The URL can be used to link to this page

99-180Council File # - 1�"�g0 � Resolution # oR��Na� Presented By Referred To Green Sheet # 3 ti RESOLUTiON CI"f'Y OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � %' Committee: Date 1 WIIEREAS, development of Phalen Boulevazd has been an objective of the City of Saint Paul since 1979; 2 and 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 i3 34 SS �6 7 8 WI�REAS, in November 1944, the City initiated an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Phalen Boulevazd and requested Planning Commission review and comment; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the Planning Commission, to provide for representation of potentially affected neighborhoods and interests in the EIS preparation process, convened the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force, comprising residential, commercial, institutional and public interests, to assist the staff and consultant during the scoping and preparation of the EIS; and WFIEREAS, in accordance with recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Rules (Chapter 4410.2600, Subpart 2), the City Council on December 9, 1948 released the Draft ETS for Phalen Boulevard for pubiic review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission and the Saint Paul City Council jointly sponsored the public hearing on the Draft EIS on January 27, 1999, and WHEREAS the City Administration, the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Faul Planning Commission have made recommendation for prefened alternatives in each of the three project segments; and VJHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council has evaluated the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, the comments received during the public comment period, and the recommendations of the Administration, Planning Commission, and Task Force; and WI�REAS, the "westem segment of the project azea" is defined as Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Burr Street; and WHEREAS, Aitemarive W-2D, has been deternvned to best achieve the key objectives of improving regional access, alleviating traffic congestion, cost-optnnization, neighbarhood quality, and minimizing of adverse environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the "central segment of the project uea" is defined as Phalen Boulevaz3 from Burr Street to Eari Street; and WHEREAS, Alternative C-4 has been determined to best achieve the key objectives of improving regional access, cost optimization, neighborhood quality, and minimizing of adverse environmental nnpact; and UK��I��,°�L �.q-�ea 39 VJHEREAS, the "eastem segment of the project azea" is defined as Phalen Boulevard from Earl Street to 40 Johnson Parkway; and 41 42 HEREAS, Alternarive E-1 was deternuned during the Phalen Boulevazd Scoping Process to be the only 43 viable build alternative; and 44 45 WHEREAS, Alternative E-1 has been deternuned to meet the key objectives of the project, and in particular 46 the objectives of improving regional access, cotnmerciaUindustrial development, and goods movement; 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NOW, T'EIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council selects the following preferred alternatives: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the central segment of the project area; and E-1 in the eastern segment of the project atea; and BE IT FLiRTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs that the final alignment of the G4 alternative be designed in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of 1and in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tas base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing, and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straight and as far south as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement Pius SchoollYMCA site, and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council requests the City Administration to take the necessary steps to prepare the final Environxnental Impact Statement, incorporating the selection of W-2D, C-4, and E-1 as the preferred alternatives in their respective project azea segments. Adoption Certi By: Approved by Ma� By: RequeSted by Department of: Plannin & Econ Develo me � By. � Form Approved by City Attorney B '��°�S �G��'✓b�`� Z-1? °�� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council gy; ��`c�ta�C ��i��-+s'�'«l'/I �«L�� Adopted by Council: Date ��qqq 9-1�'a �8 40 OEPAfl77AENiqFFICE/COUNCIL OATE INITIATED ,�� ,� q� GREEN SHEET CONTACTPERSON&PHONE / INITIA AT INRIAWAiE U�h �rl L� y f /_�S �DEPARTMENTDIRECTOR �CI'fYCOUNCIL � /� ASSIGN �CfTYATTORNEY TJ�i`l.�.il-G�C� �CITYCLEflK NIINBER FOIi S�_ MUST BE ON UNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) pQ�N� � BU�GEf DIRECfOR � FIN. & MGT SERVICES DIR. � _ . , / _ . � OPOER MAYOF (OR ASSISTAN� � �(fi y „� � T TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES � (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACf10N REQUESTEO: (� 5 212c�k - � c�-. a"F � Se"t c '�r2Terr2 � Ci�'FCr�1Gc.'�V2 s -ra r CvnSi a'C ��'1C�Iev� ��(•�l�dGcv�c1 Q✓\d ��'-LG'{�'�-,. �z.: �re�ark c� �=;na1 cIS . RECOMMENOATIONS: Appmve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: L PLANNING COMMISSION CIVIL SERV CO ISSION �� Has this persOn/firm ever worked untler a CorrtreCt for this tlepartment? _ CIB COMMITfEE � �� S^ —tOfC YES NO � STqFF _ 2. Has this personflirm ever been a city employee? YES NO _ DISTAICT Co�RT _ 3. Does this personRirm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current ciry employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNC�L OBIECTIVE4 YES NO Expiatn a11 yes answers on separate sheet antl attaeh to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORNNITV (Who, Whet, Whan, Where, Why): , 1n f4G`f `Fhe C�;�-c� �n c� G�n✓�ro��ner.�c�( r.v��cecf Stz�(-Ernen+ ��-OG2SS � r �1TC�OSid �Y"�R�e(�l �(LIE VGcY � ��2('fi "r-t� Qh.Q QSS2$S ,�y, ��n�aets ��' atd-e�-ha -�r �I-i,� road. �t �r�zf1- �1s t,�as relec�s-ed � c� l�{�� 8� a��bi; � hear;.�o� was held >Sav�,,�ar� �� 1�i�9. � � , � �2 5-1-c�'�� i�Z2S�c '-�rc� c«d �fQhn�/�a �omwt�sS�on Cancur an c� � r h�Co rn mAncl2 � Se �' c P �� v QT2a^a^2 cj ct ('(2PhG�1 u`P c� �v� c� Spe� Co uhc �� ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: I�'loV2 -4arwcz�-� u�;�i� �41e�leh �vt,�IPU�rc� �roJeci� C� �ec� �.��m2v�`F u�' `}-Pi�P ��R��l� �-.o!'r� c�tr� _Z'��`�t� �T� v� � Y�5`�ar J ��jS Q..� Ev��ar�ct� y�e_.��1�� h.�o � ��a�� i� or� S'1 �QU� �S �lxs� S, �-2 . DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED� �•—��QC� W, l� t�c� �JrFl C.P 2� TOTAL AMOUNT OF 7RANSACTION S C�STIREVENUE 6UDGETEO (C�RCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDItYG SOURCE ACTIVITV NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFSATION: (EXPLAIN) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamela Wheelock Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 Wesi Fot�r[h Street Saint Paul, MN �5102 ag�lfo Telephane; 651-26b6626 FacsimiZe: 651-228-334I February 4, 1999 To: Mayor Norm Coleman Council President Dan Bostrom and Members of the Saint Paul City Councii From: Nancy Frick, City Planner 7�� Re: Recommendation for Pzeferred Aiternative for Phalen Boulevard On February 24, 1999, the City Council will be asked to seleet a set of "preferred alternatives" for constructing Phalen Boulevard. At this time, it is also appropriate for the Council to move forward with the required environmental documentarion process by directing staff to prepaze responses to comments on the Draft EIS and prepace a Final Environxnental Impact Statement for the set of the preferred alternatives. A resolufion has been provided for your considerafion. Recommendation. On February 12, 1999, the Saint Pau1 Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending selection of the foilowing options as preferred alternatives for the construction of Phalen Boulevard. (A map of each is found in Attachment 1 to this memo.`, • In the western see.ment of the project area (I-35E to Burr): W-2D. • In the central seement of the project azea (Burr to Earl): C-4, to be designed o in conjunction with pians for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; o as straight and as faz south as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and o with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement 5chooUYMCA site. • In the eastern se�ment of the project area (Eazl to Johnson Parkway): E-1. These are also the recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Planning and Economic Development and Public Works staff. Sup�orting Materials. Attaclunent 2 is a staff report dated January 29, 1999 (with task force and Planning Commission-inspired revisions noted) which provides the rationale for preferring each of these alternatives. Attachment 3 presents all written comment received through Februaiy 10, 1999. Attachment 4 is the February 12, 1999 Planning Commission resolution. Attachment (4) Attachment 1 to February 16, 1999 report to Citp Council re: Phalen Blvd. � .�, m � � �; � K ' _ y o Ks m = , - . w " � Q 3 ti N ' � � "6` m 8 '� C' ( ` n ' v ' G1 � C �.°a � a° a 2 y C ` �'' 7*'-� m y, — --- . � A �'O T �� w a�di�d 8 h LL i ` i ri � s-�3y>� �� a ;: � o d U�� c.•' �. I� ° z. � a"i � o a' w G�,y � q �' w i' � Q � � � � a B a�� 0 � o S i� oo a ooa�o �"' �S�S"a ow.o u o � � i� e�° oi$ y ° g o0 00 � i OoDea �_ou � e� � e G�o a , �� . �-- �� e a�W i � ( 10� v a 1 \ ¢� � / f Oo 0= aS�g � \, � a p� � O/ . �--.e� > = I .. . � __ _—.. _. :� i . o ��' �� i � o ��❑ _�_� ��C��a �„ , , �, �--o �� \ � �� l��l� � ,�, �/9-J80 � 9 s � ° d� � u omoo � o�� amo oQ 0 00 0°100 °Bo. j0 �OOpp b❑ �7 aoa� ° o o � a p 0 � � � O e o S o O p ° p a 0 0 � O 0 �, ❑ O � ��0 ❑ a � 0 4 � � ❑ � � � ° � o I � � � ` �\ � C c' � d m �� m � m � 3� o �� d � R F O �I 7 m A 4z _9 = � � T e � 3Q s 3a - - ��o�m°-- - = 8 LL Q �i : s��i�' e `� �'� � �: � i C � s d O �- w N � � � � � C� Q f ^ L1 L (� .1�"i d W ""' L �, � � `� W � � � y � C �� U f+ C7 L' O � a� � SY.�1 / �ZI� N � ^ � � a � � � O o , I Op_ QL.] �� O Q pO YI O o� q v b � 9 0 0 q' �' � � o e, � ��g a o�a � �1 I I '� � .� � � � ' �a 0, 1 � D � tpe � o� � [J � 5s � �' � s c � O . $ � h � O G c� h'.�- C'�l' �0 U Y_ $ � s a G y s' �° � y a ° a1 �0 G 2 6 O f L S � G C S � Q'� ._ ^ �-� C9. y„ .� � c o° o c .. r .. 3� c z�� a y o�c �.� � C d ^5. $,�'c e � � x � 'r. t ., o ; ° � c , f��li Q p�p � fi u t� "' G y... V.� � � � $ d P= _ >�s y. '? 'c -`� •` _ 4 .°_� � C ° m O S-o � i 3 o c � � c h e F ¢ >. wo=G�c��c>�� V U '� � O C V�X Y C. � N h� [ ` � j y r ` � C - O 3 b' Q� fi.O p� S O �..�1 V Y U t` �+ � U C� U t� -O v] 00 000 r�'' � 94� l�p Attachment 2 to February 16> 1499 _ ' report to City Council re: Phalen Blvd. DEPAR"tMbNT OF PLAI�NING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamel¢ Wheetock, Dnector �19- ! �� CTI'Y OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayar 2i West Fourth Sbeet Samt Pau1, MN i5102 Te[ephone: 651-266-6626 Facsimile: 657-228-3341 January 29, 1999 (REVISED - February 16,1999) To: Members of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force From: Nancy Frick, City Planner Re: Meeting #11 The Phalen Boulevazd EIS Task Force will meet Wednesdav. Febriiaty 3, 1999. from 7:00 u,m• to 9:00 pm. at Arlington Hills Librarv, 1105 Crreenbrier Street. At the meeting, the task force will be asked to recommend a"prefened alternative" for Phalen Boulevard, to bring forwazd to the Saint Paul Planning Commission at its February 12 meeting. Your advice would join the Planning Commission and staff recommendation for consideration by Mayor Coleman and the City Council. This staff report reviews the options and EIS findings, sun�marizes the review process and comments, discusses related issues that have developed since the task force last met, and presents the staff recommendation for prefened alternative. � OPTIONS. The following are the Phalen Boulevard project options evaluated in the Draft EIS: � No-build: not building the project • Transportation System Manageraent (TSlYn: making minor changes to the transportation system instead of building the project � Build: building the project, connecting the three project area segments with one of the foliowing akernatives for each segment (see attachxnent 1) o Western se,yment: between I-35E and Burr Street; 3 alternatives distinguished by how they connect Phalen Boulevazd to I-35E - Each Western segment alternative includes a bicycleJpedestrian trail which will connect to the Gateway Trail on the west side of I-35E. W-1 connects Phalen Boulevard to I-35E at the e�sting Pennsyivania interchange. ■ no changes to I-35E included as part of the project ■ grade sepazated from Mississippi Street �j 9-i 80 Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 ' Page 2 ■ connects to Olive Street in Wiliiams Hill industrial park ■ bridges over railroad tracks ■ at-grade intersection at Westminster W-2D splits Phalen Boulevazd near Weshninster with the southem alignment connecting to Pennsylvania Avenue and the northern alignment connecting to a new I-35E interchange at Cayuga ■ includes I-35E reconshuetion along a new straighter alignment, conshvction of a frontage road between Cayuga and Pennsylvania along its west side, and closing of the Pennsyivania ramps ■ Phalen Boulevard "]eg" connects to Olive Street in Williams Hill industrial pazk and Mississippi Street; bridges railroad tracks ■ Cayuga leg bridges railroad tracks; intersects with Westminister ■ access provided to Van Waters & Rogers industrial site W-2E is very similar to W-2D; the southern alignment connecting with Pennsylvania has a straighter design o Central segment: between Burr Street and Eazl Street; 5 alternatives offering variou< routes between Payne and Arcade and options for connect Phalen Boulevard to Payne Avenue For each Central segment alternative ■ west of Payne Avenue and east of Arcade Street, the alignment follows UP rail line ■ grade-separated from Burr, Arcade, Forest and Earl ■ new access road connects Phalen Boulevard to Arcade ■ includes a bicycle/pedestrian trail: Phalen Creek Trail Payne to Earl; new trail extension to the west from Payne - C-1 bridges above the UP tracks to intersect at-grade with Payne and Edgerton - C-4 curves north of the existing grain elevators, on the south side of the Phalen Creek Trail, and intersects at-grade with Payne, grade-separated from Edgerton - C-4A is similaz to C-4 except that it is grade-sepazated from Payne; an access road between Phalen Boulevard and Whitall just west of Payne Avenue provides indirect access to Payne, as we11 as Edgerton - C-5 curves north of the Phalen Creek Trail, on the south side of Wells Avenue, and 99-18d Phalen Boulevazd E1S Task Force January 29, 1999 Paee 3 intersects at-grade with Payne, grade-sepazated from Edgerton - C-SA is sunilaz to GS except that it is grade-sepazated from Payne; an access road between Phalen Boulevard and Whitall just west of Payne Avenue provides indirect access to Payne, as well as Edgerton o Eastern seement: between Eazl Street and Johnson Parkway; one alignxnent E-1 follows tke Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way to approximately Magnolia, where the alignment continues northeast to connect to Johnson Parkway fornning a four-way intersection with the new Prosperity ■ includes an access road from Phalen Boulevard to York and Frank ■ includes an at-grade connection with Atlantic Street DRAFT EIS FINDINGS. Following are the key findings presented in the Draft EIS. • The No-build and TSM alternatives are not consistent with city and neighborhood plans, and have these adverse environmental impacts: o liketihood that underutilized land wouid remain so; no gains in ta�c base or employment 0 overcapacity operating conditions at I-35E interchange o noise standard exceedances at 44 homes, 9 businesses • The Build alternatives have these beneficial impacts compared to the No-build: o increased employment opportunities, reallncome, and housing values o transformation of poorly-access underutilized blighted land to we11-accessed, clean, modern industrial use, consistent with city and neighborhood plans o general improvement in safety for inexperienced bicyclists and pedestrians; improved access to Phalen Creek Trail and redevelopment sites o enhanced views; increased opportunities for lighting and landscaping o enhanced east-west accessibility; route for express bus service; full-access connection to I-35E under W-2D(W-2E options o improved noise impact under W-2D/W-2E options • The Build alternatives have these adverse impacts compared to the No-build: o increase traffic in Cayuga neighborhood under W-2D/W-2E options o varying degrees of property takiiigs (0-10 homes, 4-10 industriaUcommercial properties); most affected Western segment properties with W-2E option; most afFected Centrai segment properties with C-SJGSA o acquisition of 0.4 acres of pazkway properry at 7ohnson Parkway 99-/a'6 Pha]en Boulevazd EIS Task Force 3annary 29, 1999 Pase 4 o relocation of Phalen Creek Trail within road right-of-way; visual, acousticat unpacts on trail users o adverse effect on Westminster Junction Historic District o adverse effect on Ha.nun's Brewery Historic District with C-1 option o impacts to parcels with potenfial for soil(ground water contamination o noise impacts to 4 additional sites with W-1 option in Western segment; noise impacts to 4 residential sites with C-4/4A & GS/SA options in Central segment; noise impacts to 3 multi-family sites and 2 commerciaUindustrial sites in Eastern segment o temporary construcfion impacts • Conshuction and right-of-way costs are estimated as follows: o Western segment - W-1: Phalen Boulevard $12.4 M - W-2D: Phalen Soulevazd & I-35E reconstruction on new alignment: $67.6M ($46.2M of this total is I-35E reconstruction) - W-2B: Phalen Boulevard & I-35E reconstruction on new alignment: $74.1M ($52.1M of this total is I-35E reconstruction) o Central seement - C-1: $25.SM -- C-4: $11.3M - C-4t1: $12.6M - C-5: $153M - GSA: $16.SM o Eastem segment - E-1: $ 3.OM PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is designed to ensure that public decisions on major projects are made with adequate information about the social, economic and environmental consequences and means to mitigate those effects. The Draft EIS for Phalen Boulevard was prepazed with the advice of the Phalen Boulevard Task Force and in accordance with a scope formally adopted by the City Council. After a lengthy review and approval effort with federal and state agencies, the City Council released the Draft EIS on December 4, 1998. As part of the public review effort, notice of the Draft EIS availability and heazing date were published in the Federai Register, State of Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Monitor, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Saint Paul Legal Ledger and East Side Review. The Draft EIS was sent to appropriate agencies and organizations, as well as to individuals upon request. Sununaries and notices were sent to a broad range of organizations and individuals, including about 1000 99-1 ago Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 Pa�e 5 property owners of record along the study corridor. Three open houses were held to allow interested people to find out more about the project. The public hearine on the Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS was jointly sponsored by the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission and the Saint Paul City Council Wednesday, Januazy 27, 1449, begimiing at 6:OQ pm. in Room 40 of the Saint Paul City Hall. A transcript of the hearing is being prepared. Following a brief staff report on the EIS and the public information process that led up the hearing, 20 persons testified. Attachment 2 to this report briefly highlights each speaker's main point(s). There were no comments in opposition to the project. Of those speakers expressing preference, in the Western segment, 12 supported a new Cayuga interchange access I-94 and I-35E access alternative, with 6 of these supporting W-2D by name and no one supporting W-2E; in the Central segment, 6 specifically supported an at-grade intersection with Payne, of these 5 specified C-4 by name; 2 supported as close an alignment to the tracks as possible (one of these 2 also supported at-grade at Payne); there is only one alternative in the Eastern seement. Attachment 3 presents the written comments received before the public hearing. (February 16 City Council packet provides all written comment received through February 10, 1999). RELATED ISSUES. Finally, it is important to note that, since the Task Force recommended the Drafr EIS to the City, events have occurred in three locafions in the project azea which bear on the Phalen Boulevard preferred altemative decision. • Metro�olitan Transit Bus Garage. The Metropolitan Council has selected a site to the east of I-35E at Cayuga for construction of its new bus garage. In considering sites, the Met Council took into consideration how the Phalen Boulevard project would fit with the access and site requirements for the transit facility, both physically and from a timing perspective. As noted in the suuunary of public hearing testimony, Metro Transit cannot build on this site if the W- 2E altemative is built. It is also important to note that Metro Transit's design and conshuction timetable depends upon a expeditious decision by the City on Phalen Boulevard. Stroh Brewerv. At the tixne that the Stroh Brewery closed (late November 1997), the Phalen Boulevard Dra$ EIS was substantially done, with all of the required environmental analyses completed and the text in draft form. A reuse feasibility study of the Stroh site was still underway when the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Farce concluded its work on the Draft EIS. Since the public decisions about the reuse of the site (and therefore how a road design could best serview the site) were yet to be made, we proceeded with the Draft EIS as it was, g9-�� Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force Sanuary 29, 1999 Paae 6 showing the C-4 alternative curving to the north of the grain elevators. Staff views any alignment change to C-4 or C-4A which stays north of the tracks as being a design detail that would not reopen the Draft EIS. It is not unusual for design of a road to change somewhat between the prepazauon of a Draft EIS and final construction plans. While the Stroh site is cunently in private hands, there continues to be community discussion about the future of the site, including discussion of land use options having different irnplications for how a road could be designed to best serve the site. • New Achievement Plus SchooUYMCA. A joint School DistricUYMCA project is being developed in the Wells-York-Greenbrier-Arcade area, directly north of the Phalen Boulevard project. The old Johnson High School and surrounding area will be home to a new elementary school, with family support services, and a new YMCA. Phalen Boulevard, under any alternative, will provide access to the schoolJY area; the designs are being coordinated by respective staf£ The GSJC-SA options would impact properties which the school district is purchasing on the south side of Wells. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff finds that the No-build and TSM do not support the project goals. 1. In the western seement of the project area, staff recommends selection of W-2D as the prefened alternative, because • it significantly improves regional access generally and for the Phalen Corridor redevelopment sites • it results in the greatest alleviation of traffic on East Side neighborhood streets • it results in acceptable levels of service at intersections throughout the project area, while the W-1 alternative results in over-capacity operating conditions at the Pennsylvania freeway ramps • it presents the opporiwuty to Implement a needed rebuild of I-35E between downtown and Maryland in a highly cost-effective way that results in a much safer and effective freeway design in this area; MnDOT has been an enthusiastic partner in the development ofthis option • it results in the greatest reduction in total vehicle-hours and vehicle-miles throughout the system • it fits with the future Metropolitan Transit bus gazage • it results in a significant reduction in the number of noise standard exceedance locations in the westem part of the project area 9 9- �80 Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 Paae 7 • community support has been expressed for this option 2. In the central se�ment of the project area, staff recommends selection of C-4 as the preferred alternarive, because • it avoids residentially-zoned land • it does not encroach on land being purchased by the school district for the York school project • it provides access to industrialiy-zoned land that is being discussed for redevelopment and can be designed to best serve the future use of that property • it provides an at-grade intersection with Payne Avenue, desired by the business community, at a much lower cost than the C-1 option • community support has been expressed for this option In the central se�ment, staff further recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed - in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing, and provision of neighborhood amenities; - as straight and as far sauth as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and - with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement Plus SchooIJYMCA site� 3. Staff recommends conshuction of E-1, because, as the only build option, • it provides the important connection to support the revitalization of the Phalen Village area • it provides access to Phalen Corridor redevelopment sites east of Earl. The City Council will direct staff to prepare a Final EIS on the preferred alternative it selects. This technical document, which deals with more detailed environmental analysis and mitigation plans, is not, at this time, expected to need task force review. We do, however, look forward to continuinn community involvement in the design of Phalen Boulevard as the project progress, and expected that many of you will remained involved. Please call me at 266-6554 with any questions. Attachments (3) ♦ s •� Attachment 2 to Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 memo SL3MMARY OF TE5TIMONY Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS Public Hearing Wednesday, January 27,1999 Saint Paul City Aall • Harry Melander - St. Paul Buildine and Trades. Supports the project. Linkage between I- 35 and Phalen Village is important. Partnership with MnDOT is good. • Marge $ernard - Phalen Villa�e Business Association and White Bear Business Association. Business associations support the project. Gre¢ Copeland - Resident and District 5 Communit� Council. Mr. Copeland spoke twice, the first time representing himself individuaily, and the second time to represent the position of the District 5 Council. Individually: supports at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; protection of 5wede Hollow amenity; keeping the Burr Street bridge; saving Bon Giornio. District 5: Supports W-2D. Supports design in central atea that follows as straight a route as possible and is at-grade with Payne. • Curt Milburn - East Side Area Business Association and Phalen Corridor Initiative. Organizations support the project. ESABA support new interchange (W2) alternative. • Dede Wolfson - Metropolitan Council. Project is supportive of ihe Regional Blueprint; important to new Metro Transit facility. • Maureen Mariano - Pavne Arcade Business Association. Supports the project. 5upports at- grade intersection at Payne (G4 or any variation of it); a well-designed access ramp at Arcade and continued cooperation from project staff in the design of that ramp; the W-2D alternative at the free-way; and the E-1 connection to the east. • Kat�a Ricketts - Main Street staff. East Side Neighborhood Development Company_. Supports at-grade intersection at Payne - the C-4 alternative. • Jeff Freeman - East Side Neighbarhood Development CompanY. Supports the project. ESNDC supports at-grade at Payne (C-4); well-designed attractive connection with Arcade; new interchange at Cayuga. • Tammv Anderson - Representative of �roperry owner at 162 East Minnehaha. Concerned about impacts. Expressed preference for W-2D alternative at I-35E. �q-i �e Attachment 2 to Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force Ianuary 29, 1994 memo - pa�e 2 • Brenda Off - Representative of proneriv on East Minnehaha. Concerned about impacts, especially with W-2E. Expressed preference for W-2A altemative at I-35E. • Ron Hagkull - Phalen Corridor Initiative Steering Committee member. Supports pro}ect. Supports W-2D and C-4 alternatives. • Tim Mahoney - State Renresentative. Supports project and expressed support and efforts of Saint Paul legislative delegation on project's behalf. • John Kempe - Phalen Coxridor Initiative Steerine Committee Chair. Supports project. Expressed need to be respectful of impacted individuals. Supports Cayuga interchange and at-grade at Payne (C-4). • John Young Saint Paul Port Authoritv. Expressed involvement of Poft Authority in the Initiative. Supports W-2D; opposes W-2E due to nnpact on Williams Hill development. • Kou Vang - Phalen Corridor Initiative Vice-chair. Supports project. • Karen Swenson - North East Neghborhoods Devel�ment Coz�oration. Supports project. Supports flexible access at west end, providing access of I-94 and I-35E. • Paul Gilliland - District 2 Community Council and member of Phalen Villaee Small Area Plan Task Force. Supports project, supports Cayuga interchange. • R Jo Adams - Resident. Expressed concerns about facts, figures in Draft EIS with regard to cost, acquisition of properry and job-creation potential. • Donavan Cummings - District 4 Community Council nresident an�ast member of Phalen Corridor Steerine Committee. Supports new interchange. Expressed concern about central alternatives, supports putting road closer to the tracks. Expressed need to focus also on housing improvements. • Arlene McCarthy - Metropolitan Transit; project mana¢er for new bus facilitv. Noted that bus gazage design works oniy with W-1 or W-2D; opposes W-2E because it wili render site unfeasible for bus garage. Urged quick movement toward a fmished Record of Decision. t• :r Attachment 3 to February 16, 1999 report to City Council Phalen Boulevard Preferred Altematives Written Comment on Phalen Boulevard Draft Environmental Impact Statement Received Through February 10,1999 These aze generally organized as follows: letters from individuals, letters from community organizations, letters from governmental agencies, and comment cards. '• FROM : KARIN LuPHUL PHONE N0. : 776 0558 Feb. 19 1999 09:19AM P92 ' � q�-��o . �: ; 4 �' Karin DuPaul Nancy Prick Plaiu7ing & Econnmic Development 25 VJest 4th Street Saint Paul MN 55102 I7ear Nano3', February 9, 1999 Thank you for asking for community input on the FTS and tha Pha3en Corridor, This is a very ambitinus and costly prqjeci. I um in fuvor of some elements, agauist some, und see that there may be a better way for others. Lnha�scing the livabiHty of ow city should Ue the over all goal. This entire projec! shau]d use the i0 3tiverfront Development Principles of City Buildirag. Our resideuts should noi be displaced, rather money shpuld be available for improving their housing. 7'he Phalen Creek Recreationa] Trai1 must Ue in a pleasant setling a1on�; the entirc trail. Tlrat is the first priority. Secand, creek and or rsin gardens alpng the entire length of the roadway. Native ve�etutiotz ctnd irees shoulcl be preserved to make geen coimcations for wiklli}e and alsv aet t� c� bufj.'sr between lhe roudway ttnd the reereational tsail. The rondway should also be easy to oross ia �ny tocations and the �eed no more than 39 miles un haur, Draft Section 4(� �valuatioi�. I acn very concarned that the two historieal sites in this seotion wil] be altered or destroyed in conjunction with this projec:t. What is bcic� donc to proteci these sites? The Westmim5ter Junction wi11 make a be�autiful nddition to our open spacc and park system in tbe fufire. The tI�vnm's Ri'ewery �s hne of Saint PAU1 utost �igniflcant laz�dmarks and tnuch of it should be saucd and rensed. Dy the same tokcn, the brewery neighhc>rhood between the brewery, Arcade, E M'vmehaha, and Bush should continue to be � residential neighbonc�>od. It is u jewel in the rough, it has u number of recidents who havc lived ihere up to 30 yoars +, it has a very niee variety ofhousing stoak, it's a eontained nei�hbnrliond, and r.�ned sa that peaple c;an run iheir snarill husuiesscs otrt of thcit hu�ne. J think it is in a grest loeat�on !o camplimeni the Phalen C:orridor. It gives pcaplc anoiher apiion. Finalty, how will this roadway no# bccomc a shart cut from 35E to 13ighway 36 vs. Prosperity? Sincerely, Karin DuPaui b(R Gremibrier Strao - 657_776.0550 Saint Aaul MA' SS1Ub � 9-i�o February 8, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick 1200 C+ty Hell Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Phalen Soulevard Draft EIS Dear Ms. Frick: ��I�E� FEB 1 0 1999 �o�T�t�sr Qu��n� Secure Mini Storage, 849 Terrace Court supports Alternative Route W-1. I have reviewed the alternative routes, W-1, W-2D and W-2E that connect the Phalen Corridor to I-35E. W-1 accomplishes a connection with the minimum of impacts and cost. The other iwo alternatives, W-2D and W-2E are unacceptable. Both of these alternatives eliminate several business', (including our own), have higher costs, have the potentiaf to negatively impact local traffic flow and create an entrance and exit situation on 35E that is too close to the Maryland exchange to the north. i am very interested in all developments regarding the future of the west end of the Pha{en Corridor. Pfease notify me of ali hearings and put me on the mailing list regarding news on the corridor. Thank you. Sincer ly, � ' '� A ny avoulis Management Agent — SMS Cc: Charles Underbrink Douglas Heitne 740 Linwood Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105-3322 (651) 290-0507 FAX (6SI) 290-0106 G 9 � f�� `�l � � t �� c�C�" �� '� �S t� C� 4', ��' SZ' �� . �fs��v� ��2 r `��1.� --1� d-��•!n'v`t'L�.- �� _ -��.. �zf�`9f . :� FEB 1 0 19�9 �oR�h�a.sr Qu�o��n� �� l , l� �� , .� � ��-��-- _ � �� ,� � � �.-� �;��.- � �� .:� , -�l� �� _ . �� z�0 � �-�� '�� -e� -�-��z ��e- �,��-c �'— �e'�� , . �, .� � .� � � �`.� �-�- n�-�� 7/-e-- `��.�� / G��-r��'�-r� . .% ��o 7� � U J _ ( �� .t-�-c._ � �`�.�o� � 1'�=°�-`=`� r /L Cr�,�e��i,�.-- 7��-- �3�c . ��`s�� -��. �� . �� %v��z G�� . Q �" Q� �-- �� _ � 0 ` �,��^7`�� rnr�� -2� y�--- � ��- � ��.1-� �� ` �/ «e � �� `7it�-- t � �„c � �� , " � ��' ;�Y� �� ° �� J �� =� �� n,�� . � � � �� '��.� - ��.� ��'� . 99-�a�o � ��= � -��' �� . z--� . ��:�.� � �� ° �� - �- �,��- � �-� -�- , t� . � �� ^ � -�� :� �� - ��7`� � � � �� , �� _ �� - .�� -��- �� ,�� UL �nl.� -�/ �� 1 -��.- �� ` ��- �� ( - � � � �� - ��. -�� .�. � ��r�� c � �� .�=� ��' �- � e� � Z ,�� Q� Gg-/8o February 4, 1999 Nancy Frick, Project Manager 1200 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minn. 55102 RE: Phaten Boufevard Drafit EIS Dear Ms. Frick: My name is David Karras. I am 47 years old and have {ived on the East Side af4 of my life. In my lifietime, I've seen the East Side undergo tremendous changes. From the biue color neighborhood of my youth, to the dumping ground for the City's poor in the 1980's and 1990's. Factories closed, housing values dropped, absentee landlords moved in, and crime rose. Like many, I was tempted to flee to the suburas. However, I remained convinced that the area would turn around. It had too much going for it in terms of history and tradition. Besides, there is stili a lot of good people on the East Side. People, who when faced with adversity, dig their heels in, roll up their sleeves and attack the probiem. I befieve that it was that spirit and attitude that spawned the Phalen Corridor Initiative. It was a long awaited preject that was to bring about the rebirth of the East Side. What wasn't there to fike. The initiative promised the return of factories to the East Side with their badly needed jobs. It would also clean-up of blighted and underutilized areas, and include new roads ta connect it ali together. Like many East Siders, I waited in anticipation for the project to wind its way through the various hoops prior io becoming a reality. My family has lived at 953 Westminster for the past 22 years. Like the rest of the East Side, it too has undergone change. As a resident in the psoject area, f received a notice of the pubiic informationai meeting being held for the Phalen Boulevard EIS. That is the first time 1 heard about the new l-35E interchange at Cayuga Street. Although the noise and traffic from the proposed north bound ramp for the Cayuga interchange is close to my house, it makes sense to buifd it and close the Pennsylvania Avenue ramps. They are dangerous and inadequate for the amount of traffic they handle. { can five with the noise from the new ramp and the realignment of the freeway. However, the report brief that accompanied the notice indicated a connection from ihe new Gayuga Road to Westminster Street. Could this be true. Maybe it was just to provide limited access to a redeveloped piece of land off of the new Cayuga Street. Pennsylvania Avenue has limited access as it winds its way from I-35E to Rice Street. If a stated objective of tfie pro}ect is to reduce congestion on the East Side, how can turning Westminster Street into a major thoroughfare be justified? The map was smail and generalized so I went to the library to review the full ElS. The maps in the Draft EIS reveafed 4hat this indeed was the case. Figure II-13 indicates that under the W2 A{ternative, traffic on Westminster Street will be 7,300 cars, tnrnks, and buses in the year 2015. That means this quiet, dead-end street, that currently handles {ess than 300 cars a day will become a major aRerial connection from the Cayuga to Case Street. As reference, Case Street, which currently handles 5,400+ cars a day according to the EiS, is defined as a coUector street. Under this altemative, Westminster Street woufd handie more traffic than Case Street. g9-/�o Furthermore, Figures N-4 and tV-5 reveal that aur house would be in an area that exceeds the MPCA noise ievefs. i stared in disbeGef at an EiS that indicafes that a ramp will run along the back of our house, while the traffc on the road in front of our house increases from 300 cars a day to 7,300 cars, trucks, and buses. Didn't the planners and design engirteers realize that this is a locai residentiai street. Maybe 1 was missing something or misinterpreting the maps. So { went to tfie open house hetd at City Hall. At the information meeting I met you and other representatives from the City. You and others confirmed that the projected traffic volumes were correct. The enlarged maps of the project area showed connections to Westminster Street oif of Cayuga and Terrace Court. When questioned how Westminster Street, which is identified on the maps as a local street, could handle the proposed volume of traffic, you remarked that other local streets in the City handle similar traffic volumes. As if that made it right, or justified the decision to sacrifice the residents on Westminster Street to unacceptabfe traffic and noise levefs. The maps further revealed that barriers Qlanned for some intersections will deliberately route traffic from Cayuga exclusively to Westminster Street. For example, there is a barrier shown at the Whitall and Westminster Street intersection so tfie traffic has to use Wesiminster Street. A new frontage road is being built on the west side of the freeway to handle the traffic. On the east, or my side of the freeway, it appears that the decision had been made to turn Westminster Street intathe frontage road. I stayed for the public hearing. Individuaf after individuai praised the project, and recommended that it be buiit with the 135E interchange at Cayuga. I agree with them. The project is needed and long overdue. If you are going to do it, do it right and include the 135E interchange at Cayuga. However, do not turn Westminster Street into a frontage road. Do not subject the residents an Westminster to 7,300 cars, trucks, and buses a day. Mitigate the problem by limiting access off of Cayuga. it should not be designed and built in a matter that adds congestion, noise and pollution to the residentiai neighborhoods. It shouid be re-designed and constructed with limited access that only serves the new industriai areas that are being redeveloped. That is the reasonabie alternative to what is being proposed. Ifi that can't be done, purchase the houses on Westminster Street. Either move or demolish the houses. With a freeway access ramp behind them and 7,300 cars, trucks, buses a day in front of them, this island of homes wi4t be virtually worthless. i know I will not live there undes those conditions. if buiVt as proposed, the project wilf do what nothing else has done, force my family to move to the suburbs. Sincerely, G' �� David A. Karras 9 9 -i 80 3 Febmary 1999 Phalen Boulevard DEIS Comment Attn.: Ms. Nancy Frick Deparlment of Planning and Economic Development City o£ Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: 2157 Roblyn Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 I am writing to comment on the Phalen Boulevazd DEIS. I reviewed parts of the document and attended the open house and public hearing held in City Hall on 27 January 1999. I am opposed to the plan to widen 35E described in table S-1 under "Transportafion and Transit" for altemafives W-2D and W-2E. Figures II-12 and II-13 show widening this segment from three to four lanes and from three to five lanes, respectively. I believe that any proposal to e�:pand this secrion of 35E should be considered in a comprehensive corridor study that includes thorough considerarion of the potential to meet �avel demand, especially during the peak hours or periods, by transit. This might best be done with commuter or regional railroad service on the Forest Lake-St. Paul route (MnDOT 1998), or by express bus service. I believe that addition of rail transit to the comdor, along with expanded and coordinated bus service, can enable us to avoid expanding any segment of 35E between Saint Paul and Forest Lake. If this secrion of 35E is widened, it will promote continued over-reliance on the caz and likely undernune the viability or potential success of transit improvements in the corridor. Widening 35E will promote stiil more auto-oriented development, whicn usuaiiy discourages wal'iciug and use of transit. The decision about whether or not to widen 35E should be made with much more public involvement; it is a decision that has consequences beyond the scope of the Phalen Boulevazd project. I also ask that any considerarion of widening 35E include extensive environmental review of the proposal. I also am concerned that if the secrion of 35E south of Maryland Avenue is widened, then the naument will be made that the section of 35E north of Maryland Avenue is a bottleneck and must also be widened. In this way the freeway system is incrementally expanded without fully considering the ultimate result This process plays out over many years, which frustrates and limits public involvement. �? 9-/�a Additional specific re4uests and auestions: I ask that the City of Saint Paul, MnDOT, FIiWA, and any other agencies involved in tlus project ensure that construction of the new road and any related reconfiguration of e�sting roads not interfere with ihe potential to accommodate a new Metro Transit bus garage planned for the Cayuga street azea. I ask that the City of Saint Paul, MnDOT, FHWA, and any other agencies invoived in this project ensure that construcfion of the new road and any related reconfigurarion of e�sting roads not interfere with the potenrial to accommodate future construction of Light Rail Transit or other rail transit in the Phalen Boulevard corridar. What are the current volumes of h�ansit ridership in the study area? What is the current capacity of the transit service, i.e., buses, in the study area What are the estimated future volumes of transit ridership in the study azea based on modeling done for tlus DEIS? Do these estimates take into account the Metropolitan CounciPs current plans to double transit service and ridership in the nextten years? How much induced vehicie traffic will be generated by this project? How many new pazking spaces will be needed to accommodate increases in caz tra�c in the study area resulting from the project? Will this project increase demand for puking spaces in the Saint Paul Central Business District? If so, how much will the new pazking spaces cost and who will pay for them? Please revise the DEIS by addition of a figure to show the current and proposed numbers of lanes of all types on the whole secrion of 35E included in this project. Please revise the DEIS by addition of estimates of the costs of 1.) rebuilding I-35E as it is now, three lanes wide, 2.) expanding it to four lanes, and 3.) expanding it to five lanes — four lanes plus an aiixiliary lane. Lastly, would you please send me copies of figures II-14 and II-15, which aze missing from the DEIS I have. Thank you for considering these requests and questions. I look forward to your responses to them. Sincerely, � �^''�'`/J � � �� i Charles (Chip) Welling C: Mr. Ted Mondale, Cha'u Metropolitan Coivacil, 230 E. Fifth St., Saint Paul 55101-1634 Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, MnDOT, 395 John Ireland Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 Mr. Ai V ogel, Office of Railroads, Mail Sto 470, 395 J. Ireland Blvd., Saint Paul 55155-I 899 Councilmember Jay Benanav, Ciry Hall, Third Floor, 15 W. Kellog Blvd.,St. Paul MN 55102 County Commissioner Victoria Reinhazdt, 220 Courthouse, Saint Paul 5510'Z Reference cited MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation), 1998. Twin Cities Commuter Rail Study. Volume 1, Number 1. October. Office of Freight, Railroads, and Waterways, 395 7ohn Ireland Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55155. q q-i8d Cliif Carey 635 Bates Avenue St. Pauf, Minnesota 55106 Nancy Frick Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 2J3199 Dear Ms. Frick, As a member of the Environmental Impact Statement Committee, 1 wiil say that 1 believe the redevelopment of urban brownfields in the proposed Phalen Corridor has the potential io positivefy impact the East Side and the tax base for St. Paui as a whole. However, this redevelopment alone wilt not be enough to solve the probiems of the East Side. Equal and aggressive efforts must be made to attract homeowners back to East Side neighborhoods, most importantly to those with the lowest ratio of owner occupancy to rental. _ To do that we must identify and market the areas with the strongest potential for attracting private investment by people who want to {ive on the East Side. The Upper Swede Hollow neighborhood has 75% home ownership overall and 90% owner occupancy on lots adjacent to Swede Hollow Park. Beaumont & Drewry Lane, also on Swede Hollow, is approximately a fifty-fifty mix, certainly one of the strongest areas in Railroad lsland. The city is currentiy pfanning up-scale housing developments on similar sites on lower Payne Avenue and Rivoli Bluff. With these conditions existing in surrounding neighborhoods, it would be an opportunity missed to ignore the strong residential potential of the hiitside between Payne and Arcade north of Wells Street. This areas views and access to Swede Hollow would make it very inviting to the kinds of homeowners we are currentiy seeing being attracted to the East Side. Roads have a negative impact on the quality of life in residential areas. The I-94 aiignment through St. Paui is a pfanners ABC of how not to construct a road in a built urban environment. Few will dispute the damage it did to the neighborhoods it went through, and the city as a whole. Ayds Mill Road is currently going through an EIS process where many of the alternatives either lessen or do away with the traffic entirefy. The Summit Hill neighborhood fought the completion of I-35 E, tying the project up in court for years. Today residents on lower Grand Avenue cannot converse in their yards at many times of the day because of traffic noise, even though no trucks allowed on that stretch of 35 E. 9 � 8a Luckily in the central segment of the proposed Phalen Blvd. there is not an either or dilemma. As you will recali, all of the alignments in the central segment were designed to avoid interfer+ng with the operations at Stroh Brewing. Since, unfortunately, Stroh Brewing is no longer with us, the probiem of how to get Pahlen Bivd. around them is also gone. The alignment C-1 can now be developed at grade with the railroad tracks and the grain elevators can be altered as needed to ailow the road to generally follow the tracks. Let us not, in our haste to bring industriai development to St. Paul, forget the importance of encouraging healthy neighborhoods on the East Side. A healthy neighborhood is good for tfie peopfe who live there, for the peopfe who live around them, for the business communities nearby, and for St. Paul as a whole. Heaithy neighborhoods start somewhere, lets encourage one to start on Wells Street and the adjoining bluff. Let us not, with the alignment we recommend, do anything to even slightly hinder this areas abiiity to join in the good things that are happening in neighborhoods on the East Side. Sincerely, � � Cliff Carey 99-t�'o FROM : KFlRIN DuPAUt_ PHONE N0. = 776 055H Feb. 03 1939 10�44AM P@1 Friends of Swede Hollow 729 �. Seventh Sf. St. Paul, MN 55108 Nancy Frick Departmenf of t'lanning 25 W. Fourth St. St. Paul, MN 55902 Dear Ms. Frick: Feb. 2, 1589 Friends of Swede Hollow is a membership organization consisting primarily of residents from the neighborhoods surrpundin Swede Hollow Park. �ecause of the proximity snd the scale of the {�halen Corridor Initiative, we expect ff to have a significanf impact on our neighborhoods and park. Naw that the �iS is reaching the deoision phase, we wish to share our recommendations with you. qur concern is with the Central Sagment and the impact that three of the alternatives wilt have on the bicycie trai( and the Welis Street residential area. The bioycie path currently provides a secluded, non-motorized route between Swede Hoilow Park and Lake Phalen. It is an asset to the neigh6orhood and fhe Gity, and whan it is eventualiy extended to the Mississippi River and the Cateway Traif, it wili become part of a state-wide network of bike trsils. We prefer Alternative C-1 (or some variation that follows fhe tracks) because the other aiternatives put the Boulevard right iiext to the Traii. We feei that car and truek traffic oniy a fiew yards away wouid detract enormously from the Trail's charm and usefulness. Althaugh the Welis Street residential area needs some work, it has tremendaus potential: it is a s{opad area with a soufhern exposure and a spectacular view of the City. Again we prefer Alternative C-9 (or s�me variation that foflows fhe fracks) because the other aiternatives bring the Bouievard too close ta the re5idential area. The noise and exhaust from the Boulavard woufd detract seriously from the residential potentiaf of Welis Streef. Alternative G9 is aiso a betfer choice, in oUr vfew, because it eliminates the hard curve that the ofher the alternatives have. A straight road ought to be cheaper and safer than a curved one. Whatever barriers the Bou)evard may bring to other objectives of ihe Initiative, they wouid be sninfmized by foAawing the railroad. For exampte, the effor# to create industrial space that is large and contiguous is complioated by piacement of the Bou4evard and the railroad. Running the Bou{evard along the raifroad resulfs in one barrier instead of two. Thank you for you consideration. Piease share this Ietter wiYh the �ther members of the pianning committee. r �, , ; ;�; ,/�±`..�► �'''`��, �� C.C. City Councii P�aent uan �sostrorr City Caur�cil Member Kathy L.antry � State Senator Randy Ketly State Represenfative Steve Trimble �ULx (,fJII4� ); ��-, Q w �E`�.�<; . ,�» ��i� /I �if� nG,,... h�»,,..� �., c Q Qarks a � � d ^ Febroary 9, 1999 ° Nancy Frick "' City of St Paul City Hall Annex , � � 25 West 4th Street St Paul, MN 55102 s�. e�,i ar�a ,.�� "'�" � Dear Ms. Frick: 1621 Beechwood Ave. St Panl, NIN 55116 651-698-45G3 �mw.fi endsofthepaAa.org President Pecry R. Bolin Vice Ptesidents Ieanne Weigum Treuurer 7ames R. Briches D'uectors Craig Andresen Liz Andexson Ann Cieslak Dan Collins Thomu T. Dwight t3ei1 £zaney william Fxank Elaine Johnson Marilyn Lundberg Robert Nethercut Mazk M. Nolan Janet Olson Scott Ramsay Pierre Regnier 7erry Seck Matsha Souchezay V ice Piesident Emeritus Samuel H. Morgan D'uector Emeritus David Lilly Truman W. Porter Ex Officio Dennis Asmussen Thomas Eggum bSazc Goess Paul L. Kukwold Greg Mack Vic Wittgenstein Executive D'uector and Secretary Peggy Lynch The Friends of the Parks and Trails of St Paul and Ramsey County applaud the desire the citizens of the East Side, the City Council, Mayor Norm Coleman, and the State of Minnesota to promote ghysical and social improvements in the Phalen Corridor. We appreciate the opportuniry to review the Phalen Coiridor EIS. We looked at the options from the point of view of the neighborhoods around the Phalen Cotridor, at the impact of the alternatives on land use, and the impacts on pazks and trails. We aze very concerned about the use of large tracts of land in the central city foz roads. 20 acres alone will be used for the freeway ramps if either ontion W-2D or W-2E is chosen. Eight structures will have to be demolished if either W-2D or VJ-2E is chosen vs. two siructures if aiternative W-1 is bui1L The footprint of a large freeway interchange in the middle of St Paul does not present St Paul in the most positive way to visitors and we do not see this as an appropriate use of our most scarce resource - land. We believe the Draft EIS does not address a number of criticai concems: * What will be the impact of traffic on Cayuga and Jackson if the full interchange is built? What aze the worst case uaffic volumes for Cayuga? * Can a redesigned entrance ramp at Pennsyivania, coupled with optiinai stoplight operati on, ease congestion there? If all that is needed is a longer ramp, it would appear that land is available. �` Why would the Cayuga interchange result in less ramp wngestion, especially since it appazently will attract more north-south traffic off of Payne and Arcade. �` In W-2D and W-2E the freeway ramps take up appro�mately 20 acres. What would this land be used for if the W-1 option was built? There is an economic benefit for the W-i option which should be calculated. * The report discusses safety concerns, but provides no documentation of accidenu, and probabie accident reduction, if the freeway is realigned or if the interchange is changed to Cayuga. A simple statement such as, " accidenu fewer per 1,000,000 vehicle trips would be achieved" should be included and the basis for that analysis provided. ''` If we assume the freeway should be realigned in the course of its rebuilding, it should still be possible to rebuild it using an existing parlial connecuon at Pennsylvania, rather than the full interchange at Capuga. Why hasn't this opdon been considered? Will this option alter the cost benefit ratio? ''` It is difficult ta evaluate the various altematives undex consideration. Tliere needs to be some common-sense descriptions of the differences among the main alternatives. Such as: how many minutes are saved by a traveler from different locarions in the Corridor to a given location on I-94 E, for each of the three oprions? * The estimated cost of the roadway varies from $27 million to $82 million depending on the opaons chosen. Under the W-2D3iC-4{E-1 option the cost could be as high as $36�,000 per 99-i �v Ms. Nancy Frick Page Two February 9, 1999 job. This figure does not include land acquisition and development costs for the parceLs that can only be reached by one or more Boulevard options. R'hat is the individual cost for each job created under the different scenarios? * Why is there such a large employment change between the No Build and the other options? Some detail describing the pazcels that cannot be built on without the roadway, and whether other access options are possible and at what cost, is a needed addirion to the EIS, as indus�ial development use of these pazcels is a prime reason for construction of Phalen Boulevard and reconstructing a new interchange at 35-E. * Traffic problems getting to the freeway are mentioned, but the EIS does not address congestion an the freeway itsel£ Congestions problems now at Pennsylvania might be caused by freeway congestion. * If LP.T d'zspla�es the tre.i! ;mder a11 C cpaons, how and where �vould the trail be replace3, and who would pay for this? Please provide more informaflon on the impact LRT would have on the bicycle uail. * At the present time the access to the Gateway Trail from the neighborhoods on the east side of 35-E is Mississippi Street This access appears to be cut off on all build options and as a result will have a negative effect on the lazge residential neighborhood on the east side of 35-E. This needs to be addressed in the EIS. * Part of the Gateway Trail along 35-E will be removed given the intention of MNDOT to reconstruct 3�-E. The EIS dces not address how the 1rai1 will be replaced. This proposed reconsti by MNDOT makes it impossible for a third party (Dept. of Natural Resources) to construct the 1rai1 along the right-of-way at this time. Iv1NDOT must take responsibility for replacingfcompleting the Gateway segment of the Munger Trail to/across University Avenue. * Section 4(� of the Department of Transportation Act of 19fi6 declares that no highway project should negatively impact public park, recreation, refuge, or hiswric sites unless there is no feasible alternarive. Phalen Boulevazd will intersect with Johnson Pazkway which will require the acquisition of park properry for the proposetl property. Because of the concems and questions listed above we recommend at this time: * Reconstrucrion of 35-E should be done in a way to min;m;ze amount of land used. For that reason we support the W-1 connection. * The �aii atong Phalen Boulevazd must be made permanent. This issue should be addressed now rather than later. * The Gateway Trail must be extended to/across Universiry Avenue by MNDOT. * If any portion of Johnson Parkway is used for the roadway, market value must be paid for the land and the money used for pazk acquisition. Thank you for this opportuniry to comment on tke Draft Phalen Boulevazd EIS. Sinc ely, �� _`A . Peny Bolin President 9q—ld'� D { S T R f C T F I V E Ms. Gladys Morton, Chairperson Saint Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 P L A N N 1 f1 G C O U N C 1'��rc- i'�.r,L i� RECEfVED FEB 10 1999 E�l'11d_G & ECONOMIQ DEVELOP_MEPQ Dear Ms. Morton: The $oazd of Directors of the PayneJPhalen District Five Planning Council is committed to working with the Plauniug Commission, Mayor's Office, City Council, Port Authority, and all others involved in developing the Phalen Corridor and Phalen Boulevard. Accordingly, the Boazd, after receiving the input of its Community PlanninJ and Economic Development Committee, which had heid a public meeting examining the Araft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Phalen Boulevard, voted at its 7anuary 27, 1999, meeting to support pursuing the construction of the roadway with an at-grade connection to Payne Avenue, adequate access to Arcade Street, and with westem termini at Cayuga and Pennsylvania Avenues. We support an at-grade connection with Payne Avenue and an adequate connection to Arcade Street due to our Iona standing support of the Payne-Arcade area business community and feel that good access is part of a good business environment. These connections will also provide community access to the new roadway. We are recommending two connections for the western termini because we recognize that the best development of the Phalen Corridor requires freeway connections which allow for traffic to come from and go in as many directions as possible as the Cayuga connection [in conjunction with likely reconstruction of Interstate 35E] would do, while also providin� connections to the western industrial portions of the city, as a Pennsylvania connection would allow. We remain anxious to participate in the next steps of this procedure. If you have any questions, our Executive Director, Mr. Bruce Sylvester. � � FEB 1 0 1999 i�ORTHFAST QUADRART to7� Pa�;;c =..:;n��c l27!li F'�_. .°.`:' :'2sc:�. „�l'., , _- r:��,�i�,. . --��.'; 99 St. Pau1 Bicycle Advisory Board 300 City Hall Annex February 4, 1999 PED, attn: Nancy Frick 1200 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4�' St. St. Paul MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: The Bicycle Advisory Board (BAB) has review the Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS. The BAB appreciates the commitment of PED to maintain the established bike path and to provide a connection along the westem section of the corridor to connect the e�cisting bike path and the Gateway Trail. The BAB further supports the St. Paul Parks Commission Resolution of January 13, 1999 requesting "the pedestrian/bicycle trail shali have �0 feet on the noahern edge (of the Boulevard) wherever the traii and roadway share the same right-of-way." The Bike Board is in favor of preferred alternative C-4 in the center section. The motion at the EIS committee meeting to move this section as far south as possible in the old Stroh ]ocation would enhance the bicycle path and would clearly also receive full support ofBAB. BAB has concerns about safety issues for the numerous intersections on the bike path, especially at Arcade, Payne, and the I-35E Cayuga interchange. The Gateway trail presently serves numerous children on bicycles as well as roller bladers and the design at I-35EICayuga will be critical to their safe passage. We will be available for help and/or advice in the planning of these intersections as this project proceeds toward construction. At present there is access to the Gateway trail from Mississippi and Case Streets east of the freeway via an underpass; we request that the final design include future access to the Gateway trail from the residential neighborhoods east of the freeway. Aesign G4 appears to include an underpass for the bicycle path under the new Boulevard. I assume this is required to meet accessibility guidelines, but a bridge over both the road and e�sting Union Pacific Railroad might be considerably less expensive and more attractive to bicyciists and pedestrians concerned about dark tunnels under 4 lane roadways. We look forward to the construetion of the new Phalen Boulevard since it will provide excellent access for bicydists to the downtown area from the east side and look forward to working with you, as necessary, to help with enhancements for the bicycle/pedestrian path and to stage a grand re-opening of the Phalen bicycle path. Thank you for your support of bicycling along the new Boulevard. J�%GL��/4G�%�� Richard A. Newmark for the St. Paul Bicycle Advisory Board ca City Council President Dan Bostrom City Council Member Kathy Lantry �!H FROM : KARIN DuPaUL PHONE td0. � 77E 0559 Fe6. �13 1'399 1@�44AM PC?L Friends of Su�ede Noliow 729 E. Seventh St. St. Paui, MN 55106 Nancy Frick Departmenf of Planning 25 W. Fourth Sf. Sf. Paui. MN 55'102 Dear Ms. Frick: Feb. 2, 1999 Friends of Swede Hollow is a membership organization consisting primarily of residents from the neighborhoods surrounding Swede Holfaw Park, Because ofi the proximity and the scale of the Phalen Corridor Initiative, we expect if to have a significant impact on our neighborhoods and park. Now that the E1S is reaching the decision phase, we wish to share our recommendations with you. Our concern is with Yhe Centrai Segment and the itnpact that three of the alYernatives wifi have on the bicycie traii and the We11s Street residenfial area. The bicycla path currently provides a secfuded, non-motorized raute between 5wede Holiow Park and Lake Phaten. It is an asset to the neighborhood and the City, and wiian it is eventually extended to the Mississippi River and the Gateway Trail, it wiil become part of a state-wide network of bike trails. We prefer Alfer-iative C-1 (or some variation that follows the tracks) because the other a{ternatives put the Boutevard rig47t t�ext to the Trail. We 4eet that car and truek tra�c only a few yards away v��ould detract enormo�3siy from the Trail's charm and usefufness. Aithough the WeNs Street res+dential area needs some work, it has tramendaus potentisl: !t is a sloped area with a southecrr exposure and a spectacular view of fhe City, Rgain we prefer f�ftemative C-4 (or some varlation that foilows fhe fracks) because the other afternatives hring the Boulevasd too c4ose to the residential area. The noise and exhaust from the 8oulevard would detract seriously from fhe residentiaf potential of Wells Street. Alkernative C-'I is aiso a better choice, in our vfew, because it eliminates the hard curve that the other the alternatives have. A sfraight road ought to be cheaper and safer Yhan a curved one. Whatever barriers the Boulevard may bring to other objectives of the lnitiative, they would be minimized by following the railroad. For example, the effort to create industriai space that is large and contiguous is compiicated by piacemenf of the Boulevard and th� railroad. R��nning the Souf�vard along the raiiroad results in one barrier inste2d of two. Thank you for you consideration. Please share this letter with fhe other members of the pianning committee. � � �� " �-�,.�-_� �� C.C. � City Council P den# Dan Bostrom City Council Member Kathy Lantry State Senator Randy Keily State Represenfafive Steve Trimbie �� n n - , �� V N 4� 1 1�'� ��P,�� 4" ��`<`y- > > An��-�'�r ��..« i'/,,,:. f�',,,.,,a ..., 99-/�0 PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUS{NESS ASSOCIA710N °- P.O. BOX 6934 • SAIN'f PAUL, MN 55106 January 27, i999 Council President Daniel Bostrom Gladys Morton, Chair St. Paui Planning Commission St. Paul City Hail St. Paui, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: l'he Payne Arcade Business Association (PABA) is seriously committed to residentiaf, commercial and industria{ redevelopment in District 5. Just this fall, in partnership with the East Side Neighborhood Development Company (ESNDC), PASA initiated the "Main Street Revitalization Program". In brief, this revitalization effort is intended to enhance the image and perception ot our commercial district with the uftimate goal of attracting more customers to shop at our businesses. Our hope is that the Phafen Corridor will provide easier transportation access to the east side and in effect, increase customer traffic to Payne and Arcade. Therefore, while we strongly support the buiiding of the Phalen Boulevard and look forward to the new industrial development and jobs it will bring to the east side, PABA would recommend that the final E.I.S. inciude: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 afternative or any variation that pravides ai-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that wilf encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PASA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperat+on throughout the process of designing an intersection that wil! make it easy for traffic to enter Arcade Street from either directio�. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve E1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. We look forward to the construction of Phalen Boulevard and how this new roadway will enhance traffic access to the east side. Sincerely, � ,�� <ti�„— j , � � Maureen Mariano PABA President • • ��I ¢ �E.ARC 9 eGf �'YEfJ ASSO�� PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 6934 • SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue I wouid support the foflowing road way design options for the proposed Phale� Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 alternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continu+ng cooperation throughout the process of designing an intersection th2± �^�i!! make it easy for traffic to enter fircade Street frc,m eiiher direction. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve Ei design to connect to Prosperity on the East. �� I. �.� �r%+ � -(� / j / � V �—c��1�4 e-P s `��c_ �` {�C- �J �. �--1 v c��S 3 i�'-� ��c c,-�rr, �i�f S�� `�� S-�qf� �� - � S ��1 �U�� l�z ��r,��_ 99-I�'O p NE,AACADE 94 F G 9 O �2 Gl��"E55 LSSO«pl` PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATtON P.O. BOX 6934 . SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue I would support the foilowing road way design options for the proposed Phalen Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 aiternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperation througiiout the process of designing an intersection ihat will maka it easy ior traf�ic to enter Arcade Street from either direciion. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve Ei design to connect to Prosperity on the East. NAME �� ! � BUSiNESS �?�S � 1��-c��.t ��,�- C �� EG.�i S� �� A�. � t�,�_�:�J ��o�,�� . �T �� d�- � �,c� Sc �i w��= i z_ � S N�C �� a�� (�� ,��rn s�- � ��c�?� .��.�.� cL' �� -1 5�� ____�; �'-- � i w. �•,��:� � �wvin ✓� 7/� / l ' �/�TG�"'tH-c.�+i/J7..�'�" I � f�-ti (.�,.�:.:� , ��_ . "� dli-'��7 � �� r-a wt � r �,_�,- z�� ``�� /'I C`'�..�`'1C �� OYi �" ° f a /-_�u��l � �9-i � s aP NE_ARCADf 9qF . , 9 d j GI�'�ESS ASSOC\p"o PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 6934 . SAiiJT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue ! would support the foliowing road way design options for the proposed Phalen Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 alternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A weli designed access ramp at Arcade Street ihat will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperation throughout the process of designing an intersection that wifi make it easy for traffic to enter Arcade Street from either direction. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve E1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. NAME 1��...- °�°� ��G � �� BUSINESS �UG�wC�� Su..{.��.-�. � 5�+ -,��2�� /� 1,� � - � � o�� 7anuary 27, 1999 East Side Neighborhuvd DevelopmeM Cumpeny, /nc. 900PayneAvenue, SaintPaul, Minnesota 55107 Phone: (s51) 77�-iis2 Fax: �esi�n�-nas Council President Daniel Bostrom Giadys Morton, Chair St. Paul Planning Commission St. Paul City Hall 25 WestFourthStreet St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: ��,:,�s r _. � 9-i8o The East Side Neighborhood Development Company (ESNDC) is deeply committed to creating wealth and opportunities for the people and businesses in the Payne/Phalen Lake neighborhood. We believe that a well designed Phalen Boulevard that is wisely connected to the neighborhood will play an important role in creating jobs and revitalizino our neighborhood. Whi1e we strongly support the building of Phalen Boulevard, that support is dependent on having an at-grade crossinb at Payne Avenue and an attractive, well designed interchange at Arcade. Without this, the roadway rather than being an asset for our neighborhood will become nothing more than a fast way for people to drive through our neighborhood. ESNDC's board passed a motion of support for Phalen Boulevard at its January 13, 1999 meering. Our specific recommendations to the EIS include: • At-gade intersection at Payne Avenue — C-4 or some variation that insures at-�ade access. • An amactive, well designed access at Arcade. This access shouid be devetoped in cooperation with Arcade businesses and should focus on creating easy access to Arcade Street. • The development of a new interchange at Cayuga — W2D. • Approve E 1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. We look forward to the construction of Phalen Boulevard and are eager to work with the city and our many East Side partners to see that the Boutevard becomes an effective tool for creating wealth and opportunities for our neighborhood. Warm regards, � � ��,.� �,:��' `�`'�. Mike Anderson Execurive I�irector AFFIRMATlVE ACTlON! EQUAL OPPORTUN/TY EMPLOYFR 99-180 East Side Neighbnrhond Deve/npme�Company, /nc. 900PayneAvenue, SaintPaui, Minnesota 55f01 January27, 1999 Phone:(s5�)777a752 Fax.�(ssi}ni-n3s Council President Dan Bostrom Gladys Morton, Chair St. Paul Planning Commission St. Paul City I-Iall 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: This fa11, the East Side Neighborbood I?evelopment Company and the Payne Arcade Business Association launched the Main Street Prob am to revitalize Payne Avenue. Made possible through a�ant from the Locai Initiatives Support Corporation and the City of St. Pau1, Main Street has begun an intensive planning process addressing comprehensive strategies in design, marketing and promotions, economic development, and crime and safety. The wark of the Main Street Pro�am is being accomplished through the hard work of more than sixty volunteers who meet weekly in committees. These volunteers represent residents, business owners, property owners, the East Side Arts Council, the District 5 Planning Council, the East Team Police and many others. The Main Street Steering Committee passed a motion of support for the Phalen Corridor at our January 22" meeting. On behalf of the businesses on Payne Avenue and the many volunteers working on the Main Street Program, Main Street strongly supports an at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue — C-4 or some variation that insures at-grade access. The efforts of the Main Street Program and the vitality of Payne Avenue depend on bringing more consumers to Payne Avenue, an goal best achieved by an at-grade interchange. We are excited about the possibilines for Payne Avenue ana we hope that we can capitalize on our potential tlu an at- grade Phalen Corridor interchange. Best regards, _ i ' �� >Cz�C,''�/� Katya Ricketts Main Street Pro�ram Mana�er AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / EQUAL OPPORTUN/TY EMPLOYER �I9-/8D gaint , Pau� _ _ _Pa�ks and �Z ��10�1 C0��111SSIOII 3Q0 City Hall Annex, 25 �V. �in Street, Saint Pzu?, hL� 55102 -- b12/26b-6400 January 25, 1999 Nancy Frick City of Saint Paul 1200 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: ` �� i �q�,� �� / �y� 79 � � � � Enclosed is a copy of resolution 99-1 passed by the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission at its January 14, 1999 meeting concerning the Phalen Boulevard I-35E to Johnson Parkway Draft Environmentallmpact Statement and Draft Section 4(� Evaluation. The resolution re-emphasizes the concerns expressed by the Commission in its July 28, 1995 letter to PCI Steering Committee Chairperson Craig Johnson that the proposed roadway will negatively impact the ambiance and noise quality of the existing pedestrianlbicycle trail, and urges again that efforts be taken to minimize these negative impacts, regardless of which particular roadway design plan is adopted. Thank you for considering the Commission's thoughts in these regards. Sincerely, � i 1 Danner, Chairperson Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Corumissioners: , Jill Danner, Chairperson; Terrence Huntrods, Vice-Chairperson � Liz Anderson, Lori Huot. Kenneth Mauer, John O'Halloran, Altin Paulson, Plul Ravitzky, Samuel Verdeja �i �--r8o Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission is an appointed body to advise the Mayor and City Council in long-range and city-wide matters related to pazks and recreation,and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul Division of Pazks and Recreation leases property in the Phalen Corridor from the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority to provide a component of the Regional Trail System known as the Phalen Creek Trail, and W�TEREAS, the rnalen Fsoulevazd: i-�SE to 3oiinson Parkway �raf� En•ri.c:Lme:�ta! Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the City of Saint Paul and the Minnesota Departrnent of Transportation contains altemative proposals for the construction of a roadway which impact the trail located in the Phalen Conidor, and WHEREAS, the Commission maintains an ongoing interest in providing an excelient trail system for use by the citizens of Saint Paul, and WHEREAS, the Commission believes that the trail in the Phalen Corridor requires at least a 50 foot ri�ht-of-way for the safety, ambience and potential future expansion of the irail system, and that said right-of-way must be located in the northernmost side of the corridor, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that regardless of whichever future alignment is selected for the Phalen Boulevard, the pedestrian/bicycle trail shall have 50 feet on the northern ed�e wherever the trail and roadway shaze the same right-of-way, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cost of any realignment of the trail made necessary� by the construction of Phalen Boulevard shall be included in the roadway costs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in acknowledgment of the fact that trucks will use any furutre Phalen Boulevard, the roadway shall be built using Parkway design standazds. Adopted by The Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission on January 13, 1999 Approved: Yeas: Nays: Absent: No. 99-1 JRN-25-1999 13�17 SRinl rhuL �KCH �nH'riccK 61e ees b11y r.bziG� �'/ �//80 a'A1NT �.�UL �EA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Finr Naiional Dank Building. N•205 332 MiimaonS¢eeo Ssinc Paul, Minarxoq SS1U1 Phone: G51.223.5000 Fax: G51.223.511') ww.v. saintpsulchambe..a im YOUR BUSINESS A TlT!\(`ATC ? January 25, 1999 Saint Paul City Council Saint Paul Planning Commission 1 S West KeIlogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Saint Paul City Council Members and Planning Commission Members: The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Cominerce, representing over 1500 area businesses, strongly supports the building of Phalen Boulevard. W� believe that tfie taskforce process used to identify the layout for the Boulevard was sound. We strongly agree with the following soadway altematives: • W-2D. This altemative works with. the Metro Transit Bus Garage site plan and will improve traffic in the area. •- C-4. This alternative is important for our retail businesses a2on� Payne Avenue. E�1. This a(temative will improve uansit access in the Phalen Vzllage azea. We want what is best for the business and community interests on the East Side aad in tvm the whale City of 5aint PauI. The Phalen Boulevard is aa important project for She East Side, bringing a strong vision fo strengthen neighborhoods, good jobs, economic development and enhanced transportatioa We aze truly excited about the positive changes that aze taking place on the East Side and will continue to take place with the creation of Phalen Boulevard. Sincerely, Jeff Peterson Director of Public Affairs � Cc: Mayor Norm Coleman G�rtMilbum, ESABA TDTRL P.82 : ` �...�s02/10199 , - "r + {� �t �'� �i; -. : .�:: i., ; WED 13:03 FA% 612 296 7782 r 3[ETRO �1NAGERS OFFICE �� 001 Minneso#a Pollution Con#ro! Agency post=� Fax Note 7671 ; �. i February 10, 1999 Ms_ I3ancy Frick City of St Paul, City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Panl, Minnesota 55102 RE: Draft �nvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) - Phalen BouTevazd Dear Ms. Frick: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ihe DEIS for the Phalen Boulevard project. The proposal is the development of a new roadway alignment beriveen Interstate 35E and Johnson Parkway. Minnesota Pollution Controi Agency (MPCA) sfaff have reviewed the DEIS for this project. We have the following wmments for consideration and response by the city as it develops the final EIS. In our review, we considered two aspects of the information in the DEIS. One is how thoroughly the concems and issues that we raised in the Scoping and Draft Scoping Decision Document are addressed. The second is to raise other questions or concems we found when reviewing the DEIS and provida relevant background anformation. As a resutt, this letter is rather lengthy. We hope, however, that it will assist the city and project proposers in preparing the fmal EIS. Identifying relevant reports and providing references to them in the final EIS may also resolve some of our eomments. Eroston, Sedimentaklon, and Snrface Water Rnnoff There is little discussion of the potentia] impacta o£runoff during the construction phases of the project. We would like to emphasize that the requirements of the MPCA's General Construction Starm Water Permit must be followed. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will apply during construction. We encowage the project proposer to work closely with its constzuetion contractors to ensure that appropriate BMPs are used. The BMPs will help minimize or prevent impacts fsom mnoff while the soil is disturbed. Please note that development that disturbs ten or more contiguous acres may require temparary sedimentation basins during construction. If more tlwn one acre of new impervious surface is created, peiinanent treatment ponds may also he required. The storm water routing, sizing of permanent detenfion basins and treatment should be discussed in more detail. The final EIS shou3d present how storm water runoff would be affected by the various options. Both the quantity and quality should be addressed in more specific terms than in the DEIS. For example, the final ETS should discuss the potenrial loading from using road salt on a larger azea of impervious surface. Some mitigarion measures aze described in the document. You may also wish to address whether any mitigation measures can be worked into the overall desigp of ihe project. For exampFe, this could be 6y providing walkways and bike trails next to permanent storm water treatment basins. The basins could be designed with aestheric and habitat features such as wetland features, white the trails and walkways could serve to avoid future impacts by reducing local h affic problems. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (Voice); (612) 282•5332 (7TY) Regional OHices: Dulufh • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal OPportunitY Emptoyer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20°f> flbers kom paper recycled W cos�sumess. 02/10/99 �ED 1a:04 FA% 612 296 7782 ffiETRO �AIVAGERS OFFICE '�'' �—� U Q [�j 002 t ,4 Ms. Nancy Frick ',�; , Page Two ; �• The DkTS indicates that permanent detention poads would be designed to city and watershed i , managetnent organization criteris. ?.t a uvnimum, fhese ponds must elso mect the criteria in the ! MPCA's general permit. The ponds should be designed to support water quality goals for the area and the Mississippi River. Additional treahnont goals you may wish to consider are a 64 percent removal rate for phosphorus and a 9Q percent reductian in sediment. Minimizing the amount of impervious � surfaces, where possibte, will also help maintain the quality of the watershed. One last point regarding runoff is that the final EIS should also discuss whether impacts on Phalen Creek are expected. We are especially concemsd about the project impact on erosive flows such as the bankful flow, which is usually azotutc3 the two yeaz return event If increased erosion, or any other impacts, have the potential to occur, describe how the impacts would be prevented or minimized. Indlrect Soarce Permit lieqnirements The DE7S has ciearly stated that the traffic volutnes from the pmposed project alone do not meet the regu3atory threshold for requiring an ISP. This is supported by the results of travel demand model runs. Fature year projecrions, however, will exceed the threshold volumes needed to ohtain a pemiit. 'I'hese projeetions inelude the proposed East Cenhal Business District (CBD) Bypass traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed 1-35E crnmection with Phaien Boalevard. The city of St. Paul has not yet set a definite time line for the construction of the East GBD Bypass. We reconunend that the city eontact I7mocent Eyoh at (651}29b-7739, when the schedule is known, since connection of this portion wi� require an ISP. Tr�c and A.ir Quality OveralI Comments The DEIS indicates that aIl altarnarives proposed would meet carbon mono�cide {Cd) ambient standards. It appears that the buiid and no-build alternarives proposed do not differ substantially in terms of modeled CO coneentrations in parts per million (ppm}. Nevertheless, the choice of alternafives posed in the DEIS has overall implications for sir quality because of the assumptions on which they are based. MPCA staff understand the overall goais of the ptoject. We appreciate that there are anficipate@ benefits the proposed project could bring to the Lower East Side neighborhood. Our concems dwell on how the project would be implemented with the least iraffic aztd air qualiTy impacts to the area. Air Oualit�Imvacts The ambient level of CO was monitored for the project. The DEIS did a good job in adjusting the values for the year 2015. Tt assumed annual growth in traffic tfuough this period. It also accounted for changes in vehicle emission control technology. In addition, a microscale intersecrion analysis was perFormed for the project. That analysis was also fully discussed in the DEIS. The haffic volumes in the study intersection were estimateci for all the huiid and no-huild alternatives for the afternoon peak hour h in the 2015 analysis year, except for an at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue and transit-way options. The resulting CO emission rates were calcu2ated for the traffic streams using atl approved EPA models. The predieted aoneentrations for the build scenario show a minor increase in CO levels for the eight-hour standard over the no-build condition. The DETS attributes this increase to differences in rtaffic signal phasing. The staff believes tUat the increase is also linked to margina] reduction in vehicle hours traveled and an increase in vehicle miles traveled in altemative W-1 as compazed to the no-build. Tn any case, the maximum modeled values were all below the state one-hour and eight-hour ambient air quality standards. i i � ;; ! � , i 02/10I99 �VED 13:05 FA% 612 296 7782 Ms. Nancy Frick Page 1'hree METRO �ANAGERS OFFICE � � — / � Rj 003 Related data that may be helpfitl to include in the final EIS are traffic forecasts on York Avenue at Frank, CSazence Street, and on Maryland Avrnue oast of Prosperity. Piease indicafe what changes may be expected along those segments. The DEIS modeled only ane intersection (Maryland Avenue and Payne) and its related receptor sites for emissions. A number nf intersections in the corridor area may have impacts on their traffic operations &om this project. Consequently, moze intersections with a potentiai for increased emissions should have been analyzed in the DEIS. Tn the fmal EIS, please identify and analyze addirional intersections that are expected to have irapacts from the project. i Changes in ttaffic pattems during the conshvction of the pmjxt will occur. These changes rvill affect air quality at some intersections crossing the Phalen corridor. An accurate assessment of these construcNon- related impacts should be in the final EIS. This should include detailed microscale analyscs of the intersections. Crirical local intersections where impacts are likely should be idenYified. These may include intersections where the forecast traffic volumes approach the intersecfion capacity. The final EIS should list where significant incteases in traffic are expected during construction compazed to the na build altemative. Air Oualitv Conformitv Determination The staff agrees that the DEIS Phalen Boutevard prc}ect confortns with the state implementation plan. The 1998-2000 Transportation Improvement Program included Phalen Boulevard as one of its regionally significant projeets. A z emissions analysis was performed for the ycar 2005 action seenario. Other air aollutants from mobi�e sources The DEIS fails to provide a detailed, qualifarive discussion of air qu2lity impacts frnm offier pollutants than CO. The MPCA requested this in our comments on the Scoping document, dated May 6, 1996. We asked for an analysis of nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons, and pariiculate matter. Response 6 to our 1996 comment letter indicated the EIS would address these poilutants. It would be appropriate to also provide informallon on emissions of carbon dioxide and air toxic pollutants in the final EIS. The MPCA staff do not expect Phalen Boulevard to adversely impact the potentfal for this area to attain lead standards. � a�f°ic Imnacts Depend'tng on the alternative chosen, the city should clear3y provide, in detail, information on tlle traffic impacu involving nearby roadways. Primary areas of concern include I-35L and I-44 mainline lanes, and connections to the existing sh�eet systems. This discussion shouid include h�c forecasts far both build and no-build altematives as weIl as traffic assignments. A broader discussion of how this project wili affeet rush hour traffic on both tughways and city streets would be of interest The DEIS indicates that traffic woutd 6e ceduced on a namher of residential streets. Staff aze cancerned, however, that commuters may divert to Pha3en Boulevard through the neighborhoods to avoid congesrion on major arterials. If that occurs, haffic could increase instead. Capaciry ealculations should be submitted, especially for the proposed I-35E interchange on- and off-ramps. The exisflng ramps within the studied corridor alteady experience long qneues during aRemoon peak hocus. �.3,' � 02/1�/99 B'ED 13:06 FAX 612 296 7782 ! �! �i. � C � i ; i. if i' � : 4 � I Ms. Nancy Frick Page Four b4ETR0 MANdGERS OFFICE � �—�� 17j004 �; i , � �i� The congeshon management provision m TEA - 21 prohibits consh�uction of single occupancy vehicle lanes. The esception to tUis is if they aze part of an approved congestion management plan. 1'he Metropolitan CoimciI's Policy Plan is currently updated. It idenrifies Phalen Boulevard as a"H" Minor Arierial. 11�e pmposed project, therefore, is exempt from this requirement. � The 149 i lntermodal Surf'ace Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the recent TEA - 21 place considerable importance on altemadve modes and transi� They make clear that these alternative modes , must not be considered secondary to highway conshuction for mceting havel demand. 'fhrough these Acts, the U.S. Congress has given direction that should be applied to the Phalen project. The explicit designation of equal federal participation in fimding roadway and transii projects, along wiih the greater funding of high occupancy vehicle lanes, provides this direction. We believe that transit and other a]tcrnative modes such as bicycling, carpooling and vanpooling must be given serious consideiaYion. This is the case regardless of whether funding comes from TBA - 21, the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Prograzn, or Interstate Maintenance Fuxtds. This wo¢td provide severai tavel options to warkers expected to fill new jobs ereated by the Phalen corridor initiatives. We believe that 1'EA - 21 not only gives the laritude to consider these changes in assumptions, but by its vcry passage, mandates the use of funds for the construction of these types of _ alternative faczlities. Increased traffic on some of the existing streets may negaiivety affact pedestrian and bicycle tr�c , crossing some of the streets, speci$cally Payne Avenue, Edgerton, and Forest streets. The two best-used streets for bicycles in the project core azea aze Edgerton and Forest SReets. Pigure II-13 indicates that the three project altematives will douhle the average daily traffac on Edgerton. Please address the impact to bicyclas on Edgerton Street and pedestrians on Payne Avenue. For exampie, what are the projected traffic speeds on Edgerton Street7 ]n addition, bicycle access to Mississippi St. and Case Avenue appears to be diminished under Alternatives W-2C and W-2E. It appears that the current bike trail underpass to Mississippi Street is lost. How would this possible impact be mitigated? Please show this existing trail connector on Figure II-4 and II-5. W e do recognize that the project incorporates portions of the two regional bicycie traiis (Gateway and Phalen Creek trails} that improve comieciivity for bicycies. I�adeauate 6us service The projected havel forecast and the modeled CO concentrarions are based on assumprions of transit and altemative mode availability that preclude lowering the levels of projected h�affic demand. Demand wiIl be centered on increased auto hips as the main commute mode as long as funding of operating and maintenance costs of an expanded bus service in the Twin Ciries azea is not inereased. The staff recommends that 2n the final $I5, the city examine methods for developing financial or legistarive support to inelude transit as a fuil partner in effotts {o meet demand, rather than an alternative after roadway construction. This phiIosophy is consistent wath Vision for Transit issued by the Metcopolitan Council, and with the funding categories and ghitosophy. The proposed new Metro Transit bvs garage wiil be built at Mississippi and Cayuga Streets north of Downtown St. Paul. This gazage is expected to serve the east metropolitan azea. That could enhance the availahility of convenient transit for the workforee on the corridor. ,.. , ;:.�,. � �; :�= �4 -:��' 'i l .� �:.-� i:;. : 02/10/99 SYED 13:07 FA% 812 296 7782 Ms. Nancy Prick Page Five �IETRO MANAGERS OFFICE � 7 I O Q f�j OOa The core area of the project is low to moderate income, This papula$on has a}ugh potenhal for tcansit use. Please clarify how this project would enhance transit. For example, the fmal EIS could compare lraveS times for local and express bus routes on Phalen Boulevard or proposed bus travel fimes to possible express nms to downtawn St� Paul. We believe that Figure III-t0 has a mnnber oFerrot, regarding exis£ing bus routes. Please review this figure and update iE, if necessary. Travel demand None of the altematives addtess the quesrion as to how much �avel demand should be aocommodated by construcrion. The W-lA alternative is predicted to handle mote demand than any other of the alternatives. It appears th2t the demand will exceed the capacity of any possible chosen alternative. An assump6on in the analysis seems to be that adequate bicycling £acilities, better efforts at a jobslhousing balance, and reducing hips by providing major incentives for ridesharing or teiecommuting tanlc below other uses of state and ]ocal funds in importance. These issues, as well as h�ansit service, should be considered similar to roads or other utilities in importance. ;,. The final EIS must examine ways to I'vnit demand, and plan for transit and other mefhods of reducing singte-occupancy vehicle use. Since demand directly affects air quality, the final EIS should diacuss what initiatives can be pursued at the legislative level, or through initiatives of the private sector to limit travel demand. If roadway construcrion must occLS to even partially meet demand after this examination, then converting pmposed project to selective High Occupancy Vehicle (FIO� use and use of transit options is most in keeging with the requirements of TEA - 21. Given these constraints, the staff atrongly recommends that the preferred alternative in the final ETS should meet this requiretnent. Miriaabon of Construction Tmpacts Related fo Traffic The MPCA staff aclrnowledges that the DEIS addresses most of the temporary, traffic-related environmental impacts expected to occur as a result of the pro}ecYs construction activities. It considered h•affic delays, alignment shifts, access changes, and air quality. We would like to sfress that alI of the mitigation measures oonceming consuvction impacts should be implemented prior to and during the conshnction period. Other mitigation measures should be implemented. Options for improved puh]ic communica$on incSude publication of bmchures eontaining rnaps of the construction ateas. The city should work with affected businesses to let them Imow exactly what Yo �pect during construction. These efforts should also mclude consistent, thoughtful, and effeciive provision of advance public information to parties affected by the construction aetiviries. Cooperative sfforts with radio and T'V traffic-watch reporters and daily newspapers are some avenues for this. The design of the pmferred alternative should also include detailed construction staging plans. The plans should outline the sequence of construction activities, including plans expinining how motorized and bieyele 4affic wi1I be maintained during consirucrion. Noise AddiNonal discussion of noise shou]d be provided. In general, please discuss what is the available noise mitigation in this azea. If there is no practical noise mitigation available, give reasons why. What is the 2015 build ) no build comparison? If exemp$ons to the noise rutes wili apply to this projec{, p]ease exptain what those would be. SpecificaIly areas of concem include the fact that nighttime sound �:�� (.' 02/10/99 WED 1a:08 FA% 612 296 7782 1:;.�-' �i; i' � r�i ::��F� ��.�-��1 { '� . .j'i,� . � , ��.a:�' ,� t , �" '� � Ms. Nancy Frick � ` . Page Six .r , _ METRO MANAGERS OFFICE �� "� f�j 006 standards of 55 dBA is aiready e�cceeded in the areas adjacent to Yhe groject area. Table III-5 indicates an fncrease in expected nighttime noise at all monitored locations as a result of every build alternative. Would noise impacts be expected from HQV and transit enhancement altematives? If truck traffic increases as descn�bed on page VIII-4G, w3ut are the noise impacts to Maryland Avenue? Fish and Wildlife � + Page N-43 describes a low habitat value in the project area. Staffwonder whether this is, in fact, the case in the vicinity of the lluluth playground, 7ohnson Parkway, and just east of Payne Avenue in Swede a � Hollow. i' i E �� r�, � � � � . I 'r4 Section 4(� evaluetion We believe it would be uscful to idenfify the Johnson Parkway Avoidance Altzmatives mentioned on page TX-4, It may be helpful to ezplain why each of these was screened out. Please evatuate mitigation options for a no-build alternative between Johnson Pazicway and Atiantic. ts there a possibitity for rush- liam' HOV-access or HOV plus commerciat only along this segment7 We look forward to receivmg ynur writte� responses to these comments, as weli as the final EIS when it has been prepazed. If you have any yuestions, please contact me at (651)296-6703. Sin� � � Bazbaza Conti Planner Principal Operations and Piamiing Section Metro District BCsjs cc: Gregg Downing, Environmentai Quality Board , �pF K �Q� ` �'� i Pebruary 9, 1999 Nancy Frick St. Paat City Iiall Annex ZS West 4 Street St. PauI, MN S5IO2 ..vv L6�0yCIIC HVa(f S[. Pqul, Minneau[a 551$5-40 _ �: P}�alen Boulev�d 33raft Envuo�e� I�pact StatevAent (BIS) Dear Ms. Frick; 10 R �-18d T�� Departrnent of Naturai Resources (DN[�) }23s reviewed �he plialen Bou)evard Draft E7S. We offer �he foilowing comments for your consideration, wluci� ace arganized as the topiCS are presenfed in the Draft ETS. Sectiox S.9 per,nitS c�Approvals This section should note �he potendal need for a DNR Water Appropr�ation Permit. Remedaation ofi poll❑[ed grotuzdwater that wiii use more than 10,000 gallons per day, or 1,Op0,ppp g�o� per year, wilt require the appxoval of tlte D dewatering, �• Th �� rniit need also appl3es to const�ction-related 5'ectjon I71.2.4 Yegetation The doc:ument roferenees the presence of mature willow �ees, or immafure specimens, chat are growing a1o� the for�er Phale� Creek cortidor. We agree tl�ac willoWS are indicative of wet �oad�[ions, Recogniz;r� thaf wetlu,d detineation has occurred, but has not been substautialty �ocumented-in the DraR EIS, we caution that it is possible ihat sites aceurately classified ;�s �etlands may have been overlooked. Willows are strong indicators of wetiands, and it is possible that at'eas could sriil be consid�red wedands even though fi11 was piaced in thesn. Soine slatemexiL of wetland delineation }nethodology shoutd be preseuted in the ETS t'o assure that no potential wetlands have been missed. �'ectinn 117.2.8 Fish ared Wildlife The fish and wildtife discussion correctly recog»es that p�ts of the project cor�idox are with� th� Ivfississinpi flYway. The documenr givcs ihe j�pression fhac the �vlississippx flyway is a l�calized phenoinenon, CaTher than the broad passage wl�ich goes from the Gulf of MeRico into Canada, rn addStion, this flyway is mo[e than a wacetfawl eorridor. lt provides significarzs migration pathways for aimost a11 migratory bird species t}aat o�cur in Minnesota. The Stdte is providing Substantial investrnent to preserve and restore flyway coru�ections, in the f�rm of suitable habitat, tIu St. paul and Minneapotis. Tt�e ftyk,ay section along the MississErpi Itlyer jn these tWO Cities is remarkab]y intact given ti�e ]arge metropolitan population that lives ihere. .._DCUtr�u,��,.,r,,..,•,. �._,....._., Nancy Frick February 9, 1999 This section shnuld also note that the Swede k�ollow pand stays open year round, Ei.e„ does not freeze over in winter}, and that ducks concenaate there when other water areas are frozen. T�uck use is estimaeed to be in the hundreds of buds during cold snaps. The pond provides very important open watez during the wintzr. Are impacu to this area avoided? Opportunities to improve the area should hr+ crnrvht ,� k,. :f � ' CDLLl16LGl+ w vv ua up. uuu..av..o ... ...�.... ��..._� _ __- __�.. . � . - - � • —/ "' O water durmg d�e winter. Are impacts to this area avoided? Opportunities to improve the uea should ` be sough[. , IV ].7Bfcycle and Pedestrian Mnvetnent The discussion xegarding how the pzo,yect affeets che Gate.vay Trail is not accurate. Over the past five years, the DN� and the Ivlinnesota Depamuent of Transportation (MN/AOT} have worked togetlxer to extend the Gateway State Traii into ttae rean of St. Paut by utilizing the I-35E right-of-way. Work was oou�pleted in ] 996 to extend the usil from the railxoad bridge over 1-35E (near Arlingtan Avenue) to Cayuga 5treet. As nNR and the Metropalitan Council worked to secure funding to furtbex extend tIie trail from Cayuga Street to Pennsylvania Avenue (to be accomplished in 1998-99), the Phalen Boulevard proposal caine folward. Because of conflicG� hetween khe Phalen $oulevarcl project requ'tzements and MN/DOT requiremerrts for future upgrades of I-35E, fiirther extension of the trail oouid noi be guaranteed hy MNlDOT as originally envisioned if the Phalen Boulevard Qcoject proeeeds- The NIS siiould note thet botli MN/DOT and DNR have committed to cooperate un d�e cision oP extending the Gateway Txail to University Avenue and ultunately to the State Capitoi. Implementation of the Phalen �oulevarcl project should not inhibit this final Outcome. , ` R�gardiag trail issues in generai, we encourage t�e City to implement a design khat will provide a right- �f-way for both the pedestrian/bicycle trail and Light RaIl Transu (LRT). Section IV.2.2 Wettancls No alternadve will directly affect wetlands in the general vicinity of the projeCt. Howet�er, the project will be coordivated with oppuitunities idencified by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for potentia] wetland restoxations. The Phalen Shopping Center Wecland Restoration siCe ha,a been speoifically identitizcl as one such locntion. As noted in Dtaft 615 scoping, and ac�l�wledged in Sec�ion 1TI.2.5, DNR reqnests eonsideration of restoxing tltat part of Yhalen Creek tl�at hisEOrzcally flowed through Swede Hollow. The "creek" that cunentiy runs [hxough Swede I�Tollow is a daylighced section of Uae storm tzunk sewex that begizas near the intexsection �f 7°i SCreet and 7olmson Parkway, as depicted 'u� Figure JV-1. As such the creek originates near the pxoposed Phalen wetland restoracion area. The TIS Should indic3te why the oppoxcunity pxesent to restore, at ]east partiaily, [he entire system, (e.g., k�ha]en Creek tluough Swede Hollow; Phalen restoration site), 95 ttot mitigafion for potential impaets. RestoratioA of the hiscoxic Phaten Creek tlQw and corrid�r would he to pravide a eonstant flaw througl� the currendp daylighted portion nf Swed� I-Iollow. Morc importazit, this restoration wauld serve the dual purpose of impxovittg [he quaiiry of water (tluough dilution) thaC flows to the Ivtiss�ssippi Ttiver from this location. Ac p[esent, Lhe system 15 flashy with periUds of almost no flOCC� to pericxls af exeessive flows. 'I'his kxas caused sig�ufioan[ erosion problems 8�at is threatenutg die bilce trail throu�h Swecie Aoilow. �! It , ,, , x ; f i t � � , DNP, PLRhJhdIh1G Fa�:612-296-6047 Feb 9'99 11 �53 P.02j02 99-�8d , (ancy Frick t��3,�uars'9, ig99 �cripn N 2.3 SYater j�+otuYtStor �}, thc roi�t shonid t,c pTe-trcate� All si�+� m watzr NriOff EP�cYbtCd h}• j�`e.nmws su2Eaca C[e2 Y P zntof r¢vinusly priur to dischatge w naeural aratex�. �e °� r��nd tbei nc� City of St. Pm�l use the CPP�� prescnted by che l�roject to xeduce unperviou. surFaee � tt� �nt�al c�nndifion, Snclud'u E jmpacted sir=, in urban aieas slumld resuk Sn an 4mi' feduUlnns in m�� Senecati�n. « 'c offer the SenPrei ricw tbut a71 swnn "'�ct ruaotf SC'�erasPd bv �±nPe��""' a'Tlace ciesrea by d�c wx s co reduce 3mprrciot�s surfa�e �Le�riuu with th�s proje�c siw��dbc pretseatedprinr W dischnrge to newral watex., mcwa;ng thc Mi.as�ss;ppi Ri.�cr. e aLto enr.rnsaSe the C'it5` of SL Paul to idendpp Y co rednce thc cumul.neive �,��ijcct. Redevelc+pnie�tt Of e�cistin$, a�'Pdu'� �� °�lotvs au npporhinrty im ia�s EurFat'� amwnt of impcs vious surface in thic lvghlY urbnNzed waiershed. Iteduc� P�' creation hea�r.fts the wa�er quatiity of the M�ssisstPpi Rivcr. Sectinn 1Y.2.5 k4sh and Wi�d� co u,q,rove habitat condii iuns in ffie pocenualiy affceted area, arn1 n�a Tl�e project offels the oypu �Y . d ecific.l{y to No[ unty do the yppreeiate sne recugnicion in rhe nvi igation ;�eccion th,�� "laudscaC�nB cotit�l ba se �cta sP provi�e Labitat for v:A�d4ife." All availnb(e habirvi ia valunb3e m an nrlxn setting• wttdlire. that cun live thrre 1�ncfit, but the ciiy rasidcnts b�e� ie�it Co�Ao�� ezntiflsi dc igning ci�iphasis �hould hr. �,laced ou rEVeSPZt�ii� wiSh �are S �athcr th�n simPfy �rro��iding screenin� ut a plancin�s ffiacpr�iviJc witdlife tiab�rat For sme11 aiwnals• unc�inru anc3 a ues and L�: located itt azeas wh ic thcY coutfl a�i �.�i i�n t�� ef� t bai,ilat Gomylex if pos�ihle. 'ye �� Cjty's recopni��nn in the Uraft �i� �f t1�� value of xegeWtion restoratlon piesciitcd auit,� t e gnE Cirv's f:a..^�e S a wU'�'h'M' hood. ion. preseztiing n ul �osmcing� Luttlsca�+a}', aton� tlic traiLs Nill increasc Ihc usc of che snitc. 7'nasuc y�u frrc thc oppo�ty ta rcview this dcx:wut�. 4Ve 1o�A ftin ward to reeeivin� ttie Fina1 �1S at a fl�ru�c datc. Yleasc w l�ll�� n� "'y �a�� (b-slj 29F-9229 if you havr qurstirnu rcga�diziK Uvs le[ter Sinee[eiy. ��t�..�g�..ceS.4 - ` �!(`F - / ' � - � - y' � n 'lbomas W Ralcom, S��petvixui Eri�urimcntnl Keview a�rcl Assistance T.3n3i. AfCicc of ManagC�nr.ur and Budget Serviccs Con Chris�u �, halhlecn W allace U=t R;vUcr Drct Andetsmi .�� [,arscn, ��lB („partrc Kjus. S3Sf W S �9N1:.R0.-03/YAhLD�TS. wP7 � �t -! 80 � MetroTransit February 3, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner Departrnent of Planning and Economic Development City of Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Prick: Re Review of DEIS — Construction of Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Johnson Parkway Metro Transit has reviewed the referenced draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and provides the following comments: 1. Metro Transit vigorously opposes aiternative W2-E for the western end of the project. Selection of this alternative by the City will deem the Mississippi/Cayuga siteinfeasible for construction of its new East Metro Transit Facility. 2. Prompt receipt of the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) is needed for the City and Metropolitan Council to C�operatively acquire the MississippilCayuga site for our respective projects without delaying the bus gazage project. Metro Transits requests that the City take all available actions to acquire the ROD from the FHWA as soon as possible. 3. Selection of alternatives W-2D or W-2E on the western end of the project will require a reroute of Route ll between Pennsylvania Avenue and L'Orient Street to Case Avenue and Westminster Street. The new route would likely follow the proposed I-35E west frontage road to Cayuga Street, to Westminster Street, to Case Avenue. Route 11 operates 63 weekday and 27 Saturday one-way bus trips. 4. Bus-only shoulder lanes are operated effectively throughout the metropolitan area. Bus-only shoulder lanes should be evaluated for Phalen Boulevard. At a minimum, shouider design width at potentiat bus stop locations should be evaluated. Bcs-only shoulder lane right-of- way could be converted to a busway or LRT as appropriate. If you have any questions pertaining to the East Metro Transit Facility, please contact Arlene McCarthy, Project Manager, at 651-602-1278. Sincerely, t�� v�� Arthur T. Leahy General Manager cc: Witliam Foster Arlene McCarthy A service of th Metropolitan Council 560 Sixth Aven,;e Nortn Minneaoohs, Minnesota SSAt 1-4398 (6l2) 349-7400 hhp.//inrvvw.metro��a^srt org 7ransrt lnfo 373-3333 TTY 34LG'� =° An Equal Opportunity Emo=o;r_� 99-/�O Department of Pnblic Works Paul L. Kirkwold, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 •(651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: PublicVJorks@pw.co.ramsey.mn.us �� @f �� January 26, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner City of 5t. Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Environmental Statement — Phalen Boulevard Dear Ms. Frick: ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 FEB - 2 1999 n!oRrti�asr c�u��a�v�r The technical work relating to alignment, alternatives and cost are sound and well defined. Coilaborative cost participation and ultimate designation of Phalen Boulevard needs further definition. If the roadway is to become a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) route under the Jurisdiction of Ramsey County and potentially use County resources as one funding source, it is important that the roadway be so designated prior to construction. Use of funds from that source are subject to a solicitation and project prioricization process under the oversight of Ramsey County's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), made up of representatives from area municipafities. To date, the roadway is not on the Gounty system and not included within the 2000-2002 Transportation Improvement Program. It is also noteworthy that a new interchange connection with I-35E is critical to the success ot the Phalen Boulevard initiative. Until that connection is made, other improvement efforts within the corridor will be of limited benefit. Phalen Boulevard represents a key transportation element within a broad-based community partnership focused on economic, social, and physical improvements within the Phalen Corridor area. Phalen Boulevard is noted as a"catalysY' for an array of social benefits. Whi1e it is commendable to pursue broad-based goafs which include reversal of housing deterioration, increased crime and Iocal job creation, care shouid be taken not to overstate the role of the roadway in stimulating such far reaching benefits. The road facility can play a strategic role in providing improved access for redevelopment of underutilized industrial lands. However, economic recovery, job growth for local residents, crime reduction, housing renewai, etc., require multiple sociai initiatives — not necessarily eiforts linked directly to infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, the merit and cost effectiveness of road construction should be judged on definable access/trar�sportation benefits. Long range social benefits that may ultimately Minnesota's Ficst Home Snle Coanty p�ia�ed aa cxyGeE qapec witR a wmmum u[ !0% pns4mns¢me[ matent � �i 9-�� Nancy Frick 26 January 1999 RE: Phaien Initiative accrue in the area may be linked to infrastructure as social initiatives mature, but direct linkage to many specific social results is more speculative than supported. Ramsey County supports redevelopment of depressed communities and the use of different tools to achieve results. It is important, however, not to tie the wide array of long-term social improvement needs to a specific transportation improvement — at least not in such a way that those social needs are held at bay while years of planning and funding coordination occur for the roadway. Implementation, given the complexity and costs fer Phalen Boulevard and the I-35E interchange cou{d rea{isticaily be delayed severai more years. Help in the areas of job training, crime reduction, housing renewai, etc., are needed and could be imp4emented now, albeit perhaps at a different level than long-term goals identified as a spin off from the Phalen initiative. Sincerely, �� Paul . Kirkwold, P.E. Director and County Engineer PLK:vad �9-1 �v � Metropolitan Council Working for the Kegion, Planning for the Fufure January 25, 1999 Saint Paul City CounciUSaint Paul Planning Commission City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 re: Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS Deaz Saint Paul City Council Members and Planning Commission Members, As a member of the Metropolitan Council, I strongly support the construction of the Phalen Boulevard. I believe that the aiternative methods for constructing the roadway have been fully examined. T am anxious for this process to conclude.. It is very important that the City Council act without fiuther delay ta approve the project. As you know, we cannot complete the final design for our new East Metro Transit Garage until the final alignment has been selected. Your continued cooperation is needed in order to effectively coordinate the construction of a new Phalen Boulevard and our new Transit Crarage. Thank you for your continued support of this important project. Sincerely, � c ,� Stephen B Wellington, 7r. Council Member, District 14 230 Eas[ Fifth Street 5[ Paul, Mimesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Pax 291-6550 TDD/T1Y 291-0904 MeW Info Line 229-3750 An Equal Opportwuty EYnntoyer �i9-I�� Metropolitan Council Working for the Xegion, Planning for the Future January 21, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner Department of Planning and Economic Decetopment Ciry of Saint Paul Z� west tourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: DEIS -- Construction of Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Johnson Parkway. Ivfetro^n[i;ar. Ccu±!cil Distric*_s �3 aa3 ?4 Referral File No. 16936-1 Dear Ms. Frick: Council staff has conducted a review of this drafr environmental impact statement (DEIS) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concems. The staff review has conciuded that the DEIS is comp{ete aad accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no ma}or issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff provides the fotlowing comments for your consideration: The proposed project is construction of a 2.6-mile boulevard from I-3�E to Johnson Parkway. The section between 1-35E and Arcade is proposed to be four �anes, and the section Ue;ween Arcade and Johnson Parkway proposed to be two lanes. Items III.1.& and IV.1.6 -- Parks and Recreation The Drafr Phalen Boulevard EIS includes information on the existing State Gateway Trail and Phalen Creek fZeQiona{ TraiL The project proposes to connect the nvo trails and is cons'rstent with regional trail plannin�. Continued coordination with the City of St. Paul's parks department and the DNR in respect to the Gateway and Phalen Creek Trails is encoura�ed. iiem !ii 1.1=f -- Reiated, Ongoing, and Flanned rrojects Page IIl-40 states that Metro Transif s new bus garage will be bult at Mississippi and Cawsa Streets north of do�vnto�vn St. PauL The Metropolitan Council selected this site for the bus garage in October t998 based on the assumption that the Ciry would select altemative W-I or W-�D. Selection of alternative W-ZE will render the bfississippi/Cayuga site infeasible for the bus garage. Prompt completion of the final EIS and receipt of the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) is necessary to allow the City of St. Paul and the Metropolitan Councii to cooperativel} acquire the �Iississippi/Cayuga site Eor their rzspective projects �vithout further dela}. The Council requests that the City take alt availabfe actions to acquire the ROD as soon as possib(e. AREA GODE CHANGES TO fi51 IN JULY, 1998 230 EasC Fi1th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (612) 602-1000 FaY 602-1550 1'DD/TIY 29]-0904 Metro Info Lne 602-I888 An Equa1 OpportunLLy EYr�ployer 99-�80 Nancy Frick, City Planner January 21, 1999 Page 2 Item III.2,12 --- Air Quality Regarding text on air quality on Page III-53, the metropolitan area as a whole is non-attainment only for CO. The non-attainment designation for particulate matter only affects a band extending from the steel facility in southeastern St. Paul to the viciniry of Lafayette Blvd and University Avenue. This does affect a portion of the Phalen Corridor Study Area. The particulate matter is not due to transportation sources, but is related to the steel industry. Item IV. I.IO --- Transpartation Facilities Including Transit The text on page IV-22 states that "Neither the No-Build Alternative nor the TSM Alternative conform to ...the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Ptan in that Phalen Boulevard is not constructed." The text earlier correctly stated that the air quality analysis of the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan included the Phalen Corridor. However, Phalen Corridor was included at the request of the City for administrative and funding reasons. The city should pot use conformity to the policy plan in this situation as an argument against the No-Build and TSM alternative. This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No fozmal action on the DEIS will be taken by the CounciL If you have any questions or need further information, please contact 7im Uttley, AICP, - principal reviewer, at 651-602-1361. Sincere(y, Helen Boyer, Direct Environmental Services Division C: DeDe Wolfson, Metropolitan Council District 13 Stephen Wellington, Jr., Metropolitan Council District 14 Kei;h Buttlemar,, Airector, Enveronme ;ta; Planning and Evalua±ior. Department, MCES Thomas C. McElveen, Director, Housing and Local Assistance Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator, Community Development Division Mark Filipi, Office of Transportation and Transit Development Arlene McGarthy, Project Manager, East Metro Transit Facility Phyllis Hanson, Parks John Kari, Sector Representative, Community Deveiopment Division Jim Uttley, AICP, Community Development Division V :llibrary(commundv(referrat/letters/SP 164361.doc �-.�,-._�_- �/ -/8d 1�111iNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIET'Y January 5, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paul Dept. of Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4` Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Draft EfS - Phalen Boulevard, I-35E to Johnson Parkway St. Paul, Ramsey County SHPO Number: 96-0872 Dear Ms. Frick: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. _ We look fonvard to continuing to work with you regarding the effects of the project on the historic propeRies identified in the report. The discussion of the identified properties, effects, and potential mitigation measures in the Section 4(f) Evaluation will be helpful in completing the Section 106 review process. We do note that, while the suggested mitigation measures in this poRion of the report are appropriate for consideration, they are not yet endorsed by our office, and they do not preclude consideration of other potential measures as the consultation process proceeds. Contact us at 651-296-5462 with questions or comments. Sincerely, �t;� � V � � Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Comp(iance Officer cc: Aaron Rubenstein, St. Paul HPC 315 1iELI.OGC. BOC"LE\,1Rll R EST /$�1I_v7' P>CL, �ILVAESOT.� 55I0'?-1906 / TELEPHOSE: 651-396-6126 9�-i�o U.S. Department of Transportatio� � United States Coast Guard Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paui City Hall Annex 25 West 4�' Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Direetor 1Y12 Spruce Street Westem Rivers Operations St Louis, MO 63103-2832 EigMh Coast Guard Distrid Staff Symboi: ob Phone: (374) 539-3900 �C381 � FAX (314) 533-3755 � ti. �j � �' a � �" <. 16210.2/IN � � � December 29, 1998 JAN o s �sss n�o�:�, . � ° � ,: �;�5 Subj: PHALEN BOi3LEVARD, RAMSEY COL3NTY, NIINNESOTA Dear Ms. Frick: We have reviewed the information provided in your Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated December 15, 1998, and determined that the subject project will not involve bridges over navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, a Coast Guard bridge permit is not required for this project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project. Sincerely, � C� RO �R K. WIEBUSCH Bridge Administrator By direction of the District Commander � g-��o � U.S. Department of Transporta(ion Eederal Aviation Adminishation December 23, 1998 Nancy Frick City of St. Pau1 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 6020 - 28th qvenue South, Room 102 Minneapofis, Minnesota 55450.2706 F H WA-M N-E l S/4 ( fl-98-02- D Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Section 4(fl Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County, Minnesota S. P. 6280-308 From I-35E to Johnson Parkway in the City of St. Paul Thank you fior the opportunity to review the subject document. We have no comments. Sincerely, a� `� c�� Robert A. Huber Assis:ant Marager ci 9 -18� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL OISTRICT, GORPS OF ENGINEER$ ARMYCORPS OF ENGMEERS CEMRE 190 FIFTH S7REET EAST ST. PAUL, MN 55f01•t638 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF December 21, 1998 Construction-Operations Regulatory (96-03239-NP-TJF) Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paul Department of Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 551�2 Dear Ms. Frick: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Phalen Boulevard project of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The project alignment passes through portions of sections 28, 29, and 30, T. 29N., R. 22W., Ramsey County, Minnesota. The DEIS indicates that the project would not involve any direct impacts to waters/wetlands. A Department of the Army permit will not be required provided there is no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters or wetlands. Minor impacts to existing storm water management ponds could be authorized by Nationwide (NW) or General (GP) permits. This letter is valid only for the project referenced above (State Project 6280-308). If any change in design, location, or purpose is contemplated such that waters or wetlands would be impacted, our office should be contacted. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. If you have any questions, or require more details on NW or GPs, contact Timothy J. Fell in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5360. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above. Sincerely, � � . l�.^� � � �� 'JU ett Deh'on ief, Minnesota Permits Section PnnteC on � RerycleC Paper 9 �-��o �� - . �-� � � � �-_ � . � � .. . - - - � � -� --` Federal Emergency Managemenf Agency- "- =s = �'-."_ - � p - . :i :- :__:.,Qf:> v.�_ _ ,._ : - ^° i.. _ . : .- -=--�- .- .._. , . °3`>:st'::� . - '�" '� � ;` ' •''":,.. : Region V � ,,,.;:.- .,, =� r _; � d o 3�� .;�_:_:�:::.:,:�c�..:��.:..'- .:_�' �. - - ``- ---' -°�-__ ;...;zv<ii_:::ki::: '�d, , �' _ - _ 175 West Jackson Blvd:; 4th Floo"r ° "``-- ` ` - _ _ _ , -- Chicago, IL 60604-2698. _ h - ` _ .` RAPfD REPLY TRANSM{TTAL . � -f- . } -`.-� This is an informal response to your recent inquiry. It will allow you to get an appropriate response from flus agency in the shortest time possible. If you still have questions after :� = receiving your reply, please call us on 312-408-5548 for assistance. () Letter of Map Amendment Application (LOMA-EZ or MT-1) enclosed; this is to be used to remove a structure or pazcel from the floodplain based on its elevation; the LOMA is principally used to supgort a request for a waiver from a lender from the mandatory flood insurance requirements - -: - O Letter of Map Revision Application (LOMR, CLOMR, LOMR-F, MT-1 or MT-2) enclosed; this is to be used to change a floodplain map because physicat changes to the ;"_ floodplain have taken piace after the map publication date; LOMRs are usuaily used to " update floodplain maps to correct them for work done by developers, builders, highway :: and bridge construction, or flood control projects --�: � Environmental Assessment Reviews/Executive Order 11988 Reviews: this --'. agency does not have the staff resources to review the many requests we get for such reviews; the project sponsor and the federal agency taking the action aze responsible for meeting these regulations; floodplain maps can be viewed in local government offices or" ordered from our map distribution center (see below) _ - --- �-� — �. � - .., () Ploodplain Maps: our maps can be viewed in local government building, zoning, community development, or engineering offices; they can also be ordered by cailing 1- 800-358-4616; we have none for distribution from this office O Flood Tnsurance; the federal govemment does not seli flood insurance; it is availaole tihrough any iicensed insurance agent or broker in your state, provided your community participates in the 23ational Fiood Insurauce Program; check with your local officials to determine your community's eligibiliTy or call i-800-358-9616 for eligibility () Publication Request: The publication you rec{uested is enclosed O Publication Request: The publication you requested is not stocked by this office; you may cali this agency's Publications Section on 1-800-480-2520 for assistance () Modei Floodplain Ordinance: a model floodplain ordinance, appropriate for your community's flood hazards as identified by this agency, is enclosed; before it is adopted, a draft should be reviewed and approved by ttus office or the state coordinating office shown below : , . USDA ��..� � Natural Resources Conservation Service 375 Jackson Street - Suite 600 St Paul, Minnesota 55101-1854 r�..�. � «�a� �� 9 9 -/�O December 17, 1998 IN REPLY REFER TO: F'fIWA-MN-EIS/4(�-98-Q2-D Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(� Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County, Minnesota S.P. 6280-308 From I 35E to Johnson Pazkway in the City of St. Paul. City of St. Paul Nancy Frick City Hall Annex 25 Wesc 4th Sueet St. Paul, MI�i 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has reviewed the appropriate sections (wetlands and threatened and endangered species) for the above mentioned proposed project. The project sponsors are not USDA program benefit recipients, thus, the wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security act, as amended aze not applicable. It should be noted, however, that actions by a non- USDA participant third party (project sponsor) which impact wetlands owned or operated by USDA participants, may jeopudize the owner/operators USDA eligibility. If such impacts aze anticipated, the owner/operator should contact the county Fazm Service Agency (FSA) office to consider an applicant for a third party exemption. Neither NRCS technical nor financial assistance is being pzovided in support of this project, thus, specific NRCS environmental policies are not applicable. The foilowing agencies may have federal or state wetlands, cultural resources, water quality or threatened and endangered species jurisdiction in the proposed project, and should be consulted. Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Boazd of Soil and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency State Historic Preservation Officer/State Archaeologist The Naturel Resources Conservation Service, works hand-in-hantl with the American people ta conserve natural resources on private lands. pN E�UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER , ' :• If through these impacts you are purchasing new or acquiring additional lands and if any federal monies aze involved, it is a reguirement that a Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) site assessment be appropriately filed. these site assessments aze, conducted by NRCS personnel to review the project for possible effecu on unique, prime or statewide important farmland. Contact yow local NRCS o�ce for more information. Sincerely, � � � � J W LIAM HUNl' State Conservationist � � �� Minnesota Department of Transportaiion � �, � Transportation Building °` 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 � �,, � December 15, 1998 � � � ` � ~ �„; F�'� � �: . Regional Director Region V Federal Emergency Management Agency 175 West 7ackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 - � r�,� "��i" �' .' . In reply refer to: FHWA-MN-EIS/4(�-98-02-D Draft Environmentai Impact Statement/ Section A(� Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County Minnesota S.P. 6280-308 From I-35E to 7ohnsgn Parkway in the City of St. Paul Deaz Sir or Madam: G�j 1 `-� -i L Ia3V (651)296-4876 Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmentai Impact StatemenUDraft Section 4(� Evaluation [ETSl4(�] for the above referenced proposed Phalen Boulevard project. The draft EIS(4( fl documents the positive and negative impacts of the proposal to construct Phalen Boulevard on a new alignment from I-35E to Johnson Parkway, a length of 43 km (2.6 mi.). The new facility would be a four-lane roadway between I-35E and Arcade Street and a two-lane roadway between Arcade Street and Johnson Parkway. Two of the three build aitema�ives inciude reconstruction oi i-35E beeween 1-94 and ivlaryiand lavenue and rapiacement of the existing Pennsylvania interchange with a new interchange at Cayuga Street. We would appreciate your review and comments on the draft EIS/4(� in the areas where your office has jurisdiction or special expertise. Comments will be accepted through February 10, 1999 and wi11 be considered for inclusion in the final EIS/4(fl. Comments may be directed to: City of St. Paul Nancy Frick Ciry Hall Annex 25 West 4�' Street St. Paul, MN 55102 (651)266-6554 An equal opportunity emplayer 9 9 —��c� � � � � � � a� c ; ° � � � � o ai O � a�i � � � w ++ � �. C � �� R � � P� � � � � ca � �+ W o�i o � � ,� o � � � 4 „ o - � � � � � ce � v � a) � c:� y�•� s, � H � � i - _i � � � � r.�+ �+ � � � �' i� � � i^ �1 vt � � � O F+�I � .� � � �I.+ � � � C� i"i � � 6J 3� �.� � � � � - ��, � ;v � i � ;ra � W � - ;.� i � S � T _i p e _ '�.-., a. R F .�'o - .:,r:'i � Z z � �'..::G �Q �L "'y� { y J .. .)�: T. � 1li ¢ d � '�l � V m H � ' mO�f N_ ��'d _I ';c V ' � ^ ... � , a � �.�� :�:�..' �� . � � � � � � �, .� � ° o � � *"' o � � � � � t�o 0 � � •� � a p � � � ,� o � � �, P"' v c�"'.., 6� "C .� O � � � � � O O r ,,, W ¢� M C O � H � O � Q� ..�i U y p C� 6� � � � "E3 ; ,,,, � N• CC .�i �; � � O �C C � � w � O r-+ v� � ... � � • ' p .�. N -� � � i�• , U ,i�+ ,..i r 5 y U i.�a O � � � � � eC y p ,� a� > c� � .�. �' ~ � � � � O "� �3 � �Q � C � � � V � C U � � � � � � O i, �' p" 3 � �° � � � � � � ^ v, ... � '� �O O T� yr a� L�. ;� C� � C" s., O � �' o R s. � � � v� a�i y b0 � O s�. � • � v +' � � � � U ..C'"i •" ^ a y�„i � .� V .� O � c� � y ^ � r� � � o � � � .;: .� � F� a � a � � a� > � � � x � � h � � ^C W � O � � �19-l�U �._C �_, . .. . _ . ' � � � �' O � � L w F'r '+�i � y .+ � �� a .., =`�� ; v� � v � 3 � o � � o x„ v, � �+ �„ � L+" a� Ay �cC c U .� C � i„�,� l. �"" I- � v' } � y � V W y'� I� CC 6� Vz �' Q� � �"� � � � � •� � (�l %� ,�, • e�G �1 p .—t 33 �-'-� � � �: ��s�� ° w "� d w t��,, r�,,, � P- � W o �' � G 1n i..i � "� O M 9�-i�� _ � � � � 0o a � �� w 0 1 � � � c .° c� :�, ..., o �, � c� � � �� ax � � .� v CC � � � � O � m � � 3 � � C� , p O A O � y a� O o a. � o a � '" �°3 ��, w '� � N �„ � � � �. � � � w � � � :.: � "� .� � .t C � O e � H 5R H x � �" � h � Gj p � � R "� � � � � � � � i�. O � �, � W G� r.+ � CQ � �' • y "r, x" ..�,. � w � G �-/8c� �: � �; R ;-� .. O � "C '=S �. S', � � � r� � �" O CC � CC � v � • '��" Q�-� y � , - � - i '^ �. � i w „ � eC O O R N x., y � L� �i N �+" � � � � � � � a � O � y�'� � � � a � ,.Q 9�-f �a � � �, � � o �� , w CL �'' U � � V� C� $"' N � � p .� L �a U O C �y .., � � •� a� � .� V � O � �i F�r �J 9-Jd'd � � A � --� a� .L N rti � a � � � � � �Q � y ,C � � � � > '.� v �i� � �' � � Cei � � CJ� � C; � R � Q� �O � y � � 3� W � � � � � � � �y �t p L�r � � 4. V ^~ � o � � > � .� � � � � � � � � � ,L '" '�" � U H A a� � CC ..r � � � � .Q � ^ � � � � � � � F� .� � � � � � n.r CC C 4� a� � w .� : � c• � '� � � „�+ U � � 'L3 s�_a.„::..:._:F- ,; ,_.,. 1 i � i i � ' I I I � i r � C � � ... ,� �� o � � � � � � � � � �C � � �' � c � �� y � �, � y o � : ... r :� �� o �' o � � � � �. � � o ;C � �' - rr A� � . C � � � y o � � o � � A � 7 i f�D � "�Y G � � � ¢, � � � � � o o• � � r , �, city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 99-13 date February 12. 1999 WHEREAS, development of Phalen Boulevard has been an objective of the City of Saint Pau{ since 1979; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the City initiated an Environmental impact Statement for proposed Phalen Boulevard and requested Planning Commission review and comment; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the Planning Commission, to provide for representation of potential{y affected neighborhoods and interests in the EIS preparation process, convened the Phalen Soulevard Ef5 7ask Force, comprising residential, commercial, institutionai and public interests, to assist the staff and consultant during the scoping and preparation of the EIS; and WHEREAS, in accordance with recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Rules (Chapter 4410.2600, Subpart 2), the City Council on December 9, 1998 released the Draft EIS for Phalen Boulevard for pubfic review and comment; and WHEREAS, Yhe Saint Paul Planning Commission and the Saint Pau1 City Councii jointfy sponsored the public hearing on the Draft EIS on )anuary 27, 1999, and WHEREAS the City staff and the Phalen-Boulevard EIS Task Force have considered the findings of the Draft EIS, public comment upon the Draft EIS, and the goals of the Phalen Boulevard project and the community, and the public comment and made recommendation for preferred alternatives in each of the three project segments; moved by Nowlin seconded by K=ame= ln �'d�70�' Unanimous against NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council determine that the Draft EIS is adequate and addresses appropriate alternatives and their potentia! impacts and should be finalized; and BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the City Council selects the following as the preferred alternatives for alignment and construction of Phalen Boulevard: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the central segment of the project area; and E-1 in the eastern segment of the project area; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed in conjundion with plans for the future use of the 5troh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straighi and as far south as possible without preventing a safe and attradive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve busi�esses, the neighborhood, and the new Achievement Plus School/YMCA site. �9-/�C� NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paui Planning Commission finds and recommends thac the City Council determine that the Draft EIS is adequate and addresses appropriate alternatives and their potentiaf impacts and should be finalized; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the City Council selects the following as the preferred alternatives for alignment and construction of Phaien Boulevard: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the centrai segment of the project area; and E-� in the eastern segment of the project area; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straight and as far south as possible w+thout preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenie�t access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the new Achievement Plus School/YMCA site. Council File # - 1�"�g0 � Resolution # oR��Na� Presented By Referred To Green Sheet # 3 ti RESOLUTiON CI"f'Y OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � %' Committee: Date 1 WIIEREAS, development of Phalen Boulevazd has been an objective of the City of Saint Paul since 1979; 2 and 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 i3 34 SS �6 7 8 WI�REAS, in November 1944, the City initiated an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Phalen Boulevazd and requested Planning Commission review and comment; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the Planning Commission, to provide for representation of potentially affected neighborhoods and interests in the EIS preparation process, convened the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force, comprising residential, commercial, institutional and public interests, to assist the staff and consultant during the scoping and preparation of the EIS; and WFIEREAS, in accordance with recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Rules (Chapter 4410.2600, Subpart 2), the City Council on December 9, 1948 released the Draft ETS for Phalen Boulevard for pubiic review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission and the Saint Paul City Council jointly sponsored the public hearing on the Draft EIS on January 27, 1999, and WHEREAS the City Administration, the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Faul Planning Commission have made recommendation for prefened alternatives in each of the three project segments; and VJHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council has evaluated the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, the comments received during the public comment period, and the recommendations of the Administration, Planning Commission, and Task Force; and WI�REAS, the "westem segment of the project azea" is defined as Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Burr Street; and WHEREAS, Aitemarive W-2D, has been deternvned to best achieve the key objectives of improving regional access, alleviating traffic congestion, cost-optnnization, neighbarhood quality, and minimizing of adverse environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the "central segment of the project uea" is defined as Phalen Boulevaz3 from Burr Street to Eari Street; and WHEREAS, Alternative C-4 has been determined to best achieve the key objectives of improving regional access, cost optimization, neighborhood quality, and minimizing of adverse environmental nnpact; and UK��I��,°�L �.q-�ea 39 VJHEREAS, the "eastem segment of the project azea" is defined as Phalen Boulevard from Earl Street to 40 Johnson Parkway; and 41 42 HEREAS, Alternarive E-1 was deternuned during the Phalen Boulevazd Scoping Process to be the only 43 viable build alternative; and 44 45 WHEREAS, Alternative E-1 has been deternuned to meet the key objectives of the project, and in particular 46 the objectives of improving regional access, cotnmerciaUindustrial development, and goods movement; 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NOW, T'EIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council selects the following preferred alternatives: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the central segment of the project area; and E-1 in the eastern segment of the project atea; and BE IT FLiRTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs that the final alignment of the G4 alternative be designed in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of 1and in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tas base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing, and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straight and as far south as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement Pius SchoollYMCA site, and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council requests the City Administration to take the necessary steps to prepare the final Environxnental Impact Statement, incorporating the selection of W-2D, C-4, and E-1 as the preferred alternatives in their respective project azea segments. Adoption Certi By: Approved by Ma� By: RequeSted by Department of: Plannin & Econ Develo me � By. � Form Approved by City Attorney B '��°�S �G��'✓b�`� Z-1? °�� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council gy; ��`c�ta�C ��i��-+s'�'«l'/I �«L�� Adopted by Council: Date ��qqq 9-1�'a �8 40 OEPAfl77AENiqFFICE/COUNCIL OATE INITIATED ,�� ,� q� GREEN SHEET CONTACTPERSON&PHONE / INITIA AT INRIAWAiE U�h �rl L� y f /_�S �DEPARTMENTDIRECTOR �CI'fYCOUNCIL � /� ASSIGN �CfTYATTORNEY TJ�i`l.�.il-G�C� �CITYCLEflK NIINBER FOIi S�_ MUST BE ON UNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) pQ�N� � BU�GEf DIRECfOR � FIN. & MGT SERVICES DIR. � _ . , / _ . � OPOER MAYOF (OR ASSISTAN� � �(fi y „� � T TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES � (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACf10N REQUESTEO: (� 5 212c�k - � c�-. a"F � Se"t c '�r2Terr2 � Ci�'FCr�1Gc.'�V2 s -ra r CvnSi a'C ��'1C�Iev� ��(•�l�dGcv�c1 Q✓\d ��'-LG'{�'�-,. �z.: �re�ark c� �=;na1 cIS . RECOMMENOATIONS: Appmve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: L PLANNING COMMISSION CIVIL SERV CO ISSION �� Has this persOn/firm ever worked untler a CorrtreCt for this tlepartment? _ CIB COMMITfEE � �� S^ —tOfC YES NO � STqFF _ 2. Has this personflirm ever been a city employee? YES NO _ DISTAICT Co�RT _ 3. Does this personRirm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current ciry employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNC�L OBIECTIVE4 YES NO Expiatn a11 yes answers on separate sheet antl attaeh to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORNNITV (Who, Whet, Whan, Where, Why): , 1n f4G`f `Fhe C�;�-c� �n c� G�n✓�ro��ner.�c�( r.v��cecf Stz�(-Ernen+ ��-OG2SS � r �1TC�OSid �Y"�R�e(�l �(LIE VGcY � ��2('fi "r-t� Qh.Q QSS2$S ,�y, ��n�aets ��' atd-e�-ha -�r �I-i,� road. �t �r�zf1- �1s t,�as relec�s-ed � c� l�{�� 8� a��bi; � hear;.�o� was held >Sav�,,�ar� �� 1�i�9. � � , � �2 5-1-c�'�� i�Z2S�c '-�rc� c«d �fQhn�/�a �omwt�sS�on Cancur an c� � r h�Co rn mAncl2 � Se �' c P �� v QT2a^a^2 cj ct ('(2PhG�1 u`P c� �v� c� Spe� Co uhc �� ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: I�'loV2 -4arwcz�-� u�;�i� �41e�leh �vt,�IPU�rc� �roJeci� C� �ec� �.��m2v�`F u�' `}-Pi�P ��R��l� �-.o!'r� c�tr� _Z'��`�t� �T� v� � Y�5`�ar J ��jS Q..� Ev��ar�ct� y�e_.��1�� h.�o � ��a�� i� or� S'1 �QU� �S �lxs� S, �-2 . DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED� �•—��QC� W, l� t�c� �JrFl C.P 2� TOTAL AMOUNT OF 7RANSACTION S C�STIREVENUE 6UDGETEO (C�RCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDItYG SOURCE ACTIVITV NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFSATION: (EXPLAIN) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamela Wheelock Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 Wesi Fot�r[h Street Saint Paul, MN �5102 ag�lfo Telephane; 651-26b6626 FacsimiZe: 651-228-334I February 4, 1999 To: Mayor Norm Coleman Council President Dan Bostrom and Members of the Saint Paul City Councii From: Nancy Frick, City Planner 7�� Re: Recommendation for Pzeferred Aiternative for Phalen Boulevard On February 24, 1999, the City Council will be asked to seleet a set of "preferred alternatives" for constructing Phalen Boulevard. At this time, it is also appropriate for the Council to move forward with the required environmental documentarion process by directing staff to prepaze responses to comments on the Draft EIS and prepace a Final Environxnental Impact Statement for the set of the preferred alternatives. A resolufion has been provided for your considerafion. Recommendation. On February 12, 1999, the Saint Pau1 Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending selection of the foilowing options as preferred alternatives for the construction of Phalen Boulevard. (A map of each is found in Attachment 1 to this memo.`, • In the western see.ment of the project area (I-35E to Burr): W-2D. • In the central seement of the project azea (Burr to Earl): C-4, to be designed o in conjunction with pians for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; o as straight and as faz south as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and o with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement 5chooUYMCA site. • In the eastern se�ment of the project area (Eazl to Johnson Parkway): E-1. These are also the recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Planning and Economic Development and Public Works staff. Sup�orting Materials. Attaclunent 2 is a staff report dated January 29, 1999 (with task force and Planning Commission-inspired revisions noted) which provides the rationale for preferring each of these alternatives. Attachment 3 presents all written comment received through Februaiy 10, 1999. Attachment 4 is the February 12, 1999 Planning Commission resolution. Attachment (4) Attachment 1 to February 16, 1999 report to Citp Council re: Phalen Blvd. � .�, m � � �; � K ' _ y o Ks m = , - . w " � Q 3 ti N ' � � "6` m 8 '� C' ( ` n ' v ' G1 � C �.°a � a° a 2 y C ` �'' 7*'-� m y, — --- . � A �'O T �� w a�di�d 8 h LL i ` i ri � s-�3y>� �� a ;: � o d U�� c.•' �. I� ° z. � a"i � o a' w G�,y � q �' w i' � Q � � � � a B a�� 0 � o S i� oo a ooa�o �"' �S�S"a ow.o u o � � i� e�° oi$ y ° g o0 00 � i OoDea �_ou � e� � e G�o a , �� . �-- �� e a�W i � ( 10� v a 1 \ ¢� � / f Oo 0= aS�g � \, � a p� � O/ . �--.e� > = I .. . � __ _—.. _. :� i . o ��' �� i � o ��❑ _�_� ��C��a �„ , , �, �--o �� \ � �� l��l� � ,�, �/9-J80 � 9 s � ° d� � u omoo � o�� amo oQ 0 00 0°100 °Bo. j0 �OOpp b❑ �7 aoa� ° o o � a p 0 � � � O e o S o O p ° p a 0 0 � O 0 �, ❑ O � ��0 ❑ a � 0 4 � � ❑ � � � ° � o I � � � ` �\ � C c' � d m �� m � m � 3� o �� d � R F O �I 7 m A 4z _9 = � � T e � 3Q s 3a - - ��o�m°-- - = 8 LL Q �i : s��i�' e `� �'� � �: � i C � s d O �- w N � � � � � C� Q f ^ L1 L (� .1�"i d W ""' L �, � � `� W � � � y � C �� U f+ C7 L' O � a� � SY.�1 / �ZI� N � ^ � � a � � � O o , I Op_ QL.] �� O Q pO YI O o� q v b � 9 0 0 q' �' � � o e, � ��g a o�a � �1 I I '� � .� � � � ' �a 0, 1 � D � tpe � o� � [J � 5s � �' � s c � O . $ � h � O G c� h'.�- C'�l' �0 U Y_ $ � s a G y s' �° � y a ° a1 �0 G 2 6 O f L S � G C S � Q'� ._ ^ �-� C9. y„ .� � c o° o c .. r .. 3� c z�� a y o�c �.� � C d ^5. $,�'c e � � x � 'r. t ., o ; ° � c , f��li Q p�p � fi u t� "' G y... V.� � � � $ d P= _ >�s y. '? 'c -`� •` _ 4 .°_� � C ° m O S-o � i 3 o c � � c h e F ¢ >. wo=G�c��c>�� V U '� � O C V�X Y C. � N h� [ ` � j y r ` � C - O 3 b' Q� fi.O p� S O �..�1 V Y U t` �+ � U C� U t� -O v] 00 000 r�'' � 94� l�p Attachment 2 to February 16> 1499 _ ' report to City Council re: Phalen Blvd. DEPAR"tMbNT OF PLAI�NING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamel¢ Wheetock, Dnector �19- ! �� CTI'Y OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayar 2i West Fourth Sbeet Samt Pau1, MN i5102 Te[ephone: 651-266-6626 Facsimile: 657-228-3341 January 29, 1999 (REVISED - February 16,1999) To: Members of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force From: Nancy Frick, City Planner Re: Meeting #11 The Phalen Boulevazd EIS Task Force will meet Wednesdav. Febriiaty 3, 1999. from 7:00 u,m• to 9:00 pm. at Arlington Hills Librarv, 1105 Crreenbrier Street. At the meeting, the task force will be asked to recommend a"prefened alternative" for Phalen Boulevard, to bring forwazd to the Saint Paul Planning Commission at its February 12 meeting. Your advice would join the Planning Commission and staff recommendation for consideration by Mayor Coleman and the City Council. This staff report reviews the options and EIS findings, sun�marizes the review process and comments, discusses related issues that have developed since the task force last met, and presents the staff recommendation for prefened alternative. � OPTIONS. The following are the Phalen Boulevard project options evaluated in the Draft EIS: � No-build: not building the project • Transportation System Manageraent (TSlYn: making minor changes to the transportation system instead of building the project � Build: building the project, connecting the three project area segments with one of the foliowing akernatives for each segment (see attachxnent 1) o Western se,yment: between I-35E and Burr Street; 3 alternatives distinguished by how they connect Phalen Boulevazd to I-35E - Each Western segment alternative includes a bicycleJpedestrian trail which will connect to the Gateway Trail on the west side of I-35E. W-1 connects Phalen Boulevard to I-35E at the e�sting Pennsyivania interchange. ■ no changes to I-35E included as part of the project ■ grade sepazated from Mississippi Street �j 9-i 80 Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 ' Page 2 ■ connects to Olive Street in Wiliiams Hill industrial park ■ bridges over railroad tracks ■ at-grade intersection at Westminster W-2D splits Phalen Boulevazd near Weshninster with the southem alignment connecting to Pennsylvania Avenue and the northern alignment connecting to a new I-35E interchange at Cayuga ■ includes I-35E reconshuetion along a new straighter alignment, conshvction of a frontage road between Cayuga and Pennsylvania along its west side, and closing of the Pennsyivania ramps ■ Phalen Boulevard "]eg" connects to Olive Street in Williams Hill industrial pazk and Mississippi Street; bridges railroad tracks ■ Cayuga leg bridges railroad tracks; intersects with Westminister ■ access provided to Van Waters & Rogers industrial site W-2E is very similar to W-2D; the southern alignment connecting with Pennsylvania has a straighter design o Central segment: between Burr Street and Eazl Street; 5 alternatives offering variou< routes between Payne and Arcade and options for connect Phalen Boulevard to Payne Avenue For each Central segment alternative ■ west of Payne Avenue and east of Arcade Street, the alignment follows UP rail line ■ grade-separated from Burr, Arcade, Forest and Earl ■ new access road connects Phalen Boulevard to Arcade ■ includes a bicycle/pedestrian trail: Phalen Creek Trail Payne to Earl; new trail extension to the west from Payne - C-1 bridges above the UP tracks to intersect at-grade with Payne and Edgerton - C-4 curves north of the existing grain elevators, on the south side of the Phalen Creek Trail, and intersects at-grade with Payne, grade-separated from Edgerton - C-4A is similaz to C-4 except that it is grade-sepazated from Payne; an access road between Phalen Boulevard and Whitall just west of Payne Avenue provides indirect access to Payne, as we11 as Edgerton - C-5 curves north of the Phalen Creek Trail, on the south side of Wells Avenue, and 99-18d Phalen Boulevazd E1S Task Force January 29, 1999 Paee 3 intersects at-grade with Payne, grade-sepazated from Edgerton - C-SA is sunilaz to GS except that it is grade-sepazated from Payne; an access road between Phalen Boulevard and Whitall just west of Payne Avenue provides indirect access to Payne, as well as Edgerton o Eastern seement: between Eazl Street and Johnson Parkway; one alignxnent E-1 follows tke Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way to approximately Magnolia, where the alignment continues northeast to connect to Johnson Parkway fornning a four-way intersection with the new Prosperity ■ includes an access road from Phalen Boulevard to York and Frank ■ includes an at-grade connection with Atlantic Street DRAFT EIS FINDINGS. Following are the key findings presented in the Draft EIS. • The No-build and TSM alternatives are not consistent with city and neighborhood plans, and have these adverse environmental impacts: o liketihood that underutilized land wouid remain so; no gains in ta�c base or employment 0 overcapacity operating conditions at I-35E interchange o noise standard exceedances at 44 homes, 9 businesses • The Build alternatives have these beneficial impacts compared to the No-build: o increased employment opportunities, reallncome, and housing values o transformation of poorly-access underutilized blighted land to we11-accessed, clean, modern industrial use, consistent with city and neighborhood plans o general improvement in safety for inexperienced bicyclists and pedestrians; improved access to Phalen Creek Trail and redevelopment sites o enhanced views; increased opportunities for lighting and landscaping o enhanced east-west accessibility; route for express bus service; full-access connection to I-35E under W-2D(W-2E options o improved noise impact under W-2D/W-2E options • The Build alternatives have these adverse impacts compared to the No-build: o increase traffic in Cayuga neighborhood under W-2D/W-2E options o varying degrees of property takiiigs (0-10 homes, 4-10 industriaUcommercial properties); most affected Western segment properties with W-2E option; most afFected Centrai segment properties with C-SJGSA o acquisition of 0.4 acres of pazkway properry at 7ohnson Parkway 99-/a'6 Pha]en Boulevazd EIS Task Force 3annary 29, 1999 Pase 4 o relocation of Phalen Creek Trail within road right-of-way; visual, acousticat unpacts on trail users o adverse effect on Westminster Junction Historic District o adverse effect on Ha.nun's Brewery Historic District with C-1 option o impacts to parcels with potenfial for soil(ground water contamination o noise impacts to 4 additional sites with W-1 option in Western segment; noise impacts to 4 residential sites with C-4/4A & GS/SA options in Central segment; noise impacts to 3 multi-family sites and 2 commerciaUindustrial sites in Eastern segment o temporary construcfion impacts • Conshuction and right-of-way costs are estimated as follows: o Western segment - W-1: Phalen Boulevard $12.4 M - W-2D: Phalen Soulevazd & I-35E reconstruction on new alignment: $67.6M ($46.2M of this total is I-35E reconstruction) - W-2B: Phalen Boulevard & I-35E reconstruction on new alignment: $74.1M ($52.1M of this total is I-35E reconstruction) o Central seement - C-1: $25.SM -- C-4: $11.3M - C-4t1: $12.6M - C-5: $153M - GSA: $16.SM o Eastem segment - E-1: $ 3.OM PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is designed to ensure that public decisions on major projects are made with adequate information about the social, economic and environmental consequences and means to mitigate those effects. The Draft EIS for Phalen Boulevard was prepazed with the advice of the Phalen Boulevard Task Force and in accordance with a scope formally adopted by the City Council. After a lengthy review and approval effort with federal and state agencies, the City Council released the Draft EIS on December 4, 1998. As part of the public review effort, notice of the Draft EIS availability and heazing date were published in the Federai Register, State of Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Monitor, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Saint Paul Legal Ledger and East Side Review. The Draft EIS was sent to appropriate agencies and organizations, as well as to individuals upon request. Sununaries and notices were sent to a broad range of organizations and individuals, including about 1000 99-1 ago Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 Pa�e 5 property owners of record along the study corridor. Three open houses were held to allow interested people to find out more about the project. The public hearine on the Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS was jointly sponsored by the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission and the Saint Paul City Council Wednesday, Januazy 27, 1449, begimiing at 6:OQ pm. in Room 40 of the Saint Paul City Hall. A transcript of the hearing is being prepared. Following a brief staff report on the EIS and the public information process that led up the hearing, 20 persons testified. Attachment 2 to this report briefly highlights each speaker's main point(s). There were no comments in opposition to the project. Of those speakers expressing preference, in the Western segment, 12 supported a new Cayuga interchange access I-94 and I-35E access alternative, with 6 of these supporting W-2D by name and no one supporting W-2E; in the Central segment, 6 specifically supported an at-grade intersection with Payne, of these 5 specified C-4 by name; 2 supported as close an alignment to the tracks as possible (one of these 2 also supported at-grade at Payne); there is only one alternative in the Eastern seement. Attachment 3 presents the written comments received before the public hearing. (February 16 City Council packet provides all written comment received through February 10, 1999). RELATED ISSUES. Finally, it is important to note that, since the Task Force recommended the Drafr EIS to the City, events have occurred in three locafions in the project azea which bear on the Phalen Boulevard preferred altemative decision. • Metro�olitan Transit Bus Garage. The Metropolitan Council has selected a site to the east of I-35E at Cayuga for construction of its new bus garage. In considering sites, the Met Council took into consideration how the Phalen Boulevard project would fit with the access and site requirements for the transit facility, both physically and from a timing perspective. As noted in the suuunary of public hearing testimony, Metro Transit cannot build on this site if the W- 2E altemative is built. It is also important to note that Metro Transit's design and conshuction timetable depends upon a expeditious decision by the City on Phalen Boulevard. Stroh Brewerv. At the tixne that the Stroh Brewery closed (late November 1997), the Phalen Boulevard Dra$ EIS was substantially done, with all of the required environmental analyses completed and the text in draft form. A reuse feasibility study of the Stroh site was still underway when the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Farce concluded its work on the Draft EIS. Since the public decisions about the reuse of the site (and therefore how a road design could best serview the site) were yet to be made, we proceeded with the Draft EIS as it was, g9-�� Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force Sanuary 29, 1999 Paae 6 showing the C-4 alternative curving to the north of the grain elevators. Staff views any alignment change to C-4 or C-4A which stays north of the tracks as being a design detail that would not reopen the Draft EIS. It is not unusual for design of a road to change somewhat between the prepazauon of a Draft EIS and final construction plans. While the Stroh site is cunently in private hands, there continues to be community discussion about the future of the site, including discussion of land use options having different irnplications for how a road could be designed to best serve the site. • New Achievement Plus SchooUYMCA. A joint School DistricUYMCA project is being developed in the Wells-York-Greenbrier-Arcade area, directly north of the Phalen Boulevard project. The old Johnson High School and surrounding area will be home to a new elementary school, with family support services, and a new YMCA. Phalen Boulevard, under any alternative, will provide access to the schoolJY area; the designs are being coordinated by respective staf£ The GSJC-SA options would impact properties which the school district is purchasing on the south side of Wells. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff finds that the No-build and TSM do not support the project goals. 1. In the western seement of the project area, staff recommends selection of W-2D as the prefened alternative, because • it significantly improves regional access generally and for the Phalen Corridor redevelopment sites • it results in the greatest alleviation of traffic on East Side neighborhood streets • it results in acceptable levels of service at intersections throughout the project area, while the W-1 alternative results in over-capacity operating conditions at the Pennsylvania freeway ramps • it presents the opporiwuty to Implement a needed rebuild of I-35E between downtown and Maryland in a highly cost-effective way that results in a much safer and effective freeway design in this area; MnDOT has been an enthusiastic partner in the development ofthis option • it results in the greatest reduction in total vehicle-hours and vehicle-miles throughout the system • it fits with the future Metropolitan Transit bus gazage • it results in a significant reduction in the number of noise standard exceedance locations in the westem part of the project area 9 9- �80 Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 Paae 7 • community support has been expressed for this option 2. In the central se�ment of the project area, staff recommends selection of C-4 as the preferred alternarive, because • it avoids residentially-zoned land • it does not encroach on land being purchased by the school district for the York school project • it provides access to industrialiy-zoned land that is being discussed for redevelopment and can be designed to best serve the future use of that property • it provides an at-grade intersection with Payne Avenue, desired by the business community, at a much lower cost than the C-1 option • community support has been expressed for this option In the central se�ment, staff further recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed - in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing, and provision of neighborhood amenities; - as straight and as far sauth as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and - with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement Plus SchooIJYMCA site� 3. Staff recommends conshuction of E-1, because, as the only build option, • it provides the important connection to support the revitalization of the Phalen Village area • it provides access to Phalen Corridor redevelopment sites east of Earl. The City Council will direct staff to prepare a Final EIS on the preferred alternative it selects. This technical document, which deals with more detailed environmental analysis and mitigation plans, is not, at this time, expected to need task force review. We do, however, look forward to continuinn community involvement in the design of Phalen Boulevard as the project progress, and expected that many of you will remained involved. Please call me at 266-6554 with any questions. Attachments (3) ♦ s •� Attachment 2 to Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 memo SL3MMARY OF TE5TIMONY Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS Public Hearing Wednesday, January 27,1999 Saint Paul City Aall • Harry Melander - St. Paul Buildine and Trades. Supports the project. Linkage between I- 35 and Phalen Village is important. Partnership with MnDOT is good. • Marge $ernard - Phalen Villa�e Business Association and White Bear Business Association. Business associations support the project. Gre¢ Copeland - Resident and District 5 Communit� Council. Mr. Copeland spoke twice, the first time representing himself individuaily, and the second time to represent the position of the District 5 Council. Individually: supports at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; protection of 5wede Hollow amenity; keeping the Burr Street bridge; saving Bon Giornio. District 5: Supports W-2D. Supports design in central atea that follows as straight a route as possible and is at-grade with Payne. • Curt Milburn - East Side Area Business Association and Phalen Corridor Initiative. Organizations support the project. ESABA support new interchange (W2) alternative. • Dede Wolfson - Metropolitan Council. Project is supportive of ihe Regional Blueprint; important to new Metro Transit facility. • Maureen Mariano - Pavne Arcade Business Association. Supports the project. 5upports at- grade intersection at Payne (G4 or any variation of it); a well-designed access ramp at Arcade and continued cooperation from project staff in the design of that ramp; the W-2D alternative at the free-way; and the E-1 connection to the east. • Kat�a Ricketts - Main Street staff. East Side Neighborhood Development Company_. Supports at-grade intersection at Payne - the C-4 alternative. • Jeff Freeman - East Side Neighbarhood Development CompanY. Supports the project. ESNDC supports at-grade at Payne (C-4); well-designed attractive connection with Arcade; new interchange at Cayuga. • Tammv Anderson - Representative of �roperry owner at 162 East Minnehaha. Concerned about impacts. Expressed preference for W-2D alternative at I-35E. �q-i �e Attachment 2 to Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force Ianuary 29, 1994 memo - pa�e 2 • Brenda Off - Representative of proneriv on East Minnehaha. Concerned about impacts, especially with W-2E. Expressed preference for W-2A altemative at I-35E. • Ron Hagkull - Phalen Corridor Initiative Steering Committee member. Supports pro}ect. Supports W-2D and C-4 alternatives. • Tim Mahoney - State Renresentative. Supports project and expressed support and efforts of Saint Paul legislative delegation on project's behalf. • John Kempe - Phalen Coxridor Initiative Steerine Committee Chair. Supports project. Expressed need to be respectful of impacted individuals. Supports Cayuga interchange and at-grade at Payne (C-4). • John Young Saint Paul Port Authoritv. Expressed involvement of Poft Authority in the Initiative. Supports W-2D; opposes W-2E due to nnpact on Williams Hill development. • Kou Vang - Phalen Corridor Initiative Vice-chair. Supports project. • Karen Swenson - North East Neghborhoods Devel�ment Coz�oration. Supports project. Supports flexible access at west end, providing access of I-94 and I-35E. • Paul Gilliland - District 2 Community Council and member of Phalen Villaee Small Area Plan Task Force. Supports project, supports Cayuga interchange. • R Jo Adams - Resident. Expressed concerns about facts, figures in Draft EIS with regard to cost, acquisition of properry and job-creation potential. • Donavan Cummings - District 4 Community Council nresident an�ast member of Phalen Corridor Steerine Committee. Supports new interchange. Expressed concern about central alternatives, supports putting road closer to the tracks. Expressed need to focus also on housing improvements. • Arlene McCarthy - Metropolitan Transit; project mana¢er for new bus facilitv. Noted that bus gazage design works oniy with W-1 or W-2D; opposes W-2E because it wili render site unfeasible for bus garage. Urged quick movement toward a fmished Record of Decision. t• :r Attachment 3 to February 16, 1999 report to City Council Phalen Boulevard Preferred Altematives Written Comment on Phalen Boulevard Draft Environmental Impact Statement Received Through February 10,1999 These aze generally organized as follows: letters from individuals, letters from community organizations, letters from governmental agencies, and comment cards. '• FROM : KARIN LuPHUL PHONE N0. : 776 0558 Feb. 19 1999 09:19AM P92 ' � q�-��o . �: ; 4 �' Karin DuPaul Nancy Prick Plaiu7ing & Econnmic Development 25 VJest 4th Street Saint Paul MN 55102 I7ear Nano3', February 9, 1999 Thank you for asking for community input on the FTS and tha Pha3en Corridor, This is a very ambitinus and costly prqjeci. I um in fuvor of some elements, agauist some, und see that there may be a better way for others. Lnha�scing the livabiHty of ow city should Ue the over all goal. This entire projec! shau]d use the i0 3tiverfront Development Principles of City Buildirag. Our resideuts should noi be displaced, rather money shpuld be available for improving their housing. 7'he Phalen Creek Recreationa] Trai1 must Ue in a pleasant setling a1on�; the entirc trail. Tlrat is the first priority. Secand, creek and or rsin gardens alpng the entire length of the roadway. Native ve�etutiotz ctnd irees shoulcl be preserved to make geen coimcations for wiklli}e and alsv aet t� c� bufj.'sr between lhe roudway ttnd the reereational tsail. The rondway should also be easy to oross ia �ny tocations and the �eed no more than 39 miles un haur, Draft Section 4(� �valuatioi�. I acn very concarned that the two historieal sites in this seotion wil] be altered or destroyed in conjunction with this projec:t. What is bcic� donc to proteci these sites? The Westmim5ter Junction wi11 make a be�autiful nddition to our open spacc and park system in tbe fufire. The tI�vnm's Ri'ewery �s hne of Saint PAU1 utost �igniflcant laz�dmarks and tnuch of it should be saucd and rensed. Dy the same tokcn, the brewery neighhc>rhood between the brewery, Arcade, E M'vmehaha, and Bush should continue to be � residential neighbonc�>od. It is u jewel in the rough, it has u number of recidents who havc lived ihere up to 30 yoars +, it has a very niee variety ofhousing stoak, it's a eontained nei�hbnrliond, and r.�ned sa that peaple c;an run iheir snarill husuiesscs otrt of thcit hu�ne. J think it is in a grest loeat�on !o camplimeni the Phalen C:orridor. It gives pcaplc anoiher apiion. Finalty, how will this roadway no# bccomc a shart cut from 35E to 13ighway 36 vs. Prosperity? Sincerely, Karin DuPaui b(R Gremibrier Strao - 657_776.0550 Saint Aaul MA' SS1Ub � 9-i�o February 8, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick 1200 C+ty Hell Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Phalen Soulevard Draft EIS Dear Ms. Frick: ��I�E� FEB 1 0 1999 �o�T�t�sr Qu��n� Secure Mini Storage, 849 Terrace Court supports Alternative Route W-1. I have reviewed the alternative routes, W-1, W-2D and W-2E that connect the Phalen Corridor to I-35E. W-1 accomplishes a connection with the minimum of impacts and cost. The other iwo alternatives, W-2D and W-2E are unacceptable. Both of these alternatives eliminate several business', (including our own), have higher costs, have the potentiaf to negatively impact local traffic flow and create an entrance and exit situation on 35E that is too close to the Maryland exchange to the north. i am very interested in all developments regarding the future of the west end of the Pha{en Corridor. Pfease notify me of ali hearings and put me on the mailing list regarding news on the corridor. Thank you. Sincer ly, � ' '� A ny avoulis Management Agent — SMS Cc: Charles Underbrink Douglas Heitne 740 Linwood Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105-3322 (651) 290-0507 FAX (6SI) 290-0106 G 9 � f�� `�l � � t �� c�C�" �� '� �S t� C� 4', ��' SZ' �� . �fs��v� ��2 r `��1.� --1� d-��•!n'v`t'L�.- �� _ -��.. �zf�`9f . :� FEB 1 0 19�9 �oR�h�a.sr Qu�o��n� �� l , l� �� , .� � ��-��-- _ � �� ,� � � �.-� �;��.- � �� .:� , -�l� �� _ . �� z�0 � �-�� '�� -e� -�-��z ��e- �,��-c �'— �e'�� , . �, .� � .� � � �`.� �-�- n�-�� 7/-e-- `��.�� / G��-r��'�-r� . .% ��o 7� � U J _ ( �� .t-�-c._ � �`�.�o� � 1'�=°�-`=`� r /L Cr�,�e��i,�.-- 7��-- �3�c . ��`s�� -��. �� . �� %v��z G�� . Q �" Q� �-- �� _ � 0 ` �,��^7`�� rnr�� -2� y�--- � ��- � ��.1-� �� ` �/ «e � �� `7it�-- t � �„c � �� , " � ��' ;�Y� �� ° �� J �� =� �� n,�� . � � � �� '��.� - ��.� ��'� . 99-�a�o � ��= � -��' �� . z--� . ��:�.� � �� ° �� - �- �,��- � �-� -�- , t� . � �� ^ � -�� :� �� - ��7`� � � � �� , �� _ �� - .�� -��- �� ,�� UL �nl.� -�/ �� 1 -��.- �� ` ��- �� ( - � � � �� - ��. -�� .�. � ��r�� c � �� .�=� ��' �- � e� � Z ,�� Q� Gg-/8o February 4, 1999 Nancy Frick, Project Manager 1200 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minn. 55102 RE: Phaten Boufevard Drafit EIS Dear Ms. Frick: My name is David Karras. I am 47 years old and have {ived on the East Side af4 of my life. In my lifietime, I've seen the East Side undergo tremendous changes. From the biue color neighborhood of my youth, to the dumping ground for the City's poor in the 1980's and 1990's. Factories closed, housing values dropped, absentee landlords moved in, and crime rose. Like many, I was tempted to flee to the suburas. However, I remained convinced that the area would turn around. It had too much going for it in terms of history and tradition. Besides, there is stili a lot of good people on the East Side. People, who when faced with adversity, dig their heels in, roll up their sleeves and attack the probiem. I befieve that it was that spirit and attitude that spawned the Phalen Corridor Initiative. It was a long awaited preject that was to bring about the rebirth of the East Side. What wasn't there to fike. The initiative promised the return of factories to the East Side with their badly needed jobs. It would also clean-up of blighted and underutilized areas, and include new roads ta connect it ali together. Like many East Siders, I waited in anticipation for the project to wind its way through the various hoops prior io becoming a reality. My family has lived at 953 Westminster for the past 22 years. Like the rest of the East Side, it too has undergone change. As a resident in the psoject area, f received a notice of the pubiic informationai meeting being held for the Phalen Boulevard EIS. That is the first time 1 heard about the new l-35E interchange at Cayuga Street. Although the noise and traffic from the proposed north bound ramp for the Cayuga interchange is close to my house, it makes sense to buifd it and close the Pennsylvania Avenue ramps. They are dangerous and inadequate for the amount of traffic they handle. { can five with the noise from the new ramp and the realignment of the freeway. However, the report brief that accompanied the notice indicated a connection from ihe new Gayuga Road to Westminster Street. Could this be true. Maybe it was just to provide limited access to a redeveloped piece of land off of the new Cayuga Street. Pennsylvania Avenue has limited access as it winds its way from I-35E to Rice Street. If a stated objective of tfie pro}ect is to reduce congestion on the East Side, how can turning Westminster Street into a major thoroughfare be justified? The map was smail and generalized so I went to the library to review the full ElS. The maps in the Draft EIS reveafed 4hat this indeed was the case. Figure II-13 indicates that under the W2 A{ternative, traffic on Westminster Street will be 7,300 cars, tnrnks, and buses in the year 2015. That means this quiet, dead-end street, that currently handles {ess than 300 cars a day will become a major aRerial connection from the Cayuga to Case Street. As reference, Case Street, which currently handles 5,400+ cars a day according to the EiS, is defined as a coUector street. Under this altemative, Westminster Street woufd handie more traffic than Case Street. g9-/�o Furthermore, Figures N-4 and tV-5 reveal that aur house would be in an area that exceeds the MPCA noise ievefs. i stared in disbeGef at an EiS that indicafes that a ramp will run along the back of our house, while the traffc on the road in front of our house increases from 300 cars a day to 7,300 cars, trucks, and buses. Didn't the planners and design engirteers realize that this is a locai residentiai street. Maybe 1 was missing something or misinterpreting the maps. So { went to tfie open house hetd at City Hall. At the information meeting I met you and other representatives from the City. You and others confirmed that the projected traffic volumes were correct. The enlarged maps of the project area showed connections to Westminster Street oif of Cayuga and Terrace Court. When questioned how Westminster Street, which is identified on the maps as a local street, could handle the proposed volume of traffic, you remarked that other local streets in the City handle similar traffic volumes. As if that made it right, or justified the decision to sacrifice the residents on Westminster Street to unacceptabfe traffic and noise levefs. The maps further revealed that barriers Qlanned for some intersections will deliberately route traffic from Cayuga exclusively to Westminster Street. For example, there is a barrier shown at the Whitall and Westminster Street intersection so tfie traffic has to use Wesiminster Street. A new frontage road is being built on the west side of the freeway to handle the traffic. On the east, or my side of the freeway, it appears that the decision had been made to turn Westminster Street intathe frontage road. I stayed for the public hearing. Individuaf after individuai praised the project, and recommended that it be buiit with the 135E interchange at Cayuga. I agree with them. The project is needed and long overdue. If you are going to do it, do it right and include the 135E interchange at Cayuga. However, do not turn Westminster Street into a frontage road. Do not subject the residents an Westminster to 7,300 cars, trucks, and buses a day. Mitigate the problem by limiting access off of Cayuga. it should not be designed and built in a matter that adds congestion, noise and pollution to the residentiai neighborhoods. It shouid be re-designed and constructed with limited access that only serves the new industriai areas that are being redeveloped. That is the reasonabie alternative to what is being proposed. Ifi that can't be done, purchase the houses on Westminster Street. Either move or demolish the houses. With a freeway access ramp behind them and 7,300 cars, trucks, buses a day in front of them, this island of homes wi4t be virtually worthless. i know I will not live there undes those conditions. if buiVt as proposed, the project wilf do what nothing else has done, force my family to move to the suburbs. Sincerely, G' �� David A. Karras 9 9 -i 80 3 Febmary 1999 Phalen Boulevard DEIS Comment Attn.: Ms. Nancy Frick Deparlment of Planning and Economic Development City o£ Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: 2157 Roblyn Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 I am writing to comment on the Phalen Boulevazd DEIS. I reviewed parts of the document and attended the open house and public hearing held in City Hall on 27 January 1999. I am opposed to the plan to widen 35E described in table S-1 under "Transportafion and Transit" for altemafives W-2D and W-2E. Figures II-12 and II-13 show widening this segment from three to four lanes and from three to five lanes, respectively. I believe that any proposal to e�:pand this secrion of 35E should be considered in a comprehensive corridor study that includes thorough considerarion of the potential to meet �avel demand, especially during the peak hours or periods, by transit. This might best be done with commuter or regional railroad service on the Forest Lake-St. Paul route (MnDOT 1998), or by express bus service. I believe that addition of rail transit to the comdor, along with expanded and coordinated bus service, can enable us to avoid expanding any segment of 35E between Saint Paul and Forest Lake. If this secrion of 35E is widened, it will promote continued over-reliance on the caz and likely undernune the viability or potential success of transit improvements in the corridor. Widening 35E will promote stiil more auto-oriented development, whicn usuaiiy discourages wal'iciug and use of transit. The decision about whether or not to widen 35E should be made with much more public involvement; it is a decision that has consequences beyond the scope of the Phalen Boulevazd project. I also ask that any considerarion of widening 35E include extensive environmental review of the proposal. I also am concerned that if the secrion of 35E south of Maryland Avenue is widened, then the naument will be made that the section of 35E north of Maryland Avenue is a bottleneck and must also be widened. In this way the freeway system is incrementally expanded without fully considering the ultimate result This process plays out over many years, which frustrates and limits public involvement. �? 9-/�a Additional specific re4uests and auestions: I ask that the City of Saint Paul, MnDOT, FIiWA, and any other agencies involved in tlus project ensure that construction of the new road and any related reconfiguration of e�sting roads not interfere with ihe potential to accommodate a new Metro Transit bus garage planned for the Cayuga street azea. I ask that the City of Saint Paul, MnDOT, FHWA, and any other agencies invoived in this project ensure that construcfion of the new road and any related reconfigurarion of e�sting roads not interfere with the potenrial to accommodate future construction of Light Rail Transit or other rail transit in the Phalen Boulevard corridar. What are the current volumes of h�ansit ridership in the study area? What is the current capacity of the transit service, i.e., buses, in the study area What are the estimated future volumes of transit ridership in the study azea based on modeling done for tlus DEIS? Do these estimates take into account the Metropolitan CounciPs current plans to double transit service and ridership in the nextten years? How much induced vehicie traffic will be generated by this project? How many new pazking spaces will be needed to accommodate increases in caz tra�c in the study area resulting from the project? Will this project increase demand for puking spaces in the Saint Paul Central Business District? If so, how much will the new pazking spaces cost and who will pay for them? Please revise the DEIS by addition of a figure to show the current and proposed numbers of lanes of all types on the whole secrion of 35E included in this project. Please revise the DEIS by addition of estimates of the costs of 1.) rebuilding I-35E as it is now, three lanes wide, 2.) expanding it to four lanes, and 3.) expanding it to five lanes — four lanes plus an aiixiliary lane. Lastly, would you please send me copies of figures II-14 and II-15, which aze missing from the DEIS I have. Thank you for considering these requests and questions. I look forward to your responses to them. Sincerely, � �^''�'`/J � � �� i Charles (Chip) Welling C: Mr. Ted Mondale, Cha'u Metropolitan Coivacil, 230 E. Fifth St., Saint Paul 55101-1634 Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, MnDOT, 395 John Ireland Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 Mr. Ai V ogel, Office of Railroads, Mail Sto 470, 395 J. Ireland Blvd., Saint Paul 55155-I 899 Councilmember Jay Benanav, Ciry Hall, Third Floor, 15 W. Kellog Blvd.,St. Paul MN 55102 County Commissioner Victoria Reinhazdt, 220 Courthouse, Saint Paul 5510'Z Reference cited MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation), 1998. Twin Cities Commuter Rail Study. Volume 1, Number 1. October. Office of Freight, Railroads, and Waterways, 395 7ohn Ireland Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55155. q q-i8d Cliif Carey 635 Bates Avenue St. Pauf, Minnesota 55106 Nancy Frick Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 2J3199 Dear Ms. Frick, As a member of the Environmental Impact Statement Committee, 1 wiil say that 1 believe the redevelopment of urban brownfields in the proposed Phalen Corridor has the potential io positivefy impact the East Side and the tax base for St. Paui as a whole. However, this redevelopment alone wilt not be enough to solve the probiems of the East Side. Equal and aggressive efforts must be made to attract homeowners back to East Side neighborhoods, most importantly to those with the lowest ratio of owner occupancy to rental. _ To do that we must identify and market the areas with the strongest potential for attracting private investment by people who want to {ive on the East Side. The Upper Swede Hollow neighborhood has 75% home ownership overall and 90% owner occupancy on lots adjacent to Swede Hollow Park. Beaumont & Drewry Lane, also on Swede Hollow, is approximately a fifty-fifty mix, certainly one of the strongest areas in Railroad lsland. The city is currentiy pfanning up-scale housing developments on similar sites on lower Payne Avenue and Rivoli Bluff. With these conditions existing in surrounding neighborhoods, it would be an opportunity missed to ignore the strong residential potential of the hiitside between Payne and Arcade north of Wells Street. This areas views and access to Swede Hollow would make it very inviting to the kinds of homeowners we are currentiy seeing being attracted to the East Side. Roads have a negative impact on the quality of life in residential areas. The I-94 aiignment through St. Paui is a pfanners ABC of how not to construct a road in a built urban environment. Few will dispute the damage it did to the neighborhoods it went through, and the city as a whole. Ayds Mill Road is currently going through an EIS process where many of the alternatives either lessen or do away with the traffic entirefy. The Summit Hill neighborhood fought the completion of I-35 E, tying the project up in court for years. Today residents on lower Grand Avenue cannot converse in their yards at many times of the day because of traffic noise, even though no trucks allowed on that stretch of 35 E. 9 � 8a Luckily in the central segment of the proposed Phalen Blvd. there is not an either or dilemma. As you will recali, all of the alignments in the central segment were designed to avoid interfer+ng with the operations at Stroh Brewing. Since, unfortunately, Stroh Brewing is no longer with us, the probiem of how to get Pahlen Bivd. around them is also gone. The alignment C-1 can now be developed at grade with the railroad tracks and the grain elevators can be altered as needed to ailow the road to generally follow the tracks. Let us not, in our haste to bring industriai development to St. Paul, forget the importance of encouraging healthy neighborhoods on the East Side. A healthy neighborhood is good for tfie peopfe who live there, for the peopfe who live around them, for the business communities nearby, and for St. Paul as a whole. Heaithy neighborhoods start somewhere, lets encourage one to start on Wells Street and the adjoining bluff. Let us not, with the alignment we recommend, do anything to even slightly hinder this areas abiiity to join in the good things that are happening in neighborhoods on the East Side. Sincerely, � � Cliff Carey 99-t�'o FROM : KFlRIN DuPAUt_ PHONE N0. = 776 055H Feb. 03 1939 10�44AM P@1 Friends of Swede Hollow 729 �. Seventh Sf. St. Paul, MN 55108 Nancy Frick Departmenf of t'lanning 25 W. Fourth St. St. Paul, MN 55902 Dear Ms. Frick: Feb. 2, 1589 Friends of Swede Hollow is a membership organization consisting primarily of residents from the neighborhoods surrpundin Swede Hollow Park. �ecause of the proximity snd the scale of the {�halen Corridor Initiative, we expect ff to have a significanf impact on our neighborhoods and park. Naw that the �iS is reaching the deoision phase, we wish to share our recommendations with you. qur concern is with the Central Sagment and the impact that three of the alternatives wilt have on the bicycie trai( and the Welis Street residential area. The bioycie path currently provides a secluded, non-motorized route between Swede Hoilow Park and Lake Phalen. It is an asset to the neigh6orhood and fhe Gity, and whan it is eventualiy extended to the Mississippi River and the Cateway Traif, it wili become part of a state-wide network of bike trsils. We prefer Alternative C-1 (or some variation that follows fhe tracks) because the other aiternatives put the Boulevard right iiext to the Traii. We feei that car and truek traffic oniy a fiew yards away wouid detract enormously from the Trail's charm and usefulness. Althaugh the Welis Street residential area needs some work, it has tremendaus potential: it is a s{opad area with a soufhern exposure and a spectacular view of the City. Again we prefer Alternative C-9 (or s�me variation that foflows fhe fracks) because the other aiternatives bring the Bouievard too close ta the re5idential area. The noise and exhaust from the Boulavard woufd detract seriously from the residential potentiaf of Welis Streef. Alternative G9 is aiso a betfer choice, in oUr vfew, because it eliminates the hard curve that the ofher the alternatives have. A straight road ought to be cheaper and safer than a curved one. Whatever barriers the Bou)evard may bring to other objectives of ihe Initiative, they wouid be sninfmized by foAawing the railroad. For exampte, the effor# to create industrial space that is large and contiguous is complioated by piacement of the Bou4evard and the railroad. Running the Bou{evard along the raifroad resulfs in one barrier instead of two. Thank you for you consideration. Piease share this Ietter wiYh the �ther members of the pianning committee. r �, , ; ;�; ,/�±`..�► �'''`��, �� C.C. City Councii P�aent uan �sostrorr City Caur�cil Member Kathy L.antry � State Senator Randy Ketly State Represenfative Steve Trimble �ULx (,fJII4� ); ��-, Q w �E`�.�<; . ,�» ��i� /I �if� nG,,... h�»,,..� �., c Q Qarks a � � d ^ Febroary 9, 1999 ° Nancy Frick "' City of St Paul City Hall Annex , � � 25 West 4th Street St Paul, MN 55102 s�. e�,i ar�a ,.�� "'�" � Dear Ms. Frick: 1621 Beechwood Ave. St Panl, NIN 55116 651-698-45G3 �mw.fi endsofthepaAa.org President Pecry R. Bolin Vice Ptesidents Ieanne Weigum Treuurer 7ames R. Briches D'uectors Craig Andresen Liz Andexson Ann Cieslak Dan Collins Thomu T. Dwight t3ei1 £zaney william Fxank Elaine Johnson Marilyn Lundberg Robert Nethercut Mazk M. Nolan Janet Olson Scott Ramsay Pierre Regnier 7erry Seck Matsha Souchezay V ice Piesident Emeritus Samuel H. Morgan D'uector Emeritus David Lilly Truman W. Porter Ex Officio Dennis Asmussen Thomas Eggum bSazc Goess Paul L. Kukwold Greg Mack Vic Wittgenstein Executive D'uector and Secretary Peggy Lynch The Friends of the Parks and Trails of St Paul and Ramsey County applaud the desire the citizens of the East Side, the City Council, Mayor Norm Coleman, and the State of Minnesota to promote ghysical and social improvements in the Phalen Corridor. We appreciate the opportuniry to review the Phalen Coiridor EIS. We looked at the options from the point of view of the neighborhoods around the Phalen Cotridor, at the impact of the alternatives on land use, and the impacts on pazks and trails. We aze very concerned about the use of large tracts of land in the central city foz roads. 20 acres alone will be used for the freeway ramps if either ontion W-2D or W-2E is chosen. Eight structures will have to be demolished if either W-2D or VJ-2E is chosen vs. two siructures if aiternative W-1 is bui1L The footprint of a large freeway interchange in the middle of St Paul does not present St Paul in the most positive way to visitors and we do not see this as an appropriate use of our most scarce resource - land. We believe the Draft EIS does not address a number of criticai concems: * What will be the impact of traffic on Cayuga and Jackson if the full interchange is built? What aze the worst case uaffic volumes for Cayuga? * Can a redesigned entrance ramp at Pennsyivania, coupled with optiinai stoplight operati on, ease congestion there? If all that is needed is a longer ramp, it would appear that land is available. �` Why would the Cayuga interchange result in less ramp wngestion, especially since it appazently will attract more north-south traffic off of Payne and Arcade. �` In W-2D and W-2E the freeway ramps take up appro�mately 20 acres. What would this land be used for if the W-1 option was built? There is an economic benefit for the W-i option which should be calculated. * The report discusses safety concerns, but provides no documentation of accidenu, and probabie accident reduction, if the freeway is realigned or if the interchange is changed to Cayuga. A simple statement such as, " accidenu fewer per 1,000,000 vehicle trips would be achieved" should be included and the basis for that analysis provided. ''` If we assume the freeway should be realigned in the course of its rebuilding, it should still be possible to rebuild it using an existing parlial connecuon at Pennsylvania, rather than the full interchange at Capuga. Why hasn't this opdon been considered? Will this option alter the cost benefit ratio? ''` It is difficult ta evaluate the various altematives undex consideration. Tliere needs to be some common-sense descriptions of the differences among the main alternatives. Such as: how many minutes are saved by a traveler from different locarions in the Corridor to a given location on I-94 E, for each of the three oprions? * The estimated cost of the roadway varies from $27 million to $82 million depending on the opaons chosen. Under the W-2D3iC-4{E-1 option the cost could be as high as $36�,000 per 99-i �v Ms. Nancy Frick Page Two February 9, 1999 job. This figure does not include land acquisition and development costs for the parceLs that can only be reached by one or more Boulevard options. R'hat is the individual cost for each job created under the different scenarios? * Why is there such a large employment change between the No Build and the other options? Some detail describing the pazcels that cannot be built on without the roadway, and whether other access options are possible and at what cost, is a needed addirion to the EIS, as indus�ial development use of these pazcels is a prime reason for construction of Phalen Boulevard and reconstructing a new interchange at 35-E. * Traffic problems getting to the freeway are mentioned, but the EIS does not address congestion an the freeway itsel£ Congestions problems now at Pennsylvania might be caused by freeway congestion. * If LP.T d'zspla�es the tre.i! ;mder a11 C cpaons, how and where �vould the trail be replace3, and who would pay for this? Please provide more informaflon on the impact LRT would have on the bicycle uail. * At the present time the access to the Gateway Trail from the neighborhoods on the east side of 35-E is Mississippi Street This access appears to be cut off on all build options and as a result will have a negative effect on the lazge residential neighborhood on the east side of 35-E. This needs to be addressed in the EIS. * Part of the Gateway Trail along 35-E will be removed given the intention of MNDOT to reconstruct 3�-E. The EIS dces not address how the 1rai1 will be replaced. This proposed reconsti by MNDOT makes it impossible for a third party (Dept. of Natural Resources) to construct the 1rai1 along the right-of-way at this time. Iv1NDOT must take responsibility for replacingfcompleting the Gateway segment of the Munger Trail to/across University Avenue. * Section 4(� of the Department of Transportation Act of 19fi6 declares that no highway project should negatively impact public park, recreation, refuge, or hiswric sites unless there is no feasible alternarive. Phalen Boulevazd will intersect with Johnson Pazkway which will require the acquisition of park properry for the proposetl property. Because of the concems and questions listed above we recommend at this time: * Reconstrucrion of 35-E should be done in a way to min;m;ze amount of land used. For that reason we support the W-1 connection. * The �aii atong Phalen Boulevazd must be made permanent. This issue should be addressed now rather than later. * The Gateway Trail must be extended to/across Universiry Avenue by MNDOT. * If any portion of Johnson Parkway is used for the roadway, market value must be paid for the land and the money used for pazk acquisition. Thank you for this opportuniry to comment on tke Draft Phalen Boulevazd EIS. Sinc ely, �� _`A . Peny Bolin President 9q—ld'� D { S T R f C T F I V E Ms. Gladys Morton, Chairperson Saint Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 P L A N N 1 f1 G C O U N C 1'��rc- i'�.r,L i� RECEfVED FEB 10 1999 E�l'11d_G & ECONOMIQ DEVELOP_MEPQ Dear Ms. Morton: The $oazd of Directors of the PayneJPhalen District Five Planning Council is committed to working with the Plauniug Commission, Mayor's Office, City Council, Port Authority, and all others involved in developing the Phalen Corridor and Phalen Boulevard. Accordingly, the Boazd, after receiving the input of its Community PlanninJ and Economic Development Committee, which had heid a public meeting examining the Araft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Phalen Boulevard, voted at its 7anuary 27, 1999, meeting to support pursuing the construction of the roadway with an at-grade connection to Payne Avenue, adequate access to Arcade Street, and with westem termini at Cayuga and Pennsylvania Avenues. We support an at-grade connection with Payne Avenue and an adequate connection to Arcade Street due to our Iona standing support of the Payne-Arcade area business community and feel that good access is part of a good business environment. These connections will also provide community access to the new roadway. We are recommending two connections for the western termini because we recognize that the best development of the Phalen Corridor requires freeway connections which allow for traffic to come from and go in as many directions as possible as the Cayuga connection [in conjunction with likely reconstruction of Interstate 35E] would do, while also providin� connections to the western industrial portions of the city, as a Pennsylvania connection would allow. We remain anxious to participate in the next steps of this procedure. If you have any questions, our Executive Director, Mr. Bruce Sylvester. � � FEB 1 0 1999 i�ORTHFAST QUADRART to7� Pa�;;c =..:;n��c l27!li F'�_. .°.`:' :'2sc:�. „�l'., , _- r:��,�i�,. . --��.'; 99 St. Pau1 Bicycle Advisory Board 300 City Hall Annex February 4, 1999 PED, attn: Nancy Frick 1200 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4�' St. St. Paul MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: The Bicycle Advisory Board (BAB) has review the Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS. The BAB appreciates the commitment of PED to maintain the established bike path and to provide a connection along the westem section of the corridor to connect the e�cisting bike path and the Gateway Trail. The BAB further supports the St. Paul Parks Commission Resolution of January 13, 1999 requesting "the pedestrian/bicycle trail shali have �0 feet on the noahern edge (of the Boulevard) wherever the traii and roadway share the same right-of-way." The Bike Board is in favor of preferred alternative C-4 in the center section. The motion at the EIS committee meeting to move this section as far south as possible in the old Stroh ]ocation would enhance the bicycle path and would clearly also receive full support ofBAB. BAB has concerns about safety issues for the numerous intersections on the bike path, especially at Arcade, Payne, and the I-35E Cayuga interchange. The Gateway trail presently serves numerous children on bicycles as well as roller bladers and the design at I-35EICayuga will be critical to their safe passage. We will be available for help and/or advice in the planning of these intersections as this project proceeds toward construction. At present there is access to the Gateway trail from Mississippi and Case Streets east of the freeway via an underpass; we request that the final design include future access to the Gateway trail from the residential neighborhoods east of the freeway. Aesign G4 appears to include an underpass for the bicycle path under the new Boulevard. I assume this is required to meet accessibility guidelines, but a bridge over both the road and e�sting Union Pacific Railroad might be considerably less expensive and more attractive to bicyciists and pedestrians concerned about dark tunnels under 4 lane roadways. We look forward to the construetion of the new Phalen Boulevard since it will provide excellent access for bicydists to the downtown area from the east side and look forward to working with you, as necessary, to help with enhancements for the bicycle/pedestrian path and to stage a grand re-opening of the Phalen bicycle path. Thank you for your support of bicycling along the new Boulevard. J�%GL��/4G�%�� Richard A. Newmark for the St. Paul Bicycle Advisory Board ca City Council President Dan Bostrom City Council Member Kathy Lantry �!H FROM : KARIN DuPaUL PHONE td0. � 77E 0559 Fe6. �13 1'399 1@�44AM PC?L Friends of Su�ede Noliow 729 E. Seventh St. St. Paui, MN 55106 Nancy Frick Departmenf of Planning 25 W. Fourth Sf. Sf. Paui. MN 55'102 Dear Ms. Frick: Feb. 2, 1999 Friends of Swede Hollow is a membership organization consisting primarily of residents from the neighborhoods surrounding Swede Holfaw Park, Because ofi the proximity and the scale of the Phalen Corridor Initiative, we expect if to have a significant impact on our neighborhoods and park. Now that the E1S is reaching the decision phase, we wish to share our recommendations with you. Our concern is with Yhe Centrai Segment and the itnpact that three of the alYernatives wifi have on the bicycie traii and the We11s Street residenfial area. The bicycla path currently provides a secfuded, non-motorized raute between 5wede Holiow Park and Lake Phaten. It is an asset to the neighborhood and the City, and wiian it is eventually extended to the Mississippi River and the Gateway Trail, it wiil become part of a state-wide network of bike trails. We prefer Alfer-iative C-1 (or some variation that follows the tracks) because the other a{ternatives put the Boutevard rig47t t�ext to the Trail. We 4eet that car and truek tra�c only a few yards away v��ould detract enormo�3siy from the Trail's charm and usefufness. Aithough the WeNs Street res+dential area needs some work, it has tramendaus potentisl: !t is a sloped area with a southecrr exposure and a spectacular view of fhe City, Rgain we prefer f�ftemative C-4 (or some varlation that foilows fhe fracks) because the other afternatives hring the Boulevasd too c4ose to the residential area. The noise and exhaust from the 8oulevard would detract seriously from fhe residentiaf potential of Wells Street. Alkernative C-'I is aiso a better choice, in our vfew, because it eliminates the hard curve that the other the alternatives have. A sfraight road ought to be cheaper and safer Yhan a curved one. Whatever barriers the Boulevard may bring to other objectives of the lnitiative, they would be minimized by following the railroad. For example, the effort to create industriai space that is large and contiguous is compiicated by piacemenf of the Boulevard and th� railroad. R��nning the Souf�vard along the raiiroad results in one barrier inste2d of two. Thank you for you consideration. Please share this letter with fhe other members of the pianning committee. � � �� " �-�,.�-_� �� C.C. � City Council P den# Dan Bostrom City Council Member Kathy Lantry State Senator Randy Keily State Represenfafive Steve Trimbie �� n n - , �� V N 4� 1 1�'� ��P,�� 4" ��`<`y- > > An��-�'�r ��..« i'/,,,:. f�',,,.,,a ..., 99-/�0 PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUS{NESS ASSOCIA710N °- P.O. BOX 6934 • SAIN'f PAUL, MN 55106 January 27, i999 Council President Daniel Bostrom Gladys Morton, Chair St. Paui Planning Commission St. Paul City Hail St. Paui, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: l'he Payne Arcade Business Association (PABA) is seriously committed to residentiaf, commercial and industria{ redevelopment in District 5. Just this fall, in partnership with the East Side Neighborhood Development Company (ESNDC), PASA initiated the "Main Street Revitalization Program". In brief, this revitalization effort is intended to enhance the image and perception ot our commercial district with the uftimate goal of attracting more customers to shop at our businesses. Our hope is that the Phafen Corridor will provide easier transportation access to the east side and in effect, increase customer traffic to Payne and Arcade. Therefore, while we strongly support the buiiding of the Phalen Boulevard and look forward to the new industrial development and jobs it will bring to the east side, PABA would recommend that the final E.I.S. inciude: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 afternative or any variation that pravides ai-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that wilf encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PASA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperat+on throughout the process of designing an intersection that wil! make it easy for traffic to enter Arcade Street from either directio�. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve E1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. We look forward to the construction of Phalen Boulevard and how this new roadway will enhance traffic access to the east side. Sincerely, � ,�� <ti�„— j , � � Maureen Mariano PABA President • • ��I ¢ �E.ARC 9 eGf �'YEfJ ASSO�� PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 6934 • SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue I wouid support the foflowing road way design options for the proposed Phale� Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 alternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continu+ng cooperation throughout the process of designing an intersection th2± �^�i!! make it easy for traffic to enter fircade Street frc,m eiiher direction. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve Ei design to connect to Prosperity on the East. �� I. �.� �r%+ � -(� / j / � V �—c��1�4 e-P s `��c_ �` {�C- �J �. �--1 v c��S 3 i�'-� ��c c,-�rr, �i�f S�� `�� S-�qf� �� - � S ��1 �U�� l�z ��r,��_ 99-I�'O p NE,AACADE 94 F G 9 O �2 Gl��"E55 LSSO«pl` PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATtON P.O. BOX 6934 . SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue I would support the foilowing road way design options for the proposed Phalen Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 aiternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperation througiiout the process of designing an intersection ihat will maka it easy ior traf�ic to enter Arcade Street from either direciion. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve Ei design to connect to Prosperity on the East. NAME �� ! � BUSiNESS �?�S � 1��-c��.t ��,�- C �� EG.�i S� �� A�. � t�,�_�:�J ��o�,�� . �T �� d�- � �,c� Sc �i w��= i z_ � S N�C �� a�� (�� ,��rn s�- � ��c�?� .��.�.� cL' �� -1 5�� ____�; �'-- � i w. �•,��:� � �wvin ✓� 7/� / l ' �/�TG�"'tH-c.�+i/J7..�'�" I � f�-ti (.�,.�:.:� , ��_ . "� dli-'��7 � �� r-a wt � r �,_�,- z�� ``�� /'I C`'�..�`'1C �� OYi �" ° f a /-_�u��l � �9-i � s aP NE_ARCADf 9qF . , 9 d j GI�'�ESS ASSOC\p"o PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 6934 . SAiiJT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue ! would support the foliowing road way design options for the proposed Phalen Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 alternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A weli designed access ramp at Arcade Street ihat will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperation throughout the process of designing an intersection that wifi make it easy for traffic to enter Arcade Street from either direction. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve E1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. NAME 1��...- °�°� ��G � �� BUSINESS �UG�wC�� Su..{.��.-�. � 5�+ -,��2�� /� 1,� � - � � o�� 7anuary 27, 1999 East Side Neighborhuvd DevelopmeM Cumpeny, /nc. 900PayneAvenue, SaintPaul, Minnesota 55107 Phone: (s51) 77�-iis2 Fax: �esi�n�-nas Council President Daniel Bostrom Giadys Morton, Chair St. Paul Planning Commission St. Paul City Hall 25 WestFourthStreet St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: ��,:,�s r _. � 9-i8o The East Side Neighborhood Development Company (ESNDC) is deeply committed to creating wealth and opportunities for the people and businesses in the Payne/Phalen Lake neighborhood. We believe that a well designed Phalen Boulevard that is wisely connected to the neighborhood will play an important role in creating jobs and revitalizino our neighborhood. Whi1e we strongly support the building of Phalen Boulevard, that support is dependent on having an at-grade crossinb at Payne Avenue and an attractive, well designed interchange at Arcade. Without this, the roadway rather than being an asset for our neighborhood will become nothing more than a fast way for people to drive through our neighborhood. ESNDC's board passed a motion of support for Phalen Boulevard at its January 13, 1999 meering. Our specific recommendations to the EIS include: • At-gade intersection at Payne Avenue — C-4 or some variation that insures at-�ade access. • An amactive, well designed access at Arcade. This access shouid be devetoped in cooperation with Arcade businesses and should focus on creating easy access to Arcade Street. • The development of a new interchange at Cayuga — W2D. • Approve E 1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. We look forward to the construction of Phalen Boulevard and are eager to work with the city and our many East Side partners to see that the Boutevard becomes an effective tool for creating wealth and opportunities for our neighborhood. Warm regards, � � ��,.� �,:��' `�`'�. Mike Anderson Execurive I�irector AFFIRMATlVE ACTlON! EQUAL OPPORTUN/TY EMPLOYFR 99-180 East Side Neighbnrhond Deve/npme�Company, /nc. 900PayneAvenue, SaintPaui, Minnesota 55f01 January27, 1999 Phone:(s5�)777a752 Fax.�(ssi}ni-n3s Council President Dan Bostrom Gladys Morton, Chair St. Paul Planning Commission St. Paul City I-Iall 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: This fa11, the East Side Neighborbood I?evelopment Company and the Payne Arcade Business Association launched the Main Street Prob am to revitalize Payne Avenue. Made possible through a�ant from the Locai Initiatives Support Corporation and the City of St. Pau1, Main Street has begun an intensive planning process addressing comprehensive strategies in design, marketing and promotions, economic development, and crime and safety. The wark of the Main Street Pro�am is being accomplished through the hard work of more than sixty volunteers who meet weekly in committees. These volunteers represent residents, business owners, property owners, the East Side Arts Council, the District 5 Planning Council, the East Team Police and many others. The Main Street Steering Committee passed a motion of support for the Phalen Corridor at our January 22" meeting. On behalf of the businesses on Payne Avenue and the many volunteers working on the Main Street Program, Main Street strongly supports an at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue — C-4 or some variation that insures at-grade access. The efforts of the Main Street Program and the vitality of Payne Avenue depend on bringing more consumers to Payne Avenue, an goal best achieved by an at-grade interchange. We are excited about the possibilines for Payne Avenue ana we hope that we can capitalize on our potential tlu an at- grade Phalen Corridor interchange. Best regards, _ i ' �� >Cz�C,''�/� Katya Ricketts Main Street Pro�ram Mana�er AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / EQUAL OPPORTUN/TY EMPLOYER �I9-/8D gaint , Pau� _ _ _Pa�ks and �Z ��10�1 C0��111SSIOII 3Q0 City Hall Annex, 25 �V. �in Street, Saint Pzu?, hL� 55102 -- b12/26b-6400 January 25, 1999 Nancy Frick City of Saint Paul 1200 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: ` �� i �q�,� �� / �y� 79 � � � � Enclosed is a copy of resolution 99-1 passed by the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission at its January 14, 1999 meeting concerning the Phalen Boulevard I-35E to Johnson Parkway Draft Environmentallmpact Statement and Draft Section 4(� Evaluation. The resolution re-emphasizes the concerns expressed by the Commission in its July 28, 1995 letter to PCI Steering Committee Chairperson Craig Johnson that the proposed roadway will negatively impact the ambiance and noise quality of the existing pedestrianlbicycle trail, and urges again that efforts be taken to minimize these negative impacts, regardless of which particular roadway design plan is adopted. Thank you for considering the Commission's thoughts in these regards. Sincerely, � i 1 Danner, Chairperson Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Corumissioners: , Jill Danner, Chairperson; Terrence Huntrods, Vice-Chairperson � Liz Anderson, Lori Huot. Kenneth Mauer, John O'Halloran, Altin Paulson, Plul Ravitzky, Samuel Verdeja �i �--r8o Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission is an appointed body to advise the Mayor and City Council in long-range and city-wide matters related to pazks and recreation,and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul Division of Pazks and Recreation leases property in the Phalen Corridor from the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority to provide a component of the Regional Trail System known as the Phalen Creek Trail, and W�TEREAS, the rnalen Fsoulevazd: i-�SE to 3oiinson Parkway �raf� En•ri.c:Lme:�ta! Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the City of Saint Paul and the Minnesota Departrnent of Transportation contains altemative proposals for the construction of a roadway which impact the trail located in the Phalen Conidor, and WHEREAS, the Commission maintains an ongoing interest in providing an excelient trail system for use by the citizens of Saint Paul, and WHEREAS, the Commission believes that the trail in the Phalen Corridor requires at least a 50 foot ri�ht-of-way for the safety, ambience and potential future expansion of the irail system, and that said right-of-way must be located in the northernmost side of the corridor, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that regardless of whichever future alignment is selected for the Phalen Boulevard, the pedestrian/bicycle trail shall have 50 feet on the northern ed�e wherever the trail and roadway shaze the same right-of-way, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cost of any realignment of the trail made necessary� by the construction of Phalen Boulevard shall be included in the roadway costs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in acknowledgment of the fact that trucks will use any furutre Phalen Boulevard, the roadway shall be built using Parkway design standazds. Adopted by The Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission on January 13, 1999 Approved: Yeas: Nays: Absent: No. 99-1 JRN-25-1999 13�17 SRinl rhuL �KCH �nH'riccK 61e ees b11y r.bziG� �'/ �//80 a'A1NT �.�UL �EA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Finr Naiional Dank Building. N•205 332 MiimaonS¢eeo Ssinc Paul, Minarxoq SS1U1 Phone: G51.223.5000 Fax: G51.223.511') ww.v. saintpsulchambe..a im YOUR BUSINESS A TlT!\(`ATC ? January 25, 1999 Saint Paul City Council Saint Paul Planning Commission 1 S West KeIlogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Saint Paul City Council Members and Planning Commission Members: The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Cominerce, representing over 1500 area businesses, strongly supports the building of Phalen Boulevard. W� believe that tfie taskforce process used to identify the layout for the Boulevard was sound. We strongly agree with the following soadway altematives: • W-2D. This altemative works with. the Metro Transit Bus Garage site plan and will improve traffic in the area. •- C-4. This alternative is important for our retail businesses a2on� Payne Avenue. E�1. This a(temative will improve uansit access in the Phalen Vzllage azea. We want what is best for the business and community interests on the East Side aad in tvm the whale City of 5aint PauI. The Phalen Boulevard is aa important project for She East Side, bringing a strong vision fo strengthen neighborhoods, good jobs, economic development and enhanced transportatioa We aze truly excited about the positive changes that aze taking place on the East Side and will continue to take place with the creation of Phalen Boulevard. Sincerely, Jeff Peterson Director of Public Affairs � Cc: Mayor Norm Coleman G�rtMilbum, ESABA TDTRL P.82 : ` �...�s02/10199 , - "r + {� �t �'� �i; -. : .�:: i., ; WED 13:03 FA% 612 296 7782 r 3[ETRO �1NAGERS OFFICE �� 001 Minneso#a Pollution Con#ro! Agency post=� Fax Note 7671 ; �. i February 10, 1999 Ms_ I3ancy Frick City of St Paul, City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Panl, Minnesota 55102 RE: Draft �nvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) - Phalen BouTevazd Dear Ms. Frick: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ihe DEIS for the Phalen Boulevard project. The proposal is the development of a new roadway alignment beriveen Interstate 35E and Johnson Parkway. Minnesota Pollution Controi Agency (MPCA) sfaff have reviewed the DEIS for this project. We have the following wmments for consideration and response by the city as it develops the final EIS. In our review, we considered two aspects of the information in the DEIS. One is how thoroughly the concems and issues that we raised in the Scoping and Draft Scoping Decision Document are addressed. The second is to raise other questions or concems we found when reviewing the DEIS and provida relevant background anformation. As a resutt, this letter is rather lengthy. We hope, however, that it will assist the city and project proposers in preparing the fmal EIS. Identifying relevant reports and providing references to them in the final EIS may also resolve some of our eomments. Eroston, Sedimentaklon, and Snrface Water Rnnoff There is little discussion of the potentia] impacta o£runoff during the construction phases of the project. We would like to emphasize that the requirements of the MPCA's General Construction Starm Water Permit must be followed. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will apply during construction. We encowage the project proposer to work closely with its constzuetion contractors to ensure that appropriate BMPs are used. The BMPs will help minimize or prevent impacts fsom mnoff while the soil is disturbed. Please note that development that disturbs ten or more contiguous acres may require temparary sedimentation basins during construction. If more tlwn one acre of new impervious surface is created, peiinanent treatment ponds may also he required. The storm water routing, sizing of permanent detenfion basins and treatment should be discussed in more detail. The final EIS shou3d present how storm water runoff would be affected by the various options. Both the quantity and quality should be addressed in more specific terms than in the DEIS. For example, the final ETS should discuss the potenrial loading from using road salt on a larger azea of impervious surface. Some mitigarion measures aze described in the document. You may also wish to address whether any mitigation measures can be worked into the overall desigp of ihe project. For exampFe, this could be 6y providing walkways and bike trails next to permanent storm water treatment basins. The basins could be designed with aestheric and habitat features such as wetland features, white the trails and walkways could serve to avoid future impacts by reducing local h affic problems. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (Voice); (612) 282•5332 (7TY) Regional OHices: Dulufh • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal OPportunitY Emptoyer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20°f> flbers kom paper recycled W cos�sumess. 02/10/99 �ED 1a:04 FA% 612 296 7782 ffiETRO �AIVAGERS OFFICE '�'' �—� U Q [�j 002 t ,4 Ms. Nancy Frick ',�; , Page Two ; �• The DkTS indicates that permanent detention poads would be designed to city and watershed i , managetnent organization criteris. ?.t a uvnimum, fhese ponds must elso mect the criteria in the ! MPCA's general permit. The ponds should be designed to support water quality goals for the area and the Mississippi River. Additional treahnont goals you may wish to consider are a 64 percent removal rate for phosphorus and a 9Q percent reductian in sediment. Minimizing the amount of impervious � surfaces, where possibte, will also help maintain the quality of the watershed. One last point regarding runoff is that the final EIS should also discuss whether impacts on Phalen Creek are expected. We are especially concemsd about the project impact on erosive flows such as the bankful flow, which is usually azotutc3 the two yeaz return event If increased erosion, or any other impacts, have the potential to occur, describe how the impacts would be prevented or minimized. Indlrect Soarce Permit lieqnirements The DE7S has ciearly stated that the traffic volutnes from the pmposed project alone do not meet the regu3atory threshold for requiring an ISP. This is supported by the results of travel demand model runs. Fature year projecrions, however, will exceed the threshold volumes needed to ohtain a pemiit. 'I'hese projeetions inelude the proposed East Cenhal Business District (CBD) Bypass traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed 1-35E crnmection with Phaien Boalevard. The city of St. Paul has not yet set a definite time line for the construction of the East GBD Bypass. We reconunend that the city eontact I7mocent Eyoh at (651}29b-7739, when the schedule is known, since connection of this portion wi� require an ISP. Tr�c and A.ir Quality OveralI Comments The DEIS indicates that aIl altarnarives proposed would meet carbon mono�cide {Cd) ambient standards. It appears that the buiid and no-build alternarives proposed do not differ substantially in terms of modeled CO coneentrations in parts per million (ppm}. Nevertheless, the choice of alternafives posed in the DEIS has overall implications for sir quality because of the assumptions on which they are based. MPCA staff understand the overall goais of the ptoject. We appreciate that there are anficipate@ benefits the proposed project could bring to the Lower East Side neighborhood. Our concems dwell on how the project would be implemented with the least iraffic aztd air qualiTy impacts to the area. Air Oualit�Imvacts The ambient level of CO was monitored for the project. The DEIS did a good job in adjusting the values for the year 2015. Tt assumed annual growth in traffic tfuough this period. It also accounted for changes in vehicle emission control technology. In addition, a microscale intersecrion analysis was perFormed for the project. That analysis was also fully discussed in the DEIS. The haffic volumes in the study intersection were estimateci for all the huiid and no-huild alternatives for the afternoon peak hour h in the 2015 analysis year, except for an at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue and transit-way options. The resulting CO emission rates were calcu2ated for the traffic streams using atl approved EPA models. The predieted aoneentrations for the build scenario show a minor increase in CO levels for the eight-hour standard over the no-build condition. The DETS attributes this increase to differences in rtaffic signal phasing. The staff believes tUat the increase is also linked to margina] reduction in vehicle hours traveled and an increase in vehicle miles traveled in altemative W-1 as compazed to the no-build. Tn any case, the maximum modeled values were all below the state one-hour and eight-hour ambient air quality standards. i i � ;; ! � , i 02/10I99 �VED 13:05 FA% 612 296 7782 Ms. Nancy Frick Page 1'hree METRO �ANAGERS OFFICE � � — / � Rj 003 Related data that may be helpfitl to include in the final EIS are traffic forecasts on York Avenue at Frank, CSazence Street, and on Maryland Avrnue oast of Prosperity. Piease indicafe what changes may be expected along those segments. The DEIS modeled only ane intersection (Maryland Avenue and Payne) and its related receptor sites for emissions. A number nf intersections in the corridor area may have impacts on their traffic operations &om this project. Consequently, moze intersections with a potentiai for increased emissions should have been analyzed in the DEIS. Tn the fmal EIS, please identify and analyze addirional intersections that are expected to have irapacts from the project. i Changes in ttaffic pattems during the conshvction of the pmjxt will occur. These changes rvill affect air quality at some intersections crossing the Phalen corridor. An accurate assessment of these construcNon- related impacts should be in the final EIS. This should include detailed microscale analyscs of the intersections. Crirical local intersections where impacts are likely should be idenYified. These may include intersections where the forecast traffic volumes approach the intersecfion capacity. The final EIS should list where significant incteases in traffic are expected during construction compazed to the na build altemative. Air Oualitv Conformitv Determination The staff agrees that the DEIS Phalen Boutevard prc}ect confortns with the state implementation plan. The 1998-2000 Transportation Improvement Program included Phalen Boulevard as one of its regionally significant projeets. A z emissions analysis was performed for the ycar 2005 action seenario. Other air aollutants from mobi�e sources The DEIS fails to provide a detailed, qualifarive discussion of air qu2lity impacts frnm offier pollutants than CO. The MPCA requested this in our comments on the Scoping document, dated May 6, 1996. We asked for an analysis of nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons, and pariiculate matter. Response 6 to our 1996 comment letter indicated the EIS would address these poilutants. It would be appropriate to also provide informallon on emissions of carbon dioxide and air toxic pollutants in the final EIS. The MPCA staff do not expect Phalen Boulevard to adversely impact the potentfal for this area to attain lead standards. � a�f°ic Imnacts Depend'tng on the alternative chosen, the city should clear3y provide, in detail, information on tlle traffic impacu involving nearby roadways. Primary areas of concern include I-35L and I-44 mainline lanes, and connections to the existing sh�eet systems. This discussion shouid include h�c forecasts far both build and no-build altematives as weIl as traffic assignments. A broader discussion of how this project wili affeet rush hour traffic on both tughways and city streets would be of interest The DEIS indicates that traffic woutd 6e ceduced on a namher of residential streets. Staff aze cancerned, however, that commuters may divert to Pha3en Boulevard through the neighborhoods to avoid congesrion on major arterials. If that occurs, haffic could increase instead. Capaciry ealculations should be submitted, especially for the proposed I-35E interchange on- and off-ramps. The exisflng ramps within the studied corridor alteady experience long qneues during aRemoon peak hocus. �.3,' � 02/1�/99 B'ED 13:06 FAX 612 296 7782 ! �! �i. � C � i ; i. if i' � : 4 � I Ms. Nancy Frick Page Four b4ETR0 MANdGERS OFFICE � �—�� 17j004 �; i , � �i� The congeshon management provision m TEA - 21 prohibits consh�uction of single occupancy vehicle lanes. The esception to tUis is if they aze part of an approved congestion management plan. 1'he Metropolitan CoimciI's Policy Plan is currently updated. It idenrifies Phalen Boulevard as a"H" Minor Arierial. 11�e pmposed project, therefore, is exempt from this requirement. � The 149 i lntermodal Surf'ace Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the recent TEA - 21 place considerable importance on altemadve modes and transi� They make clear that these alternative modes , must not be considered secondary to highway conshuction for mceting havel demand. 'fhrough these Acts, the U.S. Congress has given direction that should be applied to the Phalen project. The explicit designation of equal federal participation in fimding roadway and transii projects, along wiih the greater funding of high occupancy vehicle lanes, provides this direction. We believe that transit and other a]tcrnative modes such as bicycling, carpooling and vanpooling must be given serious consideiaYion. This is the case regardless of whether funding comes from TBA - 21, the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Prograzn, or Interstate Maintenance Fuxtds. This wo¢td provide severai tavel options to warkers expected to fill new jobs ereated by the Phalen corridor initiatives. We believe that 1'EA - 21 not only gives the laritude to consider these changes in assumptions, but by its vcry passage, mandates the use of funds for the construction of these types of _ alternative faczlities. Increased traffic on some of the existing streets may negaiivety affact pedestrian and bicycle tr�c , crossing some of the streets, speci$cally Payne Avenue, Edgerton, and Forest streets. The two best-used streets for bicycles in the project core azea aze Edgerton and Forest SReets. Pigure II-13 indicates that the three project altematives will douhle the average daily traffac on Edgerton. Please address the impact to bicyclas on Edgerton Street and pedestrians on Payne Avenue. For exampie, what are the projected traffic speeds on Edgerton Street7 ]n addition, bicycle access to Mississippi St. and Case Avenue appears to be diminished under Alternatives W-2C and W-2E. It appears that the current bike trail underpass to Mississippi Street is lost. How would this possible impact be mitigated? Please show this existing trail connector on Figure II-4 and II-5. W e do recognize that the project incorporates portions of the two regional bicycie traiis (Gateway and Phalen Creek trails} that improve comieciivity for bicycies. I�adeauate 6us service The projected havel forecast and the modeled CO concentrarions are based on assumprions of transit and altemative mode availability that preclude lowering the levels of projected h�affic demand. Demand wiIl be centered on increased auto hips as the main commute mode as long as funding of operating and maintenance costs of an expanded bus service in the Twin Ciries azea is not inereased. The staff recommends that 2n the final $I5, the city examine methods for developing financial or legistarive support to inelude transit as a fuil partner in effotts {o meet demand, rather than an alternative after roadway construction. This phiIosophy is consistent wath Vision for Transit issued by the Metcopolitan Council, and with the funding categories and ghitosophy. The proposed new Metro Transit bvs garage wiil be built at Mississippi and Cayuga Streets north of Downtown St. Paul. This gazage is expected to serve the east metropolitan azea. That could enhance the availahility of convenient transit for the workforee on the corridor. ,.. , ;:.�,. � �; :�= �4 -:��' 'i l .� �:.-� i:;. : 02/10/99 SYED 13:07 FA% 812 296 7782 Ms. Nancy Prick Page Five �IETRO MANAGERS OFFICE � 7 I O Q f�j OOa The core area of the project is low to moderate income, This papula$on has a}ugh potenhal for tcansit use. Please clarify how this project would enhance transit. For example, the fmal EIS could compare lraveS times for local and express bus routes on Phalen Boulevard or proposed bus travel fimes to possible express nms to downtawn St� Paul. We believe that Figure III-t0 has a mnnber oFerrot, regarding exis£ing bus routes. Please review this figure and update iE, if necessary. Travel demand None of the altematives addtess the quesrion as to how much �avel demand should be aocommodated by construcrion. The W-lA alternative is predicted to handle mote demand than any other of the alternatives. It appears th2t the demand will exceed the capacity of any possible chosen alternative. An assump6on in the analysis seems to be that adequate bicycling £acilities, better efforts at a jobslhousing balance, and reducing hips by providing major incentives for ridesharing or teiecommuting tanlc below other uses of state and ]ocal funds in importance. These issues, as well as h�ansit service, should be considered similar to roads or other utilities in importance. ;,. The final EIS must examine ways to I'vnit demand, and plan for transit and other mefhods of reducing singte-occupancy vehicle use. Since demand directly affects air quality, the final EIS should diacuss what initiatives can be pursued at the legislative level, or through initiatives of the private sector to limit travel demand. If roadway construcrion must occLS to even partially meet demand after this examination, then converting pmposed project to selective High Occupancy Vehicle (FIO� use and use of transit options is most in keeging with the requirements of TEA - 21. Given these constraints, the staff atrongly recommends that the preferred alternative in the final ETS should meet this requiretnent. Miriaabon of Construction Tmpacts Related fo Traffic The MPCA staff aclrnowledges that the DEIS addresses most of the temporary, traffic-related environmental impacts expected to occur as a result of the pro}ecYs construction activities. It considered h•affic delays, alignment shifts, access changes, and air quality. We would like to sfress that alI of the mitigation measures oonceming consuvction impacts should be implemented prior to and during the conshnction period. Other mitigation measures should be implemented. Options for improved puh]ic communica$on incSude publication of bmchures eontaining rnaps of the construction ateas. The city should work with affected businesses to let them Imow exactly what Yo �pect during construction. These efforts should also mclude consistent, thoughtful, and effeciive provision of advance public information to parties affected by the construction aetiviries. Cooperative sfforts with radio and T'V traffic-watch reporters and daily newspapers are some avenues for this. The design of the pmferred alternative should also include detailed construction staging plans. The plans should outline the sequence of construction activities, including plans expinining how motorized and bieyele 4affic wi1I be maintained during consirucrion. Noise AddiNonal discussion of noise shou]d be provided. In general, please discuss what is the available noise mitigation in this azea. If there is no practical noise mitigation available, give reasons why. What is the 2015 build ) no build comparison? If exemp$ons to the noise rutes wili apply to this projec{, p]ease exptain what those would be. SpecificaIly areas of concem include the fact that nighttime sound �:�� (.' 02/10/99 WED 1a:08 FA% 612 296 7782 1:;.�-' �i; i' � r�i ::��F� ��.�-��1 { '� . .j'i,� . � , ��.a:�' ,� t , �" '� � Ms. Nancy Frick � ` . Page Six .r , _ METRO MANAGERS OFFICE �� "� f�j 006 standards of 55 dBA is aiready e�cceeded in the areas adjacent to Yhe groject area. Table III-5 indicates an fncrease in expected nighttime noise at all monitored locations as a result of every build alternative. Would noise impacts be expected from HQV and transit enhancement altematives? If truck traffic increases as descn�bed on page VIII-4G, w3ut are the noise impacts to Maryland Avenue? Fish and Wildlife � + Page N-43 describes a low habitat value in the project area. Staffwonder whether this is, in fact, the case in the vicinity of the lluluth playground, 7ohnson Parkway, and just east of Payne Avenue in Swede a � Hollow. i' i E �� r�, � � � � . I 'r4 Section 4(� evaluetion We believe it would be uscful to idenfify the Johnson Parkway Avoidance Altzmatives mentioned on page TX-4, It may be helpful to ezplain why each of these was screened out. Please evatuate mitigation options for a no-build alternative between Johnson Pazicway and Atiantic. ts there a possibitity for rush- liam' HOV-access or HOV plus commerciat only along this segment7 We look forward to receivmg ynur writte� responses to these comments, as weli as the final EIS when it has been prepazed. If you have any yuestions, please contact me at (651)296-6703. Sin� � � Bazbaza Conti Planner Principal Operations and Piamiing Section Metro District BCsjs cc: Gregg Downing, Environmentai Quality Board , �pF K �Q� ` �'� i Pebruary 9, 1999 Nancy Frick St. Paat City Iiall Annex ZS West 4 Street St. PauI, MN S5IO2 ..vv L6�0yCIIC HVa(f S[. Pqul, Minneau[a 551$5-40 _ �: P}�alen Boulev�d 33raft Envuo�e� I�pact StatevAent (BIS) Dear Ms. Frick; 10 R �-18d T�� Departrnent of Naturai Resources (DN[�) }23s reviewed �he plialen Bou)evard Draft E7S. We offer �he foilowing comments for your consideration, wluci� ace arganized as the topiCS are presenfed in the Draft ETS. Sectiox S.9 per,nitS c�Approvals This section should note �he potendal need for a DNR Water Appropr�ation Permit. Remedaation ofi poll❑[ed grotuzdwater that wiii use more than 10,000 gallons per day, or 1,Op0,ppp g�o� per year, wilt require the appxoval of tlte D dewatering, �• Th �� rniit need also appl3es to const�ction-related 5'ectjon I71.2.4 Yegetation The doc:ument roferenees the presence of mature willow �ees, or immafure specimens, chat are growing a1o� the for�er Phale� Creek cortidor. We agree tl�ac willoWS are indicative of wet �oad�[ions, Recogniz;r� thaf wetlu,d detineation has occurred, but has not been substautialty �ocumented-in the DraR EIS, we caution that it is possible ihat sites aceurately classified ;�s �etlands may have been overlooked. Willows are strong indicators of wetiands, and it is possible that at'eas could sriil be consid�red wedands even though fi11 was piaced in thesn. Soine slatemexiL of wetland delineation }nethodology shoutd be preseuted in the ETS t'o assure that no potential wetlands have been missed. �'ectinn 117.2.8 Fish ared Wildlife The fish and wildtife discussion correctly recog»es that p�ts of the project cor�idox are with� th� Ivfississinpi flYway. The documenr givcs ihe j�pression fhac the �vlississippx flyway is a l�calized phenoinenon, CaTher than the broad passage wl�ich goes from the Gulf of MeRico into Canada, rn addStion, this flyway is mo[e than a wacetfawl eorridor. lt provides significarzs migration pathways for aimost a11 migratory bird species t}aat o�cur in Minnesota. The Stdte is providing Substantial investrnent to preserve and restore flyway coru�ections, in the f�rm of suitable habitat, tIu St. paul and Minneapotis. Tt�e ftyk,ay section along the MississErpi Itlyer jn these tWO Cities is remarkab]y intact given ti�e ]arge metropolitan population that lives ihere. .._DCUtr�u,��,.,r,,..,•,. �._,....._., Nancy Frick February 9, 1999 This section shnuld also note that the Swede k�ollow pand stays open year round, Ei.e„ does not freeze over in winter}, and that ducks concenaate there when other water areas are frozen. T�uck use is estimaeed to be in the hundreds of buds during cold snaps. The pond provides very important open watez during the wintzr. Are impacu to this area avoided? Opportunities to improve the area should hr+ crnrvht ,� k,. :f � ' CDLLl16LGl+ w vv ua up. uuu..av..o ... ...�.... ��..._� _ __- __�.. . � . - - � • —/ "' O water durmg d�e winter. Are impacts to this area avoided? Opportunities to improve the uea should ` be sough[. , IV ].7Bfcycle and Pedestrian Mnvetnent The discussion xegarding how the pzo,yect affeets che Gate.vay Trail is not accurate. Over the past five years, the DN� and the Ivlinnesota Depamuent of Transportation (MN/AOT} have worked togetlxer to extend the Gateway State Traii into ttae rean of St. Paut by utilizing the I-35E right-of-way. Work was oou�pleted in ] 996 to extend the usil from the railxoad bridge over 1-35E (near Arlingtan Avenue) to Cayuga 5treet. As nNR and the Metropalitan Council worked to secure funding to furtbex extend tIie trail from Cayuga Street to Pennsylvania Avenue (to be accomplished in 1998-99), the Phalen Boulevard proposal caine folward. Because of conflicG� hetween khe Phalen $oulevarcl project requ'tzements and MN/DOT requiremerrts for future upgrades of I-35E, fiirther extension of the trail oouid noi be guaranteed hy MNlDOT as originally envisioned if the Phalen Boulevard Qcoject proeeeds- The NIS siiould note thet botli MN/DOT and DNR have committed to cooperate un d�e cision oP extending the Gateway Txail to University Avenue and ultunately to the State Capitoi. Implementation of the Phalen �oulevarcl project should not inhibit this final Outcome. , ` R�gardiag trail issues in generai, we encourage t�e City to implement a design khat will provide a right- �f-way for both the pedestrian/bicycle trail and Light RaIl Transu (LRT). Section IV.2.2 Wettancls No alternadve will directly affect wetlands in the general vicinity of the projeCt. Howet�er, the project will be coordivated with oppuitunities idencified by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for potentia] wetland restoxations. The Phalen Shopping Center Wecland Restoration siCe ha,a been speoifically identitizcl as one such locntion. As noted in Dtaft 615 scoping, and ac�l�wledged in Sec�ion 1TI.2.5, DNR reqnests eonsideration of restoxing tltat part of Yhalen Creek tl�at hisEOrzcally flowed through Swede Hollow. The "creek" that cunentiy runs [hxough Swede I�Tollow is a daylighced section of Uae storm tzunk sewex that begizas near the intexsection �f 7°i SCreet and 7olmson Parkway, as depicted 'u� Figure JV-1. As such the creek originates near the pxoposed Phalen wetland restoracion area. The TIS Should indic3te why the oppoxcunity pxesent to restore, at ]east partiaily, [he entire system, (e.g., k�ha]en Creek tluough Swede Hollow; Phalen restoration site), 95 ttot mitigafion for potential impaets. RestoratioA of the hiscoxic Phaten Creek tlQw and corrid�r would he to pravide a eonstant flaw througl� the currendp daylighted portion nf Swed� I-Iollow. Morc importazit, this restoration wauld serve the dual purpose of impxovittg [he quaiiry of water (tluough dilution) thaC flows to the Ivtiss�ssippi Ttiver from this location. Ac p[esent, Lhe system 15 flashy with periUds of almost no flOCC� to pericxls af exeessive flows. 'I'his kxas caused sig�ufioan[ erosion problems 8�at is threatenutg die bilce trail throu�h Swecie Aoilow. �! It , ,, , x ; f i t � � , DNP, PLRhJhdIh1G Fa�:612-296-6047 Feb 9'99 11 �53 P.02j02 99-�8d , (ancy Frick t��3,�uars'9, ig99 �cripn N 2.3 SYater j�+otuYtStor �}, thc roi�t shonid t,c pTe-trcate� All si�+� m watzr NriOff EP�cYbtCd h}• j�`e.nmws su2Eaca C[e2 Y P zntof r¢vinusly priur to dischatge w naeural aratex�. �e °� r��nd tbei nc� City of St. Pm�l use the CPP�� prescnted by che l�roject to xeduce unperviou. surFaee � tt� �nt�al c�nndifion, Snclud'u E jmpacted sir=, in urban aieas slumld resuk Sn an 4mi' feduUlnns in m�� Senecati�n. « 'c offer the SenPrei ricw tbut a71 swnn "'�ct ruaotf SC'�erasPd bv �±nPe��""' a'Tlace ciesrea by d�c wx s co reduce 3mprrciot�s surfa�e �Le�riuu with th�s proje�c siw��dbc pretseatedprinr W dischnrge to newral watex., mcwa;ng thc Mi.as�ss;ppi Ri.�cr. e aLto enr.rnsaSe the C'it5` of SL Paul to idendpp Y co rednce thc cumul.neive �,��ijcct. Redevelc+pnie�tt Of e�cistin$, a�'Pdu'� �� °�lotvs au npporhinrty im ia�s EurFat'� amwnt of impcs vious surface in thic lvghlY urbnNzed waiershed. Iteduc� P�' creation hea�r.fts the wa�er quatiity of the M�ssisstPpi Rivcr. Sectinn 1Y.2.5 k4sh and Wi�d� co u,q,rove habitat condii iuns in ffie pocenualiy affceted area, arn1 n�a Tl�e project offels the oypu �Y . d ecific.l{y to No[ unty do the yppreeiate sne recugnicion in rhe nvi igation ;�eccion th,�� "laudscaC�nB cotit�l ba se �cta sP provi�e Labitat for v:A�d4ife." All availnb(e habirvi ia valunb3e m an nrlxn setting• wttdlire. that cun live thrre 1�ncfit, but the ciiy rasidcnts b�e� ie�it Co�Ao�� ezntiflsi dc igning ci�iphasis �hould hr. �,laced ou rEVeSPZt�ii� wiSh �are S �athcr th�n simPfy �rro��iding screenin� ut a plancin�s ffiacpr�iviJc witdlife tiab�rat For sme11 aiwnals• unc�inru anc3 a ues and L�: located itt azeas wh ic thcY coutfl a�i �.�i i�n t�� ef� t bai,ilat Gomylex if pos�ihle. 'ye �� Cjty's recopni��nn in the Uraft �i� �f t1�� value of xegeWtion restoratlon piesciitcd auit,� t e gnE Cirv's f:a..^�e S a wU'�'h'M' hood. ion. preseztiing n ul �osmcing� Luttlsca�+a}', aton� tlic traiLs Nill increasc Ihc usc of che snitc. 7'nasuc y�u frrc thc oppo�ty ta rcview this dcx:wut�. 4Ve 1o�A ftin ward to reeeivin� ttie Fina1 �1S at a fl�ru�c datc. Yleasc w l�ll�� n� "'y �a�� (b-slj 29F-9229 if you havr qurstirnu rcga�diziK Uvs le[ter Sinee[eiy. ��t�..�g�..ceS.4 - ` �!(`F - / ' � - � - y' � n 'lbomas W Ralcom, S��petvixui Eri�urimcntnl Keview a�rcl Assistance T.3n3i. AfCicc of ManagC�nr.ur and Budget Serviccs Con Chris�u �, halhlecn W allace U=t R;vUcr Drct Andetsmi .�� [,arscn, ��lB („partrc Kjus. S3Sf W S �9N1:.R0.-03/YAhLD�TS. wP7 � �t -! 80 � MetroTransit February 3, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner Departrnent of Planning and Economic Development City of Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Prick: Re Review of DEIS — Construction of Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Johnson Parkway Metro Transit has reviewed the referenced draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and provides the following comments: 1. Metro Transit vigorously opposes aiternative W2-E for the western end of the project. Selection of this alternative by the City will deem the Mississippi/Cayuga siteinfeasible for construction of its new East Metro Transit Facility. 2. Prompt receipt of the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) is needed for the City and Metropolitan Council to C�operatively acquire the MississippilCayuga site for our respective projects without delaying the bus gazage project. Metro Transits requests that the City take all available actions to acquire the ROD from the FHWA as soon as possible. 3. Selection of alternatives W-2D or W-2E on the western end of the project will require a reroute of Route ll between Pennsylvania Avenue and L'Orient Street to Case Avenue and Westminster Street. The new route would likely follow the proposed I-35E west frontage road to Cayuga Street, to Westminster Street, to Case Avenue. Route 11 operates 63 weekday and 27 Saturday one-way bus trips. 4. Bus-only shoulder lanes are operated effectively throughout the metropolitan area. Bus-only shoulder lanes should be evaluated for Phalen Boulevard. At a minimum, shouider design width at potentiat bus stop locations should be evaluated. Bcs-only shoulder lane right-of- way could be converted to a busway or LRT as appropriate. If you have any questions pertaining to the East Metro Transit Facility, please contact Arlene McCarthy, Project Manager, at 651-602-1278. Sincerely, t�� v�� Arthur T. Leahy General Manager cc: Witliam Foster Arlene McCarthy A service of th Metropolitan Council 560 Sixth Aven,;e Nortn Minneaoohs, Minnesota SSAt 1-4398 (6l2) 349-7400 hhp.//inrvvw.metro��a^srt org 7ransrt lnfo 373-3333 TTY 34LG'� =° An Equal Opportunity Emo=o;r_� 99-/�O Department of Pnblic Works Paul L. Kirkwold, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 •(651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: PublicVJorks@pw.co.ramsey.mn.us �� @f �� January 26, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner City of 5t. Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Environmental Statement — Phalen Boulevard Dear Ms. Frick: ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 FEB - 2 1999 n!oRrti�asr c�u��a�v�r The technical work relating to alignment, alternatives and cost are sound and well defined. Coilaborative cost participation and ultimate designation of Phalen Boulevard needs further definition. If the roadway is to become a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) route under the Jurisdiction of Ramsey County and potentially use County resources as one funding source, it is important that the roadway be so designated prior to construction. Use of funds from that source are subject to a solicitation and project prioricization process under the oversight of Ramsey County's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), made up of representatives from area municipafities. To date, the roadway is not on the Gounty system and not included within the 2000-2002 Transportation Improvement Program. It is also noteworthy that a new interchange connection with I-35E is critical to the success ot the Phalen Boulevard initiative. Until that connection is made, other improvement efforts within the corridor will be of limited benefit. Phalen Boulevard represents a key transportation element within a broad-based community partnership focused on economic, social, and physical improvements within the Phalen Corridor area. Phalen Boulevard is noted as a"catalysY' for an array of social benefits. Whi1e it is commendable to pursue broad-based goafs which include reversal of housing deterioration, increased crime and Iocal job creation, care shouid be taken not to overstate the role of the roadway in stimulating such far reaching benefits. The road facility can play a strategic role in providing improved access for redevelopment of underutilized industrial lands. However, economic recovery, job growth for local residents, crime reduction, housing renewai, etc., require multiple sociai initiatives — not necessarily eiforts linked directly to infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, the merit and cost effectiveness of road construction should be judged on definable access/trar�sportation benefits. Long range social benefits that may ultimately Minnesota's Ficst Home Snle Coanty p�ia�ed aa cxyGeE qapec witR a wmmum u[ !0% pns4mns¢me[ matent � �i 9-�� Nancy Frick 26 January 1999 RE: Phaien Initiative accrue in the area may be linked to infrastructure as social initiatives mature, but direct linkage to many specific social results is more speculative than supported. Ramsey County supports redevelopment of depressed communities and the use of different tools to achieve results. It is important, however, not to tie the wide array of long-term social improvement needs to a specific transportation improvement — at least not in such a way that those social needs are held at bay while years of planning and funding coordination occur for the roadway. Implementation, given the complexity and costs fer Phalen Boulevard and the I-35E interchange cou{d rea{isticaily be delayed severai more years. Help in the areas of job training, crime reduction, housing renewai, etc., are needed and could be imp4emented now, albeit perhaps at a different level than long-term goals identified as a spin off from the Phalen initiative. Sincerely, �� Paul . Kirkwold, P.E. Director and County Engineer PLK:vad �9-1 �v � Metropolitan Council Working for the Kegion, Planning for the Fufure January 25, 1999 Saint Paul City CounciUSaint Paul Planning Commission City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 re: Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS Deaz Saint Paul City Council Members and Planning Commission Members, As a member of the Metropolitan Council, I strongly support the construction of the Phalen Boulevard. I believe that the aiternative methods for constructing the roadway have been fully examined. T am anxious for this process to conclude.. It is very important that the City Council act without fiuther delay ta approve the project. As you know, we cannot complete the final design for our new East Metro Transit Garage until the final alignment has been selected. Your continued cooperation is needed in order to effectively coordinate the construction of a new Phalen Boulevard and our new Transit Crarage. Thank you for your continued support of this important project. Sincerely, � c ,� Stephen B Wellington, 7r. Council Member, District 14 230 Eas[ Fifth Street 5[ Paul, Mimesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Pax 291-6550 TDD/T1Y 291-0904 MeW Info Line 229-3750 An Equal Opportwuty EYnntoyer �i9-I�� Metropolitan Council Working for the Xegion, Planning for the Future January 21, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner Department of Planning and Economic Decetopment Ciry of Saint Paul Z� west tourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: DEIS -- Construction of Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Johnson Parkway. Ivfetro^n[i;ar. Ccu±!cil Distric*_s �3 aa3 ?4 Referral File No. 16936-1 Dear Ms. Frick: Council staff has conducted a review of this drafr environmental impact statement (DEIS) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concems. The staff review has conciuded that the DEIS is comp{ete aad accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no ma}or issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff provides the fotlowing comments for your consideration: The proposed project is construction of a 2.6-mile boulevard from I-3�E to Johnson Parkway. The section between 1-35E and Arcade is proposed to be four �anes, and the section Ue;ween Arcade and Johnson Parkway proposed to be two lanes. Items III.1.& and IV.1.6 -- Parks and Recreation The Drafr Phalen Boulevard EIS includes information on the existing State Gateway Trail and Phalen Creek fZeQiona{ TraiL The project proposes to connect the nvo trails and is cons'rstent with regional trail plannin�. Continued coordination with the City of St. Paul's parks department and the DNR in respect to the Gateway and Phalen Creek Trails is encoura�ed. iiem !ii 1.1=f -- Reiated, Ongoing, and Flanned rrojects Page IIl-40 states that Metro Transif s new bus garage will be bult at Mississippi and Cawsa Streets north of do�vnto�vn St. PauL The Metropolitan Council selected this site for the bus garage in October t998 based on the assumption that the Ciry would select altemative W-I or W-�D. Selection of alternative W-ZE will render the bfississippi/Cayuga site infeasible for the bus garage. Prompt completion of the final EIS and receipt of the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) is necessary to allow the City of St. Paul and the Metropolitan Councii to cooperativel} acquire the �Iississippi/Cayuga site Eor their rzspective projects �vithout further dela}. The Council requests that the City take alt availabfe actions to acquire the ROD as soon as possib(e. AREA GODE CHANGES TO fi51 IN JULY, 1998 230 EasC Fi1th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (612) 602-1000 FaY 602-1550 1'DD/TIY 29]-0904 Metro Info Lne 602-I888 An Equa1 OpportunLLy EYr�ployer 99-�80 Nancy Frick, City Planner January 21, 1999 Page 2 Item III.2,12 --- Air Quality Regarding text on air quality on Page III-53, the metropolitan area as a whole is non-attainment only for CO. The non-attainment designation for particulate matter only affects a band extending from the steel facility in southeastern St. Paul to the viciniry of Lafayette Blvd and University Avenue. This does affect a portion of the Phalen Corridor Study Area. The particulate matter is not due to transportation sources, but is related to the steel industry. Item IV. I.IO --- Transpartation Facilities Including Transit The text on page IV-22 states that "Neither the No-Build Alternative nor the TSM Alternative conform to ...the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Ptan in that Phalen Boulevard is not constructed." The text earlier correctly stated that the air quality analysis of the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan included the Phalen Corridor. However, Phalen Corridor was included at the request of the City for administrative and funding reasons. The city should pot use conformity to the policy plan in this situation as an argument against the No-Build and TSM alternative. This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No fozmal action on the DEIS will be taken by the CounciL If you have any questions or need further information, please contact 7im Uttley, AICP, - principal reviewer, at 651-602-1361. Sincere(y, Helen Boyer, Direct Environmental Services Division C: DeDe Wolfson, Metropolitan Council District 13 Stephen Wellington, Jr., Metropolitan Council District 14 Kei;h Buttlemar,, Airector, Enveronme ;ta; Planning and Evalua±ior. Department, MCES Thomas C. McElveen, Director, Housing and Local Assistance Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator, Community Development Division Mark Filipi, Office of Transportation and Transit Development Arlene McGarthy, Project Manager, East Metro Transit Facility Phyllis Hanson, Parks John Kari, Sector Representative, Community Deveiopment Division Jim Uttley, AICP, Community Development Division V :llibrary(commundv(referrat/letters/SP 164361.doc �-.�,-._�_- �/ -/8d 1�111iNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIET'Y January 5, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paul Dept. of Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4` Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Draft EfS - Phalen Boulevard, I-35E to Johnson Parkway St. Paul, Ramsey County SHPO Number: 96-0872 Dear Ms. Frick: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. _ We look fonvard to continuing to work with you regarding the effects of the project on the historic propeRies identified in the report. The discussion of the identified properties, effects, and potential mitigation measures in the Section 4(f) Evaluation will be helpful in completing the Section 106 review process. We do note that, while the suggested mitigation measures in this poRion of the report are appropriate for consideration, they are not yet endorsed by our office, and they do not preclude consideration of other potential measures as the consultation process proceeds. Contact us at 651-296-5462 with questions or comments. Sincerely, �t;� � V � � Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Comp(iance Officer cc: Aaron Rubenstein, St. Paul HPC 315 1iELI.OGC. BOC"LE\,1Rll R EST /$�1I_v7' P>CL, �ILVAESOT.� 55I0'?-1906 / TELEPHOSE: 651-396-6126 9�-i�o U.S. Department of Transportatio� � United States Coast Guard Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paui City Hall Annex 25 West 4�' Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Direetor 1Y12 Spruce Street Westem Rivers Operations St Louis, MO 63103-2832 EigMh Coast Guard Distrid Staff Symboi: ob Phone: (374) 539-3900 �C381 � FAX (314) 533-3755 � ti. �j � �' a � �" <. 16210.2/IN � � � December 29, 1998 JAN o s �sss n�o�:�, . � ° � ,: �;�5 Subj: PHALEN BOi3LEVARD, RAMSEY COL3NTY, NIINNESOTA Dear Ms. Frick: We have reviewed the information provided in your Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated December 15, 1998, and determined that the subject project will not involve bridges over navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, a Coast Guard bridge permit is not required for this project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project. Sincerely, � C� RO �R K. WIEBUSCH Bridge Administrator By direction of the District Commander � g-��o � U.S. Department of Transporta(ion Eederal Aviation Adminishation December 23, 1998 Nancy Frick City of St. Pau1 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 6020 - 28th qvenue South, Room 102 Minneapofis, Minnesota 55450.2706 F H WA-M N-E l S/4 ( fl-98-02- D Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Section 4(fl Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County, Minnesota S. P. 6280-308 From I-35E to Johnson Parkway in the City of St. Paul Thank you fior the opportunity to review the subject document. We have no comments. Sincerely, a� `� c�� Robert A. Huber Assis:ant Marager ci 9 -18� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL OISTRICT, GORPS OF ENGINEER$ ARMYCORPS OF ENGMEERS CEMRE 190 FIFTH S7REET EAST ST. PAUL, MN 55f01•t638 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF December 21, 1998 Construction-Operations Regulatory (96-03239-NP-TJF) Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paul Department of Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 551�2 Dear Ms. Frick: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Phalen Boulevard project of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The project alignment passes through portions of sections 28, 29, and 30, T. 29N., R. 22W., Ramsey County, Minnesota. The DEIS indicates that the project would not involve any direct impacts to waters/wetlands. A Department of the Army permit will not be required provided there is no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters or wetlands. Minor impacts to existing storm water management ponds could be authorized by Nationwide (NW) or General (GP) permits. This letter is valid only for the project referenced above (State Project 6280-308). If any change in design, location, or purpose is contemplated such that waters or wetlands would be impacted, our office should be contacted. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. If you have any questions, or require more details on NW or GPs, contact Timothy J. Fell in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5360. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above. Sincerely, � � . l�.^� � � �� 'JU ett Deh'on ief, Minnesota Permits Section PnnteC on � RerycleC Paper 9 �-��o �� - . �-� � � � �-_ � . � � .. . - - - � � -� --` Federal Emergency Managemenf Agency- "- =s = �'-."_ - � p - . :i :- :__:.,Qf:> v.�_ _ ,._ : - ^° i.. _ . : .- -=--�- .- .._. , . °3`>:st'::� . - '�" '� � ;` ' •''":,.. : Region V � ,,,.;:.- .,, =� r _; � d o 3�� .;�_:_:�:::.:,:�c�..:��.:..'- .:_�' �. - - ``- ---' -°�-__ ;...;zv<ii_:::ki::: '�d, , �' _ - _ 175 West Jackson Blvd:; 4th Floo"r ° "``-- ` ` - _ _ _ , -- Chicago, IL 60604-2698. _ h - ` _ .` RAPfD REPLY TRANSM{TTAL . � -f- . } -`.-� This is an informal response to your recent inquiry. It will allow you to get an appropriate response from flus agency in the shortest time possible. If you still have questions after :� = receiving your reply, please call us on 312-408-5548 for assistance. () Letter of Map Amendment Application (LOMA-EZ or MT-1) enclosed; this is to be used to remove a structure or pazcel from the floodplain based on its elevation; the LOMA is principally used to supgort a request for a waiver from a lender from the mandatory flood insurance requirements - -: - O Letter of Map Revision Application (LOMR, CLOMR, LOMR-F, MT-1 or MT-2) enclosed; this is to be used to change a floodplain map because physicat changes to the ;"_ floodplain have taken piace after the map publication date; LOMRs are usuaily used to " update floodplain maps to correct them for work done by developers, builders, highway :: and bridge construction, or flood control projects --�: � Environmental Assessment Reviews/Executive Order 11988 Reviews: this --'. agency does not have the staff resources to review the many requests we get for such reviews; the project sponsor and the federal agency taking the action aze responsible for meeting these regulations; floodplain maps can be viewed in local government offices or" ordered from our map distribution center (see below) _ - --- �-� — �. � - .., () Ploodplain Maps: our maps can be viewed in local government building, zoning, community development, or engineering offices; they can also be ordered by cailing 1- 800-358-4616; we have none for distribution from this office O Flood Tnsurance; the federal govemment does not seli flood insurance; it is availaole tihrough any iicensed insurance agent or broker in your state, provided your community participates in the 23ational Fiood Insurauce Program; check with your local officials to determine your community's eligibiliTy or call i-800-358-9616 for eligibility () Publication Request: The publication you rec{uested is enclosed O Publication Request: The publication you requested is not stocked by this office; you may cali this agency's Publications Section on 1-800-480-2520 for assistance () Modei Floodplain Ordinance: a model floodplain ordinance, appropriate for your community's flood hazards as identified by this agency, is enclosed; before it is adopted, a draft should be reviewed and approved by ttus office or the state coordinating office shown below : , . USDA ��..� � Natural Resources Conservation Service 375 Jackson Street - Suite 600 St Paul, Minnesota 55101-1854 r�..�. � «�a� �� 9 9 -/�O December 17, 1998 IN REPLY REFER TO: F'fIWA-MN-EIS/4(�-98-Q2-D Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(� Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County, Minnesota S.P. 6280-308 From I 35E to Johnson Pazkway in the City of St. Paul. City of St. Paul Nancy Frick City Hall Annex 25 Wesc 4th Sueet St. Paul, MI�i 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has reviewed the appropriate sections (wetlands and threatened and endangered species) for the above mentioned proposed project. The project sponsors are not USDA program benefit recipients, thus, the wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security act, as amended aze not applicable. It should be noted, however, that actions by a non- USDA participant third party (project sponsor) which impact wetlands owned or operated by USDA participants, may jeopudize the owner/operators USDA eligibility. If such impacts aze anticipated, the owner/operator should contact the county Fazm Service Agency (FSA) office to consider an applicant for a third party exemption. Neither NRCS technical nor financial assistance is being pzovided in support of this project, thus, specific NRCS environmental policies are not applicable. The foilowing agencies may have federal or state wetlands, cultural resources, water quality or threatened and endangered species jurisdiction in the proposed project, and should be consulted. Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Boazd of Soil and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency State Historic Preservation Officer/State Archaeologist The Naturel Resources Conservation Service, works hand-in-hantl with the American people ta conserve natural resources on private lands. pN E�UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER , ' :• If through these impacts you are purchasing new or acquiring additional lands and if any federal monies aze involved, it is a reguirement that a Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) site assessment be appropriately filed. these site assessments aze, conducted by NRCS personnel to review the project for possible effecu on unique, prime or statewide important farmland. Contact yow local NRCS o�ce for more information. Sincerely, � � � � J W LIAM HUNl' State Conservationist � � �� Minnesota Department of Transportaiion � �, � Transportation Building °` 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 � �,, � December 15, 1998 � � � ` � ~ �„; F�'� � �: . Regional Director Region V Federal Emergency Management Agency 175 West 7ackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 - � r�,� "��i" �' .' . In reply refer to: FHWA-MN-EIS/4(�-98-02-D Draft Environmentai Impact Statement/ Section A(� Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County Minnesota S.P. 6280-308 From I-35E to 7ohnsgn Parkway in the City of St. Paul Deaz Sir or Madam: G�j 1 `-� -i L Ia3V (651)296-4876 Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmentai Impact StatemenUDraft Section 4(� Evaluation [ETSl4(�] for the above referenced proposed Phalen Boulevard project. The draft EIS(4( fl documents the positive and negative impacts of the proposal to construct Phalen Boulevard on a new alignment from I-35E to Johnson Parkway, a length of 43 km (2.6 mi.). The new facility would be a four-lane roadway between I-35E and Arcade Street and a two-lane roadway between Arcade Street and Johnson Parkway. Two of the three build aitema�ives inciude reconstruction oi i-35E beeween 1-94 and ivlaryiand lavenue and rapiacement of the existing Pennsylvania interchange with a new interchange at Cayuga Street. We would appreciate your review and comments on the draft EIS/4(� in the areas where your office has jurisdiction or special expertise. Comments will be accepted through February 10, 1999 and wi11 be considered for inclusion in the final EIS/4(fl. Comments may be directed to: City of St. Paul Nancy Frick Ciry Hall Annex 25 West 4�' Street St. Paul, MN 55102 (651)266-6554 An equal opportunity emplayer 9 9 —��c� � � � � � � a� c ; ° � � � � o ai O � a�i � � � w ++ � �. C � �� R � � P� � � � � ca � �+ W o�i o � � ,� o � � � 4 „ o - � � � � � ce � v � a) � c:� y�•� s, � H � � i - _i � � � � r.�+ �+ � � � �' i� � � i^ �1 vt � � � O F+�I � .� � � �I.+ � � � C� i"i � � 6J 3� �.� � � � � - ��, � ;v � i � ;ra � W � - ;.� i � S � T _i p e _ '�.-., a. R F .�'o - .:,r:'i � Z z � �'..::G �Q �L "'y� { y J .. .)�: T. � 1li ¢ d � '�l � V m H � ' mO�f N_ ��'d _I ';c V ' � ^ ... � , a � �.�� :�:�..' �� . � � � � � � �, .� � ° o � � *"' o � � � � � t�o 0 � � •� � a p � � � ,� o � � �, P"' v c�"'.., 6� "C .� O � � � � � O O r ,,, W ¢� M C O � H � O � Q� ..�i U y p C� 6� � � � "E3 ; ,,,, � N• CC .�i �; � � O �C C � � w � O r-+ v� � ... � � • ' p .�. N -� � � i�• , U ,i�+ ,..i r 5 y U i.�a O � � � � � eC y p ,� a� > c� � .�. �' ~ � � � � O "� �3 � �Q � C � � � V � C U � � � � � � O i, �' p" 3 � �° � � � � � � ^ v, ... � '� �O O T� yr a� L�. ;� C� � C" s., O � �' o R s. � � � v� a�i y b0 � O s�. � • � v +' � � � � U ..C'"i •" ^ a y�„i � .� V .� O � c� � y ^ � r� � � o � � � .;: .� � F� a � a � � a� > � � � x � � h � � ^C W � O � � �19-l�U �._C �_, . .. . _ . ' � � � �' O � � L w F'r '+�i � y .+ � �� a .., =`�� ; v� � v � 3 � o � � o x„ v, � �+ �„ � L+" a� Ay �cC c U .� C � i„�,� l. �"" I- � v' } � y � V W y'� I� CC 6� Vz �' Q� � �"� � � � � •� � (�l %� ,�, • e�G �1 p .—t 33 �-'-� � � �: ��s�� ° w "� d w t��,, r�,,, � P- � W o �' � G 1n i..i � "� O M 9�-i�� _ � � � � 0o a � �� w 0 1 � � � c .° c� :�, ..., o �, � c� � � �� ax � � .� v CC � � � � O � m � � 3 � � C� , p O A O � y a� O o a. � o a � '" �°3 ��, w '� � N �„ � � � �. � � � w � � � :.: � "� .� � .t C � O e � H 5R H x � �" � h � Gj p � � R "� � � � � � � � i�. O � �, � W G� r.+ � CQ � �' • y "r, x" ..�,. � w � G �-/8c� �: � �; R ;-� .. O � "C '=S �. S', � � � r� � �" O CC � CC � v � • '��" Q�-� y � , - � - i '^ �. � i w „ � eC O O R N x., y � L� �i N �+" � � � � � � � a � O � y�'� � � � a � ,.Q 9�-f �a � � �, � � o �� , w CL �'' U � � V� C� $"' N � � p .� L �a U O C �y .., � � •� a� � .� V � O � �i F�r �J 9-Jd'd � � A � --� a� .L N rti � a � � � � � �Q � y ,C � � � � > '.� v �i� � �' � � Cei � � CJ� � C; � R � Q� �O � y � � 3� W � � � � � � � �y �t p L�r � � 4. V ^~ � o � � > � .� � � � � � � � � � ,L '" '�" � U H A a� � CC ..r � � � � .Q � ^ � � � � � � � F� .� � � � � � n.r CC C 4� a� � w .� : � c• � '� � � „�+ U � � 'L3 s�_a.„::..:._:F- ,; ,_.,. 1 i � i i � ' I I I � i r � C � � ... ,� �� o � � � � � � � � � �C � � �' � c � �� y � �, � y o � : ... r :� �� o �' o � � � � �. � � o ;C � �' - rr A� � . C � � � y o � � o � � A � 7 i f�D � "�Y G � � � ¢, � � � � � o o• � � r , �, city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 99-13 date February 12. 1999 WHEREAS, development of Phalen Boulevard has been an objective of the City of Saint Pau{ since 1979; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the City initiated an Environmental impact Statement for proposed Phalen Boulevard and requested Planning Commission review and comment; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the Planning Commission, to provide for representation of potential{y affected neighborhoods and interests in the EIS preparation process, convened the Phalen Soulevard Ef5 7ask Force, comprising residential, commercial, institutionai and public interests, to assist the staff and consultant during the scoping and preparation of the EIS; and WHEREAS, in accordance with recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Rules (Chapter 4410.2600, Subpart 2), the City Council on December 9, 1998 released the Draft EIS for Phalen Boulevard for pubfic review and comment; and WHEREAS, Yhe Saint Paul Planning Commission and the Saint Pau1 City Councii jointfy sponsored the public hearing on the Draft EIS on )anuary 27, 1999, and WHEREAS the City staff and the Phalen-Boulevard EIS Task Force have considered the findings of the Draft EIS, public comment upon the Draft EIS, and the goals of the Phalen Boulevard project and the community, and the public comment and made recommendation for preferred alternatives in each of the three project segments; moved by Nowlin seconded by K=ame= ln �'d�70�' Unanimous against NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council determine that the Draft EIS is adequate and addresses appropriate alternatives and their potentia! impacts and should be finalized; and BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the City Council selects the following as the preferred alternatives for alignment and construction of Phalen Boulevard: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the central segment of the project area; and E-1 in the eastern segment of the project area; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed in conjundion with plans for the future use of the 5troh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straighi and as far south as possible without preventing a safe and attradive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve busi�esses, the neighborhood, and the new Achievement Plus School/YMCA site. �9-/�C� NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paui Planning Commission finds and recommends thac the City Council determine that the Draft EIS is adequate and addresses appropriate alternatives and their potentiaf impacts and should be finalized; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the City Council selects the following as the preferred alternatives for alignment and construction of Phaien Boulevard: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the centrai segment of the project area; and E-� in the eastern segment of the project area; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straight and as far south as possible w+thout preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenie�t access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the new Achievement Plus School/YMCA site. Council File # - 1�"�g0 � Resolution # oR��Na� Presented By Referred To Green Sheet # 3 ti RESOLUTiON CI"f'Y OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � %' Committee: Date 1 WIIEREAS, development of Phalen Boulevazd has been an objective of the City of Saint Paul since 1979; 2 and 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 i3 34 SS �6 7 8 WI�REAS, in November 1944, the City initiated an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Phalen Boulevazd and requested Planning Commission review and comment; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the Planning Commission, to provide for representation of potentially affected neighborhoods and interests in the EIS preparation process, convened the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force, comprising residential, commercial, institutional and public interests, to assist the staff and consultant during the scoping and preparation of the EIS; and WFIEREAS, in accordance with recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Rules (Chapter 4410.2600, Subpart 2), the City Council on December 9, 1948 released the Draft ETS for Phalen Boulevard for pubiic review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission and the Saint Paul City Council jointly sponsored the public hearing on the Draft EIS on January 27, 1999, and WHEREAS the City Administration, the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Faul Planning Commission have made recommendation for prefened alternatives in each of the three project segments; and VJHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council has evaluated the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, the comments received during the public comment period, and the recommendations of the Administration, Planning Commission, and Task Force; and WI�REAS, the "westem segment of the project azea" is defined as Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Burr Street; and WHEREAS, Aitemarive W-2D, has been deternvned to best achieve the key objectives of improving regional access, alleviating traffic congestion, cost-optnnization, neighbarhood quality, and minimizing of adverse environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the "central segment of the project uea" is defined as Phalen Boulevaz3 from Burr Street to Eari Street; and WHEREAS, Alternative C-4 has been determined to best achieve the key objectives of improving regional access, cost optimization, neighborhood quality, and minimizing of adverse environmental nnpact; and UK��I��,°�L �.q-�ea 39 VJHEREAS, the "eastem segment of the project azea" is defined as Phalen Boulevard from Earl Street to 40 Johnson Parkway; and 41 42 HEREAS, Alternarive E-1 was deternuned during the Phalen Boulevazd Scoping Process to be the only 43 viable build alternative; and 44 45 WHEREAS, Alternative E-1 has been deternuned to meet the key objectives of the project, and in particular 46 the objectives of improving regional access, cotnmerciaUindustrial development, and goods movement; 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NOW, T'EIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council selects the following preferred alternatives: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the central segment of the project area; and E-1 in the eastern segment of the project atea; and BE IT FLiRTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs that the final alignment of the G4 alternative be designed in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of 1and in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tas base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing, and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straight and as far south as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement Pius SchoollYMCA site, and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council requests the City Administration to take the necessary steps to prepare the final Environxnental Impact Statement, incorporating the selection of W-2D, C-4, and E-1 as the preferred alternatives in their respective project azea segments. Adoption Certi By: Approved by Ma� By: RequeSted by Department of: Plannin & Econ Develo me � By. � Form Approved by City Attorney B '��°�S �G��'✓b�`� Z-1? °�� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council gy; ��`c�ta�C ��i��-+s'�'«l'/I �«L�� Adopted by Council: Date ��qqq 9-1�'a �8 40 OEPAfl77AENiqFFICE/COUNCIL OATE INITIATED ,�� ,� q� GREEN SHEET CONTACTPERSON&PHONE / INITIA AT INRIAWAiE U�h �rl L� y f /_�S �DEPARTMENTDIRECTOR �CI'fYCOUNCIL � /� ASSIGN �CfTYATTORNEY TJ�i`l.�.il-G�C� �CITYCLEflK NIINBER FOIi S�_ MUST BE ON UNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) pQ�N� � BU�GEf DIRECfOR � FIN. & MGT SERVICES DIR. � _ . , / _ . � OPOER MAYOF (OR ASSISTAN� � �(fi y „� � T TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES � (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACf10N REQUESTEO: (� 5 212c�k - � c�-. a"F � Se"t c '�r2Terr2 � Ci�'FCr�1Gc.'�V2 s -ra r CvnSi a'C ��'1C�Iev� ��(•�l�dGcv�c1 Q✓\d ��'-LG'{�'�-,. �z.: �re�ark c� �=;na1 cIS . RECOMMENOATIONS: Appmve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: L PLANNING COMMISSION CIVIL SERV CO ISSION �� Has this persOn/firm ever worked untler a CorrtreCt for this tlepartment? _ CIB COMMITfEE � �� S^ —tOfC YES NO � STqFF _ 2. Has this personflirm ever been a city employee? YES NO _ DISTAICT Co�RT _ 3. Does this personRirm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current ciry employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNC�L OBIECTIVE4 YES NO Expiatn a11 yes answers on separate sheet antl attaeh to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORNNITV (Who, Whet, Whan, Where, Why): , 1n f4G`f `Fhe C�;�-c� �n c� G�n✓�ro��ner.�c�( r.v��cecf Stz�(-Ernen+ ��-OG2SS � r �1TC�OSid �Y"�R�e(�l �(LIE VGcY � ��2('fi "r-t� Qh.Q QSS2$S ,�y, ��n�aets ��' atd-e�-ha -�r �I-i,� road. �t �r�zf1- �1s t,�as relec�s-ed � c� l�{�� 8� a��bi; � hear;.�o� was held >Sav�,,�ar� �� 1�i�9. � � , � �2 5-1-c�'�� i�Z2S�c '-�rc� c«d �fQhn�/�a �omwt�sS�on Cancur an c� � r h�Co rn mAncl2 � Se �' c P �� v QT2a^a^2 cj ct ('(2PhG�1 u`P c� �v� c� Spe� Co uhc �� ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: I�'loV2 -4arwcz�-� u�;�i� �41e�leh �vt,�IPU�rc� �roJeci� C� �ec� �.��m2v�`F u�' `}-Pi�P ��R��l� �-.o!'r� c�tr� _Z'��`�t� �T� v� � Y�5`�ar J ��jS Q..� Ev��ar�ct� y�e_.��1�� h.�o � ��a�� i� or� S'1 �QU� �S �lxs� S, �-2 . DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED� �•—��QC� W, l� t�c� �JrFl C.P 2� TOTAL AMOUNT OF 7RANSACTION S C�STIREVENUE 6UDGETEO (C�RCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDItYG SOURCE ACTIVITV NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFSATION: (EXPLAIN) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamela Wheelock Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 Wesi Fot�r[h Street Saint Paul, MN �5102 ag�lfo Telephane; 651-26b6626 FacsimiZe: 651-228-334I February 4, 1999 To: Mayor Norm Coleman Council President Dan Bostrom and Members of the Saint Paul City Councii From: Nancy Frick, City Planner 7�� Re: Recommendation for Pzeferred Aiternative for Phalen Boulevard On February 24, 1999, the City Council will be asked to seleet a set of "preferred alternatives" for constructing Phalen Boulevard. At this time, it is also appropriate for the Council to move forward with the required environmental documentarion process by directing staff to prepaze responses to comments on the Draft EIS and prepace a Final Environxnental Impact Statement for the set of the preferred alternatives. A resolufion has been provided for your considerafion. Recommendation. On February 12, 1999, the Saint Pau1 Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending selection of the foilowing options as preferred alternatives for the construction of Phalen Boulevard. (A map of each is found in Attachment 1 to this memo.`, • In the western see.ment of the project area (I-35E to Burr): W-2D. • In the central seement of the project azea (Burr to Earl): C-4, to be designed o in conjunction with pians for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; o as straight and as faz south as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and o with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement 5chooUYMCA site. • In the eastern se�ment of the project area (Eazl to Johnson Parkway): E-1. These are also the recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Planning and Economic Development and Public Works staff. Sup�orting Materials. Attaclunent 2 is a staff report dated January 29, 1999 (with task force and Planning Commission-inspired revisions noted) which provides the rationale for preferring each of these alternatives. Attachment 3 presents all written comment received through Februaiy 10, 1999. Attachment 4 is the February 12, 1999 Planning Commission resolution. Attachment (4) Attachment 1 to February 16, 1999 report to Citp Council re: Phalen Blvd. � .�, m � � �; � K ' _ y o Ks m = , - . w " � Q 3 ti N ' � � "6` m 8 '� C' ( ` n ' v ' G1 � C �.°a � a° a 2 y C ` �'' 7*'-� m y, — --- . � A �'O T �� w a�di�d 8 h LL i ` i ri � s-�3y>� �� a ;: � o d U�� c.•' �. I� ° z. � a"i � o a' w G�,y � q �' w i' � Q � � � � a B a�� 0 � o S i� oo a ooa�o �"' �S�S"a ow.o u o � � i� e�° oi$ y ° g o0 00 � i OoDea �_ou � e� � e G�o a , �� . �-- �� e a�W i � ( 10� v a 1 \ ¢� � / f Oo 0= aS�g � \, � a p� � O/ . �--.e� > = I .. . � __ _—.. _. :� i . o ��' �� i � o ��❑ _�_� ��C��a �„ , , �, �--o �� \ � �� l��l� � ,�, �/9-J80 � 9 s � ° d� � u omoo � o�� amo oQ 0 00 0°100 °Bo. j0 �OOpp b❑ �7 aoa� ° o o � a p 0 � � � O e o S o O p ° p a 0 0 � O 0 �, ❑ O � ��0 ❑ a � 0 4 � � ❑ � � � ° � o I � � � ` �\ � C c' � d m �� m � m � 3� o �� d � R F O �I 7 m A 4z _9 = � � T e � 3Q s 3a - - ��o�m°-- - = 8 LL Q �i : s��i�' e `� �'� � �: � i C � s d O �- w N � � � � � C� Q f ^ L1 L (� .1�"i d W ""' L �, � � `� W � � � y � C �� U f+ C7 L' O � a� � SY.�1 / �ZI� N � ^ � � a � � � O o , I Op_ QL.] �� O Q pO YI O o� q v b � 9 0 0 q' �' � � o e, � ��g a o�a � �1 I I '� � .� � � � ' �a 0, 1 � D � tpe � o� � [J � 5s � �' � s c � O . $ � h � O G c� h'.�- C'�l' �0 U Y_ $ � s a G y s' �° � y a ° a1 �0 G 2 6 O f L S � G C S � Q'� ._ ^ �-� C9. y„ .� � c o° o c .. r .. 3� c z�� a y o�c �.� � C d ^5. $,�'c e � � x � 'r. t ., o ; ° � c , f��li Q p�p � fi u t� "' G y... V.� � � � $ d P= _ >�s y. '? 'c -`� •` _ 4 .°_� � C ° m O S-o � i 3 o c � � c h e F ¢ >. wo=G�c��c>�� V U '� � O C V�X Y C. � N h� [ ` � j y r ` � C - O 3 b' Q� fi.O p� S O �..�1 V Y U t` �+ � U C� U t� -O v] 00 000 r�'' � 94� l�p Attachment 2 to February 16> 1499 _ ' report to City Council re: Phalen Blvd. DEPAR"tMbNT OF PLAI�NING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamel¢ Wheetock, Dnector �19- ! �� CTI'Y OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayar 2i West Fourth Sbeet Samt Pau1, MN i5102 Te[ephone: 651-266-6626 Facsimile: 657-228-3341 January 29, 1999 (REVISED - February 16,1999) To: Members of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force From: Nancy Frick, City Planner Re: Meeting #11 The Phalen Boulevazd EIS Task Force will meet Wednesdav. Febriiaty 3, 1999. from 7:00 u,m• to 9:00 pm. at Arlington Hills Librarv, 1105 Crreenbrier Street. At the meeting, the task force will be asked to recommend a"prefened alternative" for Phalen Boulevard, to bring forwazd to the Saint Paul Planning Commission at its February 12 meeting. Your advice would join the Planning Commission and staff recommendation for consideration by Mayor Coleman and the City Council. This staff report reviews the options and EIS findings, sun�marizes the review process and comments, discusses related issues that have developed since the task force last met, and presents the staff recommendation for prefened alternative. � OPTIONS. The following are the Phalen Boulevard project options evaluated in the Draft EIS: � No-build: not building the project • Transportation System Manageraent (TSlYn: making minor changes to the transportation system instead of building the project � Build: building the project, connecting the three project area segments with one of the foliowing akernatives for each segment (see attachxnent 1) o Western se,yment: between I-35E and Burr Street; 3 alternatives distinguished by how they connect Phalen Boulevazd to I-35E - Each Western segment alternative includes a bicycleJpedestrian trail which will connect to the Gateway Trail on the west side of I-35E. W-1 connects Phalen Boulevard to I-35E at the e�sting Pennsyivania interchange. ■ no changes to I-35E included as part of the project ■ grade sepazated from Mississippi Street �j 9-i 80 Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 ' Page 2 ■ connects to Olive Street in Wiliiams Hill industrial park ■ bridges over railroad tracks ■ at-grade intersection at Westminster W-2D splits Phalen Boulevazd near Weshninster with the southem alignment connecting to Pennsylvania Avenue and the northern alignment connecting to a new I-35E interchange at Cayuga ■ includes I-35E reconshuetion along a new straighter alignment, conshvction of a frontage road between Cayuga and Pennsylvania along its west side, and closing of the Pennsyivania ramps ■ Phalen Boulevard "]eg" connects to Olive Street in Williams Hill industrial pazk and Mississippi Street; bridges railroad tracks ■ Cayuga leg bridges railroad tracks; intersects with Westminister ■ access provided to Van Waters & Rogers industrial site W-2E is very similar to W-2D; the southern alignment connecting with Pennsylvania has a straighter design o Central segment: between Burr Street and Eazl Street; 5 alternatives offering variou< routes between Payne and Arcade and options for connect Phalen Boulevard to Payne Avenue For each Central segment alternative ■ west of Payne Avenue and east of Arcade Street, the alignment follows UP rail line ■ grade-separated from Burr, Arcade, Forest and Earl ■ new access road connects Phalen Boulevard to Arcade ■ includes a bicycle/pedestrian trail: Phalen Creek Trail Payne to Earl; new trail extension to the west from Payne - C-1 bridges above the UP tracks to intersect at-grade with Payne and Edgerton - C-4 curves north of the existing grain elevators, on the south side of the Phalen Creek Trail, and intersects at-grade with Payne, grade-separated from Edgerton - C-4A is similaz to C-4 except that it is grade-sepazated from Payne; an access road between Phalen Boulevard and Whitall just west of Payne Avenue provides indirect access to Payne, as we11 as Edgerton - C-5 curves north of the Phalen Creek Trail, on the south side of Wells Avenue, and 99-18d Phalen Boulevazd E1S Task Force January 29, 1999 Paee 3 intersects at-grade with Payne, grade-sepazated from Edgerton - C-SA is sunilaz to GS except that it is grade-sepazated from Payne; an access road between Phalen Boulevard and Whitall just west of Payne Avenue provides indirect access to Payne, as well as Edgerton o Eastern seement: between Eazl Street and Johnson Parkway; one alignxnent E-1 follows tke Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way to approximately Magnolia, where the alignment continues northeast to connect to Johnson Parkway fornning a four-way intersection with the new Prosperity ■ includes an access road from Phalen Boulevard to York and Frank ■ includes an at-grade connection with Atlantic Street DRAFT EIS FINDINGS. Following are the key findings presented in the Draft EIS. • The No-build and TSM alternatives are not consistent with city and neighborhood plans, and have these adverse environmental impacts: o liketihood that underutilized land wouid remain so; no gains in ta�c base or employment 0 overcapacity operating conditions at I-35E interchange o noise standard exceedances at 44 homes, 9 businesses • The Build alternatives have these beneficial impacts compared to the No-build: o increased employment opportunities, reallncome, and housing values o transformation of poorly-access underutilized blighted land to we11-accessed, clean, modern industrial use, consistent with city and neighborhood plans o general improvement in safety for inexperienced bicyclists and pedestrians; improved access to Phalen Creek Trail and redevelopment sites o enhanced views; increased opportunities for lighting and landscaping o enhanced east-west accessibility; route for express bus service; full-access connection to I-35E under W-2D(W-2E options o improved noise impact under W-2D/W-2E options • The Build alternatives have these adverse impacts compared to the No-build: o increase traffic in Cayuga neighborhood under W-2D/W-2E options o varying degrees of property takiiigs (0-10 homes, 4-10 industriaUcommercial properties); most affected Western segment properties with W-2E option; most afFected Centrai segment properties with C-SJGSA o acquisition of 0.4 acres of pazkway properry at 7ohnson Parkway 99-/a'6 Pha]en Boulevazd EIS Task Force 3annary 29, 1999 Pase 4 o relocation of Phalen Creek Trail within road right-of-way; visual, acousticat unpacts on trail users o adverse effect on Westminster Junction Historic District o adverse effect on Ha.nun's Brewery Historic District with C-1 option o impacts to parcels with potenfial for soil(ground water contamination o noise impacts to 4 additional sites with W-1 option in Western segment; noise impacts to 4 residential sites with C-4/4A & GS/SA options in Central segment; noise impacts to 3 multi-family sites and 2 commerciaUindustrial sites in Eastern segment o temporary construcfion impacts • Conshuction and right-of-way costs are estimated as follows: o Western segment - W-1: Phalen Boulevard $12.4 M - W-2D: Phalen Soulevazd & I-35E reconstruction on new alignment: $67.6M ($46.2M of this total is I-35E reconstruction) - W-2B: Phalen Boulevard & I-35E reconstruction on new alignment: $74.1M ($52.1M of this total is I-35E reconstruction) o Central seement - C-1: $25.SM -- C-4: $11.3M - C-4t1: $12.6M - C-5: $153M - GSA: $16.SM o Eastem segment - E-1: $ 3.OM PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is designed to ensure that public decisions on major projects are made with adequate information about the social, economic and environmental consequences and means to mitigate those effects. The Draft EIS for Phalen Boulevard was prepazed with the advice of the Phalen Boulevard Task Force and in accordance with a scope formally adopted by the City Council. After a lengthy review and approval effort with federal and state agencies, the City Council released the Draft EIS on December 4, 1998. As part of the public review effort, notice of the Draft EIS availability and heazing date were published in the Federai Register, State of Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Monitor, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Saint Paul Legal Ledger and East Side Review. The Draft EIS was sent to appropriate agencies and organizations, as well as to individuals upon request. Sununaries and notices were sent to a broad range of organizations and individuals, including about 1000 99-1 ago Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 Pa�e 5 property owners of record along the study corridor. Three open houses were held to allow interested people to find out more about the project. The public hearine on the Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS was jointly sponsored by the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission and the Saint Paul City Council Wednesday, Januazy 27, 1449, begimiing at 6:OQ pm. in Room 40 of the Saint Paul City Hall. A transcript of the hearing is being prepared. Following a brief staff report on the EIS and the public information process that led up the hearing, 20 persons testified. Attachment 2 to this report briefly highlights each speaker's main point(s). There were no comments in opposition to the project. Of those speakers expressing preference, in the Western segment, 12 supported a new Cayuga interchange access I-94 and I-35E access alternative, with 6 of these supporting W-2D by name and no one supporting W-2E; in the Central segment, 6 specifically supported an at-grade intersection with Payne, of these 5 specified C-4 by name; 2 supported as close an alignment to the tracks as possible (one of these 2 also supported at-grade at Payne); there is only one alternative in the Eastern seement. Attachment 3 presents the written comments received before the public hearing. (February 16 City Council packet provides all written comment received through February 10, 1999). RELATED ISSUES. Finally, it is important to note that, since the Task Force recommended the Drafr EIS to the City, events have occurred in three locafions in the project azea which bear on the Phalen Boulevard preferred altemative decision. • Metro�olitan Transit Bus Garage. The Metropolitan Council has selected a site to the east of I-35E at Cayuga for construction of its new bus garage. In considering sites, the Met Council took into consideration how the Phalen Boulevard project would fit with the access and site requirements for the transit facility, both physically and from a timing perspective. As noted in the suuunary of public hearing testimony, Metro Transit cannot build on this site if the W- 2E altemative is built. It is also important to note that Metro Transit's design and conshuction timetable depends upon a expeditious decision by the City on Phalen Boulevard. Stroh Brewerv. At the tixne that the Stroh Brewery closed (late November 1997), the Phalen Boulevard Dra$ EIS was substantially done, with all of the required environmental analyses completed and the text in draft form. A reuse feasibility study of the Stroh site was still underway when the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Farce concluded its work on the Draft EIS. Since the public decisions about the reuse of the site (and therefore how a road design could best serview the site) were yet to be made, we proceeded with the Draft EIS as it was, g9-�� Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force Sanuary 29, 1999 Paae 6 showing the C-4 alternative curving to the north of the grain elevators. Staff views any alignment change to C-4 or C-4A which stays north of the tracks as being a design detail that would not reopen the Draft EIS. It is not unusual for design of a road to change somewhat between the prepazauon of a Draft EIS and final construction plans. While the Stroh site is cunently in private hands, there continues to be community discussion about the future of the site, including discussion of land use options having different irnplications for how a road could be designed to best serve the site. • New Achievement Plus SchooUYMCA. A joint School DistricUYMCA project is being developed in the Wells-York-Greenbrier-Arcade area, directly north of the Phalen Boulevard project. The old Johnson High School and surrounding area will be home to a new elementary school, with family support services, and a new YMCA. Phalen Boulevard, under any alternative, will provide access to the schoolJY area; the designs are being coordinated by respective staf£ The GSJC-SA options would impact properties which the school district is purchasing on the south side of Wells. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff finds that the No-build and TSM do not support the project goals. 1. In the western seement of the project area, staff recommends selection of W-2D as the prefened alternative, because • it significantly improves regional access generally and for the Phalen Corridor redevelopment sites • it results in the greatest alleviation of traffic on East Side neighborhood streets • it results in acceptable levels of service at intersections throughout the project area, while the W-1 alternative results in over-capacity operating conditions at the Pennsylvania freeway ramps • it presents the opporiwuty to Implement a needed rebuild of I-35E between downtown and Maryland in a highly cost-effective way that results in a much safer and effective freeway design in this area; MnDOT has been an enthusiastic partner in the development ofthis option • it results in the greatest reduction in total vehicle-hours and vehicle-miles throughout the system • it fits with the future Metropolitan Transit bus gazage • it results in a significant reduction in the number of noise standard exceedance locations in the westem part of the project area 9 9- �80 Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 Paae 7 • community support has been expressed for this option 2. In the central se�ment of the project area, staff recommends selection of C-4 as the preferred alternarive, because • it avoids residentially-zoned land • it does not encroach on land being purchased by the school district for the York school project • it provides access to industrialiy-zoned land that is being discussed for redevelopment and can be designed to best serve the future use of that property • it provides an at-grade intersection with Payne Avenue, desired by the business community, at a much lower cost than the C-1 option • community support has been expressed for this option In the central se�ment, staff further recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed - in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing, and provision of neighborhood amenities; - as straight and as far sauth as possible without preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and - with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the Achievement Plus SchooIJYMCA site� 3. Staff recommends conshuction of E-1, because, as the only build option, • it provides the important connection to support the revitalization of the Phalen Village area • it provides access to Phalen Corridor redevelopment sites east of Earl. The City Council will direct staff to prepare a Final EIS on the preferred alternative it selects. This technical document, which deals with more detailed environmental analysis and mitigation plans, is not, at this time, expected to need task force review. We do, however, look forward to continuinn community involvement in the design of Phalen Boulevard as the project progress, and expected that many of you will remained involved. Please call me at 266-6554 with any questions. Attachments (3) ♦ s •� Attachment 2 to Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force January 29, 1999 memo SL3MMARY OF TE5TIMONY Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS Public Hearing Wednesday, January 27,1999 Saint Paul City Aall • Harry Melander - St. Paul Buildine and Trades. Supports the project. Linkage between I- 35 and Phalen Village is important. Partnership with MnDOT is good. • Marge $ernard - Phalen Villa�e Business Association and White Bear Business Association. Business associations support the project. Gre¢ Copeland - Resident and District 5 Communit� Council. Mr. Copeland spoke twice, the first time representing himself individuaily, and the second time to represent the position of the District 5 Council. Individually: supports at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; protection of 5wede Hollow amenity; keeping the Burr Street bridge; saving Bon Giornio. District 5: Supports W-2D. Supports design in central atea that follows as straight a route as possible and is at-grade with Payne. • Curt Milburn - East Side Area Business Association and Phalen Corridor Initiative. Organizations support the project. ESABA support new interchange (W2) alternative. • Dede Wolfson - Metropolitan Council. Project is supportive of ihe Regional Blueprint; important to new Metro Transit facility. • Maureen Mariano - Pavne Arcade Business Association. Supports the project. 5upports at- grade intersection at Payne (G4 or any variation of it); a well-designed access ramp at Arcade and continued cooperation from project staff in the design of that ramp; the W-2D alternative at the free-way; and the E-1 connection to the east. • Kat�a Ricketts - Main Street staff. East Side Neighborhood Development Company_. Supports at-grade intersection at Payne - the C-4 alternative. • Jeff Freeman - East Side Neighbarhood Development CompanY. Supports the project. ESNDC supports at-grade at Payne (C-4); well-designed attractive connection with Arcade; new interchange at Cayuga. • Tammv Anderson - Representative of �roperry owner at 162 East Minnehaha. Concerned about impacts. Expressed preference for W-2D alternative at I-35E. �q-i �e Attachment 2 to Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force Ianuary 29, 1994 memo - pa�e 2 • Brenda Off - Representative of proneriv on East Minnehaha. Concerned about impacts, especially with W-2E. Expressed preference for W-2A altemative at I-35E. • Ron Hagkull - Phalen Corridor Initiative Steering Committee member. Supports pro}ect. Supports W-2D and C-4 alternatives. • Tim Mahoney - State Renresentative. Supports project and expressed support and efforts of Saint Paul legislative delegation on project's behalf. • John Kempe - Phalen Coxridor Initiative Steerine Committee Chair. Supports project. Expressed need to be respectful of impacted individuals. Supports Cayuga interchange and at-grade at Payne (C-4). • John Young Saint Paul Port Authoritv. Expressed involvement of Poft Authority in the Initiative. Supports W-2D; opposes W-2E due to nnpact on Williams Hill development. • Kou Vang - Phalen Corridor Initiative Vice-chair. Supports project. • Karen Swenson - North East Neghborhoods Devel�ment Coz�oration. Supports project. Supports flexible access at west end, providing access of I-94 and I-35E. • Paul Gilliland - District 2 Community Council and member of Phalen Villaee Small Area Plan Task Force. Supports project, supports Cayuga interchange. • R Jo Adams - Resident. Expressed concerns about facts, figures in Draft EIS with regard to cost, acquisition of properry and job-creation potential. • Donavan Cummings - District 4 Community Council nresident an�ast member of Phalen Corridor Steerine Committee. Supports new interchange. Expressed concern about central alternatives, supports putting road closer to the tracks. Expressed need to focus also on housing improvements. • Arlene McCarthy - Metropolitan Transit; project mana¢er for new bus facilitv. Noted that bus gazage design works oniy with W-1 or W-2D; opposes W-2E because it wili render site unfeasible for bus garage. Urged quick movement toward a fmished Record of Decision. t• :r Attachment 3 to February 16, 1999 report to City Council Phalen Boulevard Preferred Altematives Written Comment on Phalen Boulevard Draft Environmental Impact Statement Received Through February 10,1999 These aze generally organized as follows: letters from individuals, letters from community organizations, letters from governmental agencies, and comment cards. '• FROM : KARIN LuPHUL PHONE N0. : 776 0558 Feb. 19 1999 09:19AM P92 ' � q�-��o . �: ; 4 �' Karin DuPaul Nancy Prick Plaiu7ing & Econnmic Development 25 VJest 4th Street Saint Paul MN 55102 I7ear Nano3', February 9, 1999 Thank you for asking for community input on the FTS and tha Pha3en Corridor, This is a very ambitinus and costly prqjeci. I um in fuvor of some elements, agauist some, und see that there may be a better way for others. Lnha�scing the livabiHty of ow city should Ue the over all goal. This entire projec! shau]d use the i0 3tiverfront Development Principles of City Buildirag. Our resideuts should noi be displaced, rather money shpuld be available for improving their housing. 7'he Phalen Creek Recreationa] Trai1 must Ue in a pleasant setling a1on�; the entirc trail. Tlrat is the first priority. Secand, creek and or rsin gardens alpng the entire length of the roadway. Native ve�etutiotz ctnd irees shoulcl be preserved to make geen coimcations for wiklli}e and alsv aet t� c� bufj.'sr between lhe roudway ttnd the reereational tsail. The rondway should also be easy to oross ia �ny tocations and the �eed no more than 39 miles un haur, Draft Section 4(� �valuatioi�. I acn very concarned that the two historieal sites in this seotion wil] be altered or destroyed in conjunction with this projec:t. What is bcic� donc to proteci these sites? The Westmim5ter Junction wi11 make a be�autiful nddition to our open spacc and park system in tbe fufire. The tI�vnm's Ri'ewery �s hne of Saint PAU1 utost �igniflcant laz�dmarks and tnuch of it should be saucd and rensed. Dy the same tokcn, the brewery neighhc>rhood between the brewery, Arcade, E M'vmehaha, and Bush should continue to be � residential neighbonc�>od. It is u jewel in the rough, it has u number of recidents who havc lived ihere up to 30 yoars +, it has a very niee variety ofhousing stoak, it's a eontained nei�hbnrliond, and r.�ned sa that peaple c;an run iheir snarill husuiesscs otrt of thcit hu�ne. J think it is in a grest loeat�on !o camplimeni the Phalen C:orridor. It gives pcaplc anoiher apiion. Finalty, how will this roadway no# bccomc a shart cut from 35E to 13ighway 36 vs. Prosperity? Sincerely, Karin DuPaui b(R Gremibrier Strao - 657_776.0550 Saint Aaul MA' SS1Ub � 9-i�o February 8, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick 1200 C+ty Hell Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: Phalen Soulevard Draft EIS Dear Ms. Frick: ��I�E� FEB 1 0 1999 �o�T�t�sr Qu��n� Secure Mini Storage, 849 Terrace Court supports Alternative Route W-1. I have reviewed the alternative routes, W-1, W-2D and W-2E that connect the Phalen Corridor to I-35E. W-1 accomplishes a connection with the minimum of impacts and cost. The other iwo alternatives, W-2D and W-2E are unacceptable. Both of these alternatives eliminate several business', (including our own), have higher costs, have the potentiaf to negatively impact local traffic flow and create an entrance and exit situation on 35E that is too close to the Maryland exchange to the north. i am very interested in all developments regarding the future of the west end of the Pha{en Corridor. Pfease notify me of ali hearings and put me on the mailing list regarding news on the corridor. Thank you. Sincer ly, � ' '� A ny avoulis Management Agent — SMS Cc: Charles Underbrink Douglas Heitne 740 Linwood Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105-3322 (651) 290-0507 FAX (6SI) 290-0106 G 9 � f�� `�l � � t �� c�C�" �� '� �S t� C� 4', ��' SZ' �� . �fs��v� ��2 r `��1.� --1� d-��•!n'v`t'L�.- �� _ -��.. �zf�`9f . :� FEB 1 0 19�9 �oR�h�a.sr Qu�o��n� �� l , l� �� , .� � ��-��-- _ � �� ,� � � �.-� �;��.- � �� .:� , -�l� �� _ . �� z�0 � �-�� '�� -e� -�-��z ��e- �,��-c �'— �e'�� , . �, .� � .� � � �`.� �-�- n�-�� 7/-e-- `��.�� / G��-r��'�-r� . .% ��o 7� � U J _ ( �� .t-�-c._ � �`�.�o� � 1'�=°�-`=`� r /L Cr�,�e��i,�.-- 7��-- �3�c . ��`s�� -��. �� . �� %v��z G�� . Q �" Q� �-- �� _ � 0 ` �,��^7`�� rnr�� -2� y�--- � ��- � ��.1-� �� ` �/ «e � �� `7it�-- t � �„c � �� , " � ��' ;�Y� �� ° �� J �� =� �� n,�� . � � � �� '��.� - ��.� ��'� . 99-�a�o � ��= � -��' �� . z--� . ��:�.� � �� ° �� - �- �,��- � �-� -�- , t� . � �� ^ � -�� :� �� - ��7`� � � � �� , �� _ �� - .�� -��- �� ,�� UL �nl.� -�/ �� 1 -��.- �� ` ��- �� ( - � � � �� - ��. -�� .�. � ��r�� c � �� .�=� ��' �- � e� � Z ,�� Q� Gg-/8o February 4, 1999 Nancy Frick, Project Manager 1200 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minn. 55102 RE: Phaten Boufevard Drafit EIS Dear Ms. Frick: My name is David Karras. I am 47 years old and have {ived on the East Side af4 of my life. In my lifietime, I've seen the East Side undergo tremendous changes. From the biue color neighborhood of my youth, to the dumping ground for the City's poor in the 1980's and 1990's. Factories closed, housing values dropped, absentee landlords moved in, and crime rose. Like many, I was tempted to flee to the suburas. However, I remained convinced that the area would turn around. It had too much going for it in terms of history and tradition. Besides, there is stili a lot of good people on the East Side. People, who when faced with adversity, dig their heels in, roll up their sleeves and attack the probiem. I befieve that it was that spirit and attitude that spawned the Phalen Corridor Initiative. It was a long awaited preject that was to bring about the rebirth of the East Side. What wasn't there to fike. The initiative promised the return of factories to the East Side with their badly needed jobs. It would also clean-up of blighted and underutilized areas, and include new roads ta connect it ali together. Like many East Siders, I waited in anticipation for the project to wind its way through the various hoops prior io becoming a reality. My family has lived at 953 Westminster for the past 22 years. Like the rest of the East Side, it too has undergone change. As a resident in the psoject area, f received a notice of the pubiic informationai meeting being held for the Phalen Boulevard EIS. That is the first time 1 heard about the new l-35E interchange at Cayuga Street. Although the noise and traffic from the proposed north bound ramp for the Cayuga interchange is close to my house, it makes sense to buifd it and close the Pennsylvania Avenue ramps. They are dangerous and inadequate for the amount of traffic they handle. { can five with the noise from the new ramp and the realignment of the freeway. However, the report brief that accompanied the notice indicated a connection from ihe new Gayuga Road to Westminster Street. Could this be true. Maybe it was just to provide limited access to a redeveloped piece of land off of the new Cayuga Street. Pennsylvania Avenue has limited access as it winds its way from I-35E to Rice Street. If a stated objective of tfie pro}ect is to reduce congestion on the East Side, how can turning Westminster Street into a major thoroughfare be justified? The map was smail and generalized so I went to the library to review the full ElS. The maps in the Draft EIS reveafed 4hat this indeed was the case. Figure II-13 indicates that under the W2 A{ternative, traffic on Westminster Street will be 7,300 cars, tnrnks, and buses in the year 2015. That means this quiet, dead-end street, that currently handles {ess than 300 cars a day will become a major aRerial connection from the Cayuga to Case Street. As reference, Case Street, which currently handles 5,400+ cars a day according to the EiS, is defined as a coUector street. Under this altemative, Westminster Street woufd handie more traffic than Case Street. g9-/�o Furthermore, Figures N-4 and tV-5 reveal that aur house would be in an area that exceeds the MPCA noise ievefs. i stared in disbeGef at an EiS that indicafes that a ramp will run along the back of our house, while the traffc on the road in front of our house increases from 300 cars a day to 7,300 cars, trucks, and buses. Didn't the planners and design engirteers realize that this is a locai residentiai street. Maybe 1 was missing something or misinterpreting the maps. So { went to tfie open house hetd at City Hall. At the information meeting I met you and other representatives from the City. You and others confirmed that the projected traffic volumes were correct. The enlarged maps of the project area showed connections to Westminster Street oif of Cayuga and Terrace Court. When questioned how Westminster Street, which is identified on the maps as a local street, could handle the proposed volume of traffic, you remarked that other local streets in the City handle similar traffic volumes. As if that made it right, or justified the decision to sacrifice the residents on Westminster Street to unacceptabfe traffic and noise levefs. The maps further revealed that barriers Qlanned for some intersections will deliberately route traffic from Cayuga exclusively to Westminster Street. For example, there is a barrier shown at the Whitall and Westminster Street intersection so tfie traffic has to use Wesiminster Street. A new frontage road is being built on the west side of the freeway to handle the traffic. On the east, or my side of the freeway, it appears that the decision had been made to turn Westminster Street intathe frontage road. I stayed for the public hearing. Individuaf after individuai praised the project, and recommended that it be buiit with the 135E interchange at Cayuga. I agree with them. The project is needed and long overdue. If you are going to do it, do it right and include the 135E interchange at Cayuga. However, do not turn Westminster Street into a frontage road. Do not subject the residents an Westminster to 7,300 cars, trucks, and buses a day. Mitigate the problem by limiting access off of Cayuga. it should not be designed and built in a matter that adds congestion, noise and pollution to the residentiai neighborhoods. It shouid be re-designed and constructed with limited access that only serves the new industriai areas that are being redeveloped. That is the reasonabie alternative to what is being proposed. Ifi that can't be done, purchase the houses on Westminster Street. Either move or demolish the houses. With a freeway access ramp behind them and 7,300 cars, trucks, buses a day in front of them, this island of homes wi4t be virtually worthless. i know I will not live there undes those conditions. if buiVt as proposed, the project wilf do what nothing else has done, force my family to move to the suburbs. Sincerely, G' �� David A. Karras 9 9 -i 80 3 Febmary 1999 Phalen Boulevard DEIS Comment Attn.: Ms. Nancy Frick Deparlment of Planning and Economic Development City o£ Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: 2157 Roblyn Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 I am writing to comment on the Phalen Boulevazd DEIS. I reviewed parts of the document and attended the open house and public hearing held in City Hall on 27 January 1999. I am opposed to the plan to widen 35E described in table S-1 under "Transportafion and Transit" for altemafives W-2D and W-2E. Figures II-12 and II-13 show widening this segment from three to four lanes and from three to five lanes, respectively. I believe that any proposal to e�:pand this secrion of 35E should be considered in a comprehensive corridor study that includes thorough considerarion of the potential to meet �avel demand, especially during the peak hours or periods, by transit. This might best be done with commuter or regional railroad service on the Forest Lake-St. Paul route (MnDOT 1998), or by express bus service. I believe that addition of rail transit to the comdor, along with expanded and coordinated bus service, can enable us to avoid expanding any segment of 35E between Saint Paul and Forest Lake. If this secrion of 35E is widened, it will promote continued over-reliance on the caz and likely undernune the viability or potential success of transit improvements in the corridor. Widening 35E will promote stiil more auto-oriented development, whicn usuaiiy discourages wal'iciug and use of transit. The decision about whether or not to widen 35E should be made with much more public involvement; it is a decision that has consequences beyond the scope of the Phalen Boulevazd project. I also ask that any considerarion of widening 35E include extensive environmental review of the proposal. I also am concerned that if the secrion of 35E south of Maryland Avenue is widened, then the naument will be made that the section of 35E north of Maryland Avenue is a bottleneck and must also be widened. In this way the freeway system is incrementally expanded without fully considering the ultimate result This process plays out over many years, which frustrates and limits public involvement. �? 9-/�a Additional specific re4uests and auestions: I ask that the City of Saint Paul, MnDOT, FIiWA, and any other agencies involved in tlus project ensure that construction of the new road and any related reconfiguration of e�sting roads not interfere with ihe potential to accommodate a new Metro Transit bus garage planned for the Cayuga street azea. I ask that the City of Saint Paul, MnDOT, FHWA, and any other agencies invoived in this project ensure that construcfion of the new road and any related reconfigurarion of e�sting roads not interfere with the potenrial to accommodate future construction of Light Rail Transit or other rail transit in the Phalen Boulevard corridar. What are the current volumes of h�ansit ridership in the study area? What is the current capacity of the transit service, i.e., buses, in the study area What are the estimated future volumes of transit ridership in the study azea based on modeling done for tlus DEIS? Do these estimates take into account the Metropolitan CounciPs current plans to double transit service and ridership in the nextten years? How much induced vehicie traffic will be generated by this project? How many new pazking spaces will be needed to accommodate increases in caz tra�c in the study area resulting from the project? Will this project increase demand for puking spaces in the Saint Paul Central Business District? If so, how much will the new pazking spaces cost and who will pay for them? Please revise the DEIS by addition of a figure to show the current and proposed numbers of lanes of all types on the whole secrion of 35E included in this project. Please revise the DEIS by addition of estimates of the costs of 1.) rebuilding I-35E as it is now, three lanes wide, 2.) expanding it to four lanes, and 3.) expanding it to five lanes — four lanes plus an aiixiliary lane. Lastly, would you please send me copies of figures II-14 and II-15, which aze missing from the DEIS I have. Thank you for considering these requests and questions. I look forward to your responses to them. Sincerely, � �^''�'`/J � � �� i Charles (Chip) Welling C: Mr. Ted Mondale, Cha'u Metropolitan Coivacil, 230 E. Fifth St., Saint Paul 55101-1634 Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, MnDOT, 395 John Ireland Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 Mr. Ai V ogel, Office of Railroads, Mail Sto 470, 395 J. Ireland Blvd., Saint Paul 55155-I 899 Councilmember Jay Benanav, Ciry Hall, Third Floor, 15 W. Kellog Blvd.,St. Paul MN 55102 County Commissioner Victoria Reinhazdt, 220 Courthouse, Saint Paul 5510'Z Reference cited MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation), 1998. Twin Cities Commuter Rail Study. Volume 1, Number 1. October. Office of Freight, Railroads, and Waterways, 395 7ohn Ireland Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55155. q q-i8d Cliif Carey 635 Bates Avenue St. Pauf, Minnesota 55106 Nancy Frick Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 2J3199 Dear Ms. Frick, As a member of the Environmental Impact Statement Committee, 1 wiil say that 1 believe the redevelopment of urban brownfields in the proposed Phalen Corridor has the potential io positivefy impact the East Side and the tax base for St. Paui as a whole. However, this redevelopment alone wilt not be enough to solve the probiems of the East Side. Equal and aggressive efforts must be made to attract homeowners back to East Side neighborhoods, most importantly to those with the lowest ratio of owner occupancy to rental. _ To do that we must identify and market the areas with the strongest potential for attracting private investment by people who want to {ive on the East Side. The Upper Swede Hollow neighborhood has 75% home ownership overall and 90% owner occupancy on lots adjacent to Swede Hollow Park. Beaumont & Drewry Lane, also on Swede Hollow, is approximately a fifty-fifty mix, certainly one of the strongest areas in Railroad lsland. The city is currentiy pfanning up-scale housing developments on similar sites on lower Payne Avenue and Rivoli Bluff. With these conditions existing in surrounding neighborhoods, it would be an opportunity missed to ignore the strong residential potential of the hiitside between Payne and Arcade north of Wells Street. This areas views and access to Swede Hollow would make it very inviting to the kinds of homeowners we are currentiy seeing being attracted to the East Side. Roads have a negative impact on the quality of life in residential areas. The I-94 aiignment through St. Paui is a pfanners ABC of how not to construct a road in a built urban environment. Few will dispute the damage it did to the neighborhoods it went through, and the city as a whole. Ayds Mill Road is currently going through an EIS process where many of the alternatives either lessen or do away with the traffic entirefy. The Summit Hill neighborhood fought the completion of I-35 E, tying the project up in court for years. Today residents on lower Grand Avenue cannot converse in their yards at many times of the day because of traffic noise, even though no trucks allowed on that stretch of 35 E. 9 � 8a Luckily in the central segment of the proposed Phalen Blvd. there is not an either or dilemma. As you will recali, all of the alignments in the central segment were designed to avoid interfer+ng with the operations at Stroh Brewing. Since, unfortunately, Stroh Brewing is no longer with us, the probiem of how to get Pahlen Bivd. around them is also gone. The alignment C-1 can now be developed at grade with the railroad tracks and the grain elevators can be altered as needed to ailow the road to generally follow the tracks. Let us not, in our haste to bring industriai development to St. Paul, forget the importance of encouraging healthy neighborhoods on the East Side. A healthy neighborhood is good for tfie peopfe who live there, for the peopfe who live around them, for the business communities nearby, and for St. Paul as a whole. Heaithy neighborhoods start somewhere, lets encourage one to start on Wells Street and the adjoining bluff. Let us not, with the alignment we recommend, do anything to even slightly hinder this areas abiiity to join in the good things that are happening in neighborhoods on the East Side. Sincerely, � � Cliff Carey 99-t�'o FROM : KFlRIN DuPAUt_ PHONE N0. = 776 055H Feb. 03 1939 10�44AM P@1 Friends of Swede Hollow 729 �. Seventh Sf. St. Paul, MN 55108 Nancy Frick Departmenf of t'lanning 25 W. Fourth St. St. Paul, MN 55902 Dear Ms. Frick: Feb. 2, 1589 Friends of Swede Hollow is a membership organization consisting primarily of residents from the neighborhoods surrpundin Swede Hollow Park. �ecause of the proximity snd the scale of the {�halen Corridor Initiative, we expect ff to have a significanf impact on our neighborhoods and park. Naw that the �iS is reaching the deoision phase, we wish to share our recommendations with you. qur concern is with the Central Sagment and the impact that three of the alternatives wilt have on the bicycie trai( and the Welis Street residential area. The bioycie path currently provides a secluded, non-motorized route between Swede Hoilow Park and Lake Phalen. It is an asset to the neigh6orhood and fhe Gity, and whan it is eventualiy extended to the Mississippi River and the Cateway Traif, it wili become part of a state-wide network of bike trsils. We prefer Alternative C-1 (or some variation that follows fhe tracks) because the other aiternatives put the Boulevard right iiext to the Traii. We feei that car and truek traffic oniy a fiew yards away wouid detract enormously from the Trail's charm and usefulness. Althaugh the Welis Street residential area needs some work, it has tremendaus potential: it is a s{opad area with a soufhern exposure and a spectacular view of the City. Again we prefer Alternative C-9 (or s�me variation that foflows fhe fracks) because the other aiternatives bring the Bouievard too close ta the re5idential area. The noise and exhaust from the Boulavard woufd detract seriously from the residential potentiaf of Welis Streef. Alternative G9 is aiso a betfer choice, in oUr vfew, because it eliminates the hard curve that the ofher the alternatives have. A straight road ought to be cheaper and safer than a curved one. Whatever barriers the Bou)evard may bring to other objectives of ihe Initiative, they wouid be sninfmized by foAawing the railroad. For exampte, the effor# to create industrial space that is large and contiguous is complioated by piacement of the Bou4evard and the railroad. Running the Bou{evard along the raifroad resulfs in one barrier instead of two. Thank you for you consideration. Piease share this Ietter wiYh the �ther members of the pianning committee. r �, , ; ;�; ,/�±`..�► �'''`��, �� C.C. City Councii P�aent uan �sostrorr City Caur�cil Member Kathy L.antry � State Senator Randy Ketly State Represenfative Steve Trimble �ULx (,fJII4� ); ��-, Q w �E`�.�<; . ,�» ��i� /I �if� nG,,... h�»,,..� �., c Q Qarks a � � d ^ Febroary 9, 1999 ° Nancy Frick "' City of St Paul City Hall Annex , � � 25 West 4th Street St Paul, MN 55102 s�. e�,i ar�a ,.�� "'�" � Dear Ms. Frick: 1621 Beechwood Ave. St Panl, NIN 55116 651-698-45G3 �mw.fi endsofthepaAa.org President Pecry R. Bolin Vice Ptesidents Ieanne Weigum Treuurer 7ames R. Briches D'uectors Craig Andresen Liz Andexson Ann Cieslak Dan Collins Thomu T. Dwight t3ei1 £zaney william Fxank Elaine Johnson Marilyn Lundberg Robert Nethercut Mazk M. Nolan Janet Olson Scott Ramsay Pierre Regnier 7erry Seck Matsha Souchezay V ice Piesident Emeritus Samuel H. Morgan D'uector Emeritus David Lilly Truman W. Porter Ex Officio Dennis Asmussen Thomas Eggum bSazc Goess Paul L. Kukwold Greg Mack Vic Wittgenstein Executive D'uector and Secretary Peggy Lynch The Friends of the Parks and Trails of St Paul and Ramsey County applaud the desire the citizens of the East Side, the City Council, Mayor Norm Coleman, and the State of Minnesota to promote ghysical and social improvements in the Phalen Corridor. We appreciate the opportuniry to review the Phalen Coiridor EIS. We looked at the options from the point of view of the neighborhoods around the Phalen Cotridor, at the impact of the alternatives on land use, and the impacts on pazks and trails. We aze very concerned about the use of large tracts of land in the central city foz roads. 20 acres alone will be used for the freeway ramps if either ontion W-2D or W-2E is chosen. Eight structures will have to be demolished if either W-2D or VJ-2E is chosen vs. two siructures if aiternative W-1 is bui1L The footprint of a large freeway interchange in the middle of St Paul does not present St Paul in the most positive way to visitors and we do not see this as an appropriate use of our most scarce resource - land. We believe the Draft EIS does not address a number of criticai concems: * What will be the impact of traffic on Cayuga and Jackson if the full interchange is built? What aze the worst case uaffic volumes for Cayuga? * Can a redesigned entrance ramp at Pennsyivania, coupled with optiinai stoplight operati on, ease congestion there? If all that is needed is a longer ramp, it would appear that land is available. �` Why would the Cayuga interchange result in less ramp wngestion, especially since it appazently will attract more north-south traffic off of Payne and Arcade. �` In W-2D and W-2E the freeway ramps take up appro�mately 20 acres. What would this land be used for if the W-1 option was built? There is an economic benefit for the W-i option which should be calculated. * The report discusses safety concerns, but provides no documentation of accidenu, and probabie accident reduction, if the freeway is realigned or if the interchange is changed to Cayuga. A simple statement such as, " accidenu fewer per 1,000,000 vehicle trips would be achieved" should be included and the basis for that analysis provided. ''` If we assume the freeway should be realigned in the course of its rebuilding, it should still be possible to rebuild it using an existing parlial connecuon at Pennsylvania, rather than the full interchange at Capuga. Why hasn't this opdon been considered? Will this option alter the cost benefit ratio? ''` It is difficult ta evaluate the various altematives undex consideration. Tliere needs to be some common-sense descriptions of the differences among the main alternatives. Such as: how many minutes are saved by a traveler from different locarions in the Corridor to a given location on I-94 E, for each of the three oprions? * The estimated cost of the roadway varies from $27 million to $82 million depending on the opaons chosen. Under the W-2D3iC-4{E-1 option the cost could be as high as $36�,000 per 99-i �v Ms. Nancy Frick Page Two February 9, 1999 job. This figure does not include land acquisition and development costs for the parceLs that can only be reached by one or more Boulevard options. R'hat is the individual cost for each job created under the different scenarios? * Why is there such a large employment change between the No Build and the other options? Some detail describing the pazcels that cannot be built on without the roadway, and whether other access options are possible and at what cost, is a needed addirion to the EIS, as indus�ial development use of these pazcels is a prime reason for construction of Phalen Boulevard and reconstructing a new interchange at 35-E. * Traffic problems getting to the freeway are mentioned, but the EIS does not address congestion an the freeway itsel£ Congestions problems now at Pennsylvania might be caused by freeway congestion. * If LP.T d'zspla�es the tre.i! ;mder a11 C cpaons, how and where �vould the trail be replace3, and who would pay for this? Please provide more informaflon on the impact LRT would have on the bicycle uail. * At the present time the access to the Gateway Trail from the neighborhoods on the east side of 35-E is Mississippi Street This access appears to be cut off on all build options and as a result will have a negative effect on the lazge residential neighborhood on the east side of 35-E. This needs to be addressed in the EIS. * Part of the Gateway Trail along 35-E will be removed given the intention of MNDOT to reconstruct 3�-E. The EIS dces not address how the 1rai1 will be replaced. This proposed reconsti by MNDOT makes it impossible for a third party (Dept. of Natural Resources) to construct the 1rai1 along the right-of-way at this time. Iv1NDOT must take responsibility for replacingfcompleting the Gateway segment of the Munger Trail to/across University Avenue. * Section 4(� of the Department of Transportation Act of 19fi6 declares that no highway project should negatively impact public park, recreation, refuge, or hiswric sites unless there is no feasible alternarive. Phalen Boulevazd will intersect with Johnson Pazkway which will require the acquisition of park properry for the proposetl property. Because of the concems and questions listed above we recommend at this time: * Reconstrucrion of 35-E should be done in a way to min;m;ze amount of land used. For that reason we support the W-1 connection. * The �aii atong Phalen Boulevazd must be made permanent. This issue should be addressed now rather than later. * The Gateway Trail must be extended to/across Universiry Avenue by MNDOT. * If any portion of Johnson Parkway is used for the roadway, market value must be paid for the land and the money used for pazk acquisition. Thank you for this opportuniry to comment on tke Draft Phalen Boulevazd EIS. Sinc ely, �� _`A . Peny Bolin President 9q—ld'� D { S T R f C T F I V E Ms. Gladys Morton, Chairperson Saint Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 P L A N N 1 f1 G C O U N C 1'��rc- i'�.r,L i� RECEfVED FEB 10 1999 E�l'11d_G & ECONOMIQ DEVELOP_MEPQ Dear Ms. Morton: The $oazd of Directors of the PayneJPhalen District Five Planning Council is committed to working with the Plauniug Commission, Mayor's Office, City Council, Port Authority, and all others involved in developing the Phalen Corridor and Phalen Boulevard. Accordingly, the Boazd, after receiving the input of its Community PlanninJ and Economic Development Committee, which had heid a public meeting examining the Araft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Phalen Boulevard, voted at its 7anuary 27, 1999, meeting to support pursuing the construction of the roadway with an at-grade connection to Payne Avenue, adequate access to Arcade Street, and with westem termini at Cayuga and Pennsylvania Avenues. We support an at-grade connection with Payne Avenue and an adequate connection to Arcade Street due to our Iona standing support of the Payne-Arcade area business community and feel that good access is part of a good business environment. These connections will also provide community access to the new roadway. We are recommending two connections for the western termini because we recognize that the best development of the Phalen Corridor requires freeway connections which allow for traffic to come from and go in as many directions as possible as the Cayuga connection [in conjunction with likely reconstruction of Interstate 35E] would do, while also providin� connections to the western industrial portions of the city, as a Pennsylvania connection would allow. We remain anxious to participate in the next steps of this procedure. If you have any questions, our Executive Director, Mr. Bruce Sylvester. � � FEB 1 0 1999 i�ORTHFAST QUADRART to7� Pa�;;c =..:;n��c l27!li F'�_. .°.`:' :'2sc:�. „�l'., , _- r:��,�i�,. . --��.'; 99 St. Pau1 Bicycle Advisory Board 300 City Hall Annex February 4, 1999 PED, attn: Nancy Frick 1200 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4�' St. St. Paul MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: The Bicycle Advisory Board (BAB) has review the Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS. The BAB appreciates the commitment of PED to maintain the established bike path and to provide a connection along the westem section of the corridor to connect the e�cisting bike path and the Gateway Trail. The BAB further supports the St. Paul Parks Commission Resolution of January 13, 1999 requesting "the pedestrian/bicycle trail shali have �0 feet on the noahern edge (of the Boulevard) wherever the traii and roadway share the same right-of-way." The Bike Board is in favor of preferred alternative C-4 in the center section. The motion at the EIS committee meeting to move this section as far south as possible in the old Stroh ]ocation would enhance the bicycle path and would clearly also receive full support ofBAB. BAB has concerns about safety issues for the numerous intersections on the bike path, especially at Arcade, Payne, and the I-35E Cayuga interchange. The Gateway trail presently serves numerous children on bicycles as well as roller bladers and the design at I-35EICayuga will be critical to their safe passage. We will be available for help and/or advice in the planning of these intersections as this project proceeds toward construction. At present there is access to the Gateway trail from Mississippi and Case Streets east of the freeway via an underpass; we request that the final design include future access to the Gateway trail from the residential neighborhoods east of the freeway. Aesign G4 appears to include an underpass for the bicycle path under the new Boulevard. I assume this is required to meet accessibility guidelines, but a bridge over both the road and e�sting Union Pacific Railroad might be considerably less expensive and more attractive to bicyciists and pedestrians concerned about dark tunnels under 4 lane roadways. We look forward to the construetion of the new Phalen Boulevard since it will provide excellent access for bicydists to the downtown area from the east side and look forward to working with you, as necessary, to help with enhancements for the bicycle/pedestrian path and to stage a grand re-opening of the Phalen bicycle path. Thank you for your support of bicycling along the new Boulevard. J�%GL��/4G�%�� Richard A. Newmark for the St. Paul Bicycle Advisory Board ca City Council President Dan Bostrom City Council Member Kathy Lantry �!H FROM : KARIN DuPaUL PHONE td0. � 77E 0559 Fe6. �13 1'399 1@�44AM PC?L Friends of Su�ede Noliow 729 E. Seventh St. St. Paui, MN 55106 Nancy Frick Departmenf of Planning 25 W. Fourth Sf. Sf. Paui. MN 55'102 Dear Ms. Frick: Feb. 2, 1999 Friends of Swede Hollow is a membership organization consisting primarily of residents from the neighborhoods surrounding Swede Holfaw Park, Because ofi the proximity and the scale of the Phalen Corridor Initiative, we expect if to have a significant impact on our neighborhoods and park. Now that the E1S is reaching the decision phase, we wish to share our recommendations with you. Our concern is with Yhe Centrai Segment and the itnpact that three of the alYernatives wifi have on the bicycie traii and the We11s Street residenfial area. The bicycla path currently provides a secfuded, non-motorized raute between 5wede Holiow Park and Lake Phaten. It is an asset to the neighborhood and the City, and wiian it is eventually extended to the Mississippi River and the Gateway Trail, it wiil become part of a state-wide network of bike trails. We prefer Alfer-iative C-1 (or some variation that follows the tracks) because the other a{ternatives put the Boutevard rig47t t�ext to the Trail. We 4eet that car and truek tra�c only a few yards away v��ould detract enormo�3siy from the Trail's charm and usefufness. Aithough the WeNs Street res+dential area needs some work, it has tramendaus potentisl: !t is a sloped area with a southecrr exposure and a spectacular view of fhe City, Rgain we prefer f�ftemative C-4 (or some varlation that foilows fhe fracks) because the other afternatives hring the Boulevasd too c4ose to the residential area. The noise and exhaust from the 8oulevard would detract seriously from fhe residentiaf potential of Wells Street. Alkernative C-'I is aiso a better choice, in our vfew, because it eliminates the hard curve that the other the alternatives have. A sfraight road ought to be cheaper and safer Yhan a curved one. Whatever barriers the Boulevard may bring to other objectives of the lnitiative, they would be minimized by following the railroad. For example, the effort to create industriai space that is large and contiguous is compiicated by piacemenf of the Boulevard and th� railroad. R��nning the Souf�vard along the raiiroad results in one barrier inste2d of two. Thank you for you consideration. Please share this letter with fhe other members of the pianning committee. � � �� " �-�,.�-_� �� C.C. � City Council P den# Dan Bostrom City Council Member Kathy Lantry State Senator Randy Keily State Represenfafive Steve Trimbie �� n n - , �� V N 4� 1 1�'� ��P,�� 4" ��`<`y- > > An��-�'�r ��..« i'/,,,:. f�',,,.,,a ..., 99-/�0 PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUS{NESS ASSOCIA710N °- P.O. BOX 6934 • SAIN'f PAUL, MN 55106 January 27, i999 Council President Daniel Bostrom Gladys Morton, Chair St. Paui Planning Commission St. Paul City Hail St. Paui, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: l'he Payne Arcade Business Association (PABA) is seriously committed to residentiaf, commercial and industria{ redevelopment in District 5. Just this fall, in partnership with the East Side Neighborhood Development Company (ESNDC), PASA initiated the "Main Street Revitalization Program". In brief, this revitalization effort is intended to enhance the image and perception ot our commercial district with the uftimate goal of attracting more customers to shop at our businesses. Our hope is that the Phafen Corridor will provide easier transportation access to the east side and in effect, increase customer traffic to Payne and Arcade. Therefore, while we strongly support the buiiding of the Phalen Boulevard and look forward to the new industrial development and jobs it will bring to the east side, PABA would recommend that the final E.I.S. inciude: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 afternative or any variation that pravides ai-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that wilf encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PASA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperat+on throughout the process of designing an intersection that wil! make it easy for traffic to enter Arcade Street from either directio�. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve E1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. We look forward to the construction of Phalen Boulevard and how this new roadway will enhance traffic access to the east side. Sincerely, � ,�� <ti�„— j , � � Maureen Mariano PABA President • • ��I ¢ �E.ARC 9 eGf �'YEfJ ASSO�� PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 6934 • SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue I wouid support the foflowing road way design options for the proposed Phale� Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 alternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continu+ng cooperation throughout the process of designing an intersection th2± �^�i!! make it easy for traffic to enter fircade Street frc,m eiiher direction. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve Ei design to connect to Prosperity on the East. �� I. �.� �r%+ � -(� / j / � V �—c��1�4 e-P s `��c_ �` {�C- �J �. �--1 v c��S 3 i�'-� ��c c,-�rr, �i�f S�� `�� S-�qf� �� - � S ��1 �U�� l�z ��r,��_ 99-I�'O p NE,AACADE 94 F G 9 O �2 Gl��"E55 LSSO«pl` PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATtON P.O. BOX 6934 . SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue I would support the foilowing road way design options for the proposed Phalen Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 aiternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A well designed access ramp at Arcade Street that will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperation througiiout the process of designing an intersection ihat will maka it easy ior traf�ic to enter Arcade Street from either direciion. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve Ei design to connect to Prosperity on the East. NAME �� ! � BUSiNESS �?�S � 1��-c��.t ��,�- C �� EG.�i S� �� A�. � t�,�_�:�J ��o�,�� . �T �� d�- � �,c� Sc �i w��= i z_ � S N�C �� a�� (�� ,��rn s�- � ��c�?� .��.�.� cL' �� -1 5�� ____�; �'-- � i w. �•,��:� � �wvin ✓� 7/� / l ' �/�TG�"'tH-c.�+i/J7..�'�" I � f�-ti (.�,.�:.:� , ��_ . "� dli-'��7 � �� r-a wt � r �,_�,- z�� ``�� /'I C`'�..�`'1C �� OYi �" ° f a /-_�u��l � �9-i � s aP NE_ARCADf 9qF . , 9 d j GI�'�ESS ASSOC\p"o PAYNE-ARCADE AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 6934 . SAiiJT PAUL, MN 55106 As a business owner on Payne Avenue ! would support the foliowing road way design options for the proposed Phalen Boulevard: 1) An at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue. The C-4 alternative or any variation that provides at-grade access to Payne Avenue. 2) A weli designed access ramp at Arcade Street ihat will encourage, not discourage traffic on to Arcade Street. PABA has worked closely with city staff on this issue and we look forward to continuing cooperation throughout the process of designing an intersection that wifi make it easy for traffic to enter Arcade Street from either direction. 3) The development of a new interchange at Cayuga - The W2D alternative. 4) Approve E1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. NAME 1��...- °�°� ��G � �� BUSINESS �UG�wC�� Su..{.��.-�. � 5�+ -,��2�� /� 1,� � - � � o�� 7anuary 27, 1999 East Side Neighborhuvd DevelopmeM Cumpeny, /nc. 900PayneAvenue, SaintPaul, Minnesota 55107 Phone: (s51) 77�-iis2 Fax: �esi�n�-nas Council President Daniel Bostrom Giadys Morton, Chair St. Paul Planning Commission St. Paul City Hall 25 WestFourthStreet St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: ��,:,�s r _. � 9-i8o The East Side Neighborhood Development Company (ESNDC) is deeply committed to creating wealth and opportunities for the people and businesses in the Payne/Phalen Lake neighborhood. We believe that a well designed Phalen Boulevard that is wisely connected to the neighborhood will play an important role in creating jobs and revitalizino our neighborhood. Whi1e we strongly support the building of Phalen Boulevard, that support is dependent on having an at-grade crossinb at Payne Avenue and an attractive, well designed interchange at Arcade. Without this, the roadway rather than being an asset for our neighborhood will become nothing more than a fast way for people to drive through our neighborhood. ESNDC's board passed a motion of support for Phalen Boulevard at its January 13, 1999 meering. Our specific recommendations to the EIS include: • At-gade intersection at Payne Avenue — C-4 or some variation that insures at-�ade access. • An amactive, well designed access at Arcade. This access shouid be devetoped in cooperation with Arcade businesses and should focus on creating easy access to Arcade Street. • The development of a new interchange at Cayuga — W2D. • Approve E 1 design to connect to Prosperity on the East. We look forward to the construction of Phalen Boulevard and are eager to work with the city and our many East Side partners to see that the Boutevard becomes an effective tool for creating wealth and opportunities for our neighborhood. Warm regards, � � ��,.� �,:��' `�`'�. Mike Anderson Execurive I�irector AFFIRMATlVE ACTlON! EQUAL OPPORTUN/TY EMPLOYFR 99-180 East Side Neighbnrhond Deve/npme�Company, /nc. 900PayneAvenue, SaintPaui, Minnesota 55f01 January27, 1999 Phone:(s5�)777a752 Fax.�(ssi}ni-n3s Council President Dan Bostrom Gladys Morton, Chair St. Paul Planning Commission St. Paul City I-Iall 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Chair Morton: This fa11, the East Side Neighborbood I?evelopment Company and the Payne Arcade Business Association launched the Main Street Prob am to revitalize Payne Avenue. Made possible through a�ant from the Locai Initiatives Support Corporation and the City of St. Pau1, Main Street has begun an intensive planning process addressing comprehensive strategies in design, marketing and promotions, economic development, and crime and safety. The wark of the Main Street Pro�am is being accomplished through the hard work of more than sixty volunteers who meet weekly in committees. These volunteers represent residents, business owners, property owners, the East Side Arts Council, the District 5 Planning Council, the East Team Police and many others. The Main Street Steering Committee passed a motion of support for the Phalen Corridor at our January 22" meeting. On behalf of the businesses on Payne Avenue and the many volunteers working on the Main Street Program, Main Street strongly supports an at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue — C-4 or some variation that insures at-grade access. The efforts of the Main Street Program and the vitality of Payne Avenue depend on bringing more consumers to Payne Avenue, an goal best achieved by an at-grade interchange. We are excited about the possibilines for Payne Avenue ana we hope that we can capitalize on our potential tlu an at- grade Phalen Corridor interchange. Best regards, _ i ' �� >Cz�C,''�/� Katya Ricketts Main Street Pro�ram Mana�er AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / EQUAL OPPORTUN/TY EMPLOYER �I9-/8D gaint , Pau� _ _ _Pa�ks and �Z ��10�1 C0��111SSIOII 3Q0 City Hall Annex, 25 �V. �in Street, Saint Pzu?, hL� 55102 -- b12/26b-6400 January 25, 1999 Nancy Frick City of Saint Paul 1200 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: ` �� i �q�,� �� / �y� 79 � � � � Enclosed is a copy of resolution 99-1 passed by the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission at its January 14, 1999 meeting concerning the Phalen Boulevard I-35E to Johnson Parkway Draft Environmentallmpact Statement and Draft Section 4(� Evaluation. The resolution re-emphasizes the concerns expressed by the Commission in its July 28, 1995 letter to PCI Steering Committee Chairperson Craig Johnson that the proposed roadway will negatively impact the ambiance and noise quality of the existing pedestrianlbicycle trail, and urges again that efforts be taken to minimize these negative impacts, regardless of which particular roadway design plan is adopted. Thank you for considering the Commission's thoughts in these regards. Sincerely, � i 1 Danner, Chairperson Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Corumissioners: , Jill Danner, Chairperson; Terrence Huntrods, Vice-Chairperson � Liz Anderson, Lori Huot. Kenneth Mauer, John O'Halloran, Altin Paulson, Plul Ravitzky, Samuel Verdeja �i �--r8o Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission is an appointed body to advise the Mayor and City Council in long-range and city-wide matters related to pazks and recreation,and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul Division of Pazks and Recreation leases property in the Phalen Corridor from the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority to provide a component of the Regional Trail System known as the Phalen Creek Trail, and W�TEREAS, the rnalen Fsoulevazd: i-�SE to 3oiinson Parkway �raf� En•ri.c:Lme:�ta! Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the City of Saint Paul and the Minnesota Departrnent of Transportation contains altemative proposals for the construction of a roadway which impact the trail located in the Phalen Conidor, and WHEREAS, the Commission maintains an ongoing interest in providing an excelient trail system for use by the citizens of Saint Paul, and WHEREAS, the Commission believes that the trail in the Phalen Corridor requires at least a 50 foot ri�ht-of-way for the safety, ambience and potential future expansion of the irail system, and that said right-of-way must be located in the northernmost side of the corridor, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that regardless of whichever future alignment is selected for the Phalen Boulevard, the pedestrian/bicycle trail shall have 50 feet on the northern ed�e wherever the trail and roadway shaze the same right-of-way, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cost of any realignment of the trail made necessary� by the construction of Phalen Boulevard shall be included in the roadway costs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in acknowledgment of the fact that trucks will use any furutre Phalen Boulevard, the roadway shall be built using Parkway design standazds. Adopted by The Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission on January 13, 1999 Approved: Yeas: Nays: Absent: No. 99-1 JRN-25-1999 13�17 SRinl rhuL �KCH �nH'riccK 61e ees b11y r.bziG� �'/ �//80 a'A1NT �.�UL �EA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Finr Naiional Dank Building. N•205 332 MiimaonS¢eeo Ssinc Paul, Minarxoq SS1U1 Phone: G51.223.5000 Fax: G51.223.511') ww.v. saintpsulchambe..a im YOUR BUSINESS A TlT!\(`ATC ? January 25, 1999 Saint Paul City Council Saint Paul Planning Commission 1 S West KeIlogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Saint Paul City Council Members and Planning Commission Members: The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Cominerce, representing over 1500 area businesses, strongly supports the building of Phalen Boulevard. W� believe that tfie taskforce process used to identify the layout for the Boulevard was sound. We strongly agree with the following soadway altematives: • W-2D. This altemative works with. the Metro Transit Bus Garage site plan and will improve traffic in the area. •- C-4. This alternative is important for our retail businesses a2on� Payne Avenue. E�1. This a(temative will improve uansit access in the Phalen Vzllage azea. We want what is best for the business and community interests on the East Side aad in tvm the whale City of 5aint PauI. The Phalen Boulevard is aa important project for She East Side, bringing a strong vision fo strengthen neighborhoods, good jobs, economic development and enhanced transportatioa We aze truly excited about the positive changes that aze taking place on the East Side and will continue to take place with the creation of Phalen Boulevard. Sincerely, Jeff Peterson Director of Public Affairs � Cc: Mayor Norm Coleman G�rtMilbum, ESABA TDTRL P.82 : ` �...�s02/10199 , - "r + {� �t �'� �i; -. : .�:: i., ; WED 13:03 FA% 612 296 7782 r 3[ETRO �1NAGERS OFFICE �� 001 Minneso#a Pollution Con#ro! Agency post=� Fax Note 7671 ; �. i February 10, 1999 Ms_ I3ancy Frick City of St Paul, City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Panl, Minnesota 55102 RE: Draft �nvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) - Phalen BouTevazd Dear Ms. Frick: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ihe DEIS for the Phalen Boulevard project. The proposal is the development of a new roadway alignment beriveen Interstate 35E and Johnson Parkway. Minnesota Pollution Controi Agency (MPCA) sfaff have reviewed the DEIS for this project. We have the following wmments for consideration and response by the city as it develops the final EIS. In our review, we considered two aspects of the information in the DEIS. One is how thoroughly the concems and issues that we raised in the Scoping and Draft Scoping Decision Document are addressed. The second is to raise other questions or concems we found when reviewing the DEIS and provida relevant background anformation. As a resutt, this letter is rather lengthy. We hope, however, that it will assist the city and project proposers in preparing the fmal EIS. Identifying relevant reports and providing references to them in the final EIS may also resolve some of our eomments. Eroston, Sedimentaklon, and Snrface Water Rnnoff There is little discussion of the potentia] impacta o£runoff during the construction phases of the project. We would like to emphasize that the requirements of the MPCA's General Construction Starm Water Permit must be followed. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will apply during construction. We encowage the project proposer to work closely with its constzuetion contractors to ensure that appropriate BMPs are used. The BMPs will help minimize or prevent impacts fsom mnoff while the soil is disturbed. Please note that development that disturbs ten or more contiguous acres may require temparary sedimentation basins during construction. If more tlwn one acre of new impervious surface is created, peiinanent treatment ponds may also he required. The storm water routing, sizing of permanent detenfion basins and treatment should be discussed in more detail. The final EIS shou3d present how storm water runoff would be affected by the various options. Both the quantity and quality should be addressed in more specific terms than in the DEIS. For example, the final ETS should discuss the potenrial loading from using road salt on a larger azea of impervious surface. Some mitigarion measures aze described in the document. You may also wish to address whether any mitigation measures can be worked into the overall desigp of ihe project. For exampFe, this could be 6y providing walkways and bike trails next to permanent storm water treatment basins. The basins could be designed with aestheric and habitat features such as wetland features, white the trails and walkways could serve to avoid future impacts by reducing local h affic problems. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (Voice); (612) 282•5332 (7TY) Regional OHices: Dulufh • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal OPportunitY Emptoyer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20°f> flbers kom paper recycled W cos�sumess. 02/10/99 �ED 1a:04 FA% 612 296 7782 ffiETRO �AIVAGERS OFFICE '�'' �—� U Q [�j 002 t ,4 Ms. Nancy Frick ',�; , Page Two ; �• The DkTS indicates that permanent detention poads would be designed to city and watershed i , managetnent organization criteris. ?.t a uvnimum, fhese ponds must elso mect the criteria in the ! MPCA's general permit. The ponds should be designed to support water quality goals for the area and the Mississippi River. Additional treahnont goals you may wish to consider are a 64 percent removal rate for phosphorus and a 9Q percent reductian in sediment. Minimizing the amount of impervious � surfaces, where possibte, will also help maintain the quality of the watershed. One last point regarding runoff is that the final EIS should also discuss whether impacts on Phalen Creek are expected. We are especially concemsd about the project impact on erosive flows such as the bankful flow, which is usually azotutc3 the two yeaz return event If increased erosion, or any other impacts, have the potential to occur, describe how the impacts would be prevented or minimized. Indlrect Soarce Permit lieqnirements The DE7S has ciearly stated that the traffic volutnes from the pmposed project alone do not meet the regu3atory threshold for requiring an ISP. This is supported by the results of travel demand model runs. Fature year projecrions, however, will exceed the threshold volumes needed to ohtain a pemiit. 'I'hese projeetions inelude the proposed East Cenhal Business District (CBD) Bypass traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed 1-35E crnmection with Phaien Boalevard. The city of St. Paul has not yet set a definite time line for the construction of the East GBD Bypass. We reconunend that the city eontact I7mocent Eyoh at (651}29b-7739, when the schedule is known, since connection of this portion wi� require an ISP. Tr�c and A.ir Quality OveralI Comments The DEIS indicates that aIl altarnarives proposed would meet carbon mono�cide {Cd) ambient standards. It appears that the buiid and no-build alternarives proposed do not differ substantially in terms of modeled CO coneentrations in parts per million (ppm}. Nevertheless, the choice of alternafives posed in the DEIS has overall implications for sir quality because of the assumptions on which they are based. MPCA staff understand the overall goais of the ptoject. We appreciate that there are anficipate@ benefits the proposed project could bring to the Lower East Side neighborhood. Our concems dwell on how the project would be implemented with the least iraffic aztd air qualiTy impacts to the area. Air Oualit�Imvacts The ambient level of CO was monitored for the project. The DEIS did a good job in adjusting the values for the year 2015. Tt assumed annual growth in traffic tfuough this period. It also accounted for changes in vehicle emission control technology. In addition, a microscale intersecrion analysis was perFormed for the project. That analysis was also fully discussed in the DEIS. The haffic volumes in the study intersection were estimateci for all the huiid and no-huild alternatives for the afternoon peak hour h in the 2015 analysis year, except for an at-grade intersection at Payne Avenue and transit-way options. The resulting CO emission rates were calcu2ated for the traffic streams using atl approved EPA models. The predieted aoneentrations for the build scenario show a minor increase in CO levels for the eight-hour standard over the no-build condition. The DETS attributes this increase to differences in rtaffic signal phasing. The staff believes tUat the increase is also linked to margina] reduction in vehicle hours traveled and an increase in vehicle miles traveled in altemative W-1 as compazed to the no-build. Tn any case, the maximum modeled values were all below the state one-hour and eight-hour ambient air quality standards. i i � ;; ! � , i 02/10I99 �VED 13:05 FA% 612 296 7782 Ms. Nancy Frick Page 1'hree METRO �ANAGERS OFFICE � � — / � Rj 003 Related data that may be helpfitl to include in the final EIS are traffic forecasts on York Avenue at Frank, CSazence Street, and on Maryland Avrnue oast of Prosperity. Piease indicafe what changes may be expected along those segments. The DEIS modeled only ane intersection (Maryland Avenue and Payne) and its related receptor sites for emissions. A number nf intersections in the corridor area may have impacts on their traffic operations &om this project. Consequently, moze intersections with a potentiai for increased emissions should have been analyzed in the DEIS. Tn the fmal EIS, please identify and analyze addirional intersections that are expected to have irapacts from the project. i Changes in ttaffic pattems during the conshvction of the pmjxt will occur. These changes rvill affect air quality at some intersections crossing the Phalen corridor. An accurate assessment of these construcNon- related impacts should be in the final EIS. This should include detailed microscale analyscs of the intersections. Crirical local intersections where impacts are likely should be idenYified. These may include intersections where the forecast traffic volumes approach the intersecfion capacity. The final EIS should list where significant incteases in traffic are expected during construction compazed to the na build altemative. Air Oualitv Conformitv Determination The staff agrees that the DEIS Phalen Boutevard prc}ect confortns with the state implementation plan. The 1998-2000 Transportation Improvement Program included Phalen Boulevard as one of its regionally significant projeets. A z emissions analysis was performed for the ycar 2005 action seenario. Other air aollutants from mobi�e sources The DEIS fails to provide a detailed, qualifarive discussion of air qu2lity impacts frnm offier pollutants than CO. The MPCA requested this in our comments on the Scoping document, dated May 6, 1996. We asked for an analysis of nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons, and pariiculate matter. Response 6 to our 1996 comment letter indicated the EIS would address these poilutants. It would be appropriate to also provide informallon on emissions of carbon dioxide and air toxic pollutants in the final EIS. The MPCA staff do not expect Phalen Boulevard to adversely impact the potentfal for this area to attain lead standards. � a�f°ic Imnacts Depend'tng on the alternative chosen, the city should clear3y provide, in detail, information on tlle traffic impacu involving nearby roadways. Primary areas of concern include I-35L and I-44 mainline lanes, and connections to the existing sh�eet systems. This discussion shouid include h�c forecasts far both build and no-build altematives as weIl as traffic assignments. A broader discussion of how this project wili affeet rush hour traffic on both tughways and city streets would be of interest The DEIS indicates that traffic woutd 6e ceduced on a namher of residential streets. Staff aze cancerned, however, that commuters may divert to Pha3en Boulevard through the neighborhoods to avoid congesrion on major arterials. If that occurs, haffic could increase instead. Capaciry ealculations should be submitted, especially for the proposed I-35E interchange on- and off-ramps. The exisflng ramps within the studied corridor alteady experience long qneues during aRemoon peak hocus. �.3,' � 02/1�/99 B'ED 13:06 FAX 612 296 7782 ! �! �i. � C � i ; i. if i' � : 4 � I Ms. Nancy Frick Page Four b4ETR0 MANdGERS OFFICE � �—�� 17j004 �; i , � �i� The congeshon management provision m TEA - 21 prohibits consh�uction of single occupancy vehicle lanes. The esception to tUis is if they aze part of an approved congestion management plan. 1'he Metropolitan CoimciI's Policy Plan is currently updated. It idenrifies Phalen Boulevard as a"H" Minor Arierial. 11�e pmposed project, therefore, is exempt from this requirement. � The 149 i lntermodal Surf'ace Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the recent TEA - 21 place considerable importance on altemadve modes and transi� They make clear that these alternative modes , must not be considered secondary to highway conshuction for mceting havel demand. 'fhrough these Acts, the U.S. Congress has given direction that should be applied to the Phalen project. The explicit designation of equal federal participation in fimding roadway and transii projects, along wiih the greater funding of high occupancy vehicle lanes, provides this direction. We believe that transit and other a]tcrnative modes such as bicycling, carpooling and vanpooling must be given serious consideiaYion. This is the case regardless of whether funding comes from TBA - 21, the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Prograzn, or Interstate Maintenance Fuxtds. This wo¢td provide severai tavel options to warkers expected to fill new jobs ereated by the Phalen corridor initiatives. We believe that 1'EA - 21 not only gives the laritude to consider these changes in assumptions, but by its vcry passage, mandates the use of funds for the construction of these types of _ alternative faczlities. Increased traffic on some of the existing streets may negaiivety affact pedestrian and bicycle tr�c , crossing some of the streets, speci$cally Payne Avenue, Edgerton, and Forest streets. The two best-used streets for bicycles in the project core azea aze Edgerton and Forest SReets. Pigure II-13 indicates that the three project altematives will douhle the average daily traffac on Edgerton. Please address the impact to bicyclas on Edgerton Street and pedestrians on Payne Avenue. For exampie, what are the projected traffic speeds on Edgerton Street7 ]n addition, bicycle access to Mississippi St. and Case Avenue appears to be diminished under Alternatives W-2C and W-2E. It appears that the current bike trail underpass to Mississippi Street is lost. How would this possible impact be mitigated? Please show this existing trail connector on Figure II-4 and II-5. W e do recognize that the project incorporates portions of the two regional bicycie traiis (Gateway and Phalen Creek trails} that improve comieciivity for bicycies. I�adeauate 6us service The projected havel forecast and the modeled CO concentrarions are based on assumprions of transit and altemative mode availability that preclude lowering the levels of projected h�affic demand. Demand wiIl be centered on increased auto hips as the main commute mode as long as funding of operating and maintenance costs of an expanded bus service in the Twin Ciries azea is not inereased. The staff recommends that 2n the final $I5, the city examine methods for developing financial or legistarive support to inelude transit as a fuil partner in effotts {o meet demand, rather than an alternative after roadway construction. This phiIosophy is consistent wath Vision for Transit issued by the Metcopolitan Council, and with the funding categories and ghitosophy. The proposed new Metro Transit bvs garage wiil be built at Mississippi and Cayuga Streets north of Downtown St. Paul. This gazage is expected to serve the east metropolitan azea. That could enhance the availahility of convenient transit for the workforee on the corridor. ,.. , ;:.�,. � �; :�= �4 -:��' 'i l .� �:.-� i:;. : 02/10/99 SYED 13:07 FA% 812 296 7782 Ms. Nancy Prick Page Five �IETRO MANAGERS OFFICE � 7 I O Q f�j OOa The core area of the project is low to moderate income, This papula$on has a}ugh potenhal for tcansit use. Please clarify how this project would enhance transit. For example, the fmal EIS could compare lraveS times for local and express bus routes on Phalen Boulevard or proposed bus travel fimes to possible express nms to downtawn St� Paul. We believe that Figure III-t0 has a mnnber oFerrot, regarding exis£ing bus routes. Please review this figure and update iE, if necessary. Travel demand None of the altematives addtess the quesrion as to how much �avel demand should be aocommodated by construcrion. The W-lA alternative is predicted to handle mote demand than any other of the alternatives. It appears th2t the demand will exceed the capacity of any possible chosen alternative. An assump6on in the analysis seems to be that adequate bicycling £acilities, better efforts at a jobslhousing balance, and reducing hips by providing major incentives for ridesharing or teiecommuting tanlc below other uses of state and ]ocal funds in importance. These issues, as well as h�ansit service, should be considered similar to roads or other utilities in importance. ;,. The final EIS must examine ways to I'vnit demand, and plan for transit and other mefhods of reducing singte-occupancy vehicle use. Since demand directly affects air quality, the final EIS should diacuss what initiatives can be pursued at the legislative level, or through initiatives of the private sector to limit travel demand. If roadway construcrion must occLS to even partially meet demand after this examination, then converting pmposed project to selective High Occupancy Vehicle (FIO� use and use of transit options is most in keeging with the requirements of TEA - 21. Given these constraints, the staff atrongly recommends that the preferred alternative in the final ETS should meet this requiretnent. Miriaabon of Construction Tmpacts Related fo Traffic The MPCA staff aclrnowledges that the DEIS addresses most of the temporary, traffic-related environmental impacts expected to occur as a result of the pro}ecYs construction activities. It considered h•affic delays, alignment shifts, access changes, and air quality. We would like to sfress that alI of the mitigation measures oonceming consuvction impacts should be implemented prior to and during the conshnction period. Other mitigation measures should be implemented. Options for improved puh]ic communica$on incSude publication of bmchures eontaining rnaps of the construction ateas. The city should work with affected businesses to let them Imow exactly what Yo �pect during construction. These efforts should also mclude consistent, thoughtful, and effeciive provision of advance public information to parties affected by the construction aetiviries. Cooperative sfforts with radio and T'V traffic-watch reporters and daily newspapers are some avenues for this. The design of the pmferred alternative should also include detailed construction staging plans. The plans should outline the sequence of construction activities, including plans expinining how motorized and bieyele 4affic wi1I be maintained during consirucrion. Noise AddiNonal discussion of noise shou]d be provided. In general, please discuss what is the available noise mitigation in this azea. If there is no practical noise mitigation available, give reasons why. What is the 2015 build ) no build comparison? If exemp$ons to the noise rutes wili apply to this projec{, p]ease exptain what those would be. SpecificaIly areas of concem include the fact that nighttime sound �:�� (.' 02/10/99 WED 1a:08 FA% 612 296 7782 1:;.�-' �i; i' � r�i ::��F� ��.�-��1 { '� . .j'i,� . � , ��.a:�' ,� t , �" '� � Ms. Nancy Frick � ` . Page Six .r , _ METRO MANAGERS OFFICE �� "� f�j 006 standards of 55 dBA is aiready e�cceeded in the areas adjacent to Yhe groject area. Table III-5 indicates an fncrease in expected nighttime noise at all monitored locations as a result of every build alternative. Would noise impacts be expected from HQV and transit enhancement altematives? If truck traffic increases as descn�bed on page VIII-4G, w3ut are the noise impacts to Maryland Avenue? Fish and Wildlife � + Page N-43 describes a low habitat value in the project area. Staffwonder whether this is, in fact, the case in the vicinity of the lluluth playground, 7ohnson Parkway, and just east of Payne Avenue in Swede a � Hollow. i' i E �� r�, � � � � . I 'r4 Section 4(� evaluetion We believe it would be uscful to idenfify the Johnson Parkway Avoidance Altzmatives mentioned on page TX-4, It may be helpful to ezplain why each of these was screened out. Please evatuate mitigation options for a no-build alternative between Johnson Pazicway and Atiantic. ts there a possibitity for rush- liam' HOV-access or HOV plus commerciat only along this segment7 We look forward to receivmg ynur writte� responses to these comments, as weli as the final EIS when it has been prepazed. If you have any yuestions, please contact me at (651)296-6703. Sin� � � Bazbaza Conti Planner Principal Operations and Piamiing Section Metro District BCsjs cc: Gregg Downing, Environmentai Quality Board , �pF K �Q� ` �'� i Pebruary 9, 1999 Nancy Frick St. Paat City Iiall Annex ZS West 4 Street St. PauI, MN S5IO2 ..vv L6�0yCIIC HVa(f S[. Pqul, Minneau[a 551$5-40 _ �: P}�alen Boulev�d 33raft Envuo�e� I�pact StatevAent (BIS) Dear Ms. Frick; 10 R �-18d T�� Departrnent of Naturai Resources (DN[�) }23s reviewed �he plialen Bou)evard Draft E7S. We offer �he foilowing comments for your consideration, wluci� ace arganized as the topiCS are presenfed in the Draft ETS. Sectiox S.9 per,nitS c�Approvals This section should note �he potendal need for a DNR Water Appropr�ation Permit. Remedaation ofi poll❑[ed grotuzdwater that wiii use more than 10,000 gallons per day, or 1,Op0,ppp g�o� per year, wilt require the appxoval of tlte D dewatering, �• Th �� rniit need also appl3es to const�ction-related 5'ectjon I71.2.4 Yegetation The doc:ument roferenees the presence of mature willow �ees, or immafure specimens, chat are growing a1o� the for�er Phale� Creek cortidor. We agree tl�ac willoWS are indicative of wet �oad�[ions, Recogniz;r� thaf wetlu,d detineation has occurred, but has not been substautialty �ocumented-in the DraR EIS, we caution that it is possible ihat sites aceurately classified ;�s �etlands may have been overlooked. Willows are strong indicators of wetiands, and it is possible that at'eas could sriil be consid�red wedands even though fi11 was piaced in thesn. Soine slatemexiL of wetland delineation }nethodology shoutd be preseuted in the ETS t'o assure that no potential wetlands have been missed. �'ectinn 117.2.8 Fish ared Wildlife The fish and wildtife discussion correctly recog»es that p�ts of the project cor�idox are with� th� Ivfississinpi flYway. The documenr givcs ihe j�pression fhac the �vlississippx flyway is a l�calized phenoinenon, CaTher than the broad passage wl�ich goes from the Gulf of MeRico into Canada, rn addStion, this flyway is mo[e than a wacetfawl eorridor. lt provides significarzs migration pathways for aimost a11 migratory bird species t}aat o�cur in Minnesota. The Stdte is providing Substantial investrnent to preserve and restore flyway coru�ections, in the f�rm of suitable habitat, tIu St. paul and Minneapotis. Tt�e ftyk,ay section along the MississErpi Itlyer jn these tWO Cities is remarkab]y intact given ti�e ]arge metropolitan population that lives ihere. .._DCUtr�u,��,.,r,,..,•,. �._,....._., Nancy Frick February 9, 1999 This section shnuld also note that the Swede k�ollow pand stays open year round, Ei.e„ does not freeze over in winter}, and that ducks concenaate there when other water areas are frozen. T�uck use is estimaeed to be in the hundreds of buds during cold snaps. The pond provides very important open watez during the wintzr. Are impacu to this area avoided? Opportunities to improve the area should hr+ crnrvht ,� k,. :f � ' CDLLl16LGl+ w vv ua up. uuu..av..o ... ...�.... ��..._� _ __- __�.. . � . - - � • —/ "' O water durmg d�e winter. Are impacts to this area avoided? Opportunities to improve the uea should ` be sough[. , IV ].7Bfcycle and Pedestrian Mnvetnent The discussion xegarding how the pzo,yect affeets che Gate.vay Trail is not accurate. Over the past five years, the DN� and the Ivlinnesota Depamuent of Transportation (MN/AOT} have worked togetlxer to extend the Gateway State Traii into ttae rean of St. Paut by utilizing the I-35E right-of-way. Work was oou�pleted in ] 996 to extend the usil from the railxoad bridge over 1-35E (near Arlingtan Avenue) to Cayuga 5treet. As nNR and the Metropalitan Council worked to secure funding to furtbex extend tIie trail from Cayuga Street to Pennsylvania Avenue (to be accomplished in 1998-99), the Phalen Boulevard proposal caine folward. Because of conflicG� hetween khe Phalen $oulevarcl project requ'tzements and MN/DOT requiremerrts for future upgrades of I-35E, fiirther extension of the trail oouid noi be guaranteed hy MNlDOT as originally envisioned if the Phalen Boulevard Qcoject proeeeds- The NIS siiould note thet botli MN/DOT and DNR have committed to cooperate un d�e cision oP extending the Gateway Txail to University Avenue and ultunately to the State Capitoi. Implementation of the Phalen �oulevarcl project should not inhibit this final Outcome. , ` R�gardiag trail issues in generai, we encourage t�e City to implement a design khat will provide a right- �f-way for both the pedestrian/bicycle trail and Light RaIl Transu (LRT). Section IV.2.2 Wettancls No alternadve will directly affect wetlands in the general vicinity of the projeCt. Howet�er, the project will be coordivated with oppuitunities idencified by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for potentia] wetland restoxations. The Phalen Shopping Center Wecland Restoration siCe ha,a been speoifically identitizcl as one such locntion. As noted in Dtaft 615 scoping, and ac�l�wledged in Sec�ion 1TI.2.5, DNR reqnests eonsideration of restoxing tltat part of Yhalen Creek tl�at hisEOrzcally flowed through Swede Hollow. The "creek" that cunentiy runs [hxough Swede I�Tollow is a daylighced section of Uae storm tzunk sewex that begizas near the intexsection �f 7°i SCreet and 7olmson Parkway, as depicted 'u� Figure JV-1. As such the creek originates near the pxoposed Phalen wetland restoracion area. The TIS Should indic3te why the oppoxcunity pxesent to restore, at ]east partiaily, [he entire system, (e.g., k�ha]en Creek tluough Swede Hollow; Phalen restoration site), 95 ttot mitigafion for potential impaets. RestoratioA of the hiscoxic Phaten Creek tlQw and corrid�r would he to pravide a eonstant flaw througl� the currendp daylighted portion nf Swed� I-Iollow. Morc importazit, this restoration wauld serve the dual purpose of impxovittg [he quaiiry of water (tluough dilution) thaC flows to the Ivtiss�ssippi Ttiver from this location. Ac p[esent, Lhe system 15 flashy with periUds of almost no flOCC� to pericxls af exeessive flows. 'I'his kxas caused sig�ufioan[ erosion problems 8�at is threatenutg die bilce trail throu�h Swecie Aoilow. �! It , ,, , x ; f i t � � , DNP, PLRhJhdIh1G Fa�:612-296-6047 Feb 9'99 11 �53 P.02j02 99-�8d , (ancy Frick t��3,�uars'9, ig99 �cripn N 2.3 SYater j�+otuYtStor �}, thc roi�t shonid t,c pTe-trcate� All si�+� m watzr NriOff EP�cYbtCd h}• j�`e.nmws su2Eaca C[e2 Y P zntof r¢vinusly priur to dischatge w naeural aratex�. �e °� r��nd tbei nc� City of St. Pm�l use the CPP�� prescnted by che l�roject to xeduce unperviou. surFaee � tt� �nt�al c�nndifion, Snclud'u E jmpacted sir=, in urban aieas slumld resuk Sn an 4mi' feduUlnns in m�� Senecati�n. « 'c offer the SenPrei ricw tbut a71 swnn "'�ct ruaotf SC'�erasPd bv �±nPe��""' a'Tlace ciesrea by d�c wx s co reduce 3mprrciot�s surfa�e �Le�riuu with th�s proje�c siw��dbc pretseatedprinr W dischnrge to newral watex., mcwa;ng thc Mi.as�ss;ppi Ri.�cr. e aLto enr.rnsaSe the C'it5` of SL Paul to idendpp Y co rednce thc cumul.neive �,��ijcct. Redevelc+pnie�tt Of e�cistin$, a�'Pdu'� �� °�lotvs au npporhinrty im ia�s EurFat'� amwnt of impcs vious surface in thic lvghlY urbnNzed waiershed. Iteduc� P�' creation hea�r.fts the wa�er quatiity of the M�ssisstPpi Rivcr. Sectinn 1Y.2.5 k4sh and Wi�d� co u,q,rove habitat condii iuns in ffie pocenualiy affceted area, arn1 n�a Tl�e project offels the oypu �Y . d ecific.l{y to No[ unty do the yppreeiate sne recugnicion in rhe nvi igation ;�eccion th,�� "laudscaC�nB cotit�l ba se �cta sP provi�e Labitat for v:A�d4ife." All availnb(e habirvi ia valunb3e m an nrlxn setting• wttdlire. that cun live thrre 1�ncfit, but the ciiy rasidcnts b�e� ie�it Co�Ao�� ezntiflsi dc igning ci�iphasis �hould hr. �,laced ou rEVeSPZt�ii� wiSh �are S �athcr th�n simPfy �rro��iding screenin� ut a plancin�s ffiacpr�iviJc witdlife tiab�rat For sme11 aiwnals• unc�inru anc3 a ues and L�: located itt azeas wh ic thcY coutfl a�i �.�i i�n t�� ef� t bai,ilat Gomylex if pos�ihle. 'ye �� Cjty's recopni��nn in the Uraft �i� �f t1�� value of xegeWtion restoratlon piesciitcd auit,� t e gnE Cirv's f:a..^�e S a wU'�'h'M' hood. ion. preseztiing n ul �osmcing� Luttlsca�+a}', aton� tlic traiLs Nill increasc Ihc usc of che snitc. 7'nasuc y�u frrc thc oppo�ty ta rcview this dcx:wut�. 4Ve 1o�A ftin ward to reeeivin� ttie Fina1 �1S at a fl�ru�c datc. Yleasc w l�ll�� n� "'y �a�� (b-slj 29F-9229 if you havr qurstirnu rcga�diziK Uvs le[ter Sinee[eiy. ��t�..�g�..ceS.4 - ` �!(`F - / ' � - � - y' � n 'lbomas W Ralcom, S��petvixui Eri�urimcntnl Keview a�rcl Assistance T.3n3i. AfCicc of ManagC�nr.ur and Budget Serviccs Con Chris�u �, halhlecn W allace U=t R;vUcr Drct Andetsmi .�� [,arscn, ��lB („partrc Kjus. S3Sf W S �9N1:.R0.-03/YAhLD�TS. wP7 � �t -! 80 � MetroTransit February 3, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner Departrnent of Planning and Economic Development City of Saint Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Prick: Re Review of DEIS — Construction of Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Johnson Parkway Metro Transit has reviewed the referenced draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and provides the following comments: 1. Metro Transit vigorously opposes aiternative W2-E for the western end of the project. Selection of this alternative by the City will deem the Mississippi/Cayuga siteinfeasible for construction of its new East Metro Transit Facility. 2. Prompt receipt of the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) is needed for the City and Metropolitan Council to C�operatively acquire the MississippilCayuga site for our respective projects without delaying the bus gazage project. Metro Transits requests that the City take all available actions to acquire the ROD from the FHWA as soon as possible. 3. Selection of alternatives W-2D or W-2E on the western end of the project will require a reroute of Route ll between Pennsylvania Avenue and L'Orient Street to Case Avenue and Westminster Street. The new route would likely follow the proposed I-35E west frontage road to Cayuga Street, to Westminster Street, to Case Avenue. Route 11 operates 63 weekday and 27 Saturday one-way bus trips. 4. Bus-only shoulder lanes are operated effectively throughout the metropolitan area. Bus-only shoulder lanes should be evaluated for Phalen Boulevard. At a minimum, shouider design width at potentiat bus stop locations should be evaluated. Bcs-only shoulder lane right-of- way could be converted to a busway or LRT as appropriate. If you have any questions pertaining to the East Metro Transit Facility, please contact Arlene McCarthy, Project Manager, at 651-602-1278. Sincerely, t�� v�� Arthur T. Leahy General Manager cc: Witliam Foster Arlene McCarthy A service of th Metropolitan Council 560 Sixth Aven,;e Nortn Minneaoohs, Minnesota SSAt 1-4398 (6l2) 349-7400 hhp.//inrvvw.metro��a^srt org 7ransrt lnfo 373-3333 TTY 34LG'� =° An Equal Opportunity Emo=o;r_� 99-/�O Department of Pnblic Works Paul L. Kirkwold, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 •(651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: PublicVJorks@pw.co.ramsey.mn.us �� @f �� January 26, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner City of 5t. Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Environmental Statement — Phalen Boulevard Dear Ms. Frick: ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 FEB - 2 1999 n!oRrti�asr c�u��a�v�r The technical work relating to alignment, alternatives and cost are sound and well defined. Coilaborative cost participation and ultimate designation of Phalen Boulevard needs further definition. If the roadway is to become a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) route under the Jurisdiction of Ramsey County and potentially use County resources as one funding source, it is important that the roadway be so designated prior to construction. Use of funds from that source are subject to a solicitation and project prioricization process under the oversight of Ramsey County's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), made up of representatives from area municipafities. To date, the roadway is not on the Gounty system and not included within the 2000-2002 Transportation Improvement Program. It is also noteworthy that a new interchange connection with I-35E is critical to the success ot the Phalen Boulevard initiative. Until that connection is made, other improvement efforts within the corridor will be of limited benefit. Phalen Boulevard represents a key transportation element within a broad-based community partnership focused on economic, social, and physical improvements within the Phalen Corridor area. Phalen Boulevard is noted as a"catalysY' for an array of social benefits. Whi1e it is commendable to pursue broad-based goafs which include reversal of housing deterioration, increased crime and Iocal job creation, care shouid be taken not to overstate the role of the roadway in stimulating such far reaching benefits. The road facility can play a strategic role in providing improved access for redevelopment of underutilized industrial lands. However, economic recovery, job growth for local residents, crime reduction, housing renewai, etc., require multiple sociai initiatives — not necessarily eiforts linked directly to infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, the merit and cost effectiveness of road construction should be judged on definable access/trar�sportation benefits. Long range social benefits that may ultimately Minnesota's Ficst Home Snle Coanty p�ia�ed aa cxyGeE qapec witR a wmmum u[ !0% pns4mns¢me[ matent � �i 9-�� Nancy Frick 26 January 1999 RE: Phaien Initiative accrue in the area may be linked to infrastructure as social initiatives mature, but direct linkage to many specific social results is more speculative than supported. Ramsey County supports redevelopment of depressed communities and the use of different tools to achieve results. It is important, however, not to tie the wide array of long-term social improvement needs to a specific transportation improvement — at least not in such a way that those social needs are held at bay while years of planning and funding coordination occur for the roadway. Implementation, given the complexity and costs fer Phalen Boulevard and the I-35E interchange cou{d rea{isticaily be delayed severai more years. Help in the areas of job training, crime reduction, housing renewai, etc., are needed and could be imp4emented now, albeit perhaps at a different level than long-term goals identified as a spin off from the Phalen initiative. Sincerely, �� Paul . Kirkwold, P.E. Director and County Engineer PLK:vad �9-1 �v � Metropolitan Council Working for the Kegion, Planning for the Fufure January 25, 1999 Saint Paul City CounciUSaint Paul Planning Commission City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 re: Phalen Boulevard Draft EIS Deaz Saint Paul City Council Members and Planning Commission Members, As a member of the Metropolitan Council, I strongly support the construction of the Phalen Boulevard. I believe that the aiternative methods for constructing the roadway have been fully examined. T am anxious for this process to conclude.. It is very important that the City Council act without fiuther delay ta approve the project. As you know, we cannot complete the final design for our new East Metro Transit Garage until the final alignment has been selected. Your continued cooperation is needed in order to effectively coordinate the construction of a new Phalen Boulevard and our new Transit Crarage. Thank you for your continued support of this important project. Sincerely, � c ,� Stephen B Wellington, 7r. Council Member, District 14 230 Eas[ Fifth Street 5[ Paul, Mimesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Pax 291-6550 TDD/T1Y 291-0904 MeW Info Line 229-3750 An Equal Opportwuty EYnntoyer �i9-I�� Metropolitan Council Working for the Xegion, Planning for the Future January 21, 1999 Nancy Frick, City Planner Department of Planning and Economic Decetopment Ciry of Saint Paul Z� west tourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: DEIS -- Construction of Phalen Boulevard from I-35E to Johnson Parkway. Ivfetro^n[i;ar. Ccu±!cil Distric*_s �3 aa3 ?4 Referral File No. 16936-1 Dear Ms. Frick: Council staff has conducted a review of this drafr environmental impact statement (DEIS) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concems. The staff review has conciuded that the DEIS is comp{ete aad accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no ma}or issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff provides the fotlowing comments for your consideration: The proposed project is construction of a 2.6-mile boulevard from I-3�E to Johnson Parkway. The section between 1-35E and Arcade is proposed to be four �anes, and the section Ue;ween Arcade and Johnson Parkway proposed to be two lanes. Items III.1.& and IV.1.6 -- Parks and Recreation The Drafr Phalen Boulevard EIS includes information on the existing State Gateway Trail and Phalen Creek fZeQiona{ TraiL The project proposes to connect the nvo trails and is cons'rstent with regional trail plannin�. Continued coordination with the City of St. Paul's parks department and the DNR in respect to the Gateway and Phalen Creek Trails is encoura�ed. iiem !ii 1.1=f -- Reiated, Ongoing, and Flanned rrojects Page IIl-40 states that Metro Transif s new bus garage will be bult at Mississippi and Cawsa Streets north of do�vnto�vn St. PauL The Metropolitan Council selected this site for the bus garage in October t998 based on the assumption that the Ciry would select altemative W-I or W-�D. Selection of alternative W-ZE will render the bfississippi/Cayuga site infeasible for the bus garage. Prompt completion of the final EIS and receipt of the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) is necessary to allow the City of St. Paul and the Metropolitan Councii to cooperativel} acquire the �Iississippi/Cayuga site Eor their rzspective projects �vithout further dela}. The Council requests that the City take alt availabfe actions to acquire the ROD as soon as possib(e. AREA GODE CHANGES TO fi51 IN JULY, 1998 230 EasC Fi1th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (612) 602-1000 FaY 602-1550 1'DD/TIY 29]-0904 Metro Info Lne 602-I888 An Equa1 OpportunLLy EYr�ployer 99-�80 Nancy Frick, City Planner January 21, 1999 Page 2 Item III.2,12 --- Air Quality Regarding text on air quality on Page III-53, the metropolitan area as a whole is non-attainment only for CO. The non-attainment designation for particulate matter only affects a band extending from the steel facility in southeastern St. Paul to the viciniry of Lafayette Blvd and University Avenue. This does affect a portion of the Phalen Corridor Study Area. The particulate matter is not due to transportation sources, but is related to the steel industry. Item IV. I.IO --- Transpartation Facilities Including Transit The text on page IV-22 states that "Neither the No-Build Alternative nor the TSM Alternative conform to ...the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Ptan in that Phalen Boulevard is not constructed." The text earlier correctly stated that the air quality analysis of the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan included the Phalen Corridor. However, Phalen Corridor was included at the request of the City for administrative and funding reasons. The city should pot use conformity to the policy plan in this situation as an argument against the No-Build and TSM alternative. This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No fozmal action on the DEIS will be taken by the CounciL If you have any questions or need further information, please contact 7im Uttley, AICP, - principal reviewer, at 651-602-1361. Sincere(y, Helen Boyer, Direct Environmental Services Division C: DeDe Wolfson, Metropolitan Council District 13 Stephen Wellington, Jr., Metropolitan Council District 14 Kei;h Buttlemar,, Airector, Enveronme ;ta; Planning and Evalua±ior. Department, MCES Thomas C. McElveen, Director, Housing and Local Assistance Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator, Community Development Division Mark Filipi, Office of Transportation and Transit Development Arlene McGarthy, Project Manager, East Metro Transit Facility Phyllis Hanson, Parks John Kari, Sector Representative, Community Deveiopment Division Jim Uttley, AICP, Community Development Division V :llibrary(commundv(referrat/letters/SP 164361.doc �-.�,-._�_- �/ -/8d 1�111iNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIET'Y January 5, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paul Dept. of Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4` Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Draft EfS - Phalen Boulevard, I-35E to Johnson Parkway St. Paul, Ramsey County SHPO Number: 96-0872 Dear Ms. Frick: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. _ We look fonvard to continuing to work with you regarding the effects of the project on the historic propeRies identified in the report. The discussion of the identified properties, effects, and potential mitigation measures in the Section 4(f) Evaluation will be helpful in completing the Section 106 review process. We do note that, while the suggested mitigation measures in this poRion of the report are appropriate for consideration, they are not yet endorsed by our office, and they do not preclude consideration of other potential measures as the consultation process proceeds. Contact us at 651-296-5462 with questions or comments. Sincerely, �t;� � V � � Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Comp(iance Officer cc: Aaron Rubenstein, St. Paul HPC 315 1iELI.OGC. BOC"LE\,1Rll R EST /$�1I_v7' P>CL, �ILVAESOT.� 55I0'?-1906 / TELEPHOSE: 651-396-6126 9�-i�o U.S. Department of Transportatio� � United States Coast Guard Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paui City Hall Annex 25 West 4�' Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Direetor 1Y12 Spruce Street Westem Rivers Operations St Louis, MO 63103-2832 EigMh Coast Guard Distrid Staff Symboi: ob Phone: (374) 539-3900 �C381 � FAX (314) 533-3755 � ti. �j � �' a � �" <. 16210.2/IN � � � December 29, 1998 JAN o s �sss n�o�:�, . � ° � ,: �;�5 Subj: PHALEN BOi3LEVARD, RAMSEY COL3NTY, NIINNESOTA Dear Ms. Frick: We have reviewed the information provided in your Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated December 15, 1998, and determined that the subject project will not involve bridges over navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, a Coast Guard bridge permit is not required for this project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project. Sincerely, � C� RO �R K. WIEBUSCH Bridge Administrator By direction of the District Commander � g-��o � U.S. Department of Transporta(ion Eederal Aviation Adminishation December 23, 1998 Nancy Frick City of St. Pau1 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 6020 - 28th qvenue South, Room 102 Minneapofis, Minnesota 55450.2706 F H WA-M N-E l S/4 ( fl-98-02- D Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Section 4(fl Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County, Minnesota S. P. 6280-308 From I-35E to Johnson Parkway in the City of St. Paul Thank you fior the opportunity to review the subject document. We have no comments. Sincerely, a� `� c�� Robert A. Huber Assis:ant Marager ci 9 -18� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL OISTRICT, GORPS OF ENGINEER$ ARMYCORPS OF ENGMEERS CEMRE 190 FIFTH S7REET EAST ST. PAUL, MN 55f01•t638 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF December 21, 1998 Construction-Operations Regulatory (96-03239-NP-TJF) Ms. Nancy Frick City of St. Paul Department of Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 551�2 Dear Ms. Frick: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Phalen Boulevard project of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The project alignment passes through portions of sections 28, 29, and 30, T. 29N., R. 22W., Ramsey County, Minnesota. The DEIS indicates that the project would not involve any direct impacts to waters/wetlands. A Department of the Army permit will not be required provided there is no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters or wetlands. Minor impacts to existing storm water management ponds could be authorized by Nationwide (NW) or General (GP) permits. This letter is valid only for the project referenced above (State Project 6280-308). If any change in design, location, or purpose is contemplated such that waters or wetlands would be impacted, our office should be contacted. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. If you have any questions, or require more details on NW or GPs, contact Timothy J. Fell in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5360. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above. Sincerely, � � . l�.^� � � �� 'JU ett Deh'on ief, Minnesota Permits Section PnnteC on � RerycleC Paper 9 �-��o �� - . �-� � � � �-_ � . � � .. . - - - � � -� --` Federal Emergency Managemenf Agency- "- =s = �'-."_ - � p - . :i :- :__:.,Qf:> v.�_ _ ,._ : - ^° i.. _ . : .- -=--�- .- .._. , . °3`>:st'::� . - '�" '� � ;` ' •''":,.. : Region V � ,,,.;:.- .,, =� r _; � d o 3�� .;�_:_:�:::.:,:�c�..:��.:..'- .:_�' �. - - ``- ---' -°�-__ ;...;zv<ii_:::ki::: '�d, , �' _ - _ 175 West Jackson Blvd:; 4th Floo"r ° "``-- ` ` - _ _ _ , -- Chicago, IL 60604-2698. _ h - ` _ .` RAPfD REPLY TRANSM{TTAL . � -f- . } -`.-� This is an informal response to your recent inquiry. It will allow you to get an appropriate response from flus agency in the shortest time possible. If you still have questions after :� = receiving your reply, please call us on 312-408-5548 for assistance. () Letter of Map Amendment Application (LOMA-EZ or MT-1) enclosed; this is to be used to remove a structure or pazcel from the floodplain based on its elevation; the LOMA is principally used to supgort a request for a waiver from a lender from the mandatory flood insurance requirements - -: - O Letter of Map Revision Application (LOMR, CLOMR, LOMR-F, MT-1 or MT-2) enclosed; this is to be used to change a floodplain map because physicat changes to the ;"_ floodplain have taken piace after the map publication date; LOMRs are usuaily used to " update floodplain maps to correct them for work done by developers, builders, highway :: and bridge construction, or flood control projects --�: � Environmental Assessment Reviews/Executive Order 11988 Reviews: this --'. agency does not have the staff resources to review the many requests we get for such reviews; the project sponsor and the federal agency taking the action aze responsible for meeting these regulations; floodplain maps can be viewed in local government offices or" ordered from our map distribution center (see below) _ - --- �-� — �. � - .., () Ploodplain Maps: our maps can be viewed in local government building, zoning, community development, or engineering offices; they can also be ordered by cailing 1- 800-358-4616; we have none for distribution from this office O Flood Tnsurance; the federal govemment does not seli flood insurance; it is availaole tihrough any iicensed insurance agent or broker in your state, provided your community participates in the 23ational Fiood Insurauce Program; check with your local officials to determine your community's eligibiliTy or call i-800-358-9616 for eligibility () Publication Request: The publication you rec{uested is enclosed O Publication Request: The publication you requested is not stocked by this office; you may cali this agency's Publications Section on 1-800-480-2520 for assistance () Modei Floodplain Ordinance: a model floodplain ordinance, appropriate for your community's flood hazards as identified by this agency, is enclosed; before it is adopted, a draft should be reviewed and approved by ttus office or the state coordinating office shown below : , . USDA ��..� � Natural Resources Conservation Service 375 Jackson Street - Suite 600 St Paul, Minnesota 55101-1854 r�..�. � «�a� �� 9 9 -/�O December 17, 1998 IN REPLY REFER TO: F'fIWA-MN-EIS/4(�-98-Q2-D Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(� Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County, Minnesota S.P. 6280-308 From I 35E to Johnson Pazkway in the City of St. Paul. City of St. Paul Nancy Frick City Hall Annex 25 Wesc 4th Sueet St. Paul, MI�i 55102 Dear Ms. Frick: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has reviewed the appropriate sections (wetlands and threatened and endangered species) for the above mentioned proposed project. The project sponsors are not USDA program benefit recipients, thus, the wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security act, as amended aze not applicable. It should be noted, however, that actions by a non- USDA participant third party (project sponsor) which impact wetlands owned or operated by USDA participants, may jeopudize the owner/operators USDA eligibility. If such impacts aze anticipated, the owner/operator should contact the county Fazm Service Agency (FSA) office to consider an applicant for a third party exemption. Neither NRCS technical nor financial assistance is being pzovided in support of this project, thus, specific NRCS environmental policies are not applicable. The foilowing agencies may have federal or state wetlands, cultural resources, water quality or threatened and endangered species jurisdiction in the proposed project, and should be consulted. Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Boazd of Soil and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency State Historic Preservation Officer/State Archaeologist The Naturel Resources Conservation Service, works hand-in-hantl with the American people ta conserve natural resources on private lands. pN E�UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER , ' :• If through these impacts you are purchasing new or acquiring additional lands and if any federal monies aze involved, it is a reguirement that a Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) site assessment be appropriately filed. these site assessments aze, conducted by NRCS personnel to review the project for possible effecu on unique, prime or statewide important farmland. Contact yow local NRCS o�ce for more information. Sincerely, � � � � J W LIAM HUNl' State Conservationist � � �� Minnesota Department of Transportaiion � �, � Transportation Building °` 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 � �,, � December 15, 1998 � � � ` � ~ �„; F�'� � �: . Regional Director Region V Federal Emergency Management Agency 175 West 7ackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 - � r�,� "��i" �' .' . In reply refer to: FHWA-MN-EIS/4(�-98-02-D Draft Environmentai Impact Statement/ Section A(� Evaluation for Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County Minnesota S.P. 6280-308 From I-35E to 7ohnsgn Parkway in the City of St. Paul Deaz Sir or Madam: G�j 1 `-� -i L Ia3V (651)296-4876 Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmentai Impact StatemenUDraft Section 4(� Evaluation [ETSl4(�] for the above referenced proposed Phalen Boulevard project. The draft EIS(4( fl documents the positive and negative impacts of the proposal to construct Phalen Boulevard on a new alignment from I-35E to Johnson Parkway, a length of 43 km (2.6 mi.). The new facility would be a four-lane roadway between I-35E and Arcade Street and a two-lane roadway between Arcade Street and Johnson Parkway. Two of the three build aitema�ives inciude reconstruction oi i-35E beeween 1-94 and ivlaryiand lavenue and rapiacement of the existing Pennsylvania interchange with a new interchange at Cayuga Street. We would appreciate your review and comments on the draft EIS/4(� in the areas where your office has jurisdiction or special expertise. Comments will be accepted through February 10, 1999 and wi11 be considered for inclusion in the final EIS/4(fl. Comments may be directed to: City of St. Paul Nancy Frick Ciry Hall Annex 25 West 4�' Street St. Paul, MN 55102 (651)266-6554 An equal opportunity emplayer 9 9 —��c� � � � � � � a� c ; ° � � � � o ai O � a�i � � � w ++ � �. C � �� R � � P� � � � � ca � �+ W o�i o � � ,� o � � � 4 „ o - � � � � � ce � v � a) � c:� y�•� s, � H � � i - _i � � � � r.�+ �+ � � � �' i� � � i^ �1 vt � � � O F+�I � .� � � �I.+ � � � C� i"i � � 6J 3� �.� � � � � - ��, � ;v � i � ;ra � W � - ;.� i � S � T _i p e _ '�.-., a. R F .�'o - .:,r:'i � Z z � �'..::G �Q �L "'y� { y J .. .)�: T. � 1li ¢ d � '�l � V m H � ' mO�f N_ ��'d _I ';c V ' � ^ ... � , a � �.�� :�:�..' �� . � � � � � � �, .� � ° o � � *"' o � � � � � t�o 0 � � •� � a p � � � ,� o � � �, P"' v c�"'.., 6� "C .� O � � � � � O O r ,,, W ¢� M C O � H � O � Q� ..�i U y p C� 6� � � � "E3 ; ,,,, � N• CC .�i �; � � O �C C � � w � O r-+ v� � ... � � • ' p .�. N -� � � i�• , U ,i�+ ,..i r 5 y U i.�a O � � � � � eC y p ,� a� > c� � .�. �' ~ � � � � O "� �3 � �Q � C � � � V � C U � � � � � � O i, �' p" 3 � �° � � � � � � ^ v, ... � '� �O O T� yr a� L�. ;� C� � C" s., O � �' o R s. � � � v� a�i y b0 � O s�. � • � v +' � � � � U ..C'"i •" ^ a y�„i � .� V .� O � c� � y ^ � r� � � o � � � .;: .� � F� a � a � � a� > � � � x � � h � � ^C W � O � � �19-l�U �._C �_, . .. . _ . ' � � � �' O � � L w F'r '+�i � y .+ � �� a .., =`�� ; v� � v � 3 � o � � o x„ v, � �+ �„ � L+" a� Ay �cC c U .� C � i„�,� l. �"" I- � v' } � y � V W y'� I� CC 6� Vz �' Q� � �"� � � � � •� � (�l %� ,�, • e�G �1 p .—t 33 �-'-� � � �: ��s�� ° w "� d w t��,, r�,,, � P- � W o �' � G 1n i..i � "� O M 9�-i�� _ � � � � 0o a � �� w 0 1 � � � c .° c� :�, ..., o �, � c� � � �� ax � � .� v CC � � � � O � m � � 3 � � C� , p O A O � y a� O o a. � o a � '" �°3 ��, w '� � N �„ � � � �. � � � w � � � :.: � "� .� � .t C � O e � H 5R H x � �" � h � Gj p � � R "� � � � � � � � i�. O � �, � W G� r.+ � CQ � �' • y "r, x" ..�,. � w � G �-/8c� �: � �; R ;-� .. O � "C '=S �. S', � � � r� � �" O CC � CC � v � • '��" Q�-� y � , - � - i '^ �. � i w „ � eC O O R N x., y � L� �i N �+" � � � � � � � a � O � y�'� � � � a � ,.Q 9�-f �a � � �, � � o �� , w CL �'' U � � V� C� $"' N � � p .� L �a U O C �y .., � � •� a� � .� V � O � �i F�r �J 9-Jd'd � � A � --� a� .L N rti � a � � � � � �Q � y ,C � � � � > '.� v �i� � �' � � Cei � � CJ� � C; � R � Q� �O � y � � 3� W � � � � � � � �y �t p L�r � � 4. V ^~ � o � � > � .� � � � � � � � � � ,L '" '�" � U H A a� � CC ..r � � � � .Q � ^ � � � � � � � F� .� � � � � � n.r CC C 4� a� � w .� : � c• � '� � � „�+ U � � 'L3 s�_a.„::..:._:F- ,; ,_.,. 1 i � i i � ' I I I � i r � C � � ... ,� �� o � � � � � � � � � �C � � �' � c � �� y � �, � y o � : ... r :� �� o �' o � � � � �. � � o ;C � �' - rr A� � . C � � � y o � � o � � A � 7 i f�D � "�Y G � � � ¢, � � � � � o o• � � r , �, city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 99-13 date February 12. 1999 WHEREAS, development of Phalen Boulevard has been an objective of the City of Saint Pau{ since 1979; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the City initiated an Environmental impact Statement for proposed Phalen Boulevard and requested Planning Commission review and comment; and WHEREAS, in November 1994, the Planning Commission, to provide for representation of potential{y affected neighborhoods and interests in the EIS preparation process, convened the Phalen Soulevard Ef5 7ask Force, comprising residential, commercial, institutionai and public interests, to assist the staff and consultant during the scoping and preparation of the EIS; and WHEREAS, in accordance with recommendations of the Phalen Boulevard EIS Task Force and the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Rules (Chapter 4410.2600, Subpart 2), the City Council on December 9, 1998 released the Draft EIS for Phalen Boulevard for pubfic review and comment; and WHEREAS, Yhe Saint Paul Planning Commission and the Saint Pau1 City Councii jointfy sponsored the public hearing on the Draft EIS on )anuary 27, 1999, and WHEREAS the City staff and the Phalen-Boulevard EIS Task Force have considered the findings of the Draft EIS, public comment upon the Draft EIS, and the goals of the Phalen Boulevard project and the community, and the public comment and made recommendation for preferred alternatives in each of the three project segments; moved by Nowlin seconded by K=ame= ln �'d�70�' Unanimous against NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council determine that the Draft EIS is adequate and addresses appropriate alternatives and their potentia! impacts and should be finalized; and BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the City Council selects the following as the preferred alternatives for alignment and construction of Phalen Boulevard: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the central segment of the project area; and E-1 in the eastern segment of the project area; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed in conjundion with plans for the future use of the 5troh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straighi and as far south as possible without preventing a safe and attradive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenient access to Arcade Street, to serve busi�esses, the neighborhood, and the new Achievement Plus School/YMCA site. �9-/�C� NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paui Planning Commission finds and recommends thac the City Council determine that the Draft EIS is adequate and addresses appropriate alternatives and their potentiaf impacts and should be finalized; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the City Council selects the following as the preferred alternatives for alignment and construction of Phaien Boulevard: W-2D in the western segment of the project area; C-4 in the centrai segment of the project area; and E-� in the eastern segment of the project area; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends that the final alignment of the C-4 alternative be designed in conjunction with plans for the future use of the Stroh site north of Union Pacific tracks, in order to make best use of land in concert with the community objectives of jobs, tax base, cost-effectiveness, land use compatibility, housing and provision of neighborhood amenities; as straight and as far south as possible w+thout preventing a safe and attractive at-grade crossing at Payne Avenue; and with attractive and convenie�t access to Arcade Street, to serve businesses, the neighborhood, and the new Achievement Plus School/YMCA site.