1455300153In68310072Out7722008156300059L12010013R000066PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 187 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Park Place Blvd Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Wayzata Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Southbound Northbound Left Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 2 44 1 46 47 122 0 169 51 2 2 53 268 7:15 AM 4 49 0 53 79 107 0 186 95 5 1 100 339 7:30 AM 5 74 0 79 125 127 0 252 100 6 5 106 437 7:45 AM 5 73 3 78 84 177 0 261 92 15 2 107 446 Hourly Total 16 240 4 256 335 533 0 868 338 28 10 366 1490 8:00 AM 2 67 1 69 107 161 0 268 104 12 0 116 453 8:15 AM 6 51 0 57 96 165 0 261 120 10 1 130 448 8:30 AM 9 41 2 50 87 210 0 297 122 8 4 130 477 8:45 AM 2 32 2 34 76 196 0 272 115 12 1 127 433 Hourly Total 19 191 5 210 366 732 0 1098 461 42 6 503 1811 *** BREAK ***------------- 4:00 PM 19 84 3 103 99 242 0 341 224 16 1 240 684 4:15 PM 14 70 0 84 100 235 0 335 237 13 3 250 669 4:30 PM 23 107 1 130 88 237 0 325 233 23 2 256 711 4:45 PM 10 80 0 90 92 255 0 347 221 17 0 238 675 Hourly Total 66 341 4 407 379 969 0 1348 915 69 6 984 2739 5:00 PM 17 97 2 114 109 228 0 337 251 19 5 270 721 5:15 PM 24 85 3 109 86 237 0 323 229 12 0 241 673 5:30 PM 11 58 4 69 136 206 0 342 208 24 1 232 643 5:45 PM 12 56 4 68 94 225 0 319 235 11 3 246 633 Hourly Total 64 296 13 360 425 896 0 1321 923 66 9 989 2670 Grand Total 165 1068 26 1233 1505 3130 0 4635 2637 205 31 2842 8710 Approach %13.4 86.6 -- 32.5 67.5 -- 92.8 7.2 --- Total %1.9 12.3 -14.2 17.3 35.9 -53.2 30.3 2.4 -32.6 - Lights 160 1063 -1223 1494 3099 -4593 2610 198 -2808 8624 % Lights 97.0 99.5 -99.2 99.3 99.0 -99.1 99.0 96.6 -98.8 99.0 Buses 5 2 -7 4 9 -13 11 4 -15 35 % Buses 3.0 0.2 -0.6 0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.4 2.0 -0.5 0.4 Trucks 0 3 -3 7 22 -29 16 3 -19 51 % Trucks 0.0 0.3 -0.2 0.5 0.7 -0.6 0.6 1.5 -0.7 0.6 Bicycles on Crosswalk --1 ---0 ---1 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk --3.8 -------3.2 -- Pedestrians --25 ---0 ---30 -- % Pedestrians --96.2 -------96.8 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 188 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Park Place Blvd Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 3673 4593 8266 13 13 26 19 29 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 3705 4635 8340 3099 1494 0 9 4 0 22 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3130 1505 0 T L P 1710001081692Out123300371223In29430013152915TotalWayzata Boulevard [WB]R106800321063L1650005160P262510003259 2808 6067 14 15 29 22 19 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 3295 2842 6137 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] T R P 2610 198 0 11 4 0 16 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 30 2637 205 31Fake Approach [EB]Total000000In000000Out000000Turning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 189 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Park Place Blvd Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:45 AM) Start Time Wayzata Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Southbound Northbound Left Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:45 AM 5 73 3 78 84 177 0 261 92 15 2 107 446 8:00 AM 2 67 1 69 107 161 0 268 104 12 0 116 453 8:15 AM 6 51 0 57 96 165 0 261 120 10 1 130 448 8:30 AM 9 41 2 50 87 210 0 297 122 8 4 130 477 Total 22 232 6 254 374 713 0 1087 438 45 7 483 1824 Approach %8.7 91.3 -- 34.4 65.6 -- 90.7 9.3 --- Total %1.2 12.7 -13.9 20.5 39.1 -59.6 24.0 2.5 -26.5 - PHF 0.611 0.795 -0.814 0.874 0.849 -0.915 0.898 0.750 -0.929 0.956 Lights 22 230 -252 369 702 -1071 428 41 -469 1792 % Lights 100.0 99.1 -99.2 98.7 98.5 -98.5 97.7 91.1 -97.1 98.2 Buses 0 2 -2 2 4 -6 5 2 -7 15 % Buses 0.0 0.9 -0.8 0.5 0.6 -0.6 1.1 4.4 -1.4 0.8 Trucks 0 0 -0 3 7 -10 5 2 -7 17 % Trucks 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.8 1.0 -0.9 1.1 4.4 -1.4 0.9 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---0 ---1 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk --0.0 -------14.3 -- Pedestrians --6 ---0 ---6 -- % Pedestrians --100.0 -------85.7 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 190 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Park Place Blvd Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 7:45 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 8:45 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 658 1071 1729 7 6 13 5 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 670 1087 1757 702 369 0 4 2 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 713 374 0 T L P 4190054410Out2540002252In6730056662TotalWayzata Boulevard [WB]R2320002230L22000022P660000724 469 1193 4 7 11 7 7 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 735 483 1218 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] T R P 428 41 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 438 45 7Fake Approach [EB]Total000000In000000Out000000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 191 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Park Place Blvd Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM) Start Time Wayzata Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Park Place Boulevard Westbound Southbound Northbound Left Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:30 PM 23 107 1 130 88 237 0 325 233 23 2 256 711 4:45 PM 10 80 0 90 92 255 0 347 221 17 0 238 675 5:00 PM 17 97 2 114 109 228 0 337 251 19 5 270 721 5:15 PM 24 85 3 109 86 237 0 323 229 12 0 241 673 Total 74 369 6 443 375 957 0 1332 934 71 7 1005 2780 Approach %16.7 83.3 -- 28.2 71.8 -- 92.9 7.1 --- Total %2.7 13.3 -15.9 13.5 34.4 -47.9 33.6 2.6 -36.2 - PHF 0.771 0.862 -0.852 0.860 0.938 -0.960 0.930 0.772 -0.931 0.964 Lights 71 369 -440 373 951 -1324 929 71 -1000 2764 % Lights 95.9 100.0 -99.3 99.5 99.4 -99.4 99.5 100.0 -99.5 99.4 Buses 3 0 -3 1 2 -3 3 0 -3 9 % Buses 4.1 0.0 -0.7 0.3 0.2 -0.2 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.3 Trucks 0 0 -0 1 4 -5 2 0 -2 7 % Trucks 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.3 0.4 -0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0.3 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---0 ---0 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk --0.0 -------0.0 -- Pedestrians --6 ---0 ---7 -- % Pedestrians --100.0 -------100.0 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 192 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Park Place Blvd Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:30 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:30 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Park Place Boulevard [SB] Out In Total 1298 1324 2622 3 3 6 2 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1303 1332 2635 951 373 0 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 957 375 0 T L P 4460011444Out4430003440In8890014884TotalWayzata Boulevard [WB]R3690000369L74000371P6600001022 1000 2022 5 3 8 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1031 1005 2036 Out In Total Park Place Boulevard [NB] T R P 929 71 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 934 71 7Fake Approach [EB]Total000000In000000Out000000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 193 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata Boulevard Utica Avenue Westbound Eastbound Northbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 4 19 0 23 34 6 0 40 11 1 0 12 75 7:15 AM 6 16 0 22 66 9 0 75 20 4 4 24 121 7:30 AM 5 31 0 36 93 12 0 105 17 7 2 24 165 7:45 AM 9 26 0 35 84 18 0 102 21 6 3 27 164 Hourly Total 24 92 0 116 277 45 0 322 69 18 9 87 525 8:00 AM 14 36 0 50 76 13 0 89 17 5 1 22 161 8:15 AM 5 30 0 35 73 16 0 89 13 8 0 21 145 8:30 AM 14 22 0 36 58 13 0 71 13 14 2 27 134 8:45 AM 10 20 0 30 68 9 0 77 11 9 0 20 127 Hourly Total 43 108 0 151 275 51 0 326 54 36 3 90 567 *** BREAK ***------------- 4:00 PM 8 59 0 67 86 16 0 102 32 30 1 62 231 4:15 PM 11 55 0 66 87 15 0 102 17 22 1 39 207 4:30 PM 11 88 0 99 82 9 0 91 20 24 3 44 234 4:45 PM 13 58 0 71 103 10 0 113 22 20 1 42 226 Hourly Total 43 260 0 303 358 50 0 408 91 96 6 187 898 5:00 PM 12 68 0 80 86 9 0 95 25 23 2 48 223 5:15 PM 8 59 0 67 72 13 0 85 28 13 1 41 193 5:30 PM 8 36 0 44 128 20 0 148 18 23 0 41 233 5:45 PM 10 37 0 47 83 16 0 99 27 21 4 48 194 Hourly Total 38 200 0 238 369 58 0 427 98 80 7 178 843 Grand Total 148 660 0 808 1279 204 0 1483 312 230 25 542 2833 Approach %18.3 81.7 -- 86.2 13.8 -- 57.6 42.4 --- Total %5.2 23.3 -28.5 45.1 7.2 -52.3 11.0 8.1 -19.1 - Lights 137 652 -789 1266 202 -1468 311 220 -531 2788 % Lights 92.6 98.8 -97.6 99.0 99.0 -99.0 99.7 95.7 -98.0 98.4 Buses 11 7 -18 6 1 -7 1 9 -10 35 % Buses 7.4 1.1 -2.2 0.5 0.5 -0.5 0.3 3.9 -1.8 1.2 Trucks 0 1 -1 7 1 -8 0 1 -1 10 % Trucks 0.0 0.2 -0.1 0.5 0.5 -0.5 0.0 0.4 -0.2 0.4 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---0 ---3 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk ----------12.0 -- Pedestrians --0 ---0 ---22 -- % Pedestrians ----------88.0 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 194 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 2 09/26/2024 7:00 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 6:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Fake Approach [SB] Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1509008151486Out80800118789In2317009332275TotalWayzata Boulevard [WB]T6600017652L14800011137P000000339 531 870 12 10 22 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 542 894 Out In Total Utica Avenue [NB] L R P 311 220 0 1 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 22 312 230 25Wayzata Boulevard [EB]Total2431159002455In146878001483Out9638100972126667001279T2021100204R000000PTurning Movement Data Plot City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 195 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM) Start Time Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata Boulevard Utica Avenue Westbound Eastbound Northbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:30 AM 5 31 0 36 93 12 0 105 17 7 2 24 165 7:45 AM 9 26 0 35 84 18 0 102 21 6 3 27 164 8:00 AM 14 36 0 50 76 13 0 89 17 5 1 22 161 8:15 AM 5 30 0 35 73 16 0 89 13 8 0 21 145 Total 33 123 0 156 326 59 0 385 68 26 6 94 635 Approach %21.2 78.8 -- 84.7 15.3 -- 72.3 27.7 --- Total %5.2 19.4 -24.6 51.3 9.3 -60.6 10.7 4.1 -14.8 - PHF 0.589 0.854 -0.780 0.876 0.819 -0.917 0.810 0.813 -0.870 0.962 Lights 30 121 -151 322 57 -379 68 23 -91 621 % Lights 90.9 98.4 -96.8 98.8 96.6 -98.4 100.0 88.5 -96.8 97.8 Buses 3 2 -5 2 1 -3 0 3 -3 11 % Buses 9.1 1.6 -3.2 0.6 1.7 -0.8 0.0 11.5 -3.2 1.7 Trucks 0 0 -0 2 1 -3 0 0 -0 3 % Trucks 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.6 1.7 -0.8 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.5 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---0 ---1 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk ----------16.7 -- Pedestrians --0 ---0 ---5 -- % Pedestrians ----------83.3 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 196 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 7:30 AM Ending At 09/26/2024 8:30 AM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Fake Approach [SB] Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3520025345Out1560005151In50800210496TotalWayzata Boulevard [WB]T1230002121L33000330P00000087 91 178 4 3 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 94 186 Out In Total Utica Avenue [NB] L R P 68 23 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 68 26 6Wayzata Boulevard [EB]Total5685300576In3793300385Out18920001913222200326T57110059R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 197 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM) Start Time Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata Boulevard Utica Avenue Westbound Eastbound Northbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:00 PM 8 59 0 67 86 16 0 102 32 30 1 62 231 4:15 PM 11 55 0 66 87 15 0 102 17 22 1 39 207 4:30 PM 11 88 0 99 82 9 0 91 20 24 3 44 234 4:45 PM 13 58 0 71 103 10 0 113 22 20 1 42 226 Total 43 260 0 303 358 50 0 408 91 96 6 187 898 Approach %14.2 85.8 -- 87.7 12.3 -- 48.7 51.3 --- Total %4.8 29.0 -33.7 39.9 5.6 -45.4 10.1 10.7 -20.8 - PHF 0.827 0.739 -0.765 0.869 0.781 -0.903 0.711 0.800 -0.754 0.959 Lights 41 258 -299 356 50 -406 91 92 -183 888 % Lights 95.3 99.2 -98.7 99.4 100.0 -99.5 100.0 95.8 -97.9 98.9 Buses 2 2 -4 0 0 -0 0 3 -3 7 % Buses 4.7 0.8 -1.3 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 3.1 -1.6 0.8 Trucks 0 0 -0 2 0 -2 0 1 -1 3 % Trucks 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.6 0.0 -0.5 0.0 1.0 -0.5 0.3 Bicycles on Crosswalk --0 ---0 ---0 -- % Bicycles on Crosswalk ----------0.0 -- Pedestrians --0 ---0 ---6 -- % Pedestrians ----------100.0 -- City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 198 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Wayzata Blvd S & Utica Ave S Site Code: Start Date: 09/26/2024 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 09/26/2024 4:00 PM Ending At 09/26/2024 5:00 PM Lights Buses Trucks Bicycles on Crosswalk Pedestrians Fake Approach [SB] Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4540033448Out3030004299In7570037747TotalWayzata Boulevard [WB]T2600002258L43000241P00000091 183 274 2 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 187 280 Out In Total Utica Avenue [NB] L R P 91 92 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 91 96 6Wayzata Boulevard [EB]Total7552200759In4060200408Out34920003513560200358T50000050R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 199 C. Proposed Site Plan City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 200 Phase I | 6-Story Mixed-Use Phase II | 6-Story Mixed-Use Phase IV | 20-Story Residential Phase III | 13- Story Office Proposed Extension of West End Blvd.Park Place Blvd.Gamble Drive P a r k d a l e D r i v e ATM TUSHIE MONTGOMERY Development Summary terasă | 11.15.2024 EAW Plan | 3 5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A SCALE:1" = 100'-0" 1 EAW Overall Plan Phase I |6-Story Mixed-Use Residential Phase II |6-Story Mixed-Use Residential Total Building GSF Retail GSF Residential GSF Total Residential Units Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Total Parking Surface Garage Total Building GSF Retail GSF Residential GSF Total Residential Units Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom Total Parking Surface Garage 273,374 GSF 22,968 GSF 250,406 GSF 245 Units 85 Units 78 Units 74 Units 8 Units 410 Spaces 147 Spaces 263 Spaces 249,095 GSF 13,420 GSF 235,675 GSF 168 Units 13 Units 63 Units 92 Units 267 Spaces 66 Spaces 201 Spaces Phase III |13-Story Office Building Total Building GSF Retail GSF Office GSF Total Parking Surface Garage 351,100 GSF 5,500 GSF 345,600 GSF 274 Spaces 20 Spaces 254 Spaces Phase IV |20-Story Residential Total Building GSF Retail GSF Residential GSF Total Residential Units Total Parking Surface Garage 251,565 GSF 5,500 GSF 246,065 GSF 246 Units 254 Spaces 0 Spaces 254 Spaces City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 201 D. SimTraffic Reports City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 202 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)40.3 0.4 24.0 5.7 4.6 25.2 1.6 10.4 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.2 2.2 3.9 0.8 10.3 6.1 3.5 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)30.9 32.1 12.4 39.1 43.9 4.7 43.3 8.9 3.1 36.4 10.0 3.5 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)15.5 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 1.0 4.8 4.7 0.9 4.2 4.1 1.9 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)35.8 38.2 10.3 37.3 14.4 4.1 40.6 14.3 7.1 38.2 8.0 3.3 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)18.9 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 203 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)19.3 19.1 2.0 19.9 23.3 2.2 23.1 22.0 4.4 24.7 27.6 1.7 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)16.3 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)4.4 1.0 1.0 0.5 18.7 4.4 6.8 6.0 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.2 1.4 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 4.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 6.1 3.3 4.8 5.1 5.2 8.2 8.0 2.8 6.1 9.6 4.6 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)5.9 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)155.1 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 204 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft)63 109 100 76 83 128 177 193 141 104 Average Queue (ft)18 56 44 21 29 51 75 111 25 23 95th Queue (ft)48 94 87 58 70 106 145 178 88 75 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 8 0 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft) 108 47 75 65 45 Average Queue (ft)8 2 16 24 16 95th Queue (ft)50 23 55 50 38 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 205 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft)96 127 101 59 62 80 88 73 86 105 52 175 Average Queue (ft)26 62 39 11 18 16 33 26 30 43 14 88 95th Queue (ft)67 105 78 38 51 48 61 61 69 92 42 152 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 116 122 85 Average Queue (ft)43 48 37 95th Queue (ft)91 98 70 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)50 61 45 41 61 72 Average Queue (ft)15 25 19 10 20 35 95th Queue (ft)43 53 46 34 49 60 Link Distance (ft)963 963 981 981 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 206 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 189 132 65 51 42 30 101 112 78 100 97 59 Average Queue (ft)87 44 22 10 10 8 38 63 25 40 44 19 95th Queue (ft)162 99 55 35 33 26 80 99 61 86 81 49 Link Distance (ft)647 873 873 686 686 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)14 4 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)80 72 60 49 Average Queue (ft)42 28 15 22 95th Queue (ft)74 63 43 48 Link Distance (ft)663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 207 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 111 116 97 81 122 120 157 141 213 108 128 77 Average Queue (ft)50 50 26 31 57 24 76 67 95 50 68 13 95th Queue (ft)93 91 70 63 102 67 133 123 177 96 109 47 Link Distance (ft)1325 1325 977 977 805 805 686 686 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 1 0 0 0 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)21 Average Queue (ft)1 95th Queue (ft)11 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)84 11 29 151 Average Queue (ft)34 0 2 46 95th Queue (ft)70 8 14 100 Link Distance (ft)805 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 208 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 119 147 35 131 45 56 Average Queue (ft)44 32 11 64 20 20 95th Queue (ft)84 105 33 104 40 46 Link Distance (ft)652 452 308 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 28 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 209 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.7 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)51.4 21.8 7.8 7.3 25.1 3.2 11.3 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 2.3 5.9 1.3 17.1 1.2 8.2 4.7 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)37.6 35.3 23.6 47.9 47.4 6.0 55.2 21.8 5.1 33.8 16.0 6.2 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)22.0 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.1 0.9 4.6 5.4 2.8 2.5 4.9 2.5 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.4 3.6 2.0 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)40.8 49.1 15.6 42.1 53.4 5.4 47.0 17.5 7.0 47.6 13.7 4.2 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)24.6 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 210 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.4 0.1 0.2 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)22.9 26.6 2.3 24.5 28.1 2.7 30.2 26.7 5.1 29.5 29.5 2.4 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)21.0 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 1.4 1.1 0.4 21.4 6.1 8.7 7.3 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 3.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 3.8 Total Del/Veh (s)9.0 10.4 6.0 6.9 5.0 3.4 9.5 10.0 3.0 7.7 10.5 5.4 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)281.8 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 211 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 120 163 160 124 147 183 189 210 209 162 Average Queue (ft)50 82 79 59 71 101 85 114 51 71 95th Queue (ft)99 138 137 118 136 168 162 182 137 146 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 14 0 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft) 141 38 145 101 73 Average Queue (ft)16 2 29 38 31 95th Queue (ft)79 21 89 76 57 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 212 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 251 289 178 54 78 115 109 74 131 167 75 218 Average Queue (ft)132 169 80 15 24 48 48 26 64 84 33 118 95th Queue (ft)223 250 149 44 61 96 87 62 118 143 60 201 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 4 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 14 0 0 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 135 161 143 Average Queue (ft)68 78 66 95th Queue (ft)125 142 119 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)6 1 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)66 47 71 60 31 63 Average Queue (ft)33 12 36 26 9 30 95th Queue (ft)59 38 60 52 31 57 Link Distance (ft)963 963 981 981 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 213 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 315 175 136 128 85 70 157 180 99 126 89 45 Average Queue (ft)127 81 69 44 25 26 84 104 32 56 37 6 95th Queue (ft)240 166 123 97 64 52 144 159 76 108 72 28 Link Distance (ft)641 873 873 687 687 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 23 10 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)48 17 0 1 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)64 136 106 64 Average Queue (ft)25 57 37 26 95th Queue (ft)57 113 81 55 Link Distance (ft)663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 214 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 142 141 148 98 161 138 194 196 202 211 224 160 Average Queue (ft)64 67 35 46 73 41 99 95 96 112 128 44 95th Queue (ft)116 117 95 83 124 93 169 163 174 183 195 118 Link Distance (ft)620 620 990 990 805 805 687 687 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 2 2 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)48 Average Queue (ft)2 95th Queue (ft)20 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)92 8 11 37 136 Average Queue (ft)34 0 0 2 47 95th Queue (ft)76 6 8 16 91 Link Distance (ft)1191 805 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 215 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 158 303 26 176 57 72 Average Queue (ft)43 69 8 76 27 38 95th Queue (ft)116 228 27 134 48 61 Link Distance (ft)648 452 308 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 5 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 121 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 216 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)45.9 1.3 23.0 20.5 18.0 28.5 4.0 15.6 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.1 2.4 3.9 0.6 11.1 2.1 6.6 3.6 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 2.0 2.2 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.0 30.5 13.0 38.4 43.7 4.8 51.6 29.3 8.2 45.9 11.8 4.4 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)22.0 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 1.0 8.1 5.6 1.3 4.7 4.9 3.4 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)34.2 40.5 11.8 28.6 1.9 3.3 39.9 16.5 9.4 43.8 21.3 8.3 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)19.0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 217 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.1 0.2 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)19.8 20.2 1.9 20.8 25.5 2.6 23.7 23.3 6.1 26.8 27.6 2.5 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)17.1 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 1.0 1.2 0.5 19.8 5.2 6.9 6.3 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 3.9 Total Del/Veh (s)14.6 5.0 6.6 6.5 4.8 10.2 10.6 3.6 7.3 12.7 4.9 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.9 Total Del/Veh (s)9.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)154.2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 218 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft)66 128 122 136 162 191 191 244 396 286 Average Queue (ft)18 58 51 66 79 102 95 138 88 53 95th Queue (ft)50 106 101 117 144 167 183 215 269 185 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)2 7 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)9 31 7 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft)75 23 93 69 41 Average Queue (ft)4 1 13 29 17 95th Queue (ft)32 9 49 55 36 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 219 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft)87 121 116 38 65 74 89 64 152 173 74 290 Average Queue (ft)25 62 42 11 18 15 36 24 63 79 32 164 95th Queue (ft)64 103 92 35 52 47 67 56 114 136 64 267 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 235 133 127 Average Queue (ft)72 63 43 95th Queue (ft)167 120 94 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 1 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)56 141 74 56 65 86 Average Queue (ft)17 62 35 17 29 40 95th Queue (ft)45 111 62 45 58 69 Link Distance (ft)963 963 981 981 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 220 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 221 130 70 53 40 31 107 122 89 97 148 92 Average Queue (ft)89 51 21 12 7 5 42 64 32 44 61 32 95th Queue (ft)170 106 52 38 26 22 88 106 75 84 116 73 Link Distance (ft)640 873 873 687 687 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)15 5 0 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 110 148 119 112 Average Queue (ft)53 78 49 50 95th Queue (ft)90 133 97 92 Link Distance (ft)663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 221 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 140 120 108 87 137 130 159 174 252 127 149 88 Average Queue (ft)61 54 29 35 62 28 79 69 115 59 77 11 95th Queue (ft)110 98 73 68 112 88 136 128 208 108 127 45 Link Distance (ft)624 624 972 972 804 804 687 687 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 2 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 1 0 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)19 Average Queue (ft)1 95th Queue (ft)10 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)89 14 53 162 Average Queue (ft)33 0 2 50 95th Queue (ft)75 5 16 108 Link Distance (ft)1191 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 222 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 193 309 43 152 54 60 Average Queue (ft)77 48 13 70 21 26 95th Queue (ft)156 193 35 119 43 50 Link Distance (ft)669 452 308 665 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)22 2 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 96 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 223 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)51.3 21.7 10.0 9.3 22.8 3.6 12.4 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 2.5 4.1 0.9 24.4 3.2 8.1 6.6 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 2.7 2.8 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)38.5 38.0 21.2 46.1 46.3 8.6 56.9 23.9 5.3 32.3 15.2 5.8 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)22.2 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.6 0.9 5.2 8.4 6.1 3.6 5.1 4.4 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.7 3.5 1.8 0.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)43.0 46.2 17.5 43.8 48.1 6.9 47.5 19.8 7.8 46.3 14.3 4.3 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)25.5 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 224 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.2 0.3 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)24.5 27.6 3.0 23.1 31.2 3.2 30.0 29.0 6.5 32.4 32.6 2.5 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)22.4 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 1.4 1.1 0.4 24.1 8.8 11.2 8.8 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 3.2 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 3.5 Total Del/Veh (s)11.2 11.6 8.1 10.6 5.9 2.5 13.5 14.1 3.5 8.2 14.9 7.4 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)10.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)374.6 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 225 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 149 266 277 267 308 327 194 236 307 255 Average Queue (ft)56 113 114 98 123 150 97 131 82 82 95th Queue (ft)117 200 210 209 237 264 185 214 220 190 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 3 6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 14 31 1 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft) 199 82 106 161 83 Average Queue (ft)17 5 22 67 33 95th Queue (ft)95 40 72 125 61 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 226 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 252 281 178 58 91 129 179 78 156 174 77 230 Average Queue (ft)133 172 87 21 34 49 75 26 76 99 35 126 95th Queue (ft)216 248 160 50 71 103 137 64 144 159 65 210 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 4 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 15 0 0 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 158 179 199 Average Queue (ft)75 78 66 95th Queue (ft)137 143 130 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)6 1 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)81 60 147 77 35 71 Average Queue (ft)34 25 67 38 13 32 95th Queue (ft)65 54 112 64 38 59 Link Distance (ft)963 963 981 981 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 227 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 359 175 157 149 87 89 181 202 123 151 101 44 Average Queue (ft)141 88 89 64 28 35 82 107 41 66 41 7 95th Queue (ft)285 179 146 127 70 70 147 166 94 126 80 30 Link Distance (ft)638 873 873 686 686 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 25 11 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)52 20 0 0 1 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)68 137 104 78 Average Queue (ft)30 63 42 30 95th Queue (ft)60 118 90 62 Link Distance (ft)663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 228 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 131 138 148 125 146 175 199 256 222 211 244 175 Average Queue (ft)68 68 40 51 77 52 103 113 117 130 147 48 95th Queue (ft)118 122 105 96 129 126 179 199 200 204 221 128 Link Distance (ft)627 627 1144 1144 805 805 686 686 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 4 2 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 3 5 5 2 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)52 Average Queue (ft)3 95th Queue (ft)24 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)87 45 24 159 Average Queue (ft)37 2 1 44 95th Queue (ft)77 24 11 87 Link Distance (ft)805 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 229 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 199 339 30 238 95 125 Average Queue (ft)48 99 9 96 39 55 95th Queue (ft)123 263 29 179 72 94 Link Distance (ft)660 452 308 666 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 167 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 230 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)43.2 0.3 24.2 5.1 4.1 25.5 2.8 10.1 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 2.4 4.1 0.6 11.7 1.7 5.7 3.6 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 2.0 1.9 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)29.0 34.1 14.2 39.6 49.3 5.2 43.8 10.8 4.1 44.5 12.7 4.0 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)18.7 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 1.0 6.6 5.2 1.3 4.7 4.5 3.1 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.4 44.9 13.1 35.8 34.8 5.9 36.3 14.8 6.0 29.5 9.2 3.7 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)18.5 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 231 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)22.6 24.9 2.6 20.9 26.1 2.6 26.9 26.3 7.2 27.2 25.7 1.0 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)18.4 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 1.1 1.3 0.5 21.9 5.3 7.3 6.7 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.7 3.8 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 3.9 Total Del/Veh (s)17.9 14.4 6.6 5.5 7.3 5.4 11.9 11.4 4.5 6.8 14.3 5.2 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.3 Total Del/Veh (s)10.8 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.2 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.9 3.1 0.2 0.1 10.7 5.9 2.5 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 3.9 3.6 0.9 3.0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 232 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 0.8 0.9 3.9 0.1 0.0 12.1 8.2 9.2 4.3 2.5 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)35.6 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 233 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft)55 132 122 88 89 129 199 236 222 280 Average Queue (ft)15 63 51 22 29 50 92 133 49 39 95th Queue (ft)44 109 106 63 71 104 179 210 163 154 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 21 1 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft)98 48 70 82 65 Average Queue (ft)5 2 18 31 24 95th Queue (ft)41 20 54 62 47 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 234 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 106 126 120 62 54 68 82 87 104 133 60 336 Average Queue (ft)28 62 42 15 15 20 35 30 48 58 19 169 95th Queue (ft)77 107 88 43 45 52 66 71 93 110 49 283 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 226 154 81 Average Queue (ft)83 63 39 95th Queue (ft)168 127 69 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)48 108 69 64 64 80 Average Queue (ft)17 58 32 23 31 42 95th Queue (ft)43 92 60 56 57 67 Link Distance (ft)963 963 982 982 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 235 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 205 166 93 81 29 53 92 112 110 136 143 106 Average Queue (ft)94 54 41 23 6 15 43 68 44 65 64 42 95th Queue (ft)171 125 82 57 23 38 82 106 94 120 112 87 Link Distance (ft)646 298 298 307 307 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 4 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)15 6 1 0 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 118 93 62 66 Average Queue (ft)58 37 17 26 95th Queue (ft)103 77 47 56 Link Distance (ft)664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 145 127 138 98 116 141 170 143 311 142 156 111 Average Queue (ft)67 55 29 44 59 40 80 74 136 69 90 21 95th Queue (ft)120 105 83 84 104 107 139 130 240 124 137 70 Link Distance (ft)573 573 363 363 805 805 294 294 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1 0 0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 236 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 103 10 33 287 Average Queue (ft)40 0 2 65 95th Queue (ft)83 8 16 174 Link Distance (ft)805 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 198 497 35 185 52 60 Average Queue (ft)87 84 11 83 23 31 95th Queue (ft)165 331 32 138 48 51 Link Distance (ft)653 452 308 668 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)5 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)39 2 Intersection: 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 237 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 8 Intersection: 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)87 71 Average Queue (ft)14 32 95th Queue (ft)50 58 Link Distance (ft)363 244 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Movement WB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)57 Average Queue (ft)20 95th Queue (ft)42 Link Distance (ft)151 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served LT TR LT LR LR Maximum Queue (ft)33 4 31 104 66 Average Queue (ft)4 0 3 41 22 95th Queue (ft)22 3 18 75 50 Link Distance (ft)298 298 73 168 225 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 238 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 9 Intersection: 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 100 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 239 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)51.3 21.3 10.0 9.8 24.6 3.7 12.1 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.8 5.6 1.3 25.3 2.1 7.7 6.6 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 2.6 2.8 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)38.6 38.5 23.8 43.0 45.6 8.3 62.2 23.4 5.7 33.6 16.1 6.2 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)22.2 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)7.9 1.0 5.4 8.0 6.3 4.5 5.8 4.5 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)43.7 54.4 19.8 49.3 46.0 6.0 43.6 18.5 5.2 38.9 13.8 4.1 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)25.4 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 240 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)26.2 29.9 2.7 25.5 31.0 3.2 31.8 31.0 9.3 32.6 29.5 1.5 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)23.0 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 1.6 0.9 0.5 26.4 9.4 10.6 9.0 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)4.1 4.4 2.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.7 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)13.8 14.0 10.0 13.9 7.2 6.2 18.9 18.9 8.6 11.2 23.7 8.4 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.2 Total Del/Veh (s)13.2 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.1 0.3 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.3 3.1 0.3 0.1 19.4 8.8 2.6 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 4.2 4.4 1.5 2.9 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 241 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.9 0.9 2.0 0.2 0.1 10.6 4.4 14.7 5.5 2.3 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)44.3 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 242 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 133 184 196 178 180 225 183 211 204 203 Average Queue (ft)52 95 95 77 102 134 90 116 62 79 95th Queue (ft)103 153 158 150 171 210 164 182 155 167 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 14 1 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft)81 18 113 171 86 Average Queue (ft)8 1 31 69 31 95th Queue (ft)41 9 89 125 58 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 243 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 230 252 225 74 78 113 159 71 170 189 70 242 Average Queue (ft)133 171 88 27 28 45 72 25 79 101 34 127 95th Queue (ft)218 240 175 58 62 93 130 58 145 168 63 218 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 4 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 15 0 0 0 0 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 210 190 143 Average Queue (ft)103 86 69 95th Queue (ft)179 157 122 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)6 1 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)80 52 130 81 44 76 Average Queue (ft)35 24 67 38 17 34 95th Queue (ft)67 49 110 64 44 63 Link Distance (ft)963 963 982 982 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 244 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 354 175 204 178 77 66 159 171 150 154 102 109 Average Queue (ft)137 90 108 73 21 29 80 102 56 75 48 40 95th Queue (ft)264 181 184 145 54 54 141 157 115 133 84 87 Link Distance (ft)639 298 298 307 307 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 27 12 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)56 22 1 0 1 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 114 127 128 68 Average Queue (ft)41 64 43 29 95th Queue (ft)84 112 94 58 Link Distance (ft)664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 245 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 138 151 154 111 150 175 197 276 254 256 280 196 Average Queue (ft)72 73 41 55 79 62 106 125 151 137 165 62 95th Queue (ft)123 132 107 99 133 148 185 218 238 213 238 152 Link Distance (ft)557 557 363 363 805 805 293 293 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 3 3 2 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 3 7 5 0 1 3 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)53 Average Queue (ft)4 95th Queue (ft)28 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 120 51 32 261 Average Queue (ft)46 3 2 58 95th Queue (ft)96 30 17 146 Link Distance (ft)805 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 246 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 8 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 178 496 44 255 135 112 Average Queue (ft)56 110 10 123 46 61 95th Queue (ft)132 337 33 231 99 102 Link Distance (ft)672 452 308 665 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 5 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 14 2 0 Intersection: 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Movement EB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft)9 Average Queue (ft)0 95th Queue (ft)6 Link Distance (ft)147 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served LT T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)94 152 8 93 Average Queue (ft)31 7 0 31 95th Queue (ft)77 80 5 64 Link Distance (ft)363 363 147 244 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 247 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 9 Intersection: 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served R TR T Maximum Queue (ft)61 4 3 Average Queue (ft)21 0 0 95th Queue (ft)50 3 2 Link Distance (ft)164 293 307 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LT TR LT TR LR LR Maximum Queue (ft)95 18 51 8 71 71 Average Queue (ft)30 1 5 0 31 33 95th Queue (ft)70 13 26 3 58 55 Link Distance (ft)298 298 73 73 168 207 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 163 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 248 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/23/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)51.0 0.6 25.7 19.9 18.4 30.9 4.3 16.4 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 2.8 5.4 0.9 11.1 2.6 5.8 3.9 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 1.9 2.2 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)29.4 35.1 13.8 35.1 41.8 4.5 54.2 30.1 8.8 48.8 12.1 4.5 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)23.2 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.1 1.1 8.4 5.2 1.2 5.0 5.1 3.4 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)36.1 38.4 13.2 30.5 2.0 4.1 38.7 18.4 9.0 42.7 22.7 8.6 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)20.0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 249 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/23/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.4 0.2 0.2 3.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)20.9 23.4 2.3 21.3 27.2 2.9 26.6 23.8 6.2 27.2 26.1 2.5 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)18.0 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 1.3 1.2 0.5 24.0 6.4 8.7 7.6 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)4.4 1.8 3.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 3.8 Total Del/Veh (s)19.7 10.5 8.7 10.3 6.5 5.0 11.7 11.6 3.5 10.0 18.5 5.0 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 Total Del/Veh (s)12.5 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.9 Total Del/Veh (s)169.7 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 250 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/23/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft)63 128 126 162 177 190 199 249 431 313 Average Queue (ft)18 66 55 72 86 104 108 147 92 51 95th Queue (ft)50 111 104 125 147 171 201 230 279 178 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)2 8 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)11 40 9 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft)89 52 114 74 62 Average Queue (ft)8 3 20 29 20 95th Queue (ft)44 24 68 56 44 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 251 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/23/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 124 141 148 57 49 64 68 74 166 175 89 310 Average Queue (ft)26 63 46 14 17 16 34 30 78 90 36 183 95th Queue (ft)68 112 105 43 46 49 62 65 138 150 75 291 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 211 146 104 Average Queue (ft)70 61 44 95th Queue (ft)158 126 84 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)54 134 63 66 67 88 Average Queue (ft)17 67 30 16 30 47 95th Queue (ft)47 114 56 49 57 76 Link Distance (ft)963 963 981 981 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 252 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/23/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 227 156 72 63 44 39 106 124 118 119 123 74 Average Queue (ft)104 57 27 14 9 7 43 69 38 55 60 29 95th Queue (ft)192 123 61 43 29 26 90 111 87 106 104 65 Link Distance (ft)640 873 873 687 687 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 17 5 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)22 8 0 0 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)97 147 128 135 Average Queue (ft)53 78 50 51 95th Queue (ft)84 132 104 99 Link Distance (ft)663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 133 134 111 107 118 157 171 144 275 122 158 122 Average Queue (ft)67 60 32 42 66 34 88 74 119 60 74 13 95th Queue (ft)117 110 83 83 109 93 157 127 219 108 125 57 Link Distance (ft)624 624 972 972 804 804 687 687 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 2 0 0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 253 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/23/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)96 11 10 38 229 Average Queue (ft)36 0 0 3 60 95th Queue (ft)73 8 0 19 146 Link Distance (ft)1191 804 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 199 514 34 156 62 62 Average Queue (ft)102 99 12 77 27 26 95th Queue (ft)192 329 34 127 55 51 Link Distance (ft)669 452 308 665 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)6 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)43 9 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 154 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 254 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)51.4 22.2 10.3 9.9 24.2 3.9 12.7 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 3.1 5.5 1.5 36.3 2.0 9.4 9.0 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 2.7 2.7 2.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)39.1 37.6 21.5 49.1 54.7 8.1 59.4 23.4 5.3 33.6 15.1 6.5 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)22.5 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.9 0.9 5.5 9.0 6.5 4.1 6.4 4.7 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.5 3.5 1.8 0.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)42.8 51.2 18.6 47.4 47.9 6.0 45.5 21.2 8.0 50.3 15.7 4.5 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)26.5 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 255 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.2 0.2 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)26.8 30.8 2.9 25.2 33.9 3.4 34.7 29.7 6.3 36.2 34.9 2.7 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)24.7 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 1.4 1.0 0.4 26.2 9.9 11.1 9.1 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 3.1 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.9 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)14.2 19.8 10.6 12.9 6.8 4.1 17.0 16.1 9.1 9.0 18.5 8.6 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)12.8 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)47.5 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 256 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 154 246 257 290 310 351 196 248 410 356 Average Queue (ft)60 113 115 99 126 157 102 134 86 94 95th Queue (ft)119 190 197 216 247 276 185 215 234 227 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 3 7 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 18 37 2 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft) 158 82 134 261 94 Average Queue (ft)19 8 33 96 40 95th Queue (ft)88 48 96 189 77 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 257 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 222 238 186 70 110 169 181 70 162 188 67 252 Average Queue (ft)135 170 90 26 36 57 73 23 76 97 34 135 95th Queue (ft)215 230 165 57 79 125 135 55 141 164 65 220 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 661 661 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 3 3 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 11 2 0 0 0 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 169 177 194 Average Queue (ft)78 79 74 95th Queue (ft)147 151 144 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)7 2 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)90 53 143 107 36 75 Average Queue (ft)35 21 70 42 16 36 95th Queue (ft)64 50 119 77 41 64 Link Distance (ft)963 963 981 981 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 258 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 363 175 178 152 75 78 179 196 110 132 103 57 Average Queue (ft)158 106 102 73 26 30 86 107 43 67 45 11 95th Queue (ft)307 195 158 136 61 58 159 173 94 122 87 39 Link Distance (ft)615 873 873 686 686 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 29 13 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)65 26 1 0 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)70 155 136 72 Average Queue (ft)33 70 45 31 95th Queue (ft)67 122 91 62 Link Distance (ft)661 661 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 259 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 177 154 162 151 181 186 199 238 233 249 263 188 Average Queue (ft)77 78 48 58 91 62 127 124 125 147 164 60 95th Queue (ft)139 132 119 110 156 143 199 219 212 227 239 147 Link Distance (ft)627 627 1144 1144 805 805 686 686 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 7 6 3 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 8 12 7 7 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)61 Average Queue (ft)7 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 113 4 49 27 318 Average Queue (ft)44 0 2 2 59 95th Queue (ft)89 3 22 13 165 Link Distance (ft)1191 805 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 260 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/22/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 200 455 54 262 113 121 Average Queue (ft)69 132 9 118 44 61 95th Queue (ft)162 368 32 212 84 102 Link Distance (ft)663 452 308 666 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 7 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 19 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 234 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 261 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.2 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)46.8 0.5 20.9 5.2 5.0 25.0 3.4 9.5 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.9 2.5 4.1 0.8 10.6 2.5 5.7 3.5 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 2.3 2.0 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.4 34.7 17.2 39.3 42.6 5.3 37.5 10.8 4.3 44.2 13.3 4.4 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)18.1 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.2 0.9 6.4 5.5 1.3 4.6 4.6 3.0 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.8 42.4 12.7 36.6 34.2 5.4 36.2 17.0 8.0 29.1 10.6 3.6 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)19.6 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 262 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)26.7 27.7 3.0 25.6 29.6 3.4 29.1 32.1 12.5 29.2 28.0 1.1 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)21.8 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)7.0 1.3 1.2 0.6 29.9 7.5 11.1 9.6 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 36.7 36.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.4 4.0 Total Del/Veh (s)41.9 20.5 12.0 7.2 5.4 21.0 20.1 11.9 13.0 28.4 6.1 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 26.3 Total Del/Veh (s)25.6 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.2 0.7 0.6 0.4 14.5 5.6 1.1 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.1 3.6 0.5 0.4 19.5 7.7 3.6 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.9 4.2 4.4 1.0 3.2 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 263 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 1.0 1.2 7.2 0.8 0.1 17.3 10.2 7.4 4.3 3.2 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 4.2 0.2 9.4 5.1 0.5 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)9.4 Total Del/Veh (s)43.1 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 264 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft)62 104 109 84 95 126 196 243 317 258 Average Queue (ft)20 54 44 22 30 52 92 131 69 49 95th Queue (ft)49 93 89 62 73 102 175 207 216 162 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 25 5 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft)37 50 84 72 60 Average Queue (ft)3 3 22 31 24 95th Queue (ft)19 24 61 58 46 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 265 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 124 136 136 58 58 64 79 75 122 127 55 321 Average Queue (ft)35 68 51 18 15 18 37 27 48 62 17 169 95th Queue (ft)82 112 112 48 42 46 67 61 101 114 45 273 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 266 230 90 Average Queue (ft)120 87 41 95th Queue (ft)215 171 75 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 5 0 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)55 118 68 61 67 80 Average Queue (ft)16 57 34 25 34 44 95th Queue (ft)45 93 59 54 58 69 Link Distance (ft)963 963 982 982 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 266 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 228 167 124 87 43 70 112 129 129 150 140 165 Average Queue (ft)95 54 51 27 9 19 43 69 53 75 74 67 95th Queue (ft)173 117 102 66 29 46 92 115 107 129 128 133 Link Distance (ft)646 298 298 307 307 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 16 4 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)21 7 2 1 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 190 122 94 74 Average Queue (ft)87 48 26 27 95th Queue (ft)153 101 71 60 Link Distance (ft)664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 267 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 178 143 138 122 139 214 188 269 382 180 193 128 Average Queue (ft)85 68 40 51 64 52 96 112 194 92 107 27 95th Queue (ft)150 121 106 93 118 136 168 204 328 154 166 86 Link Distance (ft)573 573 363 363 805 805 294 294 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 1 2 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 1 3 4 0 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)20 Average Queue (ft)1 95th Queue (ft)11 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 128 71 38 378 Average Queue (ft)48 3 3 80 95th Queue (ft)103 52 19 237 Link Distance (ft)1191 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)4 Queuing Penalty (veh)36 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 268 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 8 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 200 693 35 272 101 73 Average Queue (ft)155 326 14 120 31 32 95th Queue (ft)252 765 36 230 70 55 Link Distance (ft)653 452 308 668 Upstream Blk Time (%)11 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 31 7 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)278 36 0 Intersection: 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served LT T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 107 61 4 50 Average Queue (ft)32 6 0 16 95th Queue (ft)82 43 3 41 Link Distance (ft)147 147 259 212 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served LT T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 122 84 9 103 Average Queue (ft)41 4 0 42 95th Queue (ft)94 36 4 77 Link Distance (ft)363 363 147 244 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 269 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 9 Intersection: 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Movement WB NB Directions Served R T Maximum Queue (ft)76 11 Average Queue (ft)27 0 95th Queue (ft)57 8 Link Distance (ft)151 294 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served LT TR LT LR LR Maximum Queue (ft)66 14 61 111 56 Average Queue (ft)9 1 14 50 21 95th Queue (ft)40 5 45 92 48 Link Distance (ft)298 298 73 168 186 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)4 44 40 Average Queue (ft)0 4 17 95th Queue (ft)3 25 43 Link Distance (ft)73 333 187 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 435 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 270 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.0 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)49.3 21.1 10.3 11.0 23.9 4.5 12.3 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 2.5 6.0 1.8 43.3 2.3 9.5 10.1 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 2.5 2.5 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)38.3 36.1 24.4 48.2 50.8 8.8 65.3 38.4 7.4 33.1 16.7 6.6 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)25.6 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 1.0 5.2 8.5 6.4 4.3 6.1 4.8 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 4.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)53.0 62.3 27.7 50.0 48.0 8.8 52.1 22.8 5.7 39.0 16.8 4.6 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)29.5 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 271 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)27.5 35.3 4.2 28.0 34.4 4.4 32.6 34.4 14.1 44.0 38.8 2.1 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)27.8 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.1 7.4 2.9 2.7 29.5 9.5 11.8 17.1 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)6.1 5.8 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 18.4 29.4 45.6 0.9 0.8 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)22.9 25.0 15.8 21.0 11.1 5.9 52.7 51.4 39.0 24.4 36.5 12.3 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)8.8 Total Del/Veh (s)26.8 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 22.4 10.3 1.5 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.9 4.2 0.4 0.3 32.2 14.2 4.4 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 4.3 4.8 2.5 3.7 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 272 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.0 1.2 0.9 3.6 0.4 0.3 19.6 11.8 13.8 8.3 4.5 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.4 1.8 0.1 9.0 5.4 1.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)3.2 Total Del/Veh (s)57.1 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 273 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 1: Park Place Blvd & Wayzata Blvd Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L R R T T TR L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 131 211 216 172 206 244 196 222 292 332 Average Queue (ft)59 102 101 88 112 141 97 126 81 103 95th Queue (ft)113 160 167 161 186 213 177 194 209 248 Link Distance (ft)1146 492 492 492 681 681 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)8 23 3 Intersection: 2: Utica Ave S & Wayzata Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB Directions Served T R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft) 258 138 134 243 144 Average Queue (ft)23 9 38 102 45 95th Queue (ft)127 75 102 225 105 Link Distance (ft)1146 1146 614 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 274 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L L TR L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 259 288 190 79 95 131 180 117 318 311 187 226 Average Queue (ft)144 181 92 29 35 52 76 27 154 168 40 126 95th Queue (ft)229 256 163 66 77 102 133 79 247 256 90 206 Link Distance (ft)1217 963 963 664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 125 125 225 225 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 5 0 0 1 2 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 20 0 0 1 1 5 Intersection: 3: Park Place Blvd & 16th St Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 216 219 191 Average Queue (ft)121 98 71 95th Queue (ft)199 183 137 Link Distance (ft)492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)13 2 Intersection: 4: Utica Ave S & 16th St Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)92 62 129 78 42 64 Average Queue (ft)37 21 70 40 20 36 95th Queue (ft)71 51 111 67 46 58 Link Distance (ft)963 963 982 982 470 470 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 275 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 446 175 258 258 85 149 221 224 174 214 146 128 Average Queue (ft)174 107 145 114 23 48 99 123 87 113 51 47 95th Queue (ft)389 201 236 212 62 100 177 198 161 195 116 100 Link Distance (ft)639 298 298 307 307 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 225 200 250 250 140 330 Storage Blk Time (%) 34 17 3 2 0 0 0 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)75 33 6 4 0 0 0 11 1 Intersection: 5: Park Place Blvd & Gamble Dr Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 133 191 141 91 Average Queue (ft)60 84 50 30 95th Queue (ft)112 158 110 64 Link Distance (ft)664 664 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 330 330 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 276 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 152 170 212 157 192 242 199 272 334 293 377 288 Average Queue (ft)80 87 56 82 93 90 117 141 193 201 233 107 95th Queue (ft)139 145 145 143 152 179 201 222 296 305 363 232 Link Distance (ft)557 557 363 363 805 805 294 294 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 18 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 110 150 375 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 4 5 4 5 0 3 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 5 8 9 11 1 11 13 Intersection: 6: Cedar Ave & Parkdale Dr & Park Place Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 156 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)76 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)75 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 223 438 83 111 276 Average Queue (ft)125 93 3 11 82 95th Queue (ft)260 374 29 55 240 Link Distance (ft)1191 805 866 308 Upstream Blk Time (%)4 Queuing Penalty (veh)40 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%) 25 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)24 0 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 277 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 8 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 200 533 60 318 143 174 Average Queue (ft)96 191 14 259 56 72 95th Queue (ft)202 548 42 384 109 133 Link Distance (ft)672 452 308 665 Upstream Blk Time (%)4 8 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 45 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 11 2 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 32 5 2 Intersection: 9: Parkdale Dr & SE Access Movement EB EB SB Directions Served LT T LR Maximum Queue (ft)80 35 128 Average Queue (ft)12 1 44 95th Queue (ft)49 11 90 Link Distance (ft)147 147 212 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 10: Parkdale Dr & South Center Access Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served LT T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 156 167 16 130 Average Queue (ft)52 16 0 57 95th Queue (ft)124 84 6 109 Link Distance (ft)363 363 147 244 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 278 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 9 Intersection: 12: Park Place Blvd & West Access Movement WB SB SB Directions Served R T T Maximum Queue (ft)79 171 120 Average Queue (ft)33 12 6 95th Queue (ft)64 88 67 Link Distance (ft)151 307 307 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: North Center Access & Gamble Dr Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LT TR LT TR LR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 113 22 70 26 129 93 Average Queue (ft)41 0 9 1 61 38 95th Queue (ft)86 3 39 10 114 67 Link Distance (ft)298 298 73 73 168 182 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: NE Access & Gamble Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)18 90 Average Queue (ft)1 37 95th Queue (ft)8 70 Link Distance (ft)333 187 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 435 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 279 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour Mitigated 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 1.1 1.2 0.5 31.9 7.9 11.6 9.8 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 25.7 51.8 25.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 3.9 Total Del/Veh (s)31.9 40.9 16.8 13.9 7.7 6.6 8.8 10.3 2.8 16.6 30.6 5.3 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 18.3 Total Del/Veh (s)18.9 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)20.3 Total Del/Veh (s)662.1 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 280 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -AM Peak Hour Mitigated 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 118 6 44 389 Average Queue (ft)45 0 3 99 95th Queue (ft)94 0 20 297 Link Distance (ft)805 860 306 Upstream Blk Time (%)5 Queuing Penalty (veh)48 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 200 681 46 82 102 85 67 Average Queue (ft)143 247 13 39 58 30 32 95th Queue (ft)242 651 37 69 85 69 53 Link Distance (ft)648 446 306 654 Upstream Blk Time (%)6 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 350 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 16 8 Queuing Penalty (veh)150 39 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 236 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 281 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour MITIGATED 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)18.2 6.1 1.4 1.1 37.8 9.9 11.6 13.8 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 3.4 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.4 1.8 31.1 1.3 0.8 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)18.8 18.3 9.7 21.7 8.4 3.1 44.2 18.0 7.5 14.5 43.0 12.9 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.2 Total Del/Veh (s)21.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 Total Del/Veh (s)868.5 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 282 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2045) Build -PM Peak Hour MITIGATED 11/12/2024 West End Office Park Redevelopment SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 7: Cedar Ave & Quentin Ave Movement EB EB B25 WB SB Directions Served L T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 201 329 68 50 385 Average Queue (ft)82 53 3 7 90 95th Queue (ft)190 320 31 30 268 Link Distance (ft)1185 805 860 306 Upstream Blk Time (%)3 Queuing Penalty (veh)26 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 Storage Blk Time (%)9 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 1 Intersection: 8: Quentin Ave/Old Highway 100 & Old Cedar Lake Rd Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 198 480 47 306 348 210 201 Average Queue (ft)78 111 11 192 114 66 75 95th Queue (ft)162 316 35 339 334 176 144 Link Distance (ft)666 446 306 663 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 6 6 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 32 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 350 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 5 6 6 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 14 5 28 9 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 130 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 283 E. Turn Lane Warrant Sheets City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 284 Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. INPUT Value 20 623 115 OUTPUT Value 2592 right-turn bay for a 4-lane roadway: Do NOT add right-turn bay. Roadway geometry: Variable Variable Guidance for determining the need for a major-road Major-road speed, mph: Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h: Right-turn volume, veh/h: Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h: 4-lane roadw ay North Center Access - Eastbound Right (Design Year 2045 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 285 Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. INPUT Value 20 452 40 OUTPUT Value 13251 right-turn bay for a 4-lane roadway: Do NOT add right-turn bay. Roadway geometry: Variable Variable Guidance for determining the need for a major-road Major-road speed, mph: Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h: Right-turn volume, veh/h: Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h: 4-lane roadw ay Northeast Access - Eastbound Right (Design Year 2045 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 286 Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. INPUT Value 30 590 79 OUTPUT Value 610 right-turn bay for a 4-lane roadway: Do NOT add right-turn bay. Roadway geometry: Variable Variable Guidance for determining the need for a major-road Major-road speed, mph: Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h: Right-turn volume, veh/h: Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h: 4-lane roadw ay 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h Add right - turn bay Southeast Access - Westbound Right (Design Year 2045 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 287 Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. INPUT Value 30 684 44 OUTPUT Value 364 right-turn bay for a 4-lane roadway: Do NOT add right-turn bay. Roadway geometry: Variable Variable Guidance for determining the need for a major-road Major-road speed, mph: Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h: Right-turn volume, veh/h: Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h: 4-lane roadw ay 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h Add right - turn bay Southwest Access - Westbound Right (Design Year 2045 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 288 Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. INPUT Value 30 941 84 OUTPUT Value 119 right-turn bay for a 4-lane roadway: Do NOT add right-turn bay. Roadway geometry: Variable Variable Guidance for determining the need for a major-road Major-road speed, mph: Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h: Right-turn volume, veh/h: Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h: 4-lane roadw ay 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h Add right - turn bay West Access - Northbound Right (Design Year 2045 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 289 4-lane roadway INPUT Value 41 1008 673 OUTPUT Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay: CALIBRATION CONSTANTS Value 4.0 6.0 Variable Average time for making left-turn, s: Critical headway, s: Variable Left-turning volume (VL), veh/h: Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. Combined volume (VA and VO) check: Left-turn treatment warranted. Advancing volume (VA), veh/h: Opposing volume (VO), veh/h: O.K. O.K. Variable Message Opposing volume (Vo) check: Note: When VO < 400 veh/h (dashed line), a left-turn lane is not normally warranted unless the advancing volume (VA) in the same direction as the left-turning traffic exceeds 400 veh/h (VA > 400 veh/h). 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h Left-Turning Volume (VL), veh/h Four-Lane Undivided Road Left-turn treatment not warranted. Left-turn treatment warranted. Southeast Access - Westbound Left (Design Year 2045 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 290 4-lane roadway INPUT Value 50 1008 684 OUTPUT Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay: CALIBRATION CONSTANTS Value 4.0 6.0 Variable Average time for making left-turn, s: Critical headway, s: Variable Left-turning volume (VL), veh/h: Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. Combined volume (VA and VO) check: Left-turn treatment warranted. Advancing volume (VA), veh/h: Opposing volume (VO), veh/h: O.K. O.K. Variable Message Opposing volume (Vo) check: Note: When VO < 400 veh/h (dashed line), a left-turn lane is not normally warranted unless the advancing volume (VA) in the same direction as the left-turning traffic exceeds 400 veh/h (VA > 400 veh/h). 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h Left-Turning Volume (VL), veh/h Four-Lane Undivided Road Left-turn treatment not warranted. Left-turn treatment warranted. Southwest Access - Westbound Left (Design Year 2045 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 291 4-lane roadway INPUT Value 55 874 644 OUTPUT Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay: CALIBRATION CONSTANTS Value 4.0 6.0 Variable Average time for making left-turn, s: Critical headway, s: Variable Left-turning volume (VL), veh/h: Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. Combined volume (VA and VO) check: Left-turn treatment warranted. Advancing volume (VA), veh/h: Opposing volume (VO), veh/h: O.K. O.K. Variable Message Opposing volume (Vo) check: Note: When VO < 400 veh/h (dashed line), a left-turn lane is not normally warranted unless the advancing volume (VA) in the same direction as the left-turning traffic exceeds 400 veh/h (VA > 400 veh/h). 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h Left-Turning Volume (VL), veh/h Four-Lane Undivided Road Left-turn treatment not warranted. Left-turn treatment warranted. Southwest Access - Westbound Left (Opening Year 2029 Build) City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution approving record of decision regarding West End Office Park Development environmental assessment worksheet Page 292 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5f Executive summary Title: Approve Housing Authority appointment Recommended action: Motion to appoint Jolene Tanner to the Housing Authority Board for the term ending May 31, 2025. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to appoint Jolene Tanner to the housing authority board for the term ending May 31, 2025? Summary: The proposed appointment aims to address a mid-term vacancy on the housing authority board. If approved, Jolene Tanner will assume the vacant position, with her term ending on May 31, 2025. Upon approval, her term will commence immediately and new appointees will undergo orientation with their designated staff liaison. This current vacancy exist due to a current housing authority board member stepping down. Jolene Tanner was recommended for this role, having interviewed for a board position in the fall of 2024. At that time, Ms. Tanner was selected as the “alternate candidate” for any future vacancies. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5g Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 2825 Idaho Avenue South - Ward 1 Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2825 Idaho Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 08-117-21-43-0019. Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the city council. Summary: Aaron and Brittany Lomicka, owners of the single-family residence at 2825 Idaho Avenue South, have requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy. The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $7,380. Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Beth Holida, office assistant Stacy Voelker, administrative coordinator Reviewed by: Emily Carr, assessing technician Austin Holm, utilities superintendent Jay Hall, public works director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 2825 Idaho Avenue South - Ward 1 Resolution No. 25-____ Authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2825 Idaho Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 08-117-21-43-0019 Whereas, the property owners at 2825 Idaho Avenue South, have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single-family residence located at 2825 Idaho Avenue South; and Whereas, the property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1.The petition from the property owners requesting approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2.The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $7,380. 4.The property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5.The property owners have agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.5%. 6.The property owners have executed an agreement with the city and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council January 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5h Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3541 Xylon Ave South - Ward 3 Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3541 Xylon Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-0076. Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the city council. Summary: Carson Nagel and Clare Devick, owners of the single-family residence at 3541 Xylon Avenue South, have requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy. The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted and approved by city staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $9,980. Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Beth Holida, office assistant Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Reviewed by: Emily Carr, assessing technician Austin Holm, utilities superintendent Jay Hall, public works director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3541 Xylon Ave South - Ward 3 Resolution No. 25-____ Authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3541 Xylon Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-0076 Whereas, the property owners at 3541 Xylon Avenue South, have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single-family residence located at 3541 Xylon Avenue South; and Whereas, the property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the property owners requesting approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $9,980. 4. The property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The property owners have agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.5%. 6. The property owners have executed an agreement with the city and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council January 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Public hearing: 6a Executive summary Title: Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public hearing. The council will be asked to act on this project at its Feb. 3, 2025 meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the pavement rehabilitation, utility improvements and sidewalk installation recommended as a part of this project? Summary: The annual Pavement Management project rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets. In 2025, the streets to be rehabilitated are in Pavement Management Area 3 (Cedar Manor, Westwood Hills and Kilmer Pond neighborhoods). Street rehabilitation work consists of replacing the existing bituminous pavement, concrete curb and gutter replacement, and utility replacement and repair. In addition to reconstructing existing infrastructure, one new sidewalk segment is being recommended to be built as part of this project. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city's 2025 capital improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using franchise fees, utility funds and general obligation bonds (sidewalks). The total cost estimate for the project is $3,207,350. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Attachment #1 - Project map including staff recommendations Attachment #2 - Sidewalk segment matrix Attachment #3 - Community member feedback Jan. 6, 2025 study session report Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 Discussion Background: This year's project will be performed in Area 3 of the city's eight pavement management areas. It includes work in the Cedar Manor, Westwood Hills and Kilmer Pond neighborhoods. Information regarding this project was shared with the city council in a written report at the Jan. 6 study session. The study session report includes recommendations for the elements to include in this project. A summary of the information in the report: • Description of the project scope • Sidewalk segment matrix and recommendations Financial or budget considerations: The following table outlines the estimated project cost and anticipated funding sources for this project. CIP Engineer's estimate Construction cost $4,985,000 $2,789,000 Engineering and administration $749,000 $418,350 Total $5,734,000 $3,207,350 Funding Sources Pavement management $2,765,000 $2,416,150 Water $518,000 $0 Stormwater $516,000 $363,400 Sanitary sewer $230,000 $378,350 General obligation bonds (sidewalks) $1,705,000 $49,450 Total $5,734,000 $3,207,350 Overall, the engineer's estimate is lower than CIP; however, the sanitary sewer cost is higher than the CIP. After review of the existing sanitary sewer pipe near the lift station on Gettysburg Avenue, utility staff recommends the replacement of both the sanitary sewer force main and the sanitary gravity line in the proximity of the lift station. The work is necessary to ensure the underground utility infrastructure will continue to serve our customers now and into the future. Engineering staff is working with finance staff on how these costs fit in with the overall 2025 CIP. Next steps: The proposed schedule for the project to facilitate construction completion in 2025. Council public hearing Jan. 21, 2025 Council project approval Feb. 3, 2025 Council awards construction bids April 2025 Construction May to November 2025 Minneapolis Golf ClubMinneapolis Golf Club Cedar Manor/Lake Park Cedar Manor/Lake Park Texa-Tonka/Lake Victoria Park Texa-Tonka/Lake Victoria Park Westwood Hills Nature Center Westwood Hills Nature Center Ford ParkFord Park CEDAR LA K E R D CEDAR LA K E R DHIGHWAY 169HIGHWAY 16916T H ST W 16T H ST W TEXAS AVE STEXAS AVE SWAYZATA BLVDWAYZATABLVD VIRGINIA AVESVIRGINIA AVESINTE RSTAT E 394 INTE RSTAT E 394 24TH ST W24TH ST W VICTORI A W A Y VICTORI A W A Y 25TH S T W25TH S T W 22ND S T W22NDSTWFORD RDFORD RDFLAG AVE SFLAG AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W 25TH ST W 25TH ST W ZINRAN AVE SZINRAN AVE SFRANKLI N AVE W FRANKLI N AVE W UTAHDRUTAHDRRUNNYMEADE LNRUNNYMEADE LN WESTWOOD HILLSDRWESTWOOD HILLSDR29 TH ST W 29 TH ST W 26TH ST W26TH ST W18TH ST W18TH ST WHI L L S BOR OAVE SHI L L S BO R OAVE S PARKER RDPARKERRD FRANKLIN AVE WFRANKLIN AVE W BOONEAVE SBOONEAVE SFLAGAVESFLAGAVESINDEPENDENCEAVESINDEPENDENCEAVESWESTMORELAND LN WESTMO RELAND LN VIRGINIAAVE SVIRGINIAAVE S 16TH S T W16TH S T W 28TH S T W 28TH S T WMELROSEAVE SMELROSEAVE SSUMTERAVESSUMTERAVESSTANLEN RDSTANLEN RD XYLONAVESXYLONAVESCLUB RDCLUB RD BOONE AVE SBOONE AVE SVIRGINIA CIR NVIRGINIA CIR N TEXAS CIRTEXAS CIR 23RD ST W 23RD ST W 24TH LN W 24TH LN W 24TH ST W 24TH ST W 22ND ST W 22ND ST W BURD PLBURD PLWESTWOOD HILLS RDWESTWOOD HILLS RDGETTYSBURGAVE SGETTYSBURGAVE SPARKERLNPARKERLNXYLONAVE SXYLONAVE SVIRGINIA CIR SVIRGINIA CIR S 22ND LN W22ND LN W 23RD ST W23RD ST W JORDANAVESJORDANAVES22ND ST W22ND ST W WESTWOODHIL L S CU RVEWESTWOODHIL L S CU RVE 28TH ST W 28TH ST W 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet ´ Attachment #1- 2025 Pavement Management Project Staff Recommendations Sidewalk - staff recommended Street rehabilitation Street rehabilitation and sanitary sewer replacement Updated 12/9/2024 M i n n e t o n k aM i n n e t o n k a S t . L o u i s P a r k S t . L o u i s P a r k G o l d e n V a l l e yG o l d e n V a l l e y City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 Page 3 Attachment #2 – Sidewalk Segment Matrix Segment #1 Boone Avenue – East Side (Cedar Lake Road to 25th Street) Data: Traffic volumes 339 vehicles/day Design: Right of way (ROW) width 50 feet Street width 30 feet Boulevard width (distance from back of curb to ROW line) 9 feet Permanent easement required None Proposed boulevard width 3 feet Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet Proposed sidewalk length 220 feet Existing sidewalk length 0 feet Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk Impacts: Trees in boulevard 1 Trees removed 1 (diameter of 6 inches) Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 3 Landscaping impacted None Retaining walls impacted None Retaining walls proposed None Private utility relocations None Miscellaneous None Financial: Construction cost $42,322 *Updated from Jan. 6 study session Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $192.37/LF *Updated from Jan. 6 study session Staff recommendations: Build in 2025? Yes City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 Page 4 1 Aaron Wiesen Subject:RE: W 28th St. Side Walk Next steps From: Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 3:03 PM To: Aaron Wiesen <AWiesen@stlouisparkmn.gov> Subject: Re: W 28th St. Side Walk Next steps 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. Hello Aaron, Below are the comments I'd like shared with the City Council for the public hearing on Jan 21st. I plan to attend the meeting, but just in case I'm not able to make it, I wanted to make sure my comments were available to them. Also I still would like to see more info on MnDOT's proposal for Jordan Ave North of the 169 exit. Are they planning additional public engagement? If not, who should I reach out to for comments and concerns? Public hearing comments: Hello council members and staff. Thank you for taking the time to listen to community members on this topic. I appreciate the open communication and understand that not everyone can be 100% happy with plans and results. With no sidewalk recommended on most of these streets, I would like to see alternative safety improvements proposed. I agree with my neighbors and city staff that the public right of way on W 28th st should not be expanded to create a sidewalk. Doing so would confine people outside of cars to a narrow strip that should have remained green space. It would also create an unnecessary burden for residents to clear snow from the sidewalk and create additional impermeable surface that would welcome more salt pollution. On streets that have heavier automobile traffic, sidewalks, and other separated infrastructure, are necessary to segregate vulnerable road users from fast moving vehicles, but the facilities created for people outside of automobiles are often marginalized, inconvenient, and uncomfortable to use in Saint Louis Park. I take issue with the city's approach to street safety being sidewalks as a one size fits all solution on residential streets. I believe that there are many better ways to make walking, cycling, and using transit a safer and more comfortable experience on our streets. This starts with designing the space so that people outside of cars are made to feel safe, and people using automobiles are made to feel like they are permitted to enter these spaces only if they maintain low speeds, focus, and exercise caution. Most crashes occur close to home because people entering spaces where they are accustomed to driving feel that they can relax their focus because they have routinely used the space without issue. I do not own a car and use my feet, bicycle, and public transit for almost all of my transportation. I know from experience in Saint Louis Park which streets are comfortable and which are not comfortable for me to use. People new to using alternative modes of transportation, or from different areas of the metro won't have the experience or confidence to enter these spaces if design does not communicate that they are going to be safe in these spaces. We need our streets to be designed in such a way that all users feel comfortable using them and feel safe because they are safe. City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 Page 5 2 When I ride or walk in less familiar parts of Saint Louis Park and the Twin Cities metro, I have to make on the fly evaluations of spaces to decide whether it is safe to continue or if I need to find a different route to my destination. When I see things like speed bumps, narrowed lanes, and human scale lighting fixtures, these things communicate to me that the vehicles using this space will know to slow down and look around for humans using the space. When I see smooth, wide roads with very tall lighting fixtures, this communicates to me that this space was designed for cars and I should either use the sidewalk or find an alternate route. W 28th st. currently has highway scale lighting spaced very far apart, a wide 26 ft right of way, and is super straight. Most people driving vehicles on our street know to drive slow and watch for people, but there have been incidents of vehicles moving at high speeds causing damage like in 2018 when a vehicle crashed into the garage of my neighbor at the end of the street. I worry that the only impact the "improvement" to our street will have is smoothing out the potholes which would welcome even faster traffic. Please consider re-evaluating the sidewalk planning framework to include solutions that go beyond sidewalks. Some resources to help get started with this can be found by contacting organizations like Bike.MN, America Walks, and Move Minnesota. MnDOT's Jordan ave: I'm aware that the right of way north of the 169 entrance/exit is MnDOT Jurisdiction and the city has little to no power to do anything about it, but I'd like to point out that this space is a huge hurdle for me, the people living on my street, and visitors to my street to safely getting around. I am frustrated and embarrassed when I invite people over because I know that they have no safe, comfortable, and legal way to get to my house. 5 ft of sidewalk on a highway exit will not offer adequate protection from motor vehicles. I am hoping that MnDOT will do public engagement and consider options that make the intersection of Jordan Ave and Cedar Lake rd. safely usable for people outside of cars and trucks. If MnDOT can not deliver on this, I ask that the city do what they can to acquire this right of way from MnDOT so that it can be designed in a manner that better suits the community. Specific curb improvement request. The school bus (that should not be necessary due to the proximity of our street to Park Spanish Immersion Elementary) uses the space where the curb is proposed to be replaced (across the BNSF railway from Gettysburg ave.) as a turn around since there is no good way for a school bus to turn around on our street. Can the curb be ramped and a more durable surface be used on the other side of that curb? It seems like the driver of the bus and the students would have an easier time if the curb were ramped. Also, the muddy, weedy mess that results from the bus driving onto the curb is a huge eyesore. A durable surface and ramped curb here (like a driveway) would offer significant improvement over the current state. Some suggestions: Speed bumps Human scale design- smaller light posts, narrowed right of way, planters, chicanes Consult with Bike.mn, Move Minnesota, America Walks, Toole Design, Visible City, Smart Mobility 02JAN2024 Near miss: On Thursday Jan 2, 2025, my partner was driving us home from his mothers house around lunch time. As we entered HWY 169 from 494 West a driver sped up, phone in hand like they were video chatting or recording, and made it unsafe for my partner to enter the highway. The driver proceeded to nearly miss hitting the vehicle in front of us in this process. The erratic, obviously distracted driver then continued to speed and weave between other vehicles until they were out of our view. We were shocked, but not surprised by this behavior. As we took the turn onto 28th st. from Jordan ave. the very same SUV was driving towards us just as they were on the highway, phone in hand in front of their face, but this time they seemed to be targeting our vehicle for a head on collision. My partner laid on the horn and swerved as far as he could out of the way and we both braced for impact. At the last second, the driver veered away from our car and continued on to exit our street. Rattled, my partner and I debated what we should do. Neither of us were able to get a City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 Page 6 3 read on the license plate and we had no idea where the vehicle had gone after it left our street. We opted not to call law enforcement since there was probably nothing they could do with the information we had. Stories like this one are far too common in Saint Louis Park, resulting in multiple deaths just in the past few months around the city. Law enforcement and the proposed street designs are not going to prevent my life or the lives of my neighbors from being severely altered or cut short by a motor vehicle driver. I am here to hold the city of Saint Louis Park accountable for the design of W 28th st. which allowed this driver, and others, to so viscerally threaten my life and the lives of my neighbors. This driver should have been slowed down by obstacles like bollards, barriers, or speed bumps long before they were able to threaten us with a head on collision. The solutions offered by the city do little to protect vulnerable road users. Drivers are only getting more distracted, desperate, and homicidal. We need our streets to be built with the safety of those outside of cars placed as the main priority. Thanks, 9200 W 28th St. Saint Louis Park, MN 55426 City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Pavement Management project (4025-1000) - Ward 4 Page 7 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Public hearing: 6b Executive summary Title: Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project (4025 -1050) - Ward 2 Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public hearing. The council will be asked to act on this project at its Feb. 3, 2025 meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the pavement rehabilitation, utility improvements, sidewalk installation and impervious reductions recommended as a part of this project? Summary: In 2025, the city will be reconstructing streets in the commercial area of the Wolfe Park neighborhood, including Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street. The project includes street reconstruction, utility replacement and repair, concrete curb and gutter replacement, street lighting repairs and street rightsizing. In addition to reconstructing existing infrastructure, new sidewalk segments are being recommended to be built as part of this project. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city's 2025 capital improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using franchise fees, utility funds and general obligation bonds (sidewalks). The total cost estimate for the project is $3,123,400. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Attachment #1: Project map with staff recommendations Attachment #2: Sidewalk segment matrix Attachment #3: Proposed parking restrictions map Attachment #4: Community member feedback Jan. 6, 2025 study session report Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6b) Page 2 Title: Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project (4025 -1050) - Ward 2 Discussion Background: In 2025, the city will be reconstructing streets in the Wolfe Park neighborhood, including Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street. Information regarding this project was shared with the city council in a written report at the Jan. 6 study session. The study session report includes recommendations for the elements to include in this project. A summary of the information in the report: • Description of the project scope • Sidewalk recommendations • Street width recommendations • Proposed parking restriction recommendations Financial or budget considerations: The following table outlines the estimated project cost and anticipated funding sources for this project. CIP Engineer's Estimate Construction cost $2,604,000 $2,716,000 Engineering and administration $652,000 $407,400 Total $3,256,000 $3,123,400 Funding Sources Pavement management $1,563,000 $1,539,850 Water $688,000 $684,250 Stormwater $373,000 $244,950 Sanitary sewer $269,000 $359,950 General obligation bonds (sidewalks) $363,000 $294,400 Total $3,256,000 $3,123,400 Overall, the engineer's estimate is lower than CIP; however, the sanitary sewer cost is higher than the CIP. After review of the existing sanitary sewer pipe and possible zoning changes to the area in the future, the utility staff recommends upsizing the size of the sanitary sewer pipe as part of this project. The work is necessary to ensure the underground utility infrastructure will continue to serve our customers now and into the future. Engineering staff is working with finance on how these costs fit in with the overall 2025 CIP. Next steps: The proposed schedule for the project to facilitate construction completion in 202 5. Council public hearing Jan. 21, 2025 Council project approval Feb. 3, 2025 Council awards construction bids April 2025 Construction May to November 2025 M O N T E R E Y D R 36TH ST W 36TH ST W PARK CENTER BLVDPARK CENTER BLVDRALEIGH AVE SBELTLINE BLVDBELTLINEBLVDHIGHWAY100SMO N TE RE Y D R 35TH S T W PARK GLEN R D 35TH ST W 0 500 1,000250 Feet ´ Attachment #1 - 2025 Commercial Street Project Staff Recommendations Updated 12/10/2024 40 ft to 33.5 f t 40 ft to 33 .5 f t 40 ft to 33.5 ft40 f t Legend Sidewalk - recommended Street rehabilitation Water/Sanitary replacement and street rehabilitation Existing sidewalk Existing trail XX to XX Proposed street width changes City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6b) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project (4025-1050) - Ward 2 Page 3 Attachment #2 – Sidewalk Segment Matrix Segment #1 Raleigh Avenue / 35th Street – East / South Side (36th Street to 340 west of Beltline Boulevard) Data: Traffic volumes Varies from 1,439 to 1,968 vehicles/day Design: Right of way (ROW) width 60 feet Street width Existing 40 feet Proposed 33.5 feet *East/south curb line proposed to move towards centerline by 6.5 feet to preserve trees Boulevard width (distance from back of curb to ROW line) Existing 8 to 9 feet Proposed 14.5 to 15.5 feet Permanent easement required None Proposed boulevard width 0 to 5 feet Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet Proposed sidewalk length 1,497 feet (78.5%) Existing sidewalk length 410 feet (21.5%) Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk Impacts: Trees in boulevard 16 trees Trees removed 1 tree (2 inch diameter) Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 8 properties Landscaping impacted None Retaining walls impacted None Retaining walls proposed None Utility relocations Relocation of private utility handholes and poles. Relocation of city light poles and hydrants. Financial: Construction cost $150,258 *Updated from Jan. 6 study session Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $100.37 / LF *Updated from Jan. 6 study session Staff recommendations: Build in 2025? Yes City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6b) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project (4025-1050) - Ward 2 Page 4 Segment #2 Raleigh Avenue / 35th Street – West / North Side (35th Street to 340 west of Beltline Boulevard) Data: Traffic volumes Varies from 1,439 to 1,968 vehicles/day Design: Right of way (ROW) width 60 feet Street width Existing 40 feet Proposed 33.5 feet *East/south curb line proposed to move towards centerline by 6.5 feet to preserve trees Boulevard width (distance from back of curb to ROW line) Existing 10 to 11 feet Proposed 10 to 11 feet Permanent easement required None Proposed boulevard width 0 to 5 feet Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet Proposed sidewalk length 1,025 feet (51.9%) Existing sidewalk length 951 feet (48.1%) Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk Impacts: Trees in boulevard (from ex. BOC to ROW line) 11 trees Trees removed 6 trees (diameters ranging from 5 to 15 inch) (60 total caliper inches) Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 5 properties Landscaping impacted Landscaping rocks to be removed and replaced after sidewalk construction. Retaining walls impacted None Retaining walls proposed None Private utility relocations Relocation of private utility handholes and poles. Relocation of city light poles and hydrants. Financial: Construction cost $105,076 *Updated from Jan. 6 study session Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $102.51 / LF *Updated from Jan. 6 study session Staff recommendations: Build in 2025? Yes City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6b) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project (4025-1050) - Ward 2 Page 5 36 1/2STW36 1/2STW M O N T E R E Y D R M O N T E R E Y D R 36TH ST W36TH ST W 36TH ST W36TH ST W PARK CENTER BLVDPARK CENTER BLVD36TH ST W TO NB HWY100 S36TH ST W TO NB HWY100 SPARK CENTER BLVDPARK CENTER BLVDNB HWY100 S TO 36TH ST WNB HWY100 S TO 36TH ST WRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SBELTLINE BLVDBELTLINE BLVDBELTLINEBLVDBELTLINEBLVDMO NT E R EY D R MO NT E R EY D R 35TH ST W 35TH ST W PARK GLEN RD PARK GLEN RD 35TH ST W 35TH ST W 0 500 1,000250 Feet ´ 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation Project Proposed Parking Restrictions Updated 12/20/2024 No parking Parking allowed City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6b) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project (4025-1050) - Ward 2 Page 6 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2025 6:51 PM To:Aaron Wiesen Subject:2025 Commercial Street Rehab project 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. Hi Aaron. My name is and I was a 60 year resident of St. Louis Park. I have run a business for 40+ years with the last 5 years officing in Sela’s office building on West 35 th St. I’m interested in commenƟng on the 35th Street rehab project but I will be out of the country and can’t aƩend the Public hearing on January 21st. I would like the following comment brought to the council. There are a number of Rigs- Huge trucks that park overnight as well as most days on West 35 th St. This makes 35th Street very narrow and dangerous. There is potenƟal traffic exiƟng onto 35th St from the US Post Office and office buildings across the street as well as a constant flow of traffic turning onto West 35 th St from the busier West 36th St. I’m asking to not allow overnight parking . Plus it can’t help the road itself bare all that weight all the Ɵme. Feel free to reach out with any quesƟons. – Marketshare Sales | 4915 West 35 th St. #103 | St. Louis Park, Mn 55416 | City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 6b) Title: Public hearing for 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project (4025-1050) - Ward 2 Page 7 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Action agenda item: 7a Executive summary Title: 2025 Social services proposed funding Recommended action: Approval of the proposed 2025 social services funding allocations as presented. Policy consideration: Does council approve the 2025 social services proposed allocations? Summary: The city has previously funded social service agencies through a direct allocation to specific non-profit entities that provide services to St. Louis Park residents. Beginning in 2025 , the process will be conducted through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process. The city has budgeted $250,000 in 2025 for contractual services with non-profit agencies serving residents in St. Louis Park that offer basic needs services that the city could provide and that address the program goals. The RFP was shared beginning the week of Nov. 4, 2024 and proposals were due Dec. 2, 2024. Two proposals were received from Senior Community Services and STEP to address the following program goals: • Emergency housing assistance • Services to support senior independence • Services for individuals and households experiencing food insecurity The grant review committee comprised staff from multiple city departments and a representative from the St. Louis Park Housing Team. The committee evaluated the proposals and recommends the following allocation of funding: Program Request Proposed funding Funding source STEP Emergency housing assistance $137,500 $154,000 AHTF STEP Food Insecurity $55,500 $50,000 General Fund STEP Other basic needs $11,000 0 SCS HOME Chore $20,000 $15,000 AHTF Financial or budget considerations: $250,000 has been budgeted for the 2025 social services request for proposal: $200,000 from the affordable housing trust fund and $50,000 from the general fund. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: 2025 Social services proposed funding Discussion Background: The city has previously funded social service agencies through a direct allocation to specific non-profit entities that provide services to St. Louis Park residents. Beginning in 2025, the process will be conducted through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process. The city has budgeted $250,000 in 2025 for contractual services with non -profit agencies serving residents in St. Louis Park that offer basic needs services that the city could provide and that address at least one of the following program goals: • Emergency housing assistance for low-income persons/households at or below 60% AMI for renters and 115% for homeowners • Services to support senior independence to allow low-income adults aged 60 and older to remain in their home • Services for individuals and households experiencing food insecurity to improve access to healthy food • Support programs that assist landlords providing affordable rental housing* to offset rent losses due to evictions for non-payment of financial obligations by tenants at or below 60% AMI. (*rent must be affordable to households at or below 60% AMI and must be verified) • Other basic needs services, subject to conformance with city policies. The RFP was shared broadly beginning the week of Nov. 4, 2024 after approval of the guidelines by council. Proposals were due Dec. 2, 2024. A grant review committee comprised city staff from housing, finance, administration and police, and also included a representative from the St. Louis Park Housing Team . The committee was convened in December to review the proposals and make funding recommendations . Committee members were selected to provide a diverse perspective on the review process. The grant committee evaluated the proposals against the RFP guideline funding parameters: • Any state-recognized non-profit organization is eligible to apply • Projects must serve St. Louis Park residents • Services must be compatible with city goals and strategic priorities • Total funding for this RFP is $250,000. Minimum request is $10,000. • $50,000 General Fund • $200,000 Affordable Housing Trust Fund Two proposals were received from STEP and Senior Community Services : Program Request Proposed funding Funding source STEP Emergency housing assistance $137,500 $154,000 AHTF STEP Food Insecurity $55,500 $50,000 General Fund STEP Other basic needs $11,000 0 SCS HOME Chore $20,000 $15,000 AHTF Both proposals met the eligibility criteria and submitted their proposals on time. Proposal specifics are as follows: City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: 2025 Social services proposed funding STEP Proposal: • $137,500 - Emergency housing assistance is for direct grants for rental assistance, staffing and administrative costs • $55,500 - Food insecurity includes purchasing food, staffing for food rescue and delivery, and administrative costs • $11,000 - Other basic needs services is for social work services which includes needs assessments, counseling, referrals, housing navigation and administrative costs. Review committee recommendation: The review committee recommends funding STEP at the total requested amount of $204,000 as follows: • $154,000 from the AHTF for emergency housing assistance is for direct grants for rental assistance, staffing and administrative costs • $50,000 from the general fund for food insecurity includes purchasing food, staffing for food rescue and delivery, and administrative costs. The committee determined “other basic needs” and “food insecurity” are both general fund eligible expenses; “emergency housing assistance” is an AHTF eligible expense. However, STEP’s “food security” request of $55,500 and the “other basic needs” request of $11,000 exceeded the $50,000 budgeted for the 2025 social services funding from the general fund . Given the funding limitations, the committee recommended funding the “food insecurity” request at $50,000 and no funding for the “other basic needs.” During the review process, the committee noted that the budget submitted by STEP showed a gap of $37,500 in the anticipated budget for the rental assistance program compar ed to the anticipated total budget including the city request and other secured funding . Therefore, the committee recommended increasing the emergency housing assistance funding to $154,000 to offset the unfunded $11,000 from “other basic needs” and $5,500 from “food insecurity”. The committee recognized the importance of the basic services STEP provide s; however, given the $50,000 general fund budget, the committee determined funding food was a higher need. STEP’s proposal and funding allocation addresses the following program goals: • Emergency housing assistance for low-income persons/households at or below 60% AMI for renters and 115% for homeowners • Services for individuals and households experiencing food insecurity to improve access to healthy food. 2024 city funding: $65,000 for emergency rental assistance and $56,422 annual contribution Senior Community Services Proposal: • $20,000 request for the HOME Chore Program City council meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: 2025 Social services proposed funding • Services include minor repairs, maintenance, home health and safety assessments, exterior home maintenance, interior and exterior painting, house cleaning, snow removal, spring and fall yard cleanup, tech support • Supports senior independence to allow low-income adults aged 60 and older to remain in their homes • Follow up question to SRC: SRC does self-certification and 76% of seniors served are less than 115% AMI. To be eligible for the AHTF, households must be below 120% AMI. Review committee recommendation: The committee recommends funding the HOME program at $15,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) budget allocation. All of the elements of the HOME program with the exception of tech support are eligible AHTF expenses. Based on the AHTF requirements the committee recommends funding the request at 75% of the request. The HOME Chore Program addresses the following program goal: Services to support senior independence to allow low-income adults 60 and older to remain in their home . 2024 funding: $10,000 Next steps: Upon council approval of the for the 2025 social services RFP funding allocation, staff will prepare contracts and work with the non-profit agencies on funding and reporting requirements. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: PLACES public art Recommended action: There is no formal action needed. This item is for discussion purposes. Policy consideration: Does the city council support funding public art at a southwest light rail transit (LRT) station stop in St. Louis Park? If so, 1. Does the council agree with the recommended station site; and 2. Does the council agree for staff to incorporate the recommended budget of $175,000 into the 2026 budget process? Summary: St. Louis Park continues to be a destination for residents and employers, giving high demand for infill growth and redevelopment in the city. The community is renowned for its public amenities, diverse retail options, strong employment opportunities, excellent education and quality healthcare services. St. Louis Park also has a long-standing tradition of community involvement and commitment to excellence. The future METRO Green Line Extension, also known as the Southwest light rail project or SWLRT, is a $2 billion dollar, 14-mile light rail project. The project has added three LRT stations in St. Louis Park and has further spurred growth and development in the surrounding areas. The LRT station areas are the perfect opportunity for creative place-making and ensuring that development enhances livability. Public art sits at the nexus of these ideas, creating vibrant, public spaces. The light rail stations are expected to open for public use in 2027. Staff is seeking guidance from the council on whether they would like to fund public art at an LRT station site in St. Louis Park. Financial or budget considerations: Staff is recommending a budgetary impact of $175,000. If council agrees with this funding amount, staff will include this in the city’s long-range financial plan that would be considered in the 2026 budget process. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: St. Louis Park 2024 station tour handout List of public art pieces Prepared by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: PLACES public art Discussion Background: The City of St. Louis Park adopted the strategic roadmap for advancing arts and culture in 2020. The intent of this roadmap is to ensure that arts and culture can be a key contributor to economic and community development that connect people, ideas and communities, enlivens public spaces, promotes health and wellbeing while centering racial equity. The City of St. Louis Park has a rich history of participating in arts and culture activities and, through the years, has invested in public art to enhance the vitality of the community. St. Louis Park continues to be a destination for residents and employers, giving high demand for infill growth and redevelopment in the city. The community is known for its public amenities, retail choices, strong employment, education and healthcare. St. Louis Park also has a long- standing tradition of community involvement and commitment to excellence. The future METRO Green Line Extension (a $2 billion dollar, 14-mile light rail) project has added three LRT stations in St. Louis Park and has further spurred growth. The LRT station areas are the perfect opportunity for creative place-making and ensuring that development enhances livability. Public art sits at the nexus of these ideas, creating vibrant public spaces. The light rail stations are expected to open for public use in 2027. PLACES: Public Art and Community Engagement Southwest Public Art and Community Engagement Southwest (PLACES) is a collaborative effort to integrate public art and placemaking projects near future light rail stations in Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. This collaborative effort was established after planned funds to incorporate artwork into the Southwest LRT project were cut from the budget. The goal of the PLACES initiative is to create vibrant and equitable places near future LRT stations through authentic collaboration, engagement and public art. Partners have been working since 2016 to establish the METRO Green Line Extension LRT corridor as a renowned public art destination marked by exciting art installations and placemaking projects that represent the vibrant cultures and communities the Southwest LRT line will connect. The partners that make up the PLACES collaborative are elected officials and staff from Hennepin County, St. Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka, partners from Metro Transit, Forecast Public Art, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), Minneapolis Institute of Art, the Walker Art Center, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and interested community members. Council Member Tim Brausen is the current representative from St. Louis Park on this collaborative. The PLACES collaboration has been working to determine the best way to operate as a multi- jurisdictional group, to fund art at the stations, an art selection process and a cohesive theme that would encompass each station along the corridor. The decision was made that each city would be responsible for funding the art at their station(s) and coordinating the selection process. The PLACES collaboration would work jointly to determine an overarching theme that will be used by each city in their call for art and artists. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: PLACES public art Present considerations: Staff is seeking the council’s guidance on if they would like to fund public art at an LRT station site in St. Louis Park. This section outlines the three station sites, along with a recommended site, and provides an overview of previous public art projects as examples, along with costs and a funding recommendation. Station sites: Over the summer months in 2024, the PLACES collaborative coordinated tours of each of the station sites in the various cities. St. Louis Park’s station tour was held in June. The station tour handout that was provided to the PLACES members is included in this report as an attachment. It provides a helpful visual of the station sites, along with images of adjacent public art. The three station sites in St. Louis Park (the Louisiana Avenue Station area, the Wooddale Avenue Station area and the Beltline Blvd Station area) are listed below: The Louisiana Avenue station area: This site is located slightly east off Louisiana Avenue along Oxford Street. The site is near the regional medical center HealthPartners Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital. Thousands of people are employed at the hospital, and thousands more benefit from their care. The area is an employment center, including Japs-Olson, Loffler Companies and Highway 7 Corporate Center. There are also destinations like Warehouse Winery, and distilleries Copperwing and The Dampfwerk in the area. The station site and transit plaza area is large in size, with a parking lot and open space as well as a connection to bike paths. The natural areas around this site have been restored, such as the Minnehaha Creek channel and surrounding wetlands and there have been improved habitat and water quality. There are several options for artwork locations that have been identified at this site. They are outlined here for consideration: 1. The transit plaza: This area is owned by Metro Transit; an agreement would need to be made with them to utilize their space for the artwork. Staff would work out the necessary details should this be the most feasible artwork location. This location would give the most flexibility for any type of artwork and would be an ideal area for a large statement piece. 2. Future pedestrian walkway: The Louisiana Avenue Station area plan and Arrive+Thrive’s updated plans contemplated a pedestrian-only connection from the station to Methodist Hospital, with opportunities for small plaza spaces along the way. 3. The pedestrian/bikeway underpass: This area is owned by the City of St. Louis Park and artwork could easily be installed here. The kind of artwork may be limited due to the space, a mural with lighting might be the most feasible option. The location of the underpass is on the opposite site of the tracks from the parking lot and Oxford Street. 4. Future roundabout: A roundabout is planned for the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Oxford Street. A vertical element in this location may be feasible, as well. Depending on the amount of funding the council decides to allocate, one or more of these options could be considered. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: PLACES public art The Wooddale station area: The Wooddale Avenue station is surrounded by a vibrant neighborhood that has spent the last decade transforming into a dynamic transit village. Over the last 20 years, redevelopment has focused on creating a main street feeling along 36th Street, with public spaces and art in the streetscape. Nearby Milwaukee Road Depot is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Development projects Hoigaard Village, TowerLight, The Elmwood and Zelia on 7 all prominently feature public art. The city owns the adjacent property, and it is slated for development along with the neighboring privately owned commercial property. The Beltline Blvd station area: The station is in a business area, that notably includes Nordic Ware, producers of the world-famous Bundt pan. The proximity to the light rail, Cedar Lake Regional Trail, and nearby amenities, such as Excelsior & Grand, the Rec Center, Wolfe Park and Bass Lake Preserve make this a very desirable area for redevelopment. Several developments are approved and recently opened. Within a five-minute walk of the station, more than 800 residential units and 38,000 square feet of commercial will be constructed over the next few years. Future development will include a dynamic mix of employment, services, and housing. Art is included in the draft agreement with the developers at this location. The amount included in the draft agreement for public art is $175,000. The most likely place for the art is a space next to the bus layover and nearest the LRT station (see image below). That will be city-owned right-of-way and the art would be privately-owned and privately maintained. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: PLACES public art Staff is recommending the council consider funding artwork at the Louisiana Avenue Station area. Due to the planned developments at the two other locations (Wooddale and Beltline) this station site is currently lacking planned art. If council agrees with this station, staff will work to determine what option for artwork is most feasible, prioritizing the transit plaza due to the broader flexibility the site offers. Staff will collaborate with Metro Transit on the necessary agreements. St. Louis Park public art collection The city of St. Louis Park has a rich history of investing in public art. Since 1997, the city has commissioned over 30 pieces of artwork with more planned as a part of new development projects. The costs for the artworks have ranged from $5,000-$445,000. The various arts consist of a variety of materials such as, concrete, steel, aluminum, fiber, mosaic, glass, LEDs/light and more. These art pieces can be found by visiting our public art map. An attachment, titled list of public art pieces, in this report outlines full details of the public art on the art map including, artists, year installed, images and costs. Here are a few examples of art of different materials and costs associated with some of those pieces: Historic Walker Lake Community Mural (2020, GoodSpace Murals): Cost: $10,000 Material: Paint on brick Highway 7 & Louisiana Ave S (2018, Andrea Myklebust and Stan Sears): Cost: $445,000 Material: Concrete, metals and lighting Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: PLACES public art Dream elevator (2012, Randy Walker): Cost: $180,000 Material: concrete, stainless steel, custom braided rope 36th Street streetscape (2010, Marjorie Pitz): Cost: $85,000 Material: clay and plaster Staff is recommending that council consider allocating $175,000 to public art at the recommended light rail station(s). This price would allow for a larger piece of art or multiple smaller pieces of art. The price also is comparable to the cost of artwork in the draft agreement with developers for art at the beltline station. Art selection process: In 2020, the city conducted a public art equity assessment. An outcome of that assessment was to develop a standard public art selection process. Staff have been using the following process for public art selection since then: • Partnering with an arts organization to lead the selection process: The city has contracted with an arts organization to help facilitate the art selection process. The arts organization brings expertise to the table and a neutral voice to manage the process. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Title: PLACES public art • Develop a request for qualifications (RFQ): The RFQ includes the scope of the art project, a budget, the goals and themes for the artwork, selection criteria and any relevant timeline or project schedule information. • Selection process: A selection committee would be established that includes developers (if relevant), neighborhood organization members, members from the arts community and city staff (if a development project, a city planner would participate). The work of the PLACES collaborative would be included in the themes in the RFQ. St. Louis Park staff would coordinate the art selection process. Next steps: Should the council agree to fund artwork along the light rail corridor, staff will incorporate the council agreed upon funding amount into the upcoming 2026 budget process as a part of the long-range financial plan. Development Dashboard Visit the interactive dashboard for recent developments in the community. Features trackgeographic location (such as within walking distance of the LRT stations), unit types, affordability levels, number of parking spaces, and commercial floor area and employment. The dashboard is updated as projects move from approvals, to construction, to completion. bit.ly/dev-dashboard Cheyenne Brodeen, Administrative services director 952.924.2517 | cbrodeen@stlouisparkmn.gov Jennifer Monson, Redevelopment administrator 952.928.2841 | jmonson@stlouisparkmn.gov Public Art Dashboard In celebration of the public art collection found throughout St. Louis Park, we developed an interactive Public Art Dashboard. Explore the map and descriptions to discover your new favorite piece! Creating a link between the METRO Green Line Extension, development, and art St. Louis Park continues to be a destination for residents and employers, giving high demand for infill growth and redevelopment in the city. The community is known for its public amenities, retail choices, strong employment, education and healthcare. St. Louis Park also has a long-standing tradition of community involvement and commitment to excellence. The future METRO Green Line Extension and three LRT stations in St. Louis Park has further spurred growth. The LRT station areas are the perfect opportunity for creative place-making, and ensuring that development enhances livability. Public art sits at the nexus of these ideas, creating vibrant, public spaces. Public Art in St. Louis Park PLACES Tour 2024 Multifamily Housing Dashboard Enhancing livability in St. Louis Park has many facets. One of the strategic priorities of the city is to increase affordable housing opportunities. The city’s Multifamily Housing Dashboard shows the total number of rental and affordable rental units created since the city’s inclusionary housing policy was adopted. The interactive tool helps track progress toward our goals and gauge the effectiveness of the various iterations of the policy since 2015. bit.ly/mfh-dashboardhttp://www.stlouispark.org/public-art Our community’s dedication to innovative development and public art ensures that St. Louis Park remains a vibrant and engaging place to live, work, and play. The METRO Green Line Extension is a testament to our commitment to creating beautiful, livable spaces that serve our residents and visitors alike. - Nadia Mohamed, Mayor, City of St. Louis Park Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 8 Louisiana Avenue Station Area 1 2 3 4 5 1 Transit Plaza 2 Pedestrian Street Connection 3 Highway 7 Overpass 4 Minnehaha Creek Preserve 5 Perennial Flow Taking care of the community Louisiana Station is home to the regional medical center Health Partners Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital. Thousands of people are employed at the hospital, and thousands more benefit from their care. The area is anemployment center, including Japs- Olson, Loffler Companies and Highway 7 Corporate Center, and destinations like Warehouse Winery, and distilleries Copperwing and Dampfwerks. The natural areas here have benefited from healing efforts, too. We’ve restored the Minnehaha Creek channel and surrounding wetlands; improved habitat and water quality, access and connectivity. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 9 Wooddale Station Area 1 Zelia on 7 Urban Art Forest 2 Wooddale Station Development 3 3 Dream Elevator 4 Marjorie Pitz’s body benches 5 Prairie Réseau Transforming the surroundings Wooddale Station is surrounded by a vibrant neighborhood that has spent the last decade transforming into a dynamic transit village. Over the last 20 years, redevelopment has focused on creating a main street feeling along 36th Street, with public spaces and art in the streetscape. Nearby Milwaukee Road Depot, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Recently constructed and approved projects include Hoigaard Village, TowerLight, The Elmwood, and Zelia on 7, which prominently feature public art. © 2022 DJR Architecture Wooddale Station Apartments St. Louis Park, Minnesota 8 PROPOSED PROJECT- SITE PLAN N WEST BUILDING EAST BUILDING PLAZA YOSEMITE AVENUEW 36TH STREETWO O D D A L E A V E N U E NATIVE PLANTINGS INSPIRED BY PRAIRIE/ SAVANNA MICRO PARK LANDFORM GREEN STORMWATER SHOWCASE PLANTING ISLAND TENSILE SHADE STRUCTURE LOW IMPACT NATIVE PLANTINGS COMMERCIAL COMMERCIALLOBBY COMMUNITY ROOM LOBBY LIVE/ WORK UNITS LOW IMPACT NATIVE PLANTINGS DOG RUN INTERIOR COMMERCIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PARKING EXTERIOR COMMERCIAL PARKING 1 2 4 5 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 10 Historic Walker Lake Beltline Station Area 1 Historic Walker Lake Mural 2 Sidewalk Poetry 3 Sota Clothing Mural 1 Beltline Redevelopment 2 Nordic Ware 3 Corsa 4 Risor Intersection of history and creativity The Historic Walker Lake area deveoped at the end of a streetcar line and is within walking distance of the future LRT Louisiana Avenue and Wooddale Avenue stations. This area has entered a renaissance, with locally owned businesses and unique character making this a great place for art and community. Mixing up more than Bundt cake Beltline Station has all the right ingredients. The station is located in a successful business area, including Nordic Ware, producers of the world-famous Bundt pan. The proximity to the light rail, Cedar Lake Regional Trail, and nearby amenities, such as Excelsior & Grand, Rec Center, Wolfe Park, and Bass Lake Preserve make this a very desirable area for redevelopment. Several developments are approved and under construction. Within a 5-minute walk of the station, more than 800 residential units and 38,000 square feet of commercial will be constructed over the next few years. Future development will include a dynamic mix of employment, services, and housing. RENDERING -PARKING RAMP 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. A0.12 03/09/2022 1 2 3 4 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 11 Updated: 1/15/25 Image Name Installation Year Location Cost Owned/Maintained By Artist Name Celebration of Peace 1997 The Rec Center 3700 Monterey Dr $55,780.00 City of St. Louis Park Evelyn Raymond Allegory of Excelsior 2003 Excelsior & Grand $117,400.00 City of St. Louis Park Andrea Myklebust Louisiana Oaks Public Art Feature 2003 Louisiana Oaks Park Pavilion $29,845.00 City of St. Louis Park Caprice Kaeffner Glaser The Bee Way 2009 The Shops at West End 1621 West End Blvd $90,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Foster Willey Jr. 36th Street Streetscape 2010 36th St W, east of Wooddale Ave, west of Highway 100 $85,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Marjorie Pitz St. Louis Park Public Art Pieces Disclaimer: The art pieces included in this document are the pieces staff have been able to verify the following data: total cost, materials used, etc. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 12 Image Name Installation Year Location Cost Owned/Maintained By Artist Name St. Louis Park Public Art Pieces Aurora Organ 2010 Marcus West End Cinema 1625 West End Blvd $101,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Camille Utterback with Creative Nerve Etched Glass 2010 Various; Louisiana Oaks Park Pavilion pictured Other locations: -Nelson Park Pavilion -Browndale Park Pavilion - Birchwood Park Pavilion -Oak Hill Park Pavilion $21,665.00 City of St. Louis Park Kathy Bradford with Northstar Art Glass Windtrace 2010 The Ellipse Excelsior Blvd & France Ave $50,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Norman Andersen Dream Elevator 2012 36th St W & Wooddale Ave $94,200.00 City of St. Louis Park Randy Walker Autumnal Crescendo 2013 The Verge Apartments Along 36th Street $40,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Laura Richards and Wm. Grant Turnbull with 11th- Hour Heroics, LLC Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 13 Image Name Installation Year Location Cost Owned/Maintained By Artist Name St. Louis Park Public Art Pieces Recollection and Promise 2013 St. Louis Park City Hall Community Room 5005 Minnetonka Blvd $30,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Amy Baur & Brian Boldon Morning Glory & Moon Flower 2017 4800 Excelsior Blvd $59,000.00 Property Owner Lisa Elias Full Circle 2018 16th St W & Utica Ave S $180,000.00 Property Owner James Brenner Fun!2018 ROC (Recreation Outdoor Center) 3700 Monterey Dr $5,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Stacia Goodman Louisiana Bridge 2018 Highway 7 & Louisiana Ave S $445,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Andrea Myklebust and Stan Sears Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 14 Image Name Installation Year Location Cost Owned/Maintained By Artist Name St. Louis Park Public Art Pieces ROC Mosaic 2018 ROC (Recreation Outdoor Center) 3700 Monterey Dr $8,631.00 City of St. Louis Park Caron Bell Historic Walker Lake Mural 2020 3550 Dakota Ave S $10,000.00 Property Owner GoodSpace Murals Moment of Tangency 2020 Bridgewater Bank Corporate Office 4450 Excelsior Blvd $75,000.00 Property Owner Craig Snyder Prairie Réseau 2021 The Elmwood 5605 36th St W $60,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Craig David Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 15 Image Name Installation Year Location Cost Owned/Maintained By Artist Name St. Louis Park Public Art Pieces Perennial Flow 2022 Louisiana Ave bridge over Minnehaha Creek $200,000.00 City of St. Louis Park Gita Ghei, Lori Greene and Randy Walker Sidewalk Poetry 2020 - present Various locations; Raleigh Ave and W 27th St pictured $26,275.70 City of St. Louis Park Various artists; Mary McCreary pictured Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: PLACES public art Page 16 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Written report: 2 Executive summary Title: Authority to change the scope and purpose of statutory bodies update Recommended action: No action is being requested. This item is being provided in response to council’s request for information. Policy consideration: None at this time. This item is being provided for informational purposes only. Summary: During a special study session on May 20, 2024, the city council expressed interest in further discussing the purposes of the statutory boards. In response, staff compiled information detailing the purpose of each statutory board and commission, the source of their authority, and engaged in discussions with these boards, specifically the Housing Authority Board, to explore potential changes they might consider. The Housing Authority Board held a discussion during its regularly scheduled meeting on Dec. 11, 2024 to discuss their role and scope. The outcome of the conversation resulted in the body determining that they did not have the capacity to take on additional work. Staff will defer further analysis on this topic unless the council or a statutory body is able to provide a specific change that could be analyzed. Financial or budget considerations: There are no financial or budget considerations for this item. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion, Housing Authority Board meeting minutes of Dec. 11, 2024 Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Special study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Authority to change the scope and purpose of statutory bodies update Discussion Background: The council has been discussing ways to improve and increase the effectiveness of its boards and commissions since 2022. During a special study session on May 20, 2024, it was noted that one of the statutory boards, the Housing Authority, had concerns about their utilization as a body and wanted to explore their role and scope. Council directed staff to come back with information about the purpose and scope of work for each statutory board along with whether there were opportunities for council to update their scope. A report was provided to the council during an Oct. 21, 2024, study session and it provided the purpose for each of the statutory boards and commissions and the source of where each body derives their authority. To the extent council has the authority to do so, the report included the process council would have to follow to make any changes to the purpose or scope of work of any of these boards. The council met with all statutory boards at the study session on Oct. 28, 2024. During this discussion, the Housing Authority Board chair expressed interest in exploring their role and scope. As a result of this, staff made plans to attend a housing authority board meeting to discuss the matter with the full board to gain an understanding of what they were hoping to explore. Present considerations: At its regularly scheduled meeting on Dec. 11, 2024, the Housing Authority Board discussed the questions related to their role and scope. All current members attended and the discussion was guided by two questions, which were discussed together: • Do Housing Authority Board members feel they have the capacity to expand their role? • Is there an interest in expanding the scope of work for the Housing Authority Board? Any changes would be in addition to their statutory requirements. The outcome of this conversation was that the Housing Authority Board members, as a body, determined they did not feel they had the capacity to take on additional work and were not interested in exploring this further. The minutes from the board’s Dec. 11, 2024, meeting are included as an attachment to this report. Currently, none of the statutory boards are interested in further exploring their roles and scope. Without specific changes identified or interest from any of the bodies to explore this topic, staff believes we have completed our analysis unless directed otherwise. Next steps: Staff will consider analysis on this topic completed unless the council or a statutory body is able to provide a specific change that could be analyzed. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBER ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES St. Louis Park Housing Authority St Louis Park, MN Wednesday, December 11, 2024 5 p.m. Commissioner Reynold Burrowes, Commissioner Catherine Courtney, Commissioner Thom Miller, Commissioner Shelby Conway Commissioner Beck Marney Olson, Pat Coleman, Angela Nelson Richard Webb 1.Call to Order -The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 2.Approval of Minutes -Minutes for the November 2024 board meeting were reviewed. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Courtney and seconded by Commissioner Burrowes. Motion passed 4-0. 3.Hearings -None. 4.Presentation -None. 5.Unfinished Business -None 6.New Business a.Statutory commission scope of work discussion, facilitated by Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator. Commissioner Miller expressed that the board is filling its statutory role well, but he thinks the board has capacity to do more, for example, advising council as other commissions like the planning commission. He also suggested the city council could become the Housing Authority ("HA"}. He sees a need for city council to hear resident input and perhaps there is a need for an advisory housing commission. In response to Commissioner Courtney's question, Ms. Olson confirmed that when there is a housing-related policy proposed by council, HA staff are involved and conduct the research requested. Commissioner Courtney commented that the HA is different from the planning commission and board of zoning which are statutory and advisory commissions to the council. Commissioner Courtney noted the distinction between HA and the city, and questioned if expanding the scope of the HA board would create unnecessary layers. Mr. Coleman clarified that council decided not to eliminate any boards or commissions and council noted that HA clearly understands its scope of work. Commissioner Burrowes noted that a member of the public attended the last HA meeting, but no council members have attended HA meetings. It would be beneficial for them to see what the HA does. Commissioner Conway stated that the HA has very defined roles and Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Authority to change the scope and purpose of statutory bodies update Page 3 it is unclear what type of work the board would be taking on. Commission Courtney added that council has not expressed an interest to have the HA board do more beyond its statutory role. There have been times in the past when council has asked the HA board's opinion on a specific topic and the council can still do this. The board members agreed that as a body the HA board does not feel they have the capacity to take on more work. b.Public Housing Operating Budget Fiscal Year Ending December 31,2025, Resolution No. 769 -Ms. Olson reviewed the Public Housing Operating Budget for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2025. Ms. Olson also reviewed the 2025 Housing Choice voucher, Kids in the Park and Stable Home budget worksheet. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Burrowes and seconded by Commissioner Conway. Motion passed 4-0. c.Contract amendment for CEE loan programs. Ms. Olson reviewed the 18th Amendment that updates fees and clarifies eligibility for the CEE loan programs. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Courtney and seconded by Commissioner Burrowes. Motion passed 4-0. d.Bring it Home State Rental Assistance Program. Ms. Randall led a discussion in preparation for the anticipated release of Minnesota Housing's request for proposal ih January 2025. The board agreed on the following: •Additional preferences beyond the requirement of families with children at or below 30% AMI in the following order: o 30% AMI, with children and residency preference (lives, works or goes to school in St. Louis Park) o 30% AMI with children (no residency preference) o 30% AMI elderly, near-elderly, disabled with residency preference o 30% AMI elderly, near-elderly, disabled (no residency preference) o Veteran preference •Eliminate inspections requirement and utilize the city's rental inspections •Set the payment standard annually, up to 120% •Allow project-based vouchers up to 50% 7.Communications 8.Other 9.Adjournment Commissioner Burrowes moved to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Miller seconded; the motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Authority to change the scope and purpose of statutory bodies update Page 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 21, 2025 Written report: 3 Executive summary Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2025 Recommended action: None. The attached report summarizes the status of major development projects occurring in St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Contact staff with any questions. Summary: The attached report is meant to keep the EDA/city council informed on a quarterly basis as to the metrics, construction status and tentative schedule of major development projects in the city. For clarity: •Proposed developments: are those that are working through the planning entitlement process such as platting, PUDs, variances and have not yet been approved. •Approved developments: are those whose planning applications have been approved by the city council and have not yet commenced construction (but whose financial assistance agreements may or may not yet have been approved). •Under construction: are those that just started or are actively being constructed. •Completed developments: are those that have received their final certificates of occupancy. More detailed information can be found on the interactive development dashboard on the city’s website. The dashboard provides project metrics for all major developments or additions that have been approved, under construction, or completed within the city since 2010. The dashboard includes website links, market rate and affordable unit counts by bedroom size, parking information for overall stalls, bike facilities, electric vehicle charging stations and more. Additionally, recent developments receiving financial assistance from the city are required to track Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) goals related to business enterprises and workforce hiring goals. The current goal status for each development is also included in the update. Financial or budget considerations: Development activity affects the city’s total tax capacity as reflected in the city’s annual budget and long-range financial plan. It also plays a significant role in the retention of the city’s AAA bond rating. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Major developments in St. Louis Park – 1st Quarter 2025 DEI goal summary Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Major Developments in St. Louis Park 1st Quarter 2025 Multifamily housing development summary Total Market rate Affordable Proposed units 494 384 110 Approved units 607 525 82 Units under construction 0 0 0 Recently completed units (last two years) 1,645 1,113 532 All units 2,746 2,022 724 Total Development Costs (TDC)* $801 million *TDC includes all developments in the above categories to the extent known For additional information please see Development Projects on the city’s web site. Proposed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Minnetonka Blvd redevelopment 5707 – 5639 Minnetonka Blvd. GMHC (Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation) & Homes Within Reach Affordable Housing Land Trust Proposed is the removal of four modest single-family houses and construction of four twin homes (eight-units), providing eight affordable home-ownership opportunities. Estimated total development cost $3.7 million Received pandemic relief grant funding from Hennepin County Concept plans presented to council in June 2024 Complete planning applications expected January 2025 Terasa 5401 Gamble Drive Hempel Real Estate Proposed is the redevelopment of the northwest office tower located within the West End Office Towers complex, and construction of a new six story, 223-unit mixed-use building with 21,000 square feet of commercial space, potentially Concept plans presented to council in August 2024 Construction commencement Q2 2025 upon Hempel securing entitlements and financing Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 2 Proposed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule including a grocer, restaurant, and coffee shop. The development would include 45 affordable units. Estimated total development cost $93.7 million Wooddale Station Redevelopment 5950 36th Street W Roers Companies Proposed is the redevelopment of the EDA-owned Wooddale Station redevelopment site into a six story, mixed-use, mixed- income transit oriented development with approximately 263 residential units and 7,000-9,000 SF ground floor commercial. The development would include approximately 57 affordable units. Estimated total development cost: TBD Concept plans presented to council December 2024 Construction commencement Q2 2026 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 3 Approved developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Park Place East 5775 Wayzata Blvd. GW Properties Proposed is the construction of two retail buildings in the southeast corner of the parking lot at 5775 Wayzata Blvd. The new buildings will contain four fast casual restaurants. Estimated total development cost: TBD Planning entitlements approved in Dec. 2023 and June 2024 Building permits are submitted and construction commencement is TBD 2625 Louisiana Avenue 2625 Louisiana Ave. Web Development LLC Largely vacant parcel adjacent to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to be redeveloped with a 57-unit, four-story, mixed-use market-rate building with approximately 4,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space along with underground and surface parking. Project includes a public path connecting Louisiana Avenue to the Regional Trail. Estimated total development cost: TBD Planning entitlements approved 2022 and reapproved 2024 Construction commencement TBD Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 4 Approved developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Achromatic 6013 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Rd. Joshua Aaron Proposed is the redevelopment of two single-family homes and the construction of a 36 unit, three-story building with one level of below grade parking Estimated total construction cost: TBD Planning entitlements approved March 2024 Construction commencement TBD Arlington Row East & West 7705 Wayzata Blvd. & 7905 Wayzata Blvd. Melrose Company Two development sites: • 7905 Wayzata includes two three-story apartment buildings with 34 units total and off-street parking covered by a solar power carport. • 7705 Wayzata includes a three-story apartment building with 27 units and surface parking. Estimated construction cost: TBD Planning applications approved Construction commencement TBD Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 5 Approved developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Beltline Blvd Station Site SE quadrant of CSAH 25 & Beltline Blvd. Sherman Associates Major mixed-use, mixed income, transit-oriented, multi-phase development adjacent to SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station. Building I includes: • Seven-story mixed-use building with six levels of market rate housing (152 units) and 20,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space • A 592-stall parking ramp, which would include 268 park & ride stalls, 326 residential stalls and approximately 1,850 square feet of commercial space. Estimated development cost: $55.8 million Estimated development cost of public ramp: $11.9 million Building 2 includes: • Four-story all affordable apartment building with 82 units, 77 units will be affordable to households at 60% AMI and five units will be affordable to households at 30% AMI. 22 units will have three bedrooms. Estimated development cost: $25.2 million Building 3 includes: • Five-story market rate apartment building with 146 units. Estimated development cost: $49.2 million Altogether, the multi-phase redevelopment will have 380 apartment units of which 82 (21%) would be affordable. Estimated total development cost: $142 million Awarded $13.7 million in LIHTC bonds January 2022 for affordable component Planning applications approved April 18, 2022 Financial assistance agreements approved June 20, 2022, and July 24, 2023 Anticipated construction: • Grading Q2, 2025 • Building 2 Q2, 2025 • Building 3 Q3, 2025 • Building 1 Q4, 2025 • Ramp Q2, 2025 Construction completion all phases Q4, 2026 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 6 Approved developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Parkway Residences W 31st St. between Inglewood Ave. & Glenhurst Ave. Sela Group & Affiliates Multi-phase redevelopment includes four, multi-family buildings with 211 units. The affordable housing includes 24 rehabilitated units at 50% AMI, and six new units at 60% AMI. Phase III: Eleven-story, 73-unit apartment building. Estimated development cost: $36.2 million Estimated total development cost (all phases): $91.4 million EDA approved an extension to the development contract February 2024 Phase III commencement TBD Under construction Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule There are no projects currently under construction. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 7 Recently completed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Union Park Flats 3700 Alabama Ave. & 6027 37th St. W. PPL (Project for Pride in Living) Redevelopment of the north portion of the Union Congregational Church property with a three story, 60-unit affordable apartment building on the north half of the property. All unit rents would be affordable to households ranging from 30%-60% AMI. Union Congregational Church plans to remain on the south portion of the property. Estimated total development cost: $28.6 million Received Certificate of Occupancy December 2024 Mera (formerly 9920 Wayzata) 9808 & 9920 Wayzata Blvd. Bigos Management Redevelopment of former Santorini’s restaurant property at northwest quadrant of I-394 & US 169. Six-story, 233-unit, mixed income apartment building with 20% (47) of the units affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI. Estimated total development cost: $68.6 million Completed August 2024 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 8 Recently completed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Zelia on Seven (formerly Via Sol) SE quadrant Hwy. 7 & Wooddale Ave. 5855 Hwy. 7 Originally developed by PLACE now owned by Bigos Management Mixed-income, transit-oriented development including a five- story, 217-unit apartment building (130 market rate units, 22 units affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI, and 65 units affordable to households earning up to 60% AMI), solar panels which will be installed spring 2025 (producing 220AC kW, 275 DC kW and 300,000 KwH total generation), and one-acre urban forest. Estimated total development cost: $88.4 million Received final Certificate of Occupancy May 23, 2024 Arbor Court 3801 Wooddale Ave. S. Real Estate Equities LLC Redevelopment of former Aldersgate Church property adjacent to Burlington Coat/Micro Center and Highway 100. All affordable housing development includes 114-units, with 205 parking stalls, of which 117 stalls would be underground. • Five units affordable to households up to 30% AMI • Five units affordable to households up to 50% AMI • 104 units affordable to households up to 60% AMI Estimated total development cost $30.1 million Completed March 2024 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 9 Recently completed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Risor 3510 Beltline Blvd. Roers Company Six-story, 170-unit apartment building with 4,100 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 14 ground floor live- work units. The development is an age restricted (55+) community with 10% (18) of the units affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI. Estimated construction cost: $56.5 million Completed November 2023 Rise on 7 8115 Hwy. 7 CommonBond Redevelopment of former Prince of Peace church property across from Shops at Knollwood. Includes a four-story, 120-unit, all affordable apartment building with income restrictions ranging between 30%-60% AMI along with a 6,600 square foot “affordable” early childhood center. Estimated total development cost: $40.7 million Completed November 2023 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 10 Recently completed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Corsa (formerly Beltline Residences) 3440 Beltline Blvd. Opus Group Five-story, 250-unit mixed-use, mixed income development with two retail spaces totaling 7,445 square feet and six live/work units. 10% of the units (25) will be affordable to households at 50% AMI. Estimated total development cost: $78.1 million Completed October 2023 Bremer Bank 7924 Hwy. 7 Frauenshuh The retail building containing Knollwood Liquor and Papa Murphy’s Pizza was removed and replaced with a two-story, 5,850 square foot office building and is occupied by Bremer Bank. Completed October 2023 Caraway (formerly Luxe Residential) 5235 Wayzata Blvd. (Phase VI of Central Park West) Greystar Real Estate Partners Completed October 2023 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 11 Recently completed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Redevelopment of former Olive Garden property in The West End area. Luxe Residential is a six-story, 207-unit, apartment building (including eight units affordable to households earning up to 60% AMI) along with two levels of underground parking. The development also includes a new pocket park along 16th Street and pedestrian improvements connecting the apartment building to the rest of The West End area. Estimated construction cost: $51.8 million Volo at Texa-Tonka NE corner Texas Ave. & Minnetonka Blvd. Paster Development Mixed income redevelopment includes 101 apartment units in a three- to four-story building, and 11 walk-up style townhome units located in two two-story buildings on the northern end of the site. Twenty percent (23) of the units would be affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI. Estimated total development cost: $26.6 million Completed 11 townhome units December 2022 Completed 101 multifamily units May 2023 Nordic Ware expansions Buildings 8 & 9 5005 CSAH 25 Dalquist Properties LLC 21,853-square-foot warehouse and loading dock addition to Building 8. 45,000 square foot warehouse and loading dock addition to Building 9 along with a small café and outdoor patio on the property’s south side facing the regional trail. Completed Q2, 2022 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 12 Recently completed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule Estimated construction cost: $11.6 million Parkway Residences W 31st St. between Inglewood Ave. & Glenhurst Ave. Sela Group & Affiliates Multi-phase redevelopment includes four, multi-family buildings with 211 units. The affordable housing includes 24 rehabilitated units at 50% AMI, and six new units at 60% AMI. Phase I: • Parkway Place: Four-story, 95-unit apartment building. • Parkway Flats: Six-unit apartment building. • Rehab of 24 NOAH apartment units. Estimated development cost: $40.6 million Phase II: Parkway Commons: Four-story, 37-unit apartment building. Estimated development cost: $14.6 million Parkway Place & rehab completed April 30, 2022 Parkway Flats completed October 2022 Parkway Commons completed March 2023 Louisiana Crossing 3745 Louisiana Ave. Loffler Companies Loffler Companies purchased and renovated the 132,485 square foot former Sam’s Club building. The Midwest’s largest office-technology and IT-services company consolidated its headquarters and warehouse operations at this new location resulting in over 500 jobs. Loffler leased out Warehouse operations moved in Q4, 2021 Office renovation completed in Q4, 2022 Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 13 Recently completed developments Project, location & developer Project Description Tentative Schedule approximately 30,000 square feet of the building and may eventually sell the south end of the 13-acre property for multifamily housing. Estimated construction cost: $TBD Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 14 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals Through January 1, 2025 DEI goals for Union Park Flats Union Park Flats QUARTERLY COMPLINANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS Total number of business enterprises contracted in development 47 Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in development 21.28% 6% Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in development 4.26% 13% Percentage of total development dollars paid to women-owned business enterprises in development 20.34% 6% Percentage of total development dollars paid to BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in development 2.48% 13% Total number of construction workers contracted in development 1017 Percentage of women workforce in development 3.24% 20% Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce* in development 19.96% 32% Percentage of total construction hours for women workforce in development 4.52% 20% Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI workforce* in development 27.34% 32% *The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported, and likely does not fully capture Hispanic/Latinx individuals. Study session meeting of January 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Quarterly development update - 1st Quarter 2025 Page 15