Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-11 PacketAgenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:00 PM I. Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes V. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment, Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Snow and Ice Control/Chloride B. Sustainable Infrastructure/Envision C. Partners in Energy Update VII. Correspondence And Petitions A. Correspondence VIII. Chair And Member Comments A. Attendance report and roster B. Working Group List C. Chair and Member Comments IX. Staff Comments A. Staff Comments X. Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www edinamn. gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: WA. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Minutes From: Rebecca Foster, GIS Adminstrator Item Activity: Subject: Minutes Action ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Regular January 14, 2016 Meeting Minutes INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: January 14, 2016 Meeting Minutes Draft Minutes® Approved M i nutesq Approved Date: Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Energy and Environment Commission Edina City Hall Community Room Thursday, January 14, 2016, 7:00 PM I. Call To Order Chair Kostuch called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. II. Roll Call Answering Roll Call were Glahn, Gubrud, Howard, Manser, Reinke, Satterlee, Seeley, Stefanik, Thompson, Zarrin and Chair Kostuch. Late: Waddick Absent: Sierks Staff Present: Ross Bintner, Rebecca Foster, and Solvei Wilmot Commissioner Waddick arrived at 7:02p.m. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion made by Thompson to approve the Meeting Agenda. Motion seconded by Gubrud. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Gubrud to approve the November 12, 2015 minutes with edits. Motion seconded by Thompson. Motion carried. V. Special Recognitions And Presentations • None. VI. Community Comment Kris Wilson - Edina Garbage Man Justin Vierkant -Vierkant Disposal Darrell Hoekstra - Waste Management Rob Friend - SET Dan Trader - Suburban Waste Solvei Wilmot - Environmental Health Specialist\ Recycling Coordinator Draft Minutes Approved Minutes0 Approved Date: Michelle Horan — Recycling Solid Waste and Organics Working Group VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Conservation and Sustainability Fund Policy • Mr. Bintner reviewed the new Utility Franchise Fee that will be used to hire a new staff member, funds for sustainability projects and will be the liaison to the EEC. Motion made by Gubrud to recommend that the City Manager consider having the new Sustainability Conservation staff person report into a City organization unit that spans the City which could be Finance or the City Manager's office. Motion seconded by Zarrin. Motion carried. Glahn opposed. Motion made by Zarrin to amend the Agenda and move the Recycling Solid Waste and Organic Working Group Report to after the 2016 Workplan item due to lots of Community Representation. Motion seconded by Gubrud. Motion carried. B. 2016 EEC Workplan • Chair Kostuch reviewed the approved 2016 Workplan by Council and noted some of the initial workplan items priority's changed or were added. • The EEC Members would like clarification on what "Research and Report" means by the City Manager. Motion made by Glahn to remove Initiative 5 #3 from Workplan because it wasn't on the initial Workplan. Motion seconded by Kostuch. Glahn Aye. Motion failed. I. Recycling, Solid Waste and Organics Working Group • Solvei Wilmot — Environmental Health Specialist\ Recycling Coordinator presented the proposed ordinance change for organic (food waste) collection to be added. • Hennepin County is requesting the collection and provided a grant to help collect the organics. • The resident is not required to participate. It's for the hauler to collect it, if a resident requests it. Motion made by Zarrin to approve the ordinance change. Motion seconded by Seeley. Motion carried. Glahn and Kostuch opposed. C. February Televised Meeting • Chair Kostuch told the Commissioners that their request to do short YouTube videos instead of a televised meeting was denied. Draft MinutesIll Approved Minutes0 Approved Date: • The February televised meeting will be a normal meeting instead of a recap of everything. • Brian Olson, Public Works Director, will present on Snow and Ice Control with Chloride. • Ross Bintner, Environmental Engineer, will give an update on the Envision Rating System. D. Partners in Energy Update • Mr. Bintner reviewed Xcel Energy's Report in Energy usage within the City. • Mr. Bintner reviewed the committee's Vision Statement. Members Reinke and Stefanik excused themselves from the meeting at 8:57pm. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions • No Comment. IX. Chair And Member Comments A. Attendance report and roster • No Comment. B. Workgroup list and Minutes • Mr. Bintner suggested the Commissioners should review mission statements and decide ' till active too. Lauren will be co-chair for Education and Outreach Working Group. • Member Howard asked for Christopher Wilson's name is changed to Kristopher. C. Chair and Member Comments • No Comment. D. Building Energy Efficiency Subcommittee • No Comment. E. City Environmental Considerations Subcommittee • No Comment. F. Community Solar Subcommittee • Member Gubrud recapped Sun Share from League of Women Voters. • Cooperative Energy Futures is the company for the Solar Garden on Public Works roof. G. Education Outreach Working Group • Member Thompson announced April 14th will be the Forum on Greenhouse Gas Reduction with Elizabeth Wilson. Motion made by Kostuch to cancel the April Energy & Environment Commission Regular Meeting due to the Forum. Motion seconded by Gubrud. Motion carried. Draft Minutes© Approved MinutesEl Approved Date: • Member Howard announced the movie Lift the Burden will be January 28th. H. Home Energy Squad Subcommittee • Member Gubrud says there's 34 households signed up for 2016. • $1000 will be given to Center for Energy and Environment for 2016 installs. I. Recycling, Solid Waste and Organics Working Group • Member Seeley proposed a Draft Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance. • Packaging that's reusable and returnable, recyclable or compostable needs to be used for food or beverages prepared for immediate consumption. Motion made by Zarrin that the Energy & Environment Commission Members agree to let the Recycling, Solid Waste and Organics Working Group per the workplan to go research and report plus/minus/costs/benefits on preferred packaging. Motion seconded by Kostuch. Motion carried. J. Student Subcommittee • The Tech Dump Drive was accepted and will start at the April Forum. • The students at Southview are looking at improving their composting. • A group of Students will go to the next school board meeting to remind them about sustainability. K. Water Quality Working Group • Member Waddick is continuing the education on salt usage. • The Storm Stenciling program will start in April/May. XL Adjournment Motion made by Glahn to adjourn the January 14, 2016 meeting at 10:30p.m. Motion seconded by Zarrin. Motion carried. X. Staff Comments • The meeting was adjourned before staff comments could occur. A. Important Dates B. Term Summary C. Community Solar Update D. March 15 EEC/CC Joint Meeting E. 2015 Budget Summary Draft MinutesE Approved MinutesO Approved Date: Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Foster GIS Administrator CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From: Brian Olson, PW Director Item Activity: Subject: Snow and Ice Control/Chloride Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: No action is required. INTRODUCTION: Brian Olson will present information on snow and ice control, public safety and environmental consequence. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From: Ross Bintner, Enviromental Engineer Item Activity: Subject: Sustainable Infrastructure/Envision Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: Provide input to staff for future direction on topic of sustainable infrastructure. INTRODUCTION: In 2015 the Engineering Department undertook a review of neighborhood and municipal state aid street reconstruction programs. This review used the Envision rating system for sustainable infrastructure to assess and benchmark our program for sustainability using five categories of achievement: 1. Quality of Life 2. Leadership 3. Resource Allocation 4. Natural World 5. Climate and Risk At the meeting, Ross Bintner will provide an overview to frame the topic of sustainable infrastructure, and Olivia McGuire with Emmons and Oliver resources will describe Envision, provide a summary of the assessment report and benchmark, and preview potential next steps. The report is attached for your review. ATTACHMENTS: Envision Sustainability SelfAssessment Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. for the City of Edina, MN Envision Sustainability Self - Assessment of City Road Projects w a ter ecology c o rri tri unity December 2015 Document Component Specs Text: Staples • multipurpose paper, 24 lb. text — 50% post-consumer fibers, FSC Certified. Back Cover: Neenah Paper • Esse • Texture, Sapphire • 100 lb. cover • 30% post-consumer fibers, Green Sear Certified Wire Binding: Manufactured using recycled high carbon steel Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 PROCESS 2 3 SELF-ASSESSMENTS 3 3.1 City Plans, Policies, and Standards 3 3.2 Project 1: Arden Park Drive Neighborhood and 54th Street 7 3.2.1 Quality of Life 8 3.2.2 Leadership 9 3.2.3 Resource Allocation 9 3.2.4 Natural World 9 3.2.5 Climate and Risk 10 3.3 Project 2: Valley View Road 10 3.3.1 Quality of Life 11 3.3.2 Leadership 12 3.3.3 Resource Allocation 12 3.3.4 Natural World 12 3.3.5 Climate and Risk 12 3.4 Project 3: Birchcrest Boulevard 13 3.4.1 Quality of Life 14 3.4.2 Leadership 14 3.4.3 Resource Allocation 14 3.4.4 Natural World 15 3.4.5 Climate and Risk 15 3.5 Summary of Self-Assessments 15 4 ANALYSIS OF TRENDS AND PRIORITIES 17 4.1 SWOT Analysis 17 4.2 Prioritization and Implementation of Improvements 20 4.2.1 Phase 1 Improvement Goals 21 4.2.2 Phase 2 Improvement Goals 22 4.2.3 Summary of Potential Results of Improvements 23 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 24 5.1 City Plans and Policies 24 5.1.1 Develop a Climate Assessment and Adaptation (Sustainability) Plan 24 5.1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System 25 5.1.3 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies 26 5.1.4 Integrate Sustainability Principles into Future Plans and Studies 26 5.1.5 Develop a Wayfinding Plan 27 5.2 Design Standards and Considerations 27 5.2.1 Extend Useful Life of Roads - Perpetual Pavement Design 27 5.2.2 Extend Useful Life of Roads - Sustainable Stormwater Management 29 5.2.3 Integrated Active Management of Natural Resource Areas 32 5.2.4 Landscaping Design 34 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 5.2.5 Greywater Systems 35 5.2.6 Alternative Transportation Improvements 36 5.2.7 Lighting Design 36 5.2.8 Material and Supplier Specifications 36 5.2.9 Construction Practices 37 5.3 Education and Outreach 37 5.3.1 Internal Knowledge Capacity 37 5.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement 38 5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 39 5.5 Cost and Funding 42 APPENDIX 1 INDEX OF PROJECT FILES 44 City of Edina 44 Arden Park Drive 44 54th Street 45 Valley View Road 45 Birchcrest Boulevard 46 Envision Project Library 46 APPENDIX 2 ENVISION SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS OF THREE PAST PROJECTS 48 APPENDIX 3 PRIORITIZATION OF AND GOALS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO A ROAD PROJECT IN EACH ENVISION CREDIT 50 APPENDIX 4 SUSTAINABLE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION 52 List of Tables Table 1. Levels of Achievement 2 Table 2. Summary of Envision Award Levels 2 Table 3. Summary of Envision Ratings for Arden Park Drive and 54th Street Project 8 Table 4. Summary of Envision Ratings for Valley View Road Project 10 Table 5. Summary of Envision Ratings for Birchcrest Boulevard Project 14 Table 6. Summary of Preliminary Envision Ratings 16 Table 7. SWOT Analysis 18 Table 8. Implementation Phases of Improvement Goals 20 Table 9. Estimated Envision Ratings for Improved Future Projects based on Goals 23 Table 10. Cost Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Alternatives (Source: Edina's Living Streets Plan, 2015) 30 Table 11. Components of the Recommended Natural Resource Protection Atlas 33 Table 12. Cost Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Alternatives (Source: Edina's Living Streets Plan, 2015) 53 Table 13. Recommended Buffer Widths to Provide Certain Function 55 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. ii Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects List of Figures Figure 1. Project Area of Arden Park Drive Neighborhood Roadway Improvements 7 Figure 2. Project Area of 54th Street Reconstruction Project 8 Figure 3. Project Area of Valley View Road Roadway Improvements 11 Figure 4. Project Area of Arden Park Drive Neighborhood Roadway Improvements 13 Figure 5. Summary of Points in Scored in each Credit of Envision 16 Figure 6. Illustration of Present and Future Envision Achievement Levels in a Specific Credit 21 Figure 7. Relative Cost of Stormwater Management and Pollution Prevention Strategies 53 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. iii Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 1 INTRODUCTION This report assesses and benchmarks the City of Edina's progress towards its sustainability goals by evaluating the three following public works projects using the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) Envision sustainability rating system: 1. Arden Park Drive and 54th Street ($8.5M) 2. Birchcrest Boulevard ($3.5M) 3. Valley View Road ($2.0M) The Envision system provides a standardized, objective method to evaluate public works projects. The City completed the design process for the three road projects and they were assigned for construction in the spring of 2015. The projects were assessed in this report to understand how sustainability parameters are being accomplished and to what level. Of as much or more importance as benchmarking, the Envision review indicated areas where future improvements can be made on projects. The Envision rating system provides great guidance on how to design more sustainably. This report summarizes the results of the Envision ratings, trends identified in the City's progress towards sustainability goals, and recommendations for future public infrastructure projects. It is intended that City staff summarize and present these findings to stakeholders. The Envision framework is divided into five components to ascertain the sustainability of public works decision-making and projects by examining them from two different perspectives: • Is it the Right Project? • Is the Project done Right? The first of those questions is actually fairly challenging to address and often relates strongly to public works projects. The Quality of Life category was specifically created to address that question, and other categories include aspects targeted at addressing that issue. As the City looks towards building more sustainable infrastructure, it is important to acknowledge the local reality that almost the entire City is developed and any new approaches to infrastructure in Edina will be implemented through redevelopment and retrofits to existing infrastructure. Redevelopment, including street reconstruction, is the main opportunity to transform automobile- dependent landscapes into more sustainable communities by responding to new suburban demographics, rising transportation costs, and demand for infrastructure investments in light of climate change. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 1 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 2 PROCESS The self-assessment of the three roads projects included the following tasks: 1. Collected and reviewed documentation from the city on broader planning and the three road design documents. Downloaded electronic files from the City's website and ftp site. Reviewed other reference materials for self-assessment, such as the Los Angeles County's Envision project library. An index of the compiled file library is provided in Appendix 1. Final project documentation was not available because self-assessment began before the completion of the projects. 2. Evaluated each design project based on the Envision Rating System, as provided in Section 5, including the system's following five components: a. Quality of Life b. Leadership c. Resource Allocation d. Natural World e. Climate and Risk 3. Summarized the levels of achievement as su mmarized in Table 1 (from low to high: Improved, Enhanced, Superior, Conserving, and Restorative) and associated scores for each component. Compiled the category scores for an overall project score and the probable associated Award Level (Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum), as defined in Table 2. This summary is provided in Section 3.4. Table 1. Levels of Achievement Benchmark State of the practice Improved Performance that is above conventional Enhanced Sustainable performance adheres to Envision principles Superior Noteworthy sustainable performance Conserving Performance that has achieved essentially zero impact Restorative Performance that restores natural or social systems Table 2. Summary of Envision Award Levels Award Level Total Applicable Points Achieved (%) Bronze 20 Silver 30 Gold 40 Platinum SO 4. Identified trends where the projects could be designed or developed differently to a higher level of sustainability and obtain higher scores. Reviewed what methods might improve future designs. The trends are provided in Section 3.4. 5. Summarized the process, findings, and recommendations in this report. The proposed recommendations were focused on areas where gains can be made in sustainable planning and design. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 2 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 3 SELF-ASSESSMENTS The three project assessments were completed based on a detailed review of project documentation and an initial review of City planning documents. The assessment results and trends identified for improvement in future projects are summarized in the following subsections. Detailed scores of the three projects in each Envision credit are provided in Appendix 2. 3.1 City Plans, Policies, and Standards The application of Envision as a self-assessment and design tool is just one of many steps the City has taken towards building a more sustainable community. The assessment found that the City's strategic and comprehensive planning since 2000 has identified multiple objectives and priorities relevant to sustainable practices. City-wide plans have assisted in developing the City's approach to public infrastructure projects and will continue to do so in the future. Within the self-assessments, a project's consistency with recommendations in previously approved plans assists in raising the quality of life in Edina (QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life). This section summarizes the aspects of the plans most relevant to Envision. Edina's Vision 20/20 - A Strategic Plan (2000) defined a long-term vision for the City as well as a short term strategic plan. The plan established mission and vision statements demonstrating the priority of maintaining public infrastructure and highlighted that Edina is distinguished by its livable environment. Edina's Vision 20/20 Update Executive Summary (2003) upheld the mission and vision statements of the original plan and updated the objectives and strategies based on progress over the first three years of the plan. The City's mission and vision are as follows: "The mission of the City of Edina is to provide effective and valued public services, maintain a sound public infrastructure, offer premier public facilities and guide the development and redevelopment of lands within the City all in a manner which sustains and improves the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses." "Edina will be the preeminent place for living, learning, raising families and doing business distinguished by: • A livable environment, • Effective and valued city services, • A sound public infrastructure, • A balance of land uses, and • Innovation" The three road projects included in this self-assessment were developed based on Edina Vision 20/20, but future road projects will be guided by the recently updated Vision Edina (2015). A broad-based community engagement and visioning process was conducted in 2014 to update the strategic vision. The process resulted in the following mission statement, largely unchanged from the previous version: Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 3 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects "Our mission is to provide effective and valued public services, maintain a sound public infrastructure, offer premier public facilities and guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improves the health and uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses." Vision Edina also highlights aspects of the community that reflect the mission statement, such as a focus on investing in a sustainable environment and creating innovative solutions to the emerging challenges of living in a major city. The following strategic actions developed through the community engagement process are community's priorities related to Envision: 1. "Residential Development Mix • Further encourage the development of neighborhood associations and the overall neighborhood concept. Define the unique character and brand of each of the well- established neighborhoods, and explore innovative planning guidelines to allow preservation and enhancement of the desired neighborhood visual appeal. • Pursue further planning and development options that protect and locate key amenities, such as parks and community facilities, within the neighborhood framework to allow neighborhood centers and focus points to further evolve. • Continue to explore options for new multi-family housing throughout the city in mixed- use areas and near public spaces, including areas such as Southdale, Pentagon Park and Grandview. • Work to create affordable housing options close to transit, shopping and employment centers. 2. Transportation Options • Undertake community education and promotion to highlight the broad support and benefits of more diverse transportation options, and particularly to highlight the support expressed across multiple age demographics. • Work to expand transit options to Edina, and ensure that Edina residents do not become further isolated from the larger transit infrastructure. • Develop an integrated long-term plan that lays out a future-oriented and ambitious transportation network that covers multiple modes of transportation, and takes into account potential impacts of future technology on transportation modes and corridors. • Continue to promote and develop the sidewalk, trail and bike networks to improve accessibility and connectivity throughout the city and beyond. 3. Commercial Development Mix • In light of the escalating developmental pressures facing the Council and City, the City should as a priority renew its broader land use plan. This plan should examine and consider the future broad fabric of the community, and begin to define key nodes of higher-density mixed use, and potential nodes of small-scale commercial opportunity, embedded in more of a neighborhood context. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 4 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects • More consideration of scale and appropriate mixed use could be used in the review of new commercial development proposals, especially to take into account the compounding impact of numerous developments in close proximity and the concerns about this overall impact on streetscape, environmental aspects, transportation and utilities and services. 7. Environmental Stewardship • Develop a comprehensive city-wide environmental management plan that explores and includes best practices in water management, biodiversity, green space management, street scape enhancement and waste management. • Partner with energy and utility service providers to...promote energy efficiency and smart building practices at all City-owned properties. • Identify aa series of environmental flagship pilot projects to bring stakeholders together and begin exploring creative solutions. Examples could include: waste collection and management across the city; recycling and green waste management; environmental overlays on development projects such as Pentagon Park; and utilization of available areas such as Fred Richards Park as community gardens and biodiversity spaces. • Develop incentives for individual households to take an active role in the overall city responsibility for environmental management, including reducing nutrient loads in run-off local recycling and efficient resource usage. 8. Regional Leadership • City leaders and residents should collaborate to discover, develop and apply new best practices in environmental sustainability..." The vision of the Living Streets Policy (2013) further supports sustainable development relative to street projects and the triple bottom line: "Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health." Future street reconstruction projects will be guided by the design standards, tools and options outlined in the City's Living Streets Plan (2015). The plan assessed the current street network, context in Edina, prioritization of possible improvements, and community engagement to develop design guidelines that would achieve the Living Streets Policy's vision. Guidelines defined in the plan include standards for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in addition to consideration for traffic calming, stormwater management, and sustainable infrastructure. The Living Streets Plan is related to numerous Envision credits. The City's Comprehensive Plan Update (2008) included plans for land use, transportation, water resources, parks, and energy and environment. The plans are helpful in identifying the character district of a project area (QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character) and the need for alternative transportation facilities in a specific project area (QL2.5 Alternative Modes of Transportation). Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 5 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects The City also developed Wellhead Protection Plans (Part I in 2011 and Part II in 2013). These plans assessed and identified the risks for contaminating drinking water wells in the City. This is a useful tool to identify risks to health (drinking water) and resources (aquifers or groundwater dependent surface waters) if a protection zone is located in or near a project area (RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability and NW 2.3 Prevent Surface Water and Groundwater Contamination). The Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (2011) identifies wetlands throughout the City, which can assist in a project identifying opportunities to preserve prime habitat (NW1.1 Preserve prime habitat), protect wetlands (NW1.2 Protect wetlands and surface water), and maintain wetland and surface water functions (NW3.4 Maintain wetland and surface water functions). The plan also included the development of a watershed model that identified areas in the existing storm sewer system with insufficient conveyance capacity and surface flooding issues. The following City-wide plans and studies are also relevant to Envision: • Non-degradation Report Submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for Selected MS4 Permit Requirements, December 2007 • Capital Improvement Plan 2013-2017 • Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan, May 2014 • Findings Report for a Statistically Valid Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment Survey, October 2014 • State of the Utilities Report to Council, March 3, 2015 • Park Recreation and Trails Strategic Plan Draft, June 10, 2015 Recommendations from the City plans are implemented on a project-by-project basis in road reconstruction projects. The engineering or feasibility report prepared for each project identifies relevant aspects of past planning efforts, including those in the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, and Living Streets Plan. The reports also assess the project in relation to the triple bottom line, including equity, environment, and economic indicators. More recently, the City used Envision as a planning tool on one road project in addition to a triple bottom line approach to incorporate sustainability principles into specific projects. The goals of integrating Envision into the design process of a road reconstruction project were as follows: 1. To help the City, its consultants, and Edina residents define and discuss relevant sustainability parameters. The intent and definition of levels of achievement in each Envision credit clearly outline holistic sustainability parameters in each category. This is a helpful starting point for discussions so that the multi-faceted nature of sustainability and what sustainability means to each stakeholder is represented. 2. To provide a clear framework for incorporating the community's priorities into the preliminary design. During a robust stakeholder engagement process, the City highlights the relationships between sustainability parameters and project-specific issues. Stakeholders then provide input to help shape design decisions and recommendations. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 6 N 253191 5001 5003 5009 5007 5915 5028 510) 5101 5101 MOO 6404 5106 MOO 6113 5915 6107 6101 610 5112 5111 ytta 6113 5121 3191 519 5133 5137 519 5109 5120 5110 5133 5201 UM 6205 52011 WOO 300 -212 5216 5211 3/21 C 620 3241 6212 6213 616 5/17 6220 621 IT 4 5215 620 52/0 6132 6213 579 640 628 6300 5301 5301 6319 6301 5340 5305 1304 6305 6304 5307 5306 $311 5301 5113 639 5319 6317 6323 5134 539 5516 5531 5323 6331 6370 4403 459 412 N am 5021 5076 6020 509 5033 103; 509 5036 I I 3045 4015 6060 8002 6004 5006 5001 43 6001 921 14 5101 5105 100 6190 a AYE 502 5022 4421 MO4 611. 3 6101 5100 5100 111 1120 5124 5126 5131 S19 5101 11 5113 101 It 17 5113 111 5114 SIO1 5100 5112 5113 5116 510 6131 5120 504 6126 5100 6101 5126 5104 MOS 6101 6113 6114 5111 5116 6121 5120 5125 5131 6191 519 5124 5171 5131 5132 519 5137 raft 1 5301 1501 1300 6321 IRA R Ansi BONI EMI lE=MIN 6/74 32 633/ 6332 11337 6324 5124 .330 sant 5323 6332 65p 15354 6335 5354 WWI. ST 5141 6130 6343 63/6 5151 5333. 6340 5361 1346 5391 saw ME 2016 Project Area Arden Park D Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction improvement No: BA-412 wt hu...art Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 3. To help evaluate alternatives, ensuring that both economic factors and important social and environmental factors (the triple bottom line) are taken into consideration. The City compares the overall and category scores of each design alternative to evaluate the sustainability of each option. 3.2 Project 1: Arden Park Drive Neighborhood and 54th Street The Arden Park Drive Neighborhood Roadway Improvements project involved reconstruction of roadways within the project area, including bituminous pavement and curb and gutter, in addition to upgrades to storm sewer, water, sanitary sewer, and City owned lights. Storm sewer updates to address surface flooding issues included increased capacity with additional inlets and larger pipes in addition to infiltration practices. City lights were added where necessary based on resident feedback. Sidewalks were also added to Arden Avenue, West 52nd Street, and Minnehaha Boulevard. The project area is illustrated in Figure 1, which includes Arden Park located between Minnehaha Boulevard and Minnehaha Creek. Figure 1. Project Area of Arden Park Drive Neighborhood Roadway Improvements The 54th Street Reconstruction involved new bituminous pavement and curb and gutter along 54th Street from France Avenue to Wooddale Avenue, including the bridge over Minnehaha Creek (Figure 2). Improvements were also made to sidewalks, bike lanes, and City-owned utilities, Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 7 ' ,gitiogi %wen -...116-I, . Wai liii*". :7! wiz*: *mew. , ievii As $1110-1 . a • 7•MI:jiit1,1 um 1 Ilk : AIM I- i 'Mai ; .z I ._-...,.j411AIIIMPRii lag illMullihillIPPI:•cir 1114.13 .itati10;: lialtMa ,I alai, ,P2Mi-441kt ik, 4-31LVV444114' 112a0 "4,: air led I, 41502scii:. . Irarl ifitir 121i1C01 igaktk Awl , 234. leuravi Legend •Ifir 040 wanixiki _t Oil ligglianti:M11100 11 7SSPlif terl ,tair h, L.1 .1430,1,2t ARC Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects including storm, water, and sanitary. The Arden Park Neighborhood Roadway Improvements and 54th Street Reconstruction projects were constructed simultaneously to address neighborhood concern for water quality in Minnehaha Creek at Arden Park and to leverage the proximity of the projects to provide economies of scale and construction coordination. Figure 2. Project Area of 54th Street Reconstruction Project Overall, the self-assessment found these projects to achieve a total of 101 points out of a possible 789 points. The scores in each category and total score are summarized in Table 3. The following sections summarize the assessment in each Envision category. Table 3. Summary of Envision Ratings for Arden Park Drive and 54th Street Project Envision Ratings & Levels Arden Park Drive & 54th Street Quality of Life 45 / 181 Leadership 37 / 121 Resources Allocation 0 / 182 Natural World 17 / 183 Climate Risk 2 / 122 Total Rating 101 / 789 Achievement Level Improved Unofficial Award Level None Benchmark Improved Superior Conserving Restorative 3.2.1 Quality of Life The project scored 45 out of a possible 181 points in the Quality of Life category. The proposed bicycle sharrows on 54th Street West and sidewalks on Arden Avenue, West 5 2 nd Street, Minnehaha Boulevard, and 54th Street West, encourage alternative modes of transportation and eases traffic congestion. Proposed changes to intersections, such as refined lane widths and additional road markings for pedestrians and cyclists, improve safety and wayfinding in the neighborhood. Additionally, key stakeholders, affected agencies, and the community were engaged to solicit input on the project design. Collaboration with the community early in the design process revised original design concepts to better meet the community's needs and preserve local character. The Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 8 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects City considered in detail the existing conditions of the road and utilities and rehabilitated these community assets as a part of the road reconstruction. The project also improved public space through providing better access to Arden Park and canoe landings on Minnehaha Creek. 3.2.2 Leadership The project scored 37 out of a possible 121 points in the Leadership category. Aspects of sustainability are built into the City's mission, vision, and planning objectives. At a project level, the team for the 54th Street Improvements was committed to evaluating sustainability through Envision; however, some decision makers did not support sustainability enhancements. The project team engaged stakeholders (the community) at the beginning of the project and demonstrated how their input was used to revise the original design of the road improvements. Opportunities for stakeholder feedback continued throughout the project through meetings, weekly flyers, and surveys. 3.2.3 Resource Allocation The project scored the least points (0 out of a possible 182 points) in the Resource Allocation category. A life cycle energy assessment was not conducted as part of the project design and the City's project specifications do not include a requirement for obtaining materials and equipment from suppliers who implement sustainable practices. No documentation was provided to quantify the main improvement proposed in the project studies: reuse of existing bituminous and subgrade aggregate. The reuse is standard City practice with potential achievement in multiple Resource Allocation credits but a level of achievement cannot be determined without documentation showing the quantity of reused materials. An additional limit to the self-assessment was that the project documentation did not demonstrate the net change (increase or decrease) in impervious surface. Both projects proposed some increases from improvements, such as new sidewalks, and some decreases from shifting the curb line at intersections and cul-de-sacs. Increasing impervious will result in greater runoff and pollutant loading from the project area than under existing conditions. There was also no documentation of quantifying the benefit of infiltration practices in the Arden Park Drive Neighborhood. As such, the projects' net impact on freshwater availability could not be determined. 3.2.4 Natural World The project scored 17 out of a possible 183 points in the Natural World category. Preservation of farmland and avoiding adverse geology were excluded from the rating because they did not apply to the project. Although the intent of the project was to achieve much more in this category, no documentation was provided to substantiate achievement in most credits. The City intended to collaborate with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to restore fish habitat currently disturbed by a weir in Minnehaha Creek but simultaneous implementation was not possible with road improvements. The reconstruction of the bridge over Minnehaha Creek maintained existing floodplain storage and flood elevations. The project scored points associated with preserving greenfields because the entire project area and proposed changes are within the existing road right- of-way, which is designated for roadway purposes. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 9 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 3.2.5 Climate and Risk The project scored 2 out of a possible 122 points in the Climate and Risk category. This is because the project did not complete the required climate studies, threat assessments, or design to build resiliency into the project's infrastructure in the face of future extreme weather events. At a preliminary level, the project's encouragement of alternative transportation methods will assist in avoiding the resource trap of dependency on fuel that could become substantially more expensive in the future. The 54th Street bridge over Minnehaha Creek was replaced with an identical structure that did not increase preparation for short term hazards beyond existing regulations. The widening of the road in some areas increases the area of pavement and the associated heat island effect, although there were decreases of pavement in other areas. 3.3 Project 2: Valley View Road The Valley View Road Roadway Improvements project involved reconstruction of Valley View Road between McCauley Trail and Mark Terrace Drive. The road improvements included concrete sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lighting, on-street bike lanes, upgraded storm sewer, a roundabout at Valley View Road and Braemar Boulevard, replacement of water services from water main to curb stops, upgrades to fire hydrants, retaining walls, and reconstruction of bituminous pavement. Storm sewer improvements included a trunk sewer to address surface flooding issues at Sally Lane and Paiute Pass located north of the project area. The project area is illustrated in Figure 3, showing that the southern limits of the project extend into the Braemar baseball fields and golf course. Overall, the self-assessment found these projects to achieve a total of 68 points out of a possible 789 points. The scores in each category and total score are summarized in Table 4. The following sections summarize the assessment results in each Envision category. Table 4. Summary of Envision Ratings for Valley View Road Project Envision Ratings & Levels Quality of Life Valley View Road 29 / 181 Leadership 22 / 121 Resources Allocation 0 / 182 Natural World 15 / 183 Climate Risk 2 / 122 Total Rating 68 / 789 Achievement Level None Unofficial Award Level None Benchmark Improved Superior Conserving Restorative Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 10 H W+6 6 En.nweino M31. 2014 Preliminary Project Area Valley View Road Neighborhood Improvement No: BA-377 17.0 670 ;6112;47.;6704 46 aul ,74 4466 6011 6915 ggy, 6914 6911 1011 ; 6110 ; 6032 1.03 1461 , 100] Y11661J,Y" tool 006447 4541 ",;‘,..;;994. 6916 691, 1540 1111 9971 6126 696473 1347 Indian W1 ‘"' ' 640 Trails "" .„ 64.1 64M 1419 4400 4•21 5441 6 6404 409 4913 .6.904 ;4909 6106 6901 5 6410 911 ,67.25 ;67214,11; 610;67816765 9641 \V. 4721 i4910 1713' 6700 1709 8709 6705 ;,6704 ; 677a. 6714 4712 61134 4.4 GM; "09 i • 47204221 6717 61131727.4.6 4907 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Figure 3. Project Area of Valley View Road Roadway Improvements 3.3.1 Quality of Life The project scored 29 out of a possible 181 points in the Quality of Life category. The proposed bicycle lanes and sidewalk on Valley View Road encourages alternative modes of transportation and eases traffic congestion. However, the project area is not within generally accepted walking distance from public transportation. The roundabout at Valley View Road and Braemar Boulevard also improves safety and wayfinding of everyone traveling through the intersection. These improvements were developed through consultation with key stakeholders, including residents and MnDOT. The project team also limited tree disturbance where possible and proposed landscaping to connect the road with the surrounding natural areas that are typical of the neighborhood's character. No improvements to the public spaces and natural areas surrounding the road were included in the project. Street lighting was increased but no documentation demonstrated the lighting minimized light pollution. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 11 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 3.3.2 Leadership The project scored 22 out of a possible 121 points in the Leadership category. The team evaluated sustainability using the triple bottom line and ensured the City's planning objectives were met in this area. The project team engaged local residents at the beginning of the project and considered their input with other practicalities of the project while making design decisions, such as the location of the sidewalk. Opportunities for stakeholder feedback continued throughout the project through meetings, weekly flyers, and surveys. The greatest accomplishment in terms of leadership was the integration of both municipal and private infrastructure improvements within and outside of the project area. 3.3.3 Resource Allocation The project scored the least points (0 out of a possible 182 points) in the Resource Allocation category for similar reasons as in the Arden Park Neighborhood and 54th Street Roadway Improvements. The project did not include a life cycle energy assessment and the City does not have sustainable procurement practices for road projects. There was no documentation to demonstrate the amount of existing bituminous recycled on site, although it is a common practice by the City. The project area will continue to have negative impacts on freshwater availability because runoff will continue to discharge to downstream surface water resources with no quantity or quality controls. Even further, runoff quantity and quality was worsened by increased impervious surfaces in the project area. 3.3.4 Natural World The project scored 15 out of a possible 183 points in the Natural World category. Preservation of farmland and avoiding adverse geology were excluded from the rating because they did not apply to the project. The project area was adjacent to and included parts of natural resources, including the Braemar Branch of the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek and a wetland complex behind properties on the south side of Valley View Road. Multiple aspects of the project will impact the resources, such as increased runoff and pollutants from additional impervious and proposed grading changes within the floodplain at the intersection with.Braemar Boulevard. The project documentation did not assess or mitigate these impacts. The only points achieved in this category were associated with preserving greenfields because the entire project area and proposed changes were within the existing road right-of-way. 3.3.5 Climate and Risk The project scored 2 out of a possible 122 points in the Climate and Risk category. The project did not complete the required climate studies, threat assessments, or design to build resiliency into the project's infrastructure in the face of future extreme weather events. At a preliminary level, the project's encouragement of alternative transportation methods will help avoid the resource trap of fuel dependency. The widening of the road and addition of sidewalk increased the pavement area and the associated heat island effect. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 12 6205 5201 5904 5936 PROJECT LIMITS 15121 _ _ -- 5916 a 5, 8001 6009 ; 6001 0880 EOM 6004 6095 EOM 6008 0309 6005 8015 8012 6013 6012 8017 6016 0017 8100 PORTER LN 6021 6104 8109 6104 6103 g 6101 6105 8103 521 1528t20'>— .4. 6186 8104 E 081110: 8113 ,b 6 6 1 ,1 7 0 2 ,t,..;72 I 6109BIW 5 ._6113 0112 6 6120 F •'028 1 5 6117 8110 6117 8121 1 6125 en° 61 27 5100 • —•••••• 6104 6125 • 511^., 5101 2 • " .41/4 5105 ' siw 6109 213 I 1 133 6130 " 6 4 S,' „ 1 5 5 1 Ce , 6,2 8 4 120 40. 09.1. 6117 6413 .5124 7 mg ,Zy 0149 5132 0121 8•M 5110 6128 ..0 1 11.41800 5104510° e2ot 820 WOO 1 5200 0121 W 62ND ST 6205 6204 ) 771 5109 .2 : g, c212 /.._209 ROBERTS PL LID 21 115 109 105!5101 ;5720 1 11261061 6100 6206 5135 5113 8 5107 2014 Project Area Birchcrest B Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No: BA-410 Wyk E Ginn., 040 2913 5529J sgo, 5801 5906 4535 6104 8106 6118 6120 6124 6128 5012 RENTON AVE 5005 1 6908 5909 22 2 3 6004 W 60Th ST 6001 .502560215017 501350095086 6005 602450205018 5012 50 0 CLOVER RIDGE ..8101 501356895033 5504 6109 .5001 5212 5206 5204115200 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 3.4 Project 3: Birchcrest Boulevard The Birchcrest Boulevard Neighborhood Roadway Improvements project involved reconstruction of roadways within the project area, including new bituminous pavement, spot repairs to curb and gutter, and curb bump-outs on Valley View Road. Concrete slab road surfaces were replaced by bituminous roads. Utility upgrades included storm sewer, water, and sanitary sewer. Storm sewer updates to address surface flooding issues included increased capacity with additional inlets and pipes. The Normandale Boulevard sidewalk was extended south from Benton Avenue to Valley View Road and around Valley View Road to Clover Ridge. Sidewalks were also added to Arden Avenue, West 52nd Street, and Minnehaha Boulevard. The project area is illustrated in Figure 4 and shows that the area is primarily residential with no parks or natural areas located within project limits. Birchcrest Pond and a Manage 1 wetland are located west of the project limits. Overall, the self-assessment found these projects to achieve a total of 67 points out of a possible 771 points. The scores in each category and total score are summarized in Table 5. The following sections summarize the assessment in each Envision category. Figure 4. Project Area of Arden Park Drive Neighborhood Roadway Improvements Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 13 Superior Conserving Restorative Improved Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Table S. Summary of Envision Ratings for Birchcrest Boulevard Project Envision Ratings & Levels Quality of Life Birchcrest Boulevard 21 / 181 Leadership 18 / 121 Resources Allocation 0 / 182 Natural World 26 / 165 Climate Risk 2 / 122 Total Rating 67 / 771 Achievement Level None Unofficial Award Level None Benchmark 3.4.1 Quality of Life The project scored 21 out of a possible 181 points in the Quality of Life category. Minor improvements to mobility and safety were provided by the traffic calming curb bump-outs on Valley View Road and the sidewalk on Normandale Road and part of Valley View Road. Input from residents throughout the stakeholder engagement program limited the extent of the new sidewalk in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood. The project team considered the alternatives of replacing or maintaining concrete slab sections of roads in the neighborhood and recommended replacement with bituminous. The City considered in detail the existing conditions of the road and utilities and rehabilitated these community assets as a part of the road reconstruction. The project did not include improvements to public spaces, such as parks, in or near the project area. 3.4.2 Leadership The project scored 18 out of a possible 121 points in the Leadership category. Aspects of sustainability are built into the City's mission, vision, and planning objectives. At a project level, the team considered the project impact in terms of the triple bottom line; however this did not assist in navigating lack of stakeholder support for sustainable features of the project. The project team engaged residents at the beginning of the project and considered their input in adjusting the project's design. Opportunities for stakeholder feedback continued throughout the project through meetings, weekly flyers, and surveys. 3.4.3 Resource Allocation The project scored the least points (0 out of a possible 182 points) in the Resource Allocation category. A life cycle energy assessment was not conducted as part of the project design and the City's project specifications do not include a requirement for obtaining materials and equipment from suppliers who implement sustainable practices. No documentation was provided to quantify the main improvement in this category: the reuse of existing bituminous and subgrade aggregate. The project documentation did not demonstrate a net change impervious coverage, although the proposed changes both increased impervious by adding sidewalk and decreased impervious in other areas due to the curb bump-outs. No measures were proposed to improve or mitigate the project's impact on freshwater availability. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 14 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 3.4.4 Natural World The project scored 26 out of a possible 165 points in the Natural World category. Preservation of farmland and avoiding adverse geology were excluded from the assessment because they did not apply to the project. Protecting wetlands and surface water also did not apply because there were no areas in the project extents where a buffer zone could be established. Correspondence included in project documentation indicated that the proposed drainage alterations to address surface flooding issues would not impact the flood elevations in the downstream Birchcrest Pond. The project scored points associated with preserving greenfields because the proposed changes were within the existing road right-of-way. 3.4.5 Climate and Risk The project scored 2 out of a possible 122 points in the Climate and Risk category. This is because the project did not complete the required climate studies, threat assessments, or design to build resiliency into the project's infrastructure in the face of future extreme weather events. At a preliminary level, the project's encouragement of alternative transportation methods via a sidewalk extension will help avoid the resource trap of fuel dependency. The proposed drainage improvements do not build resiliency to short or long-term hazards. Additional pavement and sidewalk increases the associated heat island effect, although there were decreases in other areas of the project. 3.5 Summary of Self-Assessments The self-assessment of the three projects found that the City is improving the sustainability of some aspects of road improvement projects but these improvements are usually insufficient to achieve any level in the Envision rating system. The Valley View Road and Birchcrest Boulevard projects accomplished minimal sustainability improvements due to lacking natural resources protection and stakeholder support for alternative transportation measures, respectively. The City greatly enhanced the design process in the Arden Park Drive and 54th Street project through stakeholder engagement and evaluation of alternatives using Envision. A summary of the category scores, overall score, and level of achievement for each road project is provided in Table 6. The possible levels of achievement are defined in ascending order of sustainability as improved, enhanced, superior, conserving, and restorative. It is important to understand that changes to the status quo of project design and delivery can range from small efforts that improve a project, to out-of-the-box thinking that could lead to truly restorative solutions that truly move suburban systems back toward more sustaining models. The achievements of each project are insufficient for the first Envision award level, bronze, because a minimum of 20% of the applicable points must be achieved. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 15 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Table 6. Summary of Preliminary Envision Ratings Envision Ratings & Levels Quality of Life Arden Park Drive & 54th Street 45 / 181 Valley View Road 29 / 181 Birchcrest Boulevard 21 / 181 Leadership 37 / 121 22 / 121 18 / 121 Resources Allocation 0 / 182 0 / 182 0 / 182 Natural World 17 / 183 15 / 183 26 / 165 Climate Risk 2 / 122 2 / 122 2 / 122 Total Rating 101 / 789 68 / 789 67 / 771 Achievement Level Improved None None Unofficial Award Level None None None Superior Conserving Restorative Benchmark Improved The points achieved by the projects in each credit are illustrated in Figure 5. As shown in the graph, the most points are achieved in the quality of life and leadership categories. Most of the City's efforts in terms of sustainability have been to improve quality of life (QL1.1), improve community mobility and access (QL2.4), encourage alternative modes of transportation (QL2.4), improve safety (QL2.6), and enhance public space (QL3.3). The City is also providing effective leadership and commitment (LD1.1), fostering collaboration and teamwork (LD1.3), providing for stakeholder involvement (LD1.4), and improving infrastructure integration (LD2.2). The City has taken first steps in establishing a sustainability management system (LD1.2), extending useful life of projects (LD3.3), and avoiding traps and vulnerabilities (CR2.2). All projects have preserved greenfields (NW1.7) while only one project has preserved prime habitat (NW 1.1) or preserved floodplain functions (NW1.5), which are also a function of the fully developed nature of the city. The City can accomplish much more in the categories of resources allocation, natural world, and climate risk. 30 25 20 10 N N "I '4. "1 .? N N '4 NNNN ^1 N "1 "1 N N m N "1 N "1 '4 "1 N "1 r zzzzzzz n", 74! ri gggggggggggg 18, 18, gggg '6 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3uuuu E gi., Envision Credits Tote Possible —Arden Park Drive & 54th Street --Birchcrest Boulevard —Valley View Road Figure 5. Summary of Points in Scored in each Credit of Envision Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 16 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 4 ANALYSIS OF TRENDS AND PRIORITIES 4.1 SWOT Analysis Trends in the City's ability to implement sustainable infrastructure projects were compiled into an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). The SWOT analysis identifies internal and external factors that help or hinder the City's ability to build sustainable infrastructure in road reconstruction projects. The SWOT analysis, in turn, will assist the City in deciding the most effective next steps in improving the sustainability of future projects. The results of the SWOT analysis are presented in Table 7 and are discussed below. Extending the useful life of a road surface reduces the frequency of reconstruction, resulting in lower long term costs and substantial reductions in the energy, water, and materials used in each reconstruction. This also minimizes the frequency of traffic closures and prepares for the possibility of future funding cuts necessitating the deferral of road rehabilitation. A typical road lifespan is 20 years whereas application of long-lasting strategies can extend the lifespan to more than 50 years. The integrated nature of Edina's road projects means that extending useful life of roads will require more durable, flexible, and resilient infrastructure that is included in projects and along road corridors: sidewalks, bike lanes, private utilities, stormwater infrastructure, sanitary sewer, water mains, and street lighting. The City's approach of bundling improvements to all assets in the corridor is, in itself, a method of extending the useful life of the road repairing or replacing aging underground infrastructure that would otherwise require further road disruptions within the lifespan of the reconstructed road. The utility improvements included in the street reconstruction projects do not fully consider and address the need for long-term adaptability to climate change. This is particularly concerning as it relates to flood risk and water quality in Edina, where the MPCA has found multiple resources to be impaired. Following a significant rainfall event in June of 2014, the City found itself with an overwhelming volume of service requests for flooding, wet basements, and surcharging sanitary sewers. Water levels in Minnehaha Creek set all-time records and remained a concern into August, 2014. The 2015 State of the Utilities noted that the City was still implementing retrofit and rehabilitation projects in 2015 in response to this event. Across the Midwestern United States, heavy rainfall events and floods are becoming larger and more frequent and projections indicate a continued trend of increasing annual average precipitation, heavy precipitation, and fewer dry days1. Recommendations related to assessing and adapting to climate change impacts in future projects are outlined in Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. The recommendations were formulated to leverage the strength of the City's public engagement practices and bundled approach to infrastructure improvements, in addition to embrace the opportunities identified in the SWOT analysis. Recommendations also highlight design considerations for roads that can extend their useful life. 1 Moss, Paul. 2013. Adapting to Climate Change in Minnesota. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=15414. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 17 External (outside of organization) In (within organization) Strengths 1. Road improvements are grouped by location so that entire neighborhoods are improved instead of scattered improvements to individual streets throughout the City. This is both more cost- effective and assists in extending the lifespan of the road. 2. Utilities are upgraded at the same time as road reconstruction. This, again, extends the lifespan of the road. 3. City has developed an extensive public engagement process based on lessons learned from past experiences. 4. Mission, vision, and priority focus areas of City support the need for sustainable infrastructure. Several planning documents support and inform regional infrastructure needs. 5. Reusin: existin: road materials in sub:rade is a standard 'practice. Weaknesses 1. No sustainability management system. 2. Standards and policies set a low minimum requirement for projects in terms of sustainability. It is challenging to meet sustainable objectives on a project-by-project basis when there is no City-wide strategy, guidance, or standards for meeting those objectives. 3. Lack of funding within City budgets. 4. Inconsistent support of some green infrastructure techniques from decision makers within City. 5. The City is almost fully developed, providing limited to no municipal land for new developments using a sustainable infrastructure approach. 6. Aging public utilities, including some storm sewers found to be undersized in some areas based on updated precipitation frequency assessments. 7. Multiple water resources in the City are currently categorized as impaired by the MPCA. Impaired resources include Minnehaha Creek, Nine Mile Creek, Lake Cornelia, and Lake Edina. Opportunities 1. Increase engagement of property owners adjacent to road projects to implement improvements outside of the ROW. This could range from home-owners installing rain barrels to a golf course using municipal greywater for irrigation. It could also include the creation of a greywater utility line separate from storm, sanitary, and drinking water. 2. Public consultation used to develop the updated Vision for the City identified multiple priority concerns from the public that support the need for sustainable infrastructure. 3. Watershed Districts are open to partnering with City on projects that protect natural resources. 4. MS4 re. uirements ma be enforced or enhanced in future. Threats 1. Missing buy-in from decision makers outside of City. 2. Priorities of public conflict with some sustainable practices. 3. Public does not trust that the City truly wants their input early in the design process. 4. Lack of funding from state, federal, and other external sources. 5. Collaboration with other local agencies, such as the Watershed Districts, is difficult because timing of planned projects do not align with that of City projects. 6. The Watershed Districts do not have stormwater management requirements from road reconstruction projects. 7. Climate change threatens to compromise public infrastructure (transportation, energy generation and transmission, water, sewer, and telecommunications) due to extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and other effects. Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Table 7. SWOT Analysis Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 18 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Regulations conflicting with sustainable practices were not found during the self-assessment. However, gaps in the standards and policies of the City and Watershed Districts are both weaknesses and threats to building sustainable infrastructure. Projects that do not go beyond the benchmark accomplishments in the Resource Allocation, Natural World, and Climate Risk are designed to meet current local standards instead. The City's current standards provide minimal sustainable benefits in terms of mitigating light pollution, controlling erosion, limiting noise and vibration, managing stormwater, and protecting resources. A compounding factor is that the Watershed Districts also have minimal or no requirements for road reconstruction projects in terms of resource protection and stormwater management. The lenient regulatory framework applicable to these projects means that sustainable aspects of individual projects must be a result of stewardship of the project team and stakeholders and will not necessarily be consistently practiced across the City. The City's Living Streets Plan (2015) defines new design standards for each road classification but does not include specific standards or objectives for the aforementioned topics. The Living Streets Plan also notes that external regulatory hurdles can be turned into opportunities in a project if identified early. The SWOT analysis recognizes that such external requirements, such as those through MS4, may increase in the future. Recommendations to address gaps in policies and standards are provided in Section 5.1. Addressing the concerns of stakeholders of a project may require trade-offs in terms of sustainability. The stakeholder engagement process invites feedback on design alternatives in the project. Incorporating feedback into the final design is recognized in the Envision system's Quality of Life and Leadership categories as making a project more sustainable by finding and addressing the community's needs. However, stakeholder input can lead to alteration or complete removal of key sustainability features that are also recognized by Envision. For example, complaints from residents to Council regarding the proposed sidewalk in the Birchcrest Boulevard project resulted in the removal of a portion of the sidewalk from the final plans. In other cases, stakeholder impact better informed the decisions regarding the project. For example, on the same Birchcrest Boulevard project, residents voiced their concerns or support for replacement of concrete slab roads with bituminous pavement. The City used this feedback in addition to other factors, such as cost and noise, to inform the final decision to replace the slabs with bituminous pavement. Recommendations to address the threat of trade-offs and create opportunities through stakeholder engagement are provided in Sections 5.1 and 5.3. Another administrative weakness is that the City does not have a defined sustainability management system, although it has the beginnings of one. The purpose of such a system is to formalize how a City plans, implements, and measures sustainable practices. The City has begun to develop these steps through various planning documents and evaluating progress through this self- assessment. Developing a full sustainability management system will further assist in navigating the complexities and trade-offs during the design process, measuring the effectiveness of various sustainable efforts, and building credibility with stakeholders. Developing such a system will also help achieve some low hanging fruit in the Envision system by ensuring consultants and design teams compile the required documentation to demonstrate the accomplishments of each project. Recommendations for developing this system are provided in Section 5.1. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 19 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 4.2 Prioritization and Implementation of Improvements The self-assessment and trend analysis identified many possible improvements to the sustainability of future infrastructure projects. All three projects had a benchmark level of achievement in multiple credits, and conserving or restorative levels were achieved in few credits. Future improvements could aim to improve by one level of achievement, by all levels, or by varying levels in each credit. A more realistic and targeted approach to improving the sustainability of future projects would be to focus on priority improvements that are specific to the context in Edina. A weighted decision matrix was developed to evaluate the relative importance of improvements in each Envision credit. Each credit was evaluated based on the following criteria: A. Does improvement in this credit address a priority concern or focus area identified by City plans and through community engagement processes? B. Does improvement in this credit address realities identified in the SWOT analysis? To do so, an improvement would leverage the strengths and opportunities in Edina, or would minimize the greatest weaknesses and threats. C. Does improvement in this credit require minimal effort in future projects? Low hanging fruit improvements were most commonly found where there was clear intent to provide sustainable improvements, but insufficient documentation was provided to confirm the extent of achievement. Next, each criterion was weighted based on order of importance, with criterion B having the highest weight and criterion C having the lowest. A total score was then calculated for each credit to reflect the relative importance of improving achievement levels. This provided an outline of high priority improvements requiring immediate and large improvements, mid-priority improvements that should eventually be improved upon, and low priority improvements that require minimal or no improvement in the short term. The priority of improvements in each credit is detailed in Appendix 3. The maximum total score of 6 in the matrix indicates highest priority improvements whereas the lowest score of 0 indicates lowest priority. An additional strategy was used to phase in improvements rather than implementing all improvements immediately. The phasing approach is summarized in Table 8. The Phase 1 and 2 goals in each credit are detailed in the following subsections and in Appendix 3. Recommended improvements in the above credits are detailed in Section S. Table 8. Implementation Phases of Improvement Goals Priority High Phase 1 Goals Phase 2 Goals Maximum Maintain Maximum Medium (low hanging fruit) Minimal Maximum Medium (all others) None Maximum Low (all are low hanging fruit) Minimal Maintain Minimal None None Minimal Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 20 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 4.2.1 Phase 1 Improvement Goals For each credit, an arrow icon is used throughout this report to illustrate the achievement level determined in the self-assessments and the goal for future road projects, as shown in Figure 6. The dot is shown on the current level of achievement and the goal is to progress to the end of the white arrow. Current Achievement Level Goal Achievement Level Benchmark to Restorative Achievement Levels Figure 6. Illustration of Present and Future Envision Achievement Levels in a Specific Credit The following maximum improvements to achievement levels2 have the highest priority: • QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life • LD3.3 Extend Useful Life • RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability • NW2.1 Manage Stormwater • NW3.4 Maintain Wetland and Surface Water Functions The following maximum improvements have the next highest priority: • QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access • QL2.5 Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation • LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment • LD1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System • LD3.2 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies • NW1.1 Preserve Prime Habitat • NW1.2 Protect Wetlands and Surface Water • NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts • CR2.1 Assess Climate Threat • CR2.2 Avoid Traps and Vulnerabilities • CR2.3 Prepare for Long-term Adaptability • CR2.4 Prepare for Short-term Hazards As noted above, goals for high priority improvements were defined as the maximum possible level of achievement. The interrelationships between Envision credits may result in overlapping 2 Achievement Levels: Benchmark Superior Conserving Restorative Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 21 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects improvements with no, low, and medium priority credits as well. Due to their ease of implementation, Phase 1 should also include the following low hanging fruit improvements: • QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution • QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding X • QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character > • QL3.3 Enhance Public Space • LD1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement • --• • LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration • LD3.1 Plan for Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance • RA1.3 Use Recycled Materials 3111, • RA1.4 Use Regional Materials • RA1.5 Divert Waste from Landfills 111111 • RA1.6 Reduce Excavated Materials Taken off Site • RA2.1 Reduce Energy Consumption • NW1.5 Preserve Floodplain Functions • NW1.6 Avoid Unsuitable Development on Steep Slopes 2E) • NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity > • NW3.2 Control Invasive Species 4.2.2 Phase 2 Improvement Goals Phase 2 will include other important improvements that were not as urgent, important, or easy to implement as the Phase 2 improvements. The following maximum improvements have mid- priority: • QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution _ AV'In `Nr=111. • QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding NOMILT`cr • QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character M•it.3M= • QL3.3 Enhance Public Space • LD1.3 Foster Collaboration and Teamwork \-Am.= • LD2,2 Improve Infrastructure Integration • RA3.2 Reduce Potable Water Consumption • NW1.5 Preserve Floodplain Functions • NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity • CR1.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions The following minimal improvements have no priority: • QL1.2 Stimulate Sustainable Growth and Development • QL1.3 Develop Local Skills and Capabilities • QL2.1 Enhance Public Health and Safety ANION. • QL2.2 Minimize Noise and Vibration Y71:1111111111W Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 22 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects o QL3.1 Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources • LD2.1 Pursue By-product Synergy Opportunities -'77 -11WP • RA1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Energy 2111Ik • RA1.2 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices • RA1.7 Provide for Deconstruction and Recycling • RA2.2 Use Renewable Energy . • RA2.3 Commission and Monitor Energy Systems 2E0 o RA3.3 Monitor Water Systems 21111. • NW1.7 Preserve Greenfields f NW2.3 Prevent Surface and Groundwater Contamination :Mit= • NW3.3 Restore Disturbed Soils 1::1771111V> • CR1.2 Reduce Air Pollutant Emissions • CR2.5 Manage Heat Island Effect 4.2.3 Summary of Potential Results of Improvements Improvements to future projects are expected to increase Envision ratings to the estimated overall ratings summarized in Table 9. The detailed scoring in each credit is provided in Appendix 3. The projected ratings illustrate that significant improvements in Phases 1 and 2 will reach an overall `Superior' level of achievement. Phase 1 improvements would be able to receive a Gold Award in Envision while additional improvements in Phase 2 would extend achievement to a Platinum Award. Explicit recommendations are provided in Section 5 for achieving the Phase 1 Goals. Additional improvements may be achieved through the interrelationships between credits. It is expected that the City will continue self-assessments throughout these phases and may adjust priorities for improvements in Phase 2. Table 9. Estimated Envision Ratings for Improved Future Projects based on Goals Envision Ratings & Levels Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Possible Quality of Life 73 110 181 Leadership 83 98 121 Resources Allocation 34 68 182 Natural World 113 153 183 Climate Risk 76 104 122 Overall Rating 379 533 794 Achievement Level Superior Superior Restorative Unofficial Award Level Gold Platinum Platinum Benchmark Verjor'-:, Conserving Restorative Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 23 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 5 RECOMMENDATIONS The following subsections describe recommendations to achieve the highest priority improvements and the documentation required to achieve the other, easily achievable improvements, for Phase 1 Goals defined in Section 0. For some credits, it is recognized that the maximum level of achievement will be a challenging goal for road reconstruction projects. However, the goals are attainable with additional consideration for design opportunities, partnerships, and funding. Pushing the boundary of typical road reconstruction projects will require the City to develop innovative sustainable practices. The recommendations are grouped into several sections, including City-wide plans and policies, design standards and considerations, education and outreach, monitoring and evaluation, and cost and funding. 5.1 City Plans and Policies While many recommendations are focused on the continuous improvement on a project-by-project basis, several Envision topics can be efficiently addressed at a City or Engineering-Department level. These recommendations would apply to the design of all future road reconstruction projects and could also be expanded to all capital and operational programs implemented by the City. 5.1.1 Develop a Climate Assessment and Adaptation (Sustainability) Plan CR2.1 Assess Climate Threat a.=1, CR2.2 Avoid Traps and Vulnerabilities CR2.3 Prepare for Long-term Adaptability mokr=,,=, CR2.4 Prepare for Short-term Hazards _ . RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability =.,.=„smo, NW2.1 Manage Stormwater NW3.4 Maintain Wetland and Surface Water Functions Develop a City-wide climate impact assessment and adaptation plan (CR2.1), including a vulnerability assessment, risk assessment, and adaptation assessment. Climate change can result in future changes in operating conditions such as higher ambient temperatures, increased frequency and intensity of storms, flooding, and extended droughts. The plan should assess the risk of how these changing operating conditions in Edina could impact the efficient operation of infrastructure and public space and recovery from extreme events. The assessment and plan development process should include documented meetings with community and collaboration with local emergency management department(s). The assessment should also assess and recommend how Edina's road projects should avoid traps and vulnerabilities (CR2.2) that could create high long-term costs and risks for affected communities. Consideration is needed for resource, configuration, and standards traps as outlined in this Envision credit. A City-wide study should assess the community's long-term resiliency - such as resource demands and supplies, resource and infrastructure traps, and vulnerabilities - risk, and alternatives. Decision makers and the community should participate in this assessment. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 24 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Another consideration needed in the assessment is how infrastructure systems can be built to be resilient to the consequences of long-term climate change, perform adequately under altered climate conditions, or adapt to other long-term change scenarios (CR2.3). Under the restorative level of achievement, this means that the City is restoring and rehabilitating the effects of long-term change, including desertification, beach erosion, and loss of wetlands. The study should specify how designs should prepare for long-term climate change using strategies such as structural changes, decentralized systems, natural systems, alternative supply options, adaptive capabilities, and site selection. Climate change impacts in need of consideration include the effects of increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, water scarcity, sea level rise, extended droughts and heat waves, and increased ambient temperature. The resilience and long-term recovery of City infrastructure from natural and human-induced short-term hazards should also be assessed in the study (CR2.4). Hazards include but are not limited to wildfires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. First steps in preparing for short-term hazards include a thorough assessment of natural and human-induced hazards for at least the next 25 years, and then designing infrastructure to limit or fortify against the 50-year or 100-year hazards beyond existing codes and regulations. The restorative level of achievement in Envision takes a further step to restore and rehabilitate natural systems to minimize risks of natural hazards, such as restoring wetlands to accommodate flooding or lessen the effects of hurricanes. Considering such threats on a project-by-project basis may be a challenge in terms of the effort needed to complete the assessment and rallying sufficient support for implementing adaptation strategies. As such, the plan should also outline how these considerations should be incorporated into road reconstruction and infrastructure projects, which may call for changes to regulations, policies, and design standards. It is expected that this assessment will result in recommendations of how to extend the lifespan of roads and other infrastructure, such as stormwater systems, in light of future risks due to climate change. A recommended approach to protecting freshwater availability (RA3.1), managing stormwater (NW2.1), and maintaining wetland and surface water functions (NW3.4) is presented in Section 5.2.1 based on state-wide climate trends and suggested adaptation strategies. The Climate Assessment and Adaptation Plan will help determine the extent to which improvements are necessary in Edina to build sustainable infrastructure. In addition to adaptation strategies, the plan should outline the City's goals and objectives in terms of mitigating climate change through greenhouse gas reductions (CR1.1). This is an area for maximum improvement in Phase 2 that is not discussed in detail in the recommendations. 5.1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System LD1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System Develop a Sustainability Management System that achieves ISO 14004 certification and defines responsibility for sustainability objectives high in the organizational structure and in project teams. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 25 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Certification provides assurance to management, employees, and external stakeholders that sustainability and environmental impact is being measured and improved upon. The system will also define the processes and policies for projects to manage the scope, scale, and complexity of projects seeking to improve sustainable performance, such as standard project documentation, stakeholder engagement processes, and metrics to use in evaluating design alternatives. Multiple management methods and tools are already in development at the City due to the Kaizen approach to public infrastructure projects. However, as found during the Birchcrest Boulevard project, trade- offs in project objectives and stakeholder engagement are challenging to manage through construction of the project. 5.1.3 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies LD3.2 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies Conduct an extensive assessment of laws, standards, regulations, and policies that are unintentionally running counter to sustainability goals, objectives, and practices. The assessment should include City, county, watershed, state, and federal agencies. Address conflicts broadly with the intent of changing overall approaches and philosophies, in addition to specific design and construction standards and practices. Conflicts were not identified during the self-assessment process; however a full and detailed review may identify barriers to sustainable infrastructure improvements. In addition to addressing conflicts, regulations and policies must be developed to address new problems arising from sustainability issues. Design or construction recommendations are detailed in Section 5.2 for the following credits and can be standardized across the City for all projects: • QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution through updated standards for street lights (See Section 5.2.7) • QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access through construction practices that improve community mobility and access (See Section 5.2.9) • RA1.2 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices through material and supplier specifications (See Section 5.2.8) • RA1.3 to 1.6 Use Recycle Materials, Use Regional Materials, Divert Waste from Landfill, Reduce Excavated Materials Taken Off Site through construction practices (See Section 5.2.9) • NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts through landscaping design standards (See Section 5.2.4) • NW3.2 Control Invasive Species through landscaping design standards (See Section 5.2.4) 5.1.4 Integrate Sustainability Principles into Future Plans and Studies QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life Future updates should strengthen the City's vision and objectives by incorporating the language and intent of the Envision credits. Envision was developed, in part, to assist public agencies in communicating the intricate components of building sustainable infrastructure, including Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 26 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects interrelations and trade-offs. Including clearer, more measurable, goals relating to resource allocation, natural world, and climate risk categories of Envision will extend project accomplishments and will continue to align projects with community plans. Incongruities between what the City believes are its sustainability priorities and those identified in Section 4 would indicate that such changes are needed. 5.1.5 Develop a Wayfinding Plan QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding Develop a City-wide plan for improving wayfinding and signage throughout the urban and natural areas of Edina. This will support the navigability of improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities rolling out across the City and beyond and can enhance how the suburb integrates with its environmental resources to protect sensitive areas, such as wetlands. 5.2 Design Standards and Considerations The following sections select specific design aspects and recommendations where large opportunities exist for future projects relating to designing for sustainability. As the City continues to improve its sustainable practices, it is recommended that an exemplary project be identified and designed to achieve an Envision Award. It is also recommended that the City continues to use the Envision system and develop real-time tools and metrics to help make decisions during the design process. 5.2.1 Extend Useful Life of Roads — Perpetual Pavement Design LD3.3 Extend Useful Life =10 Each road project should assess the feasibility and potential for extending the useful life of the road and other infrastructure within the Right-of-Way. The assessment should consider the long-term cost savings of designing the project for future expansion, reconfiguration, durability, and reduced maintenance. Each project should document this assessment and the considerations built into the design. A life-cycle assessment is not required by Envision in Credit LD3.3; however this may be a useful framework to also recognize achievements in other credits in the resource allocation and climate change categories. Projects pursuing multiple life-cycle associated credits could most efficiently demonstrate the level of achievement through a single, comprehensive life cycle assessment rather than individual assessments targeted at specific aspects. This section discusses consideration for design of the road and subgrade itself. The following are additional improvements to infrastructure along road corridors, some of which are discussed further in other sections: • Durability of bicycle or multi-use pathways (not lanes on road) through the application of perpetual pavement design practices on a smaller scale. • Flexible pedestrian and bicyclist pathways that can be expanded either in capacity or connections to new pathways as needed in the future. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 27 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects • Resilient stormwater management systems with extra capacity for larger, more frequent rainfall events expected in the future (See Section 5.2.2). Amongst multiple options for adding resiliency, there is the option of permeable pavement for sidewalks, trails, and driveways where soils are appropriate. Porous concrete is being used for roads in areas with sandy soils, such as in the City of Shoreview, such that storm sewers are not needed. Permeable pavement or the addition of heating coils in concrete can also mitigate ice accumulation and improve road and sidewalk safety (QL2.4 and QL2.6). Perpetual pavements, also referred to as long-lasting pavements, are gaining ground in this area, as demonstrated by publications from the European Asphalt Pavement Association, California Asphalt Pavement Association, Asphalt Pavement Alliance, Greenroads, and others. Overall, the approach is to design and construct roads with at least a 50 year design life with proper surface layer maintenance. Typical design modifications are dependent on subgrade conditions, but sometimes are similar to full-depth asphalt pavement with minimized or eliminated subgrade. The following references outline additional consideration for designers: • Perpetual Asphalt Pavements - A Synthesis, published by the National Asphalt Pavement Association and National Center for Asphalt Technology, March 2010. http://www.asphaltroads.org/assets/_control/content/files/Perpetual_Pavement_Synthesi s.pdf • Long-Life Asphalt Pavements, published by the European Asphalt Pavement Association, June 2007. http://www.eapa.org/usr_img/position_paper/11p_technical2007.pdf • Greenroads Manual for Long-Life Pavement, Version 1.5, published by Greenroads. https://www.greenroads.org/files/236.pdf Roads in Minnesota are being designed for 40- to 60-year lifespans, such as in the City of Crystal and in the southeast 1-494 corridor. For the City of Crystal, this will allow them to avoid continuous reconstruction efforts over the 20-year cycle of typical roads. As Edina considers enhancements to the design of asphalt roads, the following considerations are suggested to assess the cost-benefit of replacing or constructing new concrete paving slabs instead of bituminous pavement: • Design modifications to reduce noise of concrete slabs, such as the use of dowels similar to those used on highway concrete slabs to prevent variation in slab elevations. Design modifications were used in 1-394 westbound to reduce noise of the concrete surface. • While concrete is typically more expensive than asphalt, asphalt is dependent on oil prices which may increase to an unknown extent in the future. • Concrete roads have a longer lifespan than asphalt roads. • Concrete reflects sunlight and does not contribute to heat island effect as much as asphalt (CR2.5). • Concrete compares favorably to asphalt in terms of net embodied energy (RA1.1) and CO2 emissions (CR1.1). Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 28 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Another improvement option in road design and construction is using sustainably sourced materials, such as asphalt with recycled content, as outlined in Sections 5.2.8 and 5.2.9. Although this relates to the discussion about extending useful life in terms of the possible choices in materials used, recycled content may only reduce the capital cost of road reconstruction and may not result in an extended useful life of the road surface. 5.2.2 Extend Useful Life of Roads — Sustainable Stormwater Management LD3.3 Extend Useful Life RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability NW2.1 Manage Stormwater NW3.4 Maintain Wetland and Surface Water Functions Future road reconstruction projects should be designed with resilient stormwater management systems considering heavier and more frequent rainfalls currently occurring in Minnesota and projected to continue in the future. Resilient stormwater infrastructure will not only safely convey rainfall events along road corridors, but will also leverage opportunities reduce runoff volumes to restore the health of Edina's impaired water resources. Projects should also enhance the protection and restoration of water resources when they are located in proximity to the project, as is further detailed in Section 5.2.3. Additional discussion of the importance of sustainable stormwater management and natural resource protection is provided in Appendix 4. Stormwater runoff volumes and pollutants can be controlled anywhere between where rainfall hits the ground to where it is discharged to a water body. The cost of the practices further downstream in the conveyance system is typically greater than those at the beginning, as demonstrated for road projects in the cost-benefit comparison of stormwater management practices presented in the Living Streets Plan (2015) and summarized in Table 10. The most cost effective measures were those focused on pollution prevention, resource protection/restoration, and replacing impervious cover with pervious pavement or soil/turf/trees. An additional opportunity not included below that would reduce both pollutant loadings and runoff volumes is rainwater harvesting at the lot level in rain barrels and through partnership with areas in need of irrigation, such as a greywater irrigation system for a golf course. Infiltration practices at the surface or in oversized underground storage pipes, such as those included in the Arden Park Improvements, are also options for reducing runoff volumes. Cases in which project extents are limited to the Right-of-Way and adjacent houses will have insufficient space for large end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 29 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Table 10. Cost Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Alternatives (Source: Edina's Living Streets Plan, 2015) Low Impact Development Practices Flood Protection Low Clean Water High Relative Cost Effectiveness Very High Pollution prevention Natural area creation, protection, restoration High High Very High/Savings Impervious cover reduction High Medium Very High/Savings Pervious Pavements Medium Medium Very Low Soil/Turf/Trees Medium Low High Bio-retention/Rain Gardens Medium Medium Medium Swales, filters/other Low Medium Medium Underground Sediment/ Infiltration Low Medium Low Regional ponds and wetlands High Medium Medium Working towards having a restorative impact on Edina's stormwater infrastructure and resources will result in achievements in multiple Envision credits. The ultimate achievement is restoring the pre-settlement hydrologic and hydrogeological conditions of a project area such that there are no impacts on downstream surface or groundwater resources (RA3.1 and NR2.1). Aquatic and riparian ecosystems will also be fully functioning after the project with respect to hydrologic, water quality, habitat, and sediment transport (NR3.4). Overall, incremental reductions in the impact of project construction and operation on the quantity and quality of fresh water, surface water, and groundwater sources through treatment and control of urban runoff will be recognized in RA3.1. This can be achieved, in part, by improving the site's water storage, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or water harvesting capacity, at a minimum 30% improvement as recognized in credit NR2.1. Improvements on the site will also aid in maintaining the functions of downstream resources (NR3.4), however complete restoration of ecosystems may require additional improvements outlined below. Recommendations related to restoring habitat function are presented in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. Projects should include the following, documented, assessments to have restorative achievements recognized in the Envision system: 11113.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability • Conduct a sound and comprehensive water availability assessment. Design documents indicate the location, type, quantity, rate of recharge, and quality of water resources are available to the project. • Assess project's water requirements. o Estimations of average peak demands and long-term needs. o Report on the long-term availability and replenishment or recharge of freshwater supply. o Inventory of opportunities for water reuse or groundwater recharge on site. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 30 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects o Calculations of the volume of fresh water discharged after use. (5) Location and impact of discharge on receiving water quality and quantity, including temperature and salinity. • Incorporate design features to achieve a long term net positive impact on ground and surface water source quality and quantity. o Design documents of all features intended to reduce negative water impacts. o Rationale as to how the integrated systems of the project will work together to achieve net positive recharge. o Inventory of any water impacts that the project is not able to mitigate. o Calculation showing the project has a long-term net positive impact and does not significantly alter natural fluctuation in flow in receiving waterway ecosystems. NW2.1 Manage Stormwater • Demonstrate that 100% of the target water storage capacity is achieved to restore the hydrologic conditions of the undeveloped regional ecosystem. Provide documentation of the initial, final post-development, and target water storage, infiltration, evaporation, water harvesting, and/or cistern storage capacities using TR-55 Curve Numbers (CNs) or other continuous simulation modeling methods to describe site conditions. NW3,4 Maintain Wetland and Sia face Water Functions • Demonstrate that the project maintains all four ecosystem functions and fully restore any disturbed functions. Provide documentation by a resource professional team outlining strategies for ecosystem functions and a description of, and restoration plan for, any disturbed ecosystem functions. Each function is discussed further below. • Demonstrate that the project maintains or enhances hydrologic connection. o For streams, rivers, and lakes, documentation showing how the waterway is connected or proposed to be connected to its riparian floodplain at a 6-month to 2- year frequency flow event. o For wetlands, documentation showing that structures that drain wetlands will be removed and/or appropriate sources of groundwater or surface waters are reconnected, diverted, or maintained. • Demonstrate that the project maintains or enhances water quality. Provide documentation showing the current source of the waterways' normal flow, the water quality of its source water, and how the water quality will be maintained or enhanced. • Demonstrate that the project maintains or enhances habitat. Provide a habitat survey of the waterbody and reference areas conducted by a recognized professional, and a plan to maintain or enhance the habitat for aquatic and riparian species by plantings and appropriate physical modifications. This survey may include the location and proposed mitigation of existing obstructions to habitat connectivity such as dams, roadway structures, and other infrastructure that may block aquatic or shoreline species migration. • Demonstrate that the project maintains or restores sediment transport. Provide documentation demonstrating that sediment transport will not be disrupted by the Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 31 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects proposed project, existing sources of sediment obstruction will be removed or mitigated, and, if appropriate, sediment will be removed. 5.2.3 Integrated Active Management of Natural Resource Areas QL3.3 Enhance Public Space NW1,1 Preserve Prime Habitat NW1.2 Protect Wetlands and Surface Water NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity =t, NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts An overall recommended approach to road reconstruction projects is to integrate project areas and scope with active management of nearby natural resources. This recommendation may need to be implemented at multiple stages of a project. Early on, synergies can be identified between the Engineering Department's anticipated road reconstruction schedule, upcoming park improvements, and watershed district's resource concerns. Where there are overlapping opportunities, the scope and project area of a road reconstruction project could then be expanded to include natural resource management. For example, there are upcoming improvement opportunities in Pamela Park and in the repurposing of Fred Richards Golf Course. Throughout the project design and stakeholder engagement processes, the right people will have to be at the table to bring forth specific natural resource improvements (such as wetland buffer rehabilitation), protection measures to be incorporated into design and construction plans (such as erosion control adjacent to important natural resources), and opportunities for design improvements along the road corridor (such as native landscaping or engagement of stakeholders to not use fertilizers or pesticides). Integrating natural resources into the City's project may require additional human and knowledge resources. The City may find additional internal expertise is required in the natural resource field, which is noted as a recommended human resource need in Section 5.3. A compilation of reference maps showing natural resources and protection areas will help designers and the community to quickly identify resource protection needs and enhancement opportunities near road projects. Multiple local and state sources have published such maps, and the City itself has published an online Interactive Water Resources Map. Currently mapped entities and additional GIS analysis needed for compilation are summarized in Table 11. This mapping and further stakeholder engagement should be used to create story maps for road planning and design to identify private and public natural areas near improvement projects. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 32 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Table 11. Components of the Recommended Natural Resource Protection Atlas Natural Resource Area Buffer Zone(s), ft Sources Envision Credit Wetlands 50, 100, 200, and 300 • Watershed Districts • City's Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (2011) • National Wetland Inventory (2015) NW1.2 Watercourses, lakes and ponds 50, 100, 200, and 300 • MPCA impairment information NW1.2 Prime habitat * 300 • GIS analysis NW1.1 Floodplain - • FEMA, Watershed District, City Stormwater Plan NW1.5 Steep Slopes ** - • LiDAR analysis NW1.6 Greenfields - • GIS analysis NW1.7 * Including but not limited to land of high ecological value or home to species of high value; national parks, monuments, seashores, and forests; wildlife refuges; wildlife preserves; wild and scenic rivers; and other protected areas. ** Can be defined as land with an average slope exceeding 12 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more upgradient of a water resource or down-slope structure. As noted in the previous section in Table 10, the protection, creation, and restoration of natural areas is one of the most cost-effective stormvvater management measures and can actually provide cost-savings. Natural areas include water resources and the vegetated buffer areas surrounding those surface water features. Appendix 4 discusses the benefits and feasibility of maintaining or rehabilitating buffers around the lakes, wetlands, and rivers in Edina, as required in Envision credits NW1.1 and NW1.2. These credits prohibit the construction of any structure or road, removal of native vegetation, grading, filling, dredging, or excavation within buffers. As a fully developed City, there are numerous areas of buffer encroachment in existence today leaving insufficient buffer widths to protect the downstream resources. The intent of future road reconstruction projects should be to restore the size of buffers and, where that is not possible, minimize additional encroachment and rehabilitate existing buffers to enhance their function. Projects should evaluate the condition of buffers on or near project limits. Project scope should include rehabilitation with a planting or landscaping plan to establish native vegetative cover for areas that: • Has vegetation composed more than 30 percent of undesirable plant species (including, but not limited to reed canary grass, common buckthorn, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge, bull thistle, and other noxious weeds); or • Consists more than 10 percent of bare or disturbed soil or turf grass. Projects should include the following documentation to have restorative achievements recognized in the Envision system: Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 33 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects NW1.1 Preserve Prime Habitat • Narrative describing efforts by an interdisciplinary team to research and document all areas of "prime habitat" near or on the site using local, state/provincial, or national prime habitat information. • Documentation demonstrating that no areas of prime habitat are located on site or within the specified distance of developed areas. • A site map illustrating a buffer of undeveloped land, fulfilling the aforementioned requirements, is preserved (or created if the site is currently developed) around all areas of prime habitat. Provide documentation to demonstrate appropriate size of buffer or other protection. A protective buffer zone of 300 feet or greater is required for a restorative level of achievement. • A restoration plan outlining any efforts to restore prime habitat either on the project site or adjacent to the site, including, at a minimum, a site map outlining locations of restoration and a species list of plants used. This documentation must be signed by a qualified natural resource professional that assisted with the restoration and monitoring plan. NW1.2 Protect Wetlands and Surface Water • Documentation that the proposed site neither contains nor is within the 50 feet or greater of a wetland, vernal pool, shoreline, waterbody, of other aquatic resource. The improved, enhanced, superior, and conserving levels of achievement require the project to establish a 50, 100, 200, and 300 foot buffer, respectively. • Site plan showing the final site design, the boundaries of the buffer zone (referred to in the credit as the vegetation and soil protection zone (VSPZ)), and the minimal VSPZ depth calculated as the shortest point between the VSPZ boundary and the identified wetland, waterbody, or shoreline. • A restoration plan outlining any efforts to restore wetlands or waterbodies that includes, at a minimum, a site map outlining locations of restoration and proof that both required action types were taken. Restoration must include o Stabilization of the stream channel or shoreline (bulkheads are not an acceptable stabilization measure for this objective) and o Revegetation with native plant communities. Stream channel restoration must include a geomorphic analysis of the reach and planning for dynamically stable stream banks based on channel dynamics and sediment transport. 5.2.4 Landscaping Design NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts Develop landscaping design standards to incorporate plant species that require no pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers or to use integrated pest management practices. Projects should demonstrate this standard is met in landscaping plans showing the mix of proposed plant species and specifications showing that no herbicides or pesticides will be used on the project site. The City can exceed the Envision achievement levels by implementing incentives for residents to also take an active role in reducing nutrient loads in runoff during stakeholder engagement. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 34 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects NW3.2 Control Invasive Species Develop landscaping design standards specifying only locally appropriate and noninvasive plants are used in projects. Standards should include the need for the following documentation: o A list of invasive species in the region and a map of all invasive species found on or within two-thirds of a mile (1000 meters) of the site. o Documentation that all species introduced to the site are noninvasive; include a site plan of the landscaping strategy that includes all vegetation species. o Documentation of collaboration with state or local agencies or the qualifications of the biologist, ecologist, or environmental professional. 5.2.5 Greywater Systems RA3.2 Reduce Potable Water Consumption RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability Ar,4 LD3.3 Extend Useful Life =IPA Wise management of water across sectors, such as water supply, wastewater, and stormwater, sometimes referred to as "one water" frameworks, is emerging as the most imperative change needed in our modern communities. Many regions of the country are being forced to confront, and in many cases, embrace this one water approach. Even here in water-rich Minnesota, and indeed, because of our quality of life and identity based on our numerous quality lakes, stream, and other waterbodies, water supply concerns are forcing us to re-examine our water management approaches. One key area that Edina could serve as a leader and could attain Conserving scores in the Envision system is creative uses of our existing water resources via reuse of non-traditional sources, such as greywater. This approach can greatly decrease water demands on water supplies, and associated energy, as well as decrease wastewater treatment efforts, costs, and energy use. Greywater reuse, sometimes also referred to as purple pipe systems, uses water from the building before it is mixed with fecal contamination (toilets), to then reuse that water for a beneficial use. Optimally the greywater reuse system would use water from sinks, laundry, and dishwashers with low to moderate treatment for other uses, ranging from irrigation to industrial uses. For the City's road and infrastructure repair projects, this is an opportunity to install neighborhood scale, or even city or regional scale, purple pipe collection systems in the ROW so that existing or future homes can separate their greywater and then it could be collected, treated if necessary, and reused on a local/neighborhood scale or regional scale. There are several variations on how this could be configured, and the City should consider studying viable options and including low cost options, such as installing purple pipes systems as part of street and utility reconstruction for greywater reuse. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 35 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects 5.2.6 Alternative Transportation Improvements QL2.5 Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation The City should strengthen the accessibility of bus routes through road improvements, as multiple of the example projects in the self-assessment found insufficient proximity to bus routes. Additional supporting improvements are needed to fully encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as the contiguous system of bicycle lanes and sidewalks being constructed per the City's Comprehensive Master Plan. Supporting infrastructure could include bike lockers, sheltered and well-lit transit stops, and effective displays of information such as time and route of public transit. The City should develop programs to encourage alternative modes of transportation as well. For a restorative level of achievement, projects should upgrade or retrofit modes of transportation that are unused, in disrepair, or have barriers to safe use. 5.2.7 Lighting Design QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution ' Revise the City's standard lighting specifications to require the use of energy-efficient lighting (i.e. LEDs), automatic turnoff of outdoor lighting during off hours, and limitations of lighting for construction contractors. 5.2.8 Material and Supplier Specifications RA1.2 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices >=1111W Develop or update procurement policies such that at least 15% of materials, supplies, and equipment (by weight, volume, or cost) on road reconstruction projects are purchased from manufacturers and suppliers that follow sustainable practices, including the following criteria: • Have reduced negative environmental impacts by implementing an environmental management system consistent with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14001 or equivalent; • Have publicly disclosed all intentionally added chemical constituents and all unintentional chemical residuals or impurities present at 100 parts per million or more. Specific procurement policy information for road construction projects is provided by these sources: • U.S. EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines, including specific information for construction and transportation products http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/cpg/products/ • EU Green Public Procurement Criteria for Road Construction http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/road/ • U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing http://www2.epa.gov/greenerproducts Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 36 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects The following are examples of improvements to material specifications: • Use asphalt containing recycled materials • Use gravel containing recycled materials (asphalt or concrete pavement) Policy should outline what needs to be documented for each project, including: • Documentation of the total weight, volume, or cost of materials. • An inventory for all materials being tracked for sustainable procurement practices including a description of the material and the manufacturer or supplier of the material. • Documentation from manufacturers or suppliers (e.g., environmental management system contact, Web link to chemical inventory, life-cycle assessment, environmental product declaration, and utility bills) to demonstrate that sustainable practices are used for percentage of purchased products. 5.2.9 Construction Practices QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access Develop and continually improve upon best practices for easing traffic congestion, improving mobility and access, and otherwise improving community livability. Continue to enhance construction practices to limit interruptions to mobility and access caused by construction. RA1.3 to 1.6 Use Recycle Materials, Use Regional Materials, Divert Waste from Landfill, Reduce Excavated Materials Taken Off Site IND Develop standard specifications for material, waste, and recycling on road projects. Include standard documentation of material quantities to be tracked by contractors or consultants. The City's current practice of recycling existing bituminous in the reconstructed road should be tracked by contractors. The City could also begin storing excess materials in a stockpile for use in future road reconstruction projects. Other recommendations related to material content are outlined in Section 5.2.8. 5.3 Education and Outreach 5.3.1 Internal Knowledge Capacity LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment This credit calls for full commitment by all parties involved in projects to address all aspects of the triple bottom line and requires the project team to have an understanding of the issues and problems associated with sustainability. These are two areas for improvement within the City of Edina as an organization as there are only a handful of people currently involved in projects with such understanding and there is not a complete buy-in at all levels of the organization. One method to help address this current weakness is to implement internal training and outreach efforts, in addition to hiring new staff with required expertise. The following outline several options for implementation: Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 37 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects • Train internal staff, including all project managers and City Engineers, to become Envision Sustainability Professionals. Other sustainability systems thinking and frameworks, such as the Natural Step, can likewise help staff understand tradeoffs and communicate sustainability objectives better. This will help integrate all the aspects of Envision into municipal projects, help secure commitment at multiple levels of hierarchy in the organization, and allow the City to complete self-assessments and evaluation of design alternatives internally. • Engage decision makers in the City regarding sustainability to attain buy-in and commitment at all hierarchal levels of the organization. This includes City Council, the Energy and Environment Commission, Transportation Commission, and Park Board. • Train or hire internal staff with Life Cycle Assessment Practitioner Certification. The practitioner will have LCA modeling skills, thorough knowledge of ISO 14040/14044 standards, and can apply LCA methodology and interpret LCA results. They should assist road in refining road reconstruction practices to achieve more in the following Envision credits: o RA1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Energy o RA1.5 Divert Waste from Landfills AD- o RA2.1 Reduce Energy Consumption o CR1.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hire, train, or involve staff with natural resource protection skills required to integrate the recommendations of this report into the project objectives and design. 5.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement 1,D1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration As discussed in Section 5.2.1, there is a promising opportunity to enhance stormwater management through the City's extensive stakeholder involvement process and its approach to bundled infrastructure improvements. Residents in past projects have also caused trade-offs in past projects that reduced the overall sustainability of the improvements. City staff have also found that the community approaches outreach events in an argumentative, untrusting manner. Enhancing the educational and outreach aspects of stakeholder engagement during neighborhood reconstruction projects to achieve the following outcomes: • Engage property owners adjacent to the roadway to install site-level stormwater management controls - such as rain barrels, rain gardens, or pervious pavement driveways - through cost sharing and guidance with the City. • Create decentralized utility systems, such as greywater or rainwater harvesting, throughout the neighborhood. An example would be collecting and directing clean roof-water runoff from larger buildings to open spaces needing regular irrigation, such as golf courses or parks. • Increase the public's knowledge and understanding of design considerations made through the Envision system. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 38 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects • Develop the community trust that the City is truly trying to become more sustainable. • Develop and continually improve upon best practices for stakeholder engagement. 5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation The purposed of the following recommendations is to continue evaluating if the City's project are truly as sustainable as they are meant to be. LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment =0, Publish an annual sustainability report for the City, including activities, results, and next steps towards becoming a more sustainable organization. The report could include a summary of the projects, programs, and studies completed each year, such as those included in the GreenStep Cities program. The report should present an evaluation of past efforts using the results of public infrastructure project self-assessments based on the Envision system, post-project review completed by project staff, and the City's performance at a regional scale based on the Regional Indicators Initiative. The annual report should also define the priorities and next steps for the following year. QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life Another measure of success will be broad community and stakeholder endorsement of projects. This could be achieved by surveying stakeholders after project completion to assess if the project successfully addressed their concerns. LD1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System In addition to annual reports, the sustainability management system recommended in Section 5.1 is monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of projects. This will help the City learn what practices work best in Edina and build credibility with the public and across the twin cities region. The specifications of a management system are detailed in ISO 14004. The following are examples of • Continue self-assessments as a metric of how the City is improving project by project. Integrate Envision status and results into graphics and reports. • Continue to use Envision as a planning and design tool. • Conduct post-project review processes after each infrastructure project to assess what elements of the project were successful and unsuccessful in achieving sustainability. Additional documentation will be required to fully evaluate and recognize the accomplishments of projects in future self-assessments. The City should require consultants provide documentation of final design, as-built drawings, and other analysis completed throughout the design process. All of the previously discussed recommendations must be documented. In addition, the following list highlights documentation missing from this self-assessment that would have likely reflected further achievement of the project as defined by Envision: Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 39 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution 111111111. • Design documents specifying the use of energy-efficient lighting and automatic turnoff of outdoor lighting during off hours. • Design documents specifying lighting requirements and limitations for the construction contractor. QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding • Design documents and plans showing how the project will integrate with its environmental resources to protect sensitive areas, such as wetlands. QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character 77:7> • Construction contract clauses requiring preservation of high-value landscapes and landscape features and including penalties for noncompliance and programs to inspect outcomes and to enforce. • Report documenting efforts to aid local communities in developing more comprehensive policies and regulations regarding views and fit with local character. QL3.3 Enhance Public Space • Documentation of stakeholder satisfaction with planned efforts and outcomes. • Documentation that the official with jurisdiction over the resource (i.e. park or other public space) concurs in writing with the impact assessment. LD1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement =0. • Document engagement with all stakeholders, including partnership or collaboration with watershed districts. • Policies and business practices that ensure fair and equitable assessment and action. LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration • Documentation is provided showing that there is integration with, and restoration of, natural systems, resources, community knowledge, and social capital assets. LD3.1 Plan for Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance 11.k • Plans for long-term maintenance and monitoring of the project. The City can demonstrate this by submitting their current operations and maintenance plans which apply to broad classifications of infrastructure and by providing any maintenance plans specific to the project, such as those for stormwater features. Resource Allocation • The documentation recommendation for this category relate to quantifying the material and energy resource use reductions from the City's current practice of reusing existing bituminous in road reconstruction projects. Additional achievement can be attained by storing excess material in stockpiles for use in future projects. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 40 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects RA1.3 Use Recycled Materials 3111> • Provide design documents showing the location and weight or volume of the reused structures or materials. Provide calculations of percentage of total project materials by weight or volume. • Inventory the existing materials that may have reuse potential. • Documentation that the recycled materials meet the specifications of the intended use and requirements of state and local waste management requirements. RA1.4 Use Regional Materials • Provide documentation and calculations to confirm total cost of locally sourced materials, inventory of locally sourced materials (including materials, plants, aggregates, and soils for construction), proximity of each to project site, and calculations of percentage of total project materials by cost. RA1.5 Divert Waste from Landfills NO' • Provide documentation and calculations of total and recycled waste during construction or operations of the project. • Prepare an operations waste management plan of how waste will be diverted from landfill. • Documentation that contractors, subcontractors, and operators are aware of waste sorting requirements. RA1.6 Reduce Excavated Materials Taken off Site • Provide design documents showing estimations of the excavated material to be taken off site and how the project was designed to balance cute and fill. • Provide calculations of the percentage of excavated material that was suitable for reuse that was beneficially reused on site. RA2.1 Reduce Energy Consumption • Document energy reduction strategies considered by the design team and results of feasibility studies. • Demonstrate the implemented energy-saving strategies through design documentation. • Calculate energy reductions in comparison to industry norms. NW1.5 Preserve Floodplain Functions • Demonstrate that non-water-dependent infrastructure (i.e. bridges) are only located outside of the floodplain and that water-dependent infrastructure is designed to minimize floodplain impacts. o Documentation showing the location of the project relative to the 100-year or design floodplain. o Documentation showing siting choices relative to floodplains and how impacts to the floodplain have been reduced. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 41 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects o Document pre- and post-floodplain storage and floodplain elevations and show that the project does not increase flood elevations outside of project easements and maintains floodplain storage. • Demonstrate that the project maintains pre-development floodplain infiltration and water quality. o Documentation of approaches used to maintain pre-development floodplain infiltration, such as amount of impervious surfaces, established vegetation and soil protection zones, and other approaches that allow for natural floodwater infiltration and filtration of pollutants. o Estimates of pre-development floodplain infiltration capacity and estimates of post- development floodplain infiltration capacity using the aforementioned strategies. NW1.6 Avoid Unsuitable Development on Steep Slopes Y.215 • Demonstrate that the project follows best management practices to manage erosion and prevent landslides. Provide documentation of best management and design practices used, including protection of downslope buildings, facilities, and infrastructure. NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity • Demonstrate that the project does not impact natural habitat and movement corridors or that it will mitigate adverse impacts of development with the following documentation: o Documentation of analysis process that identifies existing habitats and outlines strategies to ensure that these habitats are not disturbed, or, if this is not possible, outlines strategies for mitigation of disturbed habitats. o For each species, a map or equivalent documentation showing areas of important habitat in the surrounding region (geographic information system analysis and surveys can inform this step). Identify potential and/or likely movement corridors between habitat areas and potential barriers to these corridors on site. These should include existing barriers as well as those that will result from development. o A site plan and narrative illustrating the measures taken to provide new habitat, improve connectivity, or mitigate adverse impacts of the project. o A monitoring plan to ensure mitigation measures are effective for preserving animal access. Document collaboration with local and state/provincial agencies. 5.5 Cost and Funding Funding additional improvements in future projects will be a challenge, as noted by City staff and as discussed in the Living Streets Plan (2015). Some sustainable practices, such as decreasing impervious cover, result in immediate cost savings while others, such as energy efficient street lighting, provide cost savings over the lifetime of the improvement. A common consideration in asset management that applies to sustainable practices is that building resiliency into infrastructure now will mitigate the cost of infrastructure failure in the future. Some of the recommendations discussed in this report, such as enhancing the stormwater management practices, can open doors to grants and cost-sharing that did not apply to traditional Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 42 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects road reconstruction projects. For example, stormwater management practices that reduce pollutant loading to impaired resources could be implemented as TMDL projects. Funding for stormwater projects is available through the following: • Watershed Districts' cost share programs • Clean Water State Revolving Fund • State of Minnesota Watershed Project Funding through grants, such as Federal Section 319 and State Clean Water Partnership • Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment Funds Recently funded projects posted on the MPCA website include municipal stormwater projects similar to those recommended for the City's future street reconstruction (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Funding). Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 43 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects APPENDIX 1 INDEX OF PROJECT FILES City of Edina Plans • Edina's Vision 20/20 — A Strategic Plan, Sept 5, 2000 • Edina's Vision 20/20 Update Executive Summary, Fall 2003 • Nondegradation Report Submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for Selected MS4 Permit Requirements, Dec 2007 • Comprehensive Plan Update, Dec 2, 2008 • Wellhead Protection Plan Update Part I, Jun 2011 • Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, Dec 2011 • Final Wellhead Protection Plan Part II, Apr 2013 • Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan, May 2014 • Findings Report for a Statistically Valid Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment Survey, Oct 2014 • State of the Utilities Report to Council, Mar 3, 2015 • Living Streets Plan, 2015 • Park Recreation and Trails Strategic Plan Draft, Jun 10, 2015 Policies • Living Streets Policy, 2013 Presentations • Living Streets Overview, City Council Meeting, Aug 20, 2013 • Neighborhood Improvement Projects Introduction, Public Improvement Hearings, Dec 10, 2013 • State of the Utilities - Water, Sanitary, Storm, City Council Work Session, Mar 3, 2015 • Living Streets Plan, Public Informational Meetings, Feb 2015 Arden Park Drive Drawings • Arden Park Assessments • BA412 Arden Park • Contour and Storm Map • Proposed Schematic Street Plan Sept 22 • Proposed Schematic Street Plan: Bruce Ave Sept 22 • Proposed Schematic Street Plan: Minnehaha Sept 22 • Sept 22 Presentation • Proposed Schematic Street Plan: Indianola July 31 • Proposed Schematic Street Plan: Minnehaha July 31 • Proposed Schematic Street Plan: W 52nd July 31 • Sidewalk Map Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 44 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects • Project Map Studies, Presentations, and Other Design Documents • NWA Contacts and Subs • Minnehaha Public Notice • Engineering Study November 2014 • July 31 Open House Presentation • Project Questionnaire • Open House Presentation Sept. 9, • Open House Presentation October 8, 2012 Letters • Open House Letter Sept 26, 2012 • Letter to Residents Aug 23, 2013 • Letter to Residents Jun 10, 2014 • City Extras sent in 2015: Mar 6, Apr 7, Apr 14, Apr 17, Apr 29, May 1, May 8, May 15, May 29, Jun 4, Jun 12, Jun 19, Jun 26, Jul 2, Jul 10, Jul 17 54th Street Drawings • Project Area Map Reports & Presentations • Feasibility Study Nov 25, 2013 • Feasibility Study Appendices A-C Nov 25, 2013 • Feasibility Study Appendices D-R Nov 25, 2013 • Public Hearing Presentation Dec 10, 2013 • Request For Purchase Jun 3, 2014 • Planning Sustainable Infrastructure: ENVISION Case Studies Presentation, Region 3 Assembly, Aug 14, 2015 Letters • City Extras sent in 2015: Jun 19, Jun 26, Jul 10, Jul 17 • Letter to residents Apr 8, 2015 • Minnehaha Creek reconstruction public notice • Letters to Residents in 2014: Jan 17 and May 30 • Public Hearing Notice Nov 21, 2013 Valley View Road Drawings • Contour and Storm Map • Proposed Road Improvements Jul 7, 2014 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 45 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects • Project Area Map Studies & Presentations • Engineering Study Sept 30, 2014 • Informational Meeting Presentation Jul 7, 2014 • August 2010 Presentation Letters • City Extras sent in 2015: May 1, May 8, May 15, May 29, Jun 5, Jun 12, Jun 16, Jun 19, Jul 2, Jul 10, Jul 17 • Letter to Residents sent in 2015: Jan 13 and Apr 27 • Public Hearing Notice Oct 8, 2014 • Letters to Residents sent in 2014: Jun 12, Jun 23, Jul 21 • Letter to Residents Aug 2010 Birchcrest Boulevard Drawings • 2014 Project Area Map Reports & Presentations • Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Edina City Council Dec 10, 2013 • Public Hearing Report to Council Dec 10, 2013 • Public Improvement Hearing Presentations Dec 10, 2013 • Feasibility Study Nov 19, 2013 • Notice of Decision (Wetland Delineation) Aug 21, 2013 • Wetland Delineation Report Jul 25, 2013 • Open House Meeting Presentation Oct 8, 2012 Letters • City Extras sent in 2015: Apr 3, Apr 10, Apr 24, May 1, May 8, May 15, May 22 • Letters sent in 2014: Feb 20, Mar 21, Apr 18, Apr 24, Jun 6, Jun 26, and Dec 9 • Letters sent in 2013: Apr 23, Jun 3, Dec 26 • Public Hearing Notice Nov 21, 2013 • Open House Letter Sept 26, 2012 Emails • Correspondence between City Staff, Councilors, consultants, residents, and contractors. Envision Project Library • Envision Tool Moves Project Sustainability Beyond Buildings, article on June 22, 2015 http://enr.construction.com/infrastructure/environment/2015/0622-envision-tool- moves-sustainability-measure-beyond-buildings.asp • Adding Value to Projects with Envision, article in July 2015 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 46 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects http://www.apwa.net/Resources/Reporter/Articles/2015/7/Adding-value-to-projects- with-Envision Los Angeles County Department of Public Works • Library of 10 projects, 2 of which are Road Projects http://dpw.lacounty.gov/adm/sustainability/FeaturedProjects.aspx • Hasley 1-5 Interchange Project (Transportation) http://dpw.lacounty.gov/adm/sustainability/ProjectSP.aspx?id=12 • Old Road Widening http://dpw.lacounty.gov/adm/sustainability/ProjectSP.aspx?id=14 New York City Department of Environmental Protection • New York City Delivers Sustainable Infrastructure, Using Envision to Achieve the Triple Bottom Line, Presentation on April 14th 2015 http://nysawwa.org/docs/pdfs/3-NYC0/020Sustainable%20Infrastructure..pdf City of Dallas • Envision and ENV-SP experience included in RFQs for upcoming projects https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/4188768-221011846 Kansas City, Missouri • Implementation of Envision in Goals and Objectives https://data.kcmo.org/dataset/City-Goals-and-Objectives-2015-2020-Sustainable-In/hnfq- q32v • Infrastructure and Transportation, Presentation on March 10th, 2015. Slide 59 describes how Parks & Rec, Public Works, and Water Services are all incorporating Envision into their projects. http://kcmo.gov/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/KCStatInfrastructureandTransportationpresentationMarch201 5.pdf Orlando, Florida • 1-4 Ultimate: http://blog.usa.skanska.com/why-i-4-is-the-ultimate/ Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 47 KirlqAMIUMMM w ce 25 16 15 16 11 11 14 15 15 16 14 13 181 12 121 15 16 10 8 17 14 15 14 11 182 21 21 20 11 18 9 11 6 14 10 12 18 48 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects APPENDIX 2 ENVISION SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS OF THREE PAST PROJECTS Total Applicable Arden Park Drive & 54th Street Valley View Road Achievement Level Points Achievement Level Points Birchcrest Boulevard Achievement Level Points Points QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life SUPERIOR 10 SUPERIOR 10 ENHANCED 5 QL1.2 Stimulate Sustainable Growth and Development BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 QL1.3 Develop Local Skills and Capabilities BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 QL2.1 Enhance Public Health and Safety BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 QL2.2 Minimize Noise and Vibration BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access CONSERVING 14 SUPERIOR 7 ENHANCED 4 QL2.5 Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation ENHANCED 3 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding SUPERIOR 6 SUPERIOR 6 SUPERIOR 6 QL3.1 Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character SUPERIOR 6 SUPERIOR 6 SUPERIOR 6 QL3.3 Enhance Public Space SUPERIOR 6 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 Total QL Points: ENHANCED 45 ENHANCED 29 IMPROVED 21 LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment SUPERIOR 9 ENHANCED 4 ENHANCED 4 LD1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 1 LD1.3 Foster Collaboration and Teamwork ENHANCED 4 ENHANCED 4 ENHANCED 4 LD1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement SUPERIOR 9 ENHANCED 5 ENHANCED 5 LD2.1 Pursue By-product Synergy Opportunities BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration CONSERVING 13 SUPERIOR 7 ENHANCED 3 LD3.1 Plan for Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 LD3.2 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 LD3.3 Extend Useful Life IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 1 Total LD Points: ENHANCED 37 IMPROVED 22 IMPROVED 18 RA1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Energy BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA1.2 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA1.3 Use Recyded Materials BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA1.4 Use Regional Materials BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA1.5 Divert Waste from Landfills BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA1.6 Reduce Excavated Materials Taken off Site BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA1.7 Provide for Deconstruction and Recycling BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA2.1 Reduce Energy Consumption BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA2.2 Use Renewable Energy BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA2.3 Commission and Monitor Energy Systems BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA3.2 Reduce Potable Water Consumption BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RA3.3 Monitor Water Systems BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 Total RA Points: None 0 None 0 None 0 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. IMPROVED 102 None 68 None 67 Maximum TOTAL Points: NW1.1 Preserve Prime Habitat BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 SUPERIOR 9 NW1.2 Protect Wetlands and Surface Water BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NA NA NW1.3 Preserve Prime Farmland NA NA NA NA NA NA NW1.4 Avoid Adverse Geology NA NA NA NA NA NA NW1.5 Preserve Floodplain Functions IMPROVED 2 BENCHMARK 0 IMPROVED 2 NW1.6 Avoid Unsuitable Development on Steep Slopes BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NW1.7 Preserve Greenfields CONSERVING 15 CONSERVING 15 CONSERVING 15 NW2.1 Manage Stormwater BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NW2.3 Prevent Surface and Groundwater Contamination BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NW3.2 Control Invasive Species BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NW3.3 Restore Disturbed Soils BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 NW3.4 Maintain Wetland and Surface Water Functions BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 Total NW Points: IMPROVED 17 IMPROVED 15 IMPROVED 26 CR1.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 CR1.2 Reduce Air Pollutant Emissions BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 CR2.1 Assess Climate Threat BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 CR2.2 Avoid Traps and Vulnerabilities IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 2 CR2.3 Prepare for Long-term Adaptability BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 CR2.4 Prepare for Short-term Hazards BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 CR2.5 Manage Heat Island Effects BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 Total CR Points: None 2 None 2 None 2 18 Varies (NA to 18) NA NA 14 6 23 21 9 18 16 11 10 19 Varies (165 to 183) 6 122 15 20 20 21 25 15 Varies (771 to 789) Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Arden Park Drive & 54th Street Valley View Road Birchcrest Boulevard Achievement Level Points Achievement Level Points Achievement Level Points Total Applicable Points Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 49 QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life QL1.2 Stimulate Sustainable Growth and Development QL1.3 Develop Local Skills and Capabilities QL2.1 Enhance Public Health and Safety QL2.2 Minimize Noise and Vibration QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access QL2.5 Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding QL3.1 Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character QL3.3 Enhance Public Space Total QL Points: LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment LD1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System LD1.3 Foster Collaboration and Teamwork LD1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement LD2.1 Pursue By-product Synergy Opportunities LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration LD3.1 Plan for Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance LD3.2 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies LD3.3 Extend Useful Life Total LD Points: RA1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Energy RA1.2 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices RA1.3 Use Recycled Materials RA1.4 Use Regional Materials RA1.5 Divert Waste from Landfills RA1.6 Reduce Excavated Materials Taken off Site RA1.7 Provide for Deconstruction and Recycling RA2.1 Reduce Energy Consumption RA2.2 Use Renewable Energy RA2.3 Commission and Monitor Energy Systems RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability RA3.2 Reduce Potable Water Consumption RA3.3 Monitor Water Systems Total RA Points: 1 1 1 o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 o o 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 o o 1 o o o 1 o a o o 1 i o o 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 o 0 0 a o 0 o o 1 o o 1 o 0 1 o a 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 o o o RESTORATIVE 25 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 IMPROVED 1 CONSERVING 14 RESTORATIVE 15 SUPERIOR 6 BENCHMARK 0 SUPERIOR 6 SUPERIOR 6 SUPERIOR 73 CONSERVING 17 CONSERVING 14 ENHANCED 4 CONSERVING 14 BENCHMARK 0 CONSERVING 13 IMPROVED 1 CONSERVING 8 CONSERVING 12 SUPERIOR 83 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 3 IMPROVED 3 IMPROVED 2 BENCHMARK 0 IMPROVED 3 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 RESTORATIVE 21 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 IMPROVED 34 RESTORATIVE 25 IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 1 CONSERVING 8 CONSERVING 14 RESTORATIVE 15 RESTORATIVE 15 IMPROVED 1 RESTORATIVE 14 RESTORATIVE 13 SUPERIOR 110 CONSERVING 17 CONSERVING 14 CONSERVING 15 CONSERVING 14 IMPROVED 1 RESTORATIVE 16 IMPROVED 1 CONSERVING 8 CONSERVING 12 SUPERIOR 98 IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 3 IMPROVED 3 IMPROVED 2 IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 3 IMPROVED 4 ENHANCED 3 RESTORATIVE 21 RESTORATIVE 21 IMPROVED 1 IMPROVED 68 6 0 0 0 0 3 5 5 3 0 3 3 5 5 3 1 0 4 1 5 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 25 16 15 16 11 11 14 15 15 16 14 13 181 17 14 15 14 15 16 10 8 12 121 18 9 14 10 11 6 12 18 20 11 21 21 11 182 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects APPENDIX 3 PRIORITIZATION OF AND GOALS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO A ROAD PROJECT IN EACH ENVISION CREDIT Decision Matrix Score for Each Total Criterion Priority Phase 1 Goal Phase 2 Goal Applicable 6= High Achievement Criteria,: A B C 0 =Low Level Points Achievement Level Points Points Wei ht: 2 3 1 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 50 Criteriai: A C B Decision Matrix Score for Each Criterion Priority 6= High 0 = Low Phase 2 Goal Phase 1 Goal 3 2 Wei ht: NW1.1 Preserve Prime Habitat NW1.2 Protect Wetlands and Surface Water NW1.3 Preserve Prime Farmland NW1.4 Avoid Adverse Geology NW1.5 Preserve Floodplain Functions NW1.6 Avoid Unsuitable Development on Steep Slopes NW1.7 Preserve Greenfields NW2.1 Manage Stormwater NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts NW2.3 Prevent Surface and Groundwater Contamination NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity NW3.2 Control Invasive Species NW3.3 Restore Disturbed Soils NW3.4 Maintain Wetland and Surface Water Functions Total NW Points: CR1.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions CR1.2 Reduce Air Pollutant Emissions CR2.1 Assess Climate Threat CR2.2 Avoid Traps and Vulnerabilities CR2.3 Prepare for Long-term Adaptability CR2.4 Prepare for Short-term Hazards CR2.5 Manage Heat Island Effects 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0_ 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 o o o 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 o o 0 Total CR Points: RESTORATIVE 18 RESTORATIVE 18 NA NA NA NA ENHANCED 5 IMPROVED 1 CONSERVING 15 RESTORATIVE 21 CONSERVING 9 BENCHMARK 0 IMPROVED 2 SUPERIOR 5 BENCHMARK 0 RESTORATIVE 19 SUPERIOR 113 BENCHMARK 0 BENCHMARK 0 CONSERVING 15 RESTORATIVE 20 RESTORATIVE 20 RESTORATIVE 21 BENCHMARK 0 SUPERIOR 76 RESTORATIVE 18 RESTORATIVE 18 NA NA NA NA CONSERVING 14 IMPROVED 1 RESTORATIVE 23 RESTORATIVE 21 CONSERVING 9 IMPROVED 1 RESTORATIVE 16 SUPERIOR 5 CONSERVING 8 RESTORATIVE 19 CONSERVING 153 RESTORATIVE 25 IMPROVED 2 CONSERVING 15 RESTORATIVE 20 RESTORATIVE 20 RESTORATIVE 21 IMPROVED 1 CONSERVING 104 5 5 NA NA 3 1 0 5 0 3 1 0 6 2 0 5 5 0 5 5 18 18 NA NA 14 6 23 21 9 18 16 11 10 19 183 6 122 15 20 20 21 25 15 Achievement Level Points Achievement Level Points Points Total Applicable Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects Total Points: Scores from Self-Assessment for comparison (Appendix 2) Project 1: Arden Park Drive and 54th Street Project 2: Valley View Road Project 3: Birchcrest Boulevard SUPERIOR 379 IMPROVED 102 None 68 None 67 789 SUPERIOR 533 1 — Decision Matrix Criteria (1 = Yes, 0 = No): A. Is this a priority concern of the City or public? B. Does this address key trends in the SWOT analysis? C. Is this a low hanging fruit where documentation could easily be provided to demonstrate intended achievement? Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 51 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects APPENDIX 4 SUSTAINABLE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION Road networks, and their underground storm sewers, are the delivery system of rainfall from almost every corner of the City to the receiving, impaired, water resources flowing through the suburb. Past approaches of draining runoff as quickly as possible to storm sewers has changed in the water resource profession to an approach that manages runoff as close as possible to where each raindrop lands on the ground. However, the foregone approach prevails in most of Edina's road reconstruction projects for a number of reasons, such as perceived limits to funds and opportunities in addition to the reactionary need to address surface flooding reported by residents. The perceived barriers to implementing Low Impact Development practices in road reconstruction projects are addressed in this appendix, which also considers cost-effectiveness of flood mitigation measures. Recommendations for stormwater management in future road projects are summarized in Section 5.2.2 and funding opportunities are also discussed in Section 5.5. Recommendations in Section 5.1 to assess climate threats are also related because such an assessment would quantify climate impacts and help develop appropriate adaptation strategies specific to Edina. The paradigm shift of enhancing stormwater management is necessary in Edina to build resiliency into the stormwater management system so that it can adapt to more frequent and heavier rainfall, a pattern currently observed in Minnesota and projected to continue in the future. Investing in resilient infrastructure today will mitigate the impacts, and costs, of major future rainfall events on infrastructure, property, and safety. A further, often undersold, benefit of Low Impact Development is the restoration of water quality in a community's lakes, rivers, and wetlands. The integrated infrastructure approach already used in the City's road reconstruction projects is a prime opportunity for beginning the paradigm shift through neighborhood-wide resiliency strategies. One would hope that there will also be no need for similar extent of improvements to infrastructure across entire neighborhoods for another 75 or 100 years. There is significant room for improvement in the protection of water resource from impacts of road runoff. The options range from controlling the sources of pollution and runoff to rehabilitating lakes, wetlands, and rivers. There are many options in-between, including linear stormwater management practices along the road Right-of-Way and regional practices, such as stormwater management ponds, at the last control point before runoff is discharged to the receiving resource. As illustrated in Figure 7, the cost of practices generally increases as they move downstream in the conveyance system. This point is most clearly demonstrated when looking at restoring a resource. Implemented alone, creek restoration projects may address the visually evident symptoms of an urban watershed - such as eroding banks and cloudy water - however the causes within the contributing watershed area remain and will continue to degrade the creek after the restoration effort. Restoration may need to be repeated on a recurring basis as the project has not addressed the cause of the problem. An important limitation in the application of these measures in Edina is that many project extents will include minimal space for large end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 52 SITE CONTROL At Source REGION STRUCTU End of PI Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects $ Figure 7. Relative Cost of Stormwater Management and Pollution Prevention Strategies The Living Streets Plan (2015) compared the relative cost effectiveness of stormwater management options for road projects, as summarized in Table 12, and found that the most cost effective measures were those focused on pollution prevention, resource protection/restoration, and replacing impervious cover with pervious pavement or soil/turf/trees. An additional opportunity not included below that would provide both pollutant and volume reduction is rainwater harvesting at the lot level in rain barrels or cisterns and through partnership with areas in need of irrigation, such as a greywater irrigation system for a golf course. Table 12. Cost Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Alternatives (Source: Edina's Living Streets Plan, 2015) Low Impact Development Practices Flood Protection Low Clean Water High Relative Cost Effectiveness Very High Pollution prevention Natural area creation, protection, restoration High High Very High/Savings Impervious cover reduction High Medium Very High/Savings Pervious Pavements Medium Medium Very Low Soil/Turf/Trees Medium Low High Bio-retention/Rain Gardens Medium Medium Medium Swales, filters/other Low Medium Medium Underground Sediment/ Infiltration Low Medium Low Regional ponds and wetlands High Medium Medium As noted in Table 12, the protection, creation, and restoration of natural areas is one of the most cost-effective stormwater management measures and can actually provide cost-savings. Natural areas include water resources and the vegetated buffer areas surrounding those surface water features. The Envision credits NW1.1 and NW1.2 are intended to protect, buffer, enhance, and Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 53 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects restore areas designated as wetlands, shorelines, waterbodies, and prime habitat by providing natural buffer zones, vegetation, and soil protection zones. Construction of any structure or road, removal of native vegetation, grading, filling, dredging, or excavation are prohibited activities within buffers. A review of 350 technical reports, articles, and papers on the benefits of wetland buffers resulted in the following key findings3: • Although the level of protection should vary by importance of the wetland, buffers surrounding all wetlands are universally supported not only for the protection of wetlands and the benefits they provide, but also for the functions and values that buffers possess as vegetative areas. • The functions and values of wetland buffers are numerous, and include water quality protection (erosion control and sediment, nutrient, biological and toxics removal), hydrologic event modification, groundwater interaction, aquatic and wildlife habitat protection, minimization of human impact, aesthetics/open space, recreation, and environmental education. • To obtain the maximum long-term effectiveness from buffer areas, sheet flow must be maintained, vegetation must be kept healthy, and incursions from urbanization must be kept to a minimum. • Most recommended minimum widths of buffer zones vary by function, but generally adhere to those in Table 13. • The relationship of buffer width to water quality improvement is not linear; that is, at the small end of buffer width, slight increases in width may yield large increases in water quality, whereas increases in buffer size at the large end of the scale do not necessarily yield similarly large water quality benefits. The threshold for achieving "good" water quality treatment is reached by 50' wide buffers or 100' wide on sites with steep slopes. Buffers smaller than the minimum recommended widths provide some water quality benefits, such as TSS and TP removal, but may not provide the recommended amount of protection for the receiving water body. • The "best" vegetation for buffer areas is a mix of trees, shrubs and ground-cover, although any of these individually will provide some benefit. • Wetland buffers should be part of an effective watershed-wide surface water management program that includes runoff and pollution prevention, installation of BMPs (best management practices), and waste management. The key findings detail the functions provided by vegetated buffers and highlight that the minimum recommended buffer width to provide wetland protection is 50 to 100 ft. As a fully developed City, there are numerous areas of buffer encroachment in existence today leaving less than 50 ft to protect the downstream resources, including streets, houses, and bridges. While establishing buffers of 50 ft or greater in encroachment areas may not be feasible in all cases, in park areas this 3 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc, Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A Study of Functions, Values and Size. Prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Oakdale: 2001), 1-3. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 54 Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment of City Road Projects is a good goal and understanding the benefits provided by buffers of different widths should help the City understand the importance of other mitigating strategies elsewhere in their subwatersheds. Table 13. Recommended Buffer Widths to Provide Certain Function Function Sediment reduction I Special Features Steep slopes (5-15%) and/or sensitive wetland Recommended Minimum Width (ft) 100 Sediment reduction Shallow slopes (<5%) or low quality wetland 50 Sediment reduction Slopes over 15% Consider buffer width additions with each 1% increase in slope Phosphorus reduction Steep slope 100 Phosphorus reduction Shallow slope 50 Nitrogen (nitrate) reduction Focus on shallow groundwater flow 100 Biological contaminant and pesticide reduction 50 Wildlife habitat and corridor protection Unthreatened species 100 Wildlife habitat and corridor protection Rare, threatened or endangered species 200-300 Wildlife habitat and corridor protection Maintenance of species diversity 50 in rural area 100 in urban area Minimize the negative impact of human pressures 50 Flood control Variable, depending upon elevation of flood waters and potential damages Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 55 CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: VLC. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From: Ross Bintner - Environmental Engineer Item Activity: Subject: Partners in Energy Update Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: Provide input to the EEC members on the Partners in Energy planning team. INTRODUCTION: The City has partnered with Xcel Energy in it's Partners in Energy program. Sarah Zarrin, Bill Sierks, and Richard Manser are on the Partners in Energy planning group and will report on the current activities of the group, including the three priority focus areas and goals have been drafted by the group. • Residential Windsource: Double the usage and double the average amount of windsource in the next 18 month. • Schools and Service Learning: Contact school personnel, follow up on service learning and term projects. • Residential Information Campaign: 750 homes take action toward carbon reduction per year. Ross Bintner is also on the planning team and will provide a preview of municipal operations planning, a fourth priority focus area. You can download and review the presentations materials at the following web address: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=partnersinenergy or by searching "Partners in Energy" on EdinaMN.gov CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: VILA. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Correspondence From: Ross Bintner P.E. — Environmental Engineer Item Activity: Subject: Correspondence Information ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. INTRODUCTION: Attached are correspondence received or distributed since the last meeting. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From: Rebecca Foster, GIS Administrator Item Activity: Subject: Attendance report and roster Information ACTION REQUESTED: No Action Required. INTRODUCTION: EEC Attendance report attached. ATTACHMENTS: Attendance ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION J M A M J J A S 0 N Work Session Work Session # of Mtgs. Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 NAME Glahn, William TERM 3/1/2017 1 Enter Date) (Enter Date) 1 100% Gubrud, Bob 3/1/2016 1 100% Howard, John 3/1/2016 1 1 100% Kostuch, Keith 3/1/2016 1 1 100% Manser, Richard 3/1/2018 1 0% Satterlee, Lauren 3/1/2018 1 0o/0 Seeley, Melissa 3/1/2018 1 0 0% Sierks, Bill 3/1/2016 0% Thompson, Paul 3/1/2016 1 100% Waddick, Louise 3/1/2017 1 1 100% Zarrin, Sarah 3/1/2018 1 1 100% 0 0% Reinke, Emily 9/1/2016 1 0 0% Stefanik, Sarah 9/1/2016 1 0 0% Liaisons: Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting* Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is given, the previously-scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with a special meeting. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: VIII.B. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From: Rebecca Foster, GIS Administrator Item Activity: Subject: Working Group List Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: Please review the list and propose additions or deletions at the meeting. INTRODUCTION: See attached work group list. ATTACHMENTS: 20160201 WkapList Edina Energy & Environment Commission Working Groups and Subcommittees Draft of 02-1-16 Building Energy Efficiency Subcommittee - Chair Sierks, Members: Bill Glahn, Keith Kostuch Objective: This subcommittee will work with City staff to recommend to Council a comprehensive approach for achieving deeper energy efficiency actions for the city's buildings that maximizes greenhouse gas reductions, maximizes energy saved and dollars saved, and maximizes effective use of city dollars. City Environmental Considerations Subcommittee — Chair Keith Kostuch, Members: Objective: This sub-committee of the EEC will work with City staff to find a way to embed the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10 environmental commitments into the City's capital budget process. New buildings, major building renovations and fleet purchases have large and long-term environmental implications. Consequently, environmental considerations need to be made more explicit at the inception of all capital projects and in the approval process up to City Council final approval. Time frame: This process will be collaborative with City staff in terms of conceptualization and implementation so it will take most or all of 2014. Community Solar Subcommittee - Chair Bill Sierks, Members: Paul Thompson, Bob Gubrud Objective: Work with City Staff to evaluate whether the City can host a Community Solar site. If so, the group will assist as appropriate in completing the steps necessary to apply for, develop, and market this program, and involve interested members of the public through a working group if the project moves forward to construction Edina Climate Commitment Team —0 & 3rd Monday — Chair Sarah Zarrin — Commissioners: Bill Sierks, Robert Manser — Staff: Scott Neal and Council Member Kevin Staunton Objective: Assist with establishing best practices for energy conservation for The City of Edina (i.e., buildings, fleet) Assist with meeting established conservation goals and establish strategies to track and meet these goals Identify opportunities for change to meet GHG goals Assist with developing effective communication strategies for above to EEC, Council and the public Assist with allocating City resources (staff, budget) to enable realization of conservation goals Education Outreach Working Group (EO WG) — 1st Thursday at 7:00 pm - Co-Chairs Paul Thompson, Bob Gubrud and Lauren Satterlee — Members: John Howard (EEC), Sarah Stefanik, Emily Rienke, Emily Ding, Chuck Prentice, Kristopher Wilson and Mindy Ahler. Objective: The mission of the Education and Outreach Working Group is to support the charter of the Edina Energy and Environment Commission by creating awareness and engaging residents, schools, churches, business' and community organizations to take action to conserve and increase energy efficiency, to reuse and recycle, and to preserve and enhance our environment Home Energy Squad Subcommittee (HES) — Meets as needed - Chair Bill Sierks — Commissioners - Paul Thompson, Bob Gubrud Objective: This subcommittee works with City staff Xcel Energy, Centerpoint Energy, and the Center for Energy and the Environment to implement the Home Energy Squad program for Edina's residents. The city's gas and electric utilities have hired CEE to implement the Home Energy Squad program across their service area. Our subcommittee is helping to promote the program and maximize its impact in Edina. Recycling Solid Waste and Organics Working Group(RSWO WG) — 1st Wednesday at 7:00 pm - Chair Melissa Seeley — Commissioners Lauren Satterlee, Emily Ding, Members: DP Latham, Michelle Horan, Lori Syverson (Chamber of Commerce), Ben Knudson (Hennepin County Environmental Services), Andre Xiong (HCES) — City Staff: Solvei Wilmot Objective: Evaluate and monitor the provisions of the recycling, solid waste and organic waste collection programs in Edina. Evaluate and monitor the reduction in municipal solid waste by residents and businesses in Edina. Educate the public about recycling, organics and solid waste reduction. Student Environmental Leadership Council — EEC Chair, Members: Paul Thompson, Student Members• Emily Reinke, Sarah Stefanik and open to students attending secondary schools in Edina. Objective: To facilitate, coordinate and share information between the EEC and the School Environmental groups and to work on common energy and environmental objectives as appropriate. To assist in developing environmental leaders of tomorrow. Water Quality Working Group (WQ WG) — 2nd Tuesday at 6:30pm - Chair Lou Ann Waddick — Members: Jon Moon, Steve Wielock, Katherine Winston, Sue Nissen and Randy Holst, Richard Strong. Objective: To facilitate communication between citizens and city government and champion efforts to improve water quality within Edina. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From: Keith Kostuch, EEC Chair Item Activity: Subject: Chair and Member Comments Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: Board and Commission Member Comments on the following topics, subcommittee and working groups will be heard. INTRODUCTION: 1. Building Energy Efficiency Subcommittee 2. City Environmental Considerations Subcommittee 3. Community Solar Subcommittee 4. Education Outreach Working Group 5. Home Energy Squad Subcommittee 6. Recycling, Solid Waste and Organics Working Group 7. Student Subcommittee 8. Water Quality Working Group Please review attachments. ATTACHMENTS: EOWGNov. 2015 Minutes RSWO 12016 minutes WQWGMinutes Jan. 2016 E&OWG November 2015 Meeting Minutes Meeting called to order at 7:04 pm on 11/5/15 in the Mayor's Conference Room In attendance: Sarah Stefanik, Mindy Ahler, Kristopher Wilson, Bob Gubrud, John Howard, Sarah Zarrin, Paul Thompson and Chuck Prentice. 1. Minutes from October meeting approved without edit. Bob enquired if people had issues opening the agenda document — seemingly an issue with the naming format, / in name made some Mac computers unable to open document. 2. Check ins for those in attendance. 3. Secession planning a. Work group history: Since three long term EOWG members are finishing their commission terms, Vice Chair Zarrin requested a history of EOWG methods and work for the future EOWG leaders. Vice Chair Zarrin would like to see the EOWG do a better job on publications and communications to the community in the future. Bob concurred that the EOWG has struggled with communications and getting articles or other items published. b. EOWG leadership: Unclear if any present commissioner would fill role in EOWG. Some EOWG members may apply to be commissioners. 3. Edina Day of Service Oct. 24 a. HES installs - 3 successful installs b. Paul and Mindy did gardening clean up at schools, had a successful day. 4. Home Energy Squad a. Update-50 installs resulted from a HES mailing, which was done independently of City. The new installs use up the subsidized capacity allocated by the EOWG. 5. Community Solar a. Status- developer has been approved for public works, so moving ahead. b. Additional sites- status of Met Council plan that the city would participate in is unknown. 6. April 2016 Forum a. Topics- Vice chair Zarrin would like to see focus be on the reduction of energy use as this is EEC focus. She advises using ENSIA resources at the U of M. Ms. Zarrin would like to see non-believers, or people who are not typically at events attend this year. Chuck asked if focus of renewable energy would fit, and Ms. Zarrin said main thing is GHG reduction, so potentially compatible. Bob brought up energy conservation. Paul thought pointing to business action on climate change may be effective method —Target, Cargill and General Mills are local companies who have climate positions. Paul suggested a panel discussion between business person, faith leader, academic and council member. Ms. Zarrin thinks it would be good to start with an academic to set out facts and then have others talk. Ms. Zarrin said straight focus on GHGs noting the need to reduce fossil fuels would be the best program. Chuck felt an approach that has more of a self-interest feel could be valuable, such as "How to save 25% on your energy bill". Sarah S. was not sure on the best way to attract students to the event. Project Earth has a low membership, so environment does not seem to be high on students' priority list. Debate ensued on the best angle to develop a program. Do we take a direct approach about climate impacts? How we shift economy and agriculture to be less GHG intensive? Will this relate to urban folks? Chuck felt the best way to draw a crowd would be to have a controversial topic — such as should Edina promote native grasses? Ms. Zarrin recommended 25% reduction by 2025 as a headliner. John thought the EPA's Clean Power Plan would be topic on people's mind, and get into ghg reduction. Chuck wondered if attendees interested in a Clean Power Plan program would be open to new ideas. Ms. Zarrin thought good speaker could tie in all pieces, such as GHG reduction and national security. Kris brought up idea of international competitiveness and water security. Paul reminded the group that community solar has been a focus and could have important role to play. Bob noted that city might not be involved in advertising, so could get complicated. Title search for "25% by 2025" topic: Ms. Zarrin's suggestion: "How Edina can help to reduce GHG by 25% by 2025: How will it affect me? My community? My country? National security? Global obligations?" Bob posed question on how we can tie the program to personal initiative and interest. Basically, "what's in it for me?" to interest people. Ms. Zarrin believes there should be a subcommittee of community members, the EEC and the EOWG to plan this event. Mindy sees value in business connection: Best Buy, Cargill, General Mills. John noted that the sustainability director for General Mills lives in Edina. Kristopher sees potential to tie in civic pride if an Edina resident. b. Format — Thursday April 7th as potential date in Fick auditorium. Sarah S. to check with Rachel about availability. c. Presenters — Elizabeth Wilson at U of M, and General Mills sustainability director. John to contact these people and invite them to give a presentation. General consensus is to have event with a ghg reduction focus, with a U of M speaker and at least one other speaker. Professor Elizabeth Wilson at the U of M and the General Mills sustainability director will be asked to be the program speakers. 7. Environmental Film Series- Bob brought up Bill Nye's recent show on National Geographic about climate change. Chuck gave a summary of the show. a. The Burden film: been approved by EEC, film is 40 minutes so plenty of time for discussion. Friday, Jan. 22nd is proposed date, with council chambers at City hall being the venue again. John will coordinate and ask for big screen. b. Mindy and Paul enjoy Years of Living Dangerously show, see it as being very professionally done. May be a good option to show as a continuous series. John less enthusiastic about this show. 8. 2016 Work Plan - tabled 9. Project Earth - tabled 11. Other — Ms. Zarrin asked Kristopher if Garbage Man would be ready to do organic collection, and Kristopher discussed reservations about the lack of a comingled (lawn waste and organics) collection facility. This means an extra truck would be needed. 12. Next meeting? Dec. 3, 2015 would be next regular date (first Thursday of the month), however Paul and Mindy would be unavailable. [Meeting was canceled on 12-2-15] Minutes prepared by John Howard RSWO Working Group Meeting Minutes January 20, 2016 Present: Seeley, Horan, Satterlee, Latham, Wilmot Guests: Reps from hauling companies: Kristopher Wilson, Garbage Man Darrell Hoekstra, Waste Management Justin Vierkant, Vierkant Disposal Paul Rosland, Suburban Waste Discussed the Organics Ordinance which was approved by EEC - All the haulers voiced similar feedback 1. The main concern is the lack of compost processing facilities. There is no facility currently taking new customers who mix yard waste and organics. If those materials are not mixed it presents questions about collection (blue bag, separate trucks, etc.) 2. Concern over raising all customers' rates if organics are collected with yard waste 3. Haulers are unsure if they will subcontract organics hauling or add truck to existing route. Concerned about additional distance to travel to process/collect 4. Frustration regarding Hennepin County's mandate to reduce solid waste by 12% without the proper infrastructure to collect/process organics 5. Felt that is was too early for the city, but would comply if customers request organics 6. Overall, not entirely opposed to the organics collection, more concerned about the process of collection and processing Conclusion - we will table the ordinance at this time so as not to put an undue burden on the haulers. We will closely monitor the capacity issue and will reintroduce the ordinance once there is a viable processing option for the haulers - Solvei Wilmot to check with Mdewakanton Sioux organics collection facility to check on possibility of accepting new customers. - Solvei will also arrange a tour of Randy's in Delano. They are currently the only location that accepts blue bags for processing Discussed the proposed Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance - Directed by EEC to research and report - Stakeholder meeting to be held January 27, 2016 - Invitations sent to Rotary, 50th & France Business Association, restaurants and Chamber of Commerce Water Quality Working Group Regular Meeting 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Members Present: LouAnn Waddick, Jon Moon, Randy Ho1st, Sue Nissen The following meeting dates have been changed: February 9 to Monday, Feb 8 June 14 moved to Monday, June 13 July 12, moved to Monday, July 11 Location to be decided latter. Thursday, Feb 11, Brian Olson, Director of Public Works, will speak at EEC Meeting. WQWG members are encouraged to attend. A list of questions was prepared. Committee voted to request a meet with Brian Olson during business hours. LouAnn contacted Craig Wiester, The Friday Epistle, who has agreed to publish an article about salt best practices in the publication. LouAnn to seek permission from Nine Mile Creek to resue/reprint salt article. LouAnn contacted Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches and EHS Envirnmental Club (Eric Burfine) about education possibilities. Spring education strategies discussed: • storm drain stenciling • recontact Arden Park household • ask city for dates for next neighborhood sidewalk/street project • ask the library to put a theme of water conservation in their diorama case. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Nissen CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov Date: February 11, 2016 Agenda Item #: IX.A. To: Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From: Ross Bintner, Environmental Engineer Item Activity: Subject: Staff Comments Information ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. INTRODUCTION: The following items are included for your information. 1. March 15 EEC/CC Joint Meeting 2. 2015 EEC Term Summary and Schedule ATTACHiMENTS: 2015 Tem Sunmiuy and Schedule CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION March 2015 — February 2016 Term SUMMARY AND DRAFT SCHEDULE Item # WP1.1 Workplan Item GHG Measurement Monthly Activity July Partners in Energy report WP1.2 City Building Energy March staff report on building energy use WP1.3 Capital Process Environmental Considerations WP2.1 Community Solar May CC Community Solar advisory. July CC PW Solar Proposal Advisory WP2.2 Coordinate with PC, ETC, PB WP2.3 Promote Home Energy Squad April Edina dialogue event, April Movie, June Motion to recommend $3200, January motion to recommend $1000 for 2016 OR1 Green Step Cities Reporting May annual assessment OR2 Urban Forestry OR3 Solid Waste and Recycling June water bottle advisory reconsideration tabled. August motion to support recycling grant to Hennepin County. OR4 Purchasing policy, review annual report August, motion to ask City Manager to provide 2014 purchasing policy report at October or November EEC meeting. ORS Business Recycling OR6 Local Food / Bees and Chickens Ordinances passed Spring 2015. July Duck Keeping Request. May recommendation for Xcel franchise agreement WP = work plan number. OR = ongoing responsibility number Advisory, Date MM/YY Acted on Not Acted Golf dome re-commissioning 10/12 X New facility carbon goals 10/13 X Urban forest task force 3/13 X Yorktown community garden pervious parking 4/13 X Water bottle sales 4/14 X EEEP transfer to SPPA 5/14 X Building energy system CIP 1/15 X Braemar capital improvements, 1/15 X CIP environmental considerations, 1/15 X Fleet operations task force, 1/15 X Grandview sustainability principles, 3/15 X Community solar joint purchase, 5/15 X March 12, 2015 Televised Meeting Item of focus: Elect Chair and Vice Chair. Presentations: TELEVISED MEETING April 9, 2015 Meeting Item of focus: EEC/CC Meeting Recap Presentations: None May 14, 2015 Meeting Item of focus: Xcel Energy Franchise Presentations: June 11, 2015 EEC/CC Joint Workshop Item of focus: City Climate Commitment Subcommittee, Water Bottle Advisory (Sarah) Presentations: July 9, 2015 Meeting Item of focus: Street Sweeping, Community Solar, EEC Workplan, City Climate Commitment Subcommitee Presentations: August 13, 2015 Meeting Item of focus: Xcel Partners In Energy Program / Working Group Creation September 10, 2015 Meeting Item of focus: Workplan, Presentations: October 8, 2015 Meeting Item of focus: Presentations: November 12, 2015 Meeting Item of focus: Presentations: December 10, 2015 Meeting Cancel January 14, 2016 Meeting Item of focus: Prep for Televised, CAS Policy, Presentations: February 11, 2016 Meeting Item of focus: Televised, Presentations: Partners in Energy planning, Chloride Snow and Ice, Background: As part of the GreenStep Cities program, the City Council of Edina adopted a Green Purchasing Policy on 3/20/2012. The policy was one of the final Best Practices which allowed Edina to become a Step 3 GreenStep City on 6/10/2012. The Purchasing Policy called for annual reporting by City Staff on the implementation and effectiveness of the Purchasing Policy. This report is to be given to the City Manager, the EEC and the Edina City Council. This was the only GreenStep best practice that called for on-going activity by the City staff. The EEC received a report on 1/09/2014 for 2012 and 2013. The EEC does not know if Council ever received this report. The EEC has made repeated informal and formal requests for the annual report for 2014 in order for the City of Edina to fulfill the spirit and the letter of the City green purchasing policy. The EEC therefore sends the Advisory Resolution to the City Council: Whereas, the City of Edina has publicized its achievement of becoming a Step 3 GreenStep City. And whereas, the City of Edina in a number of documents has proclaimed it will take a leadership role in improving the environment. And whereas, the city green purchasing policy is the only part of the GreenStep City program that requires on-going activity by the City itself The EEC advises Council that the failure to have an annual staff report on the implementation and effectiveness of the City's green purchasing policy in 2014 means that the City of Edina is out of compliance with both its own Council resolution and the spirit of the GreenSteps City program. The EEC thus believes that Edina no long meets GreenStep Cities Best Practice 15 and asks staff to withdraw that Best Practice from the GreenStep Cities self-reporting. The EEC requests that Council either direct staff to provide Council and the EEC the specified annual report or rescind the City Green Purchasing Policy.