Date: July 22, 2018

To: Heather Worthington Jacob Frey David Frank, CPED Director Council Member Lisa Goodman Patrick Sadler, Policy Aide to Council Member Lisa Goodman

Transmittal via email

From: Cedar-Isles-Dean Neighborhood Association Board

RE: Evaluation of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan (i.e., the Plan). The Plan will shape the future of our city and may be the single most important issue to come before the city in a generation. As proposed, the Plan initiatives include increasing density, rezoning all single-family lots to allow four- plexes, and increasing building heights across the city including in the Cedar-Isles-Dean Neighborhood Association (CIDNA) area and in the Shore Land Overlay zones that have served to protect the public parks, lakes and associated open spaces for decades.

The Plan sets forth lofty goals of equity and affordable housing, but in reality it betrays them. Developed outside of the engagement of all Neighborhood Organizations, it has become a divisive, rather than a collaborative planning document citywide as evidenced by newspaper reports and social media assaults. The Plan would radically change the form and function of our neighborhoods without reasonable assurance that laudable goals such as affordable and accessible housing, reduced disparities, and equitable civic participation would be achieved.

Findings

• The Plan points to a major overhaul of existing zoning ordinances and invites developers to replace single-family homes in any part of the city with four-plexes. The Plan does not make clear how this will address any affordable housing shortage for families. The Plan erodes the successful role that neighborhood organizations have played in City development and gives developers unprecedented build-by- right powers. The emphasis on housing density presents undue environmental pressures such as the inability to meet storm water management obligations.1 It is not plain if the Plan has accounted for active non- conforming duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes that are already allowed in the City. Further it seems that projects, such as the Sons-of-Norway and Bader Towers are already being given the green-light as if the Plan were in effect now even though it has yet to be approved.

• The Plan endorses housing without parking. This hurts people who own cars but use transit to get to work, those that rely on cars to support their mobility such as the elderly, the disabled, and families with children. Use of a car can further individual productivity, which is an economic driver for cities. Proposed 15-30 story towers and four-plexes built without parking presume an increase in the City-wide transit system that is not in reflected in the Regional Transit Plan.

• The Plan invites high-rise development around the protected Chain of Lakes. The Shoreland Overlay protects the lakes, but the Plan would revoke it as evidenced by the built form maps in the document.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 1

• The Plan is vague and does not provide adequate strategies for basic elements of a healthy city: economic development, education, jobs, and the environment, and it ignores the infrastructure needed to support increased population.

• The Plan does not achieve its own environmental and resiliency goals until 2050. It is not clear why this is and should be further studied. One explanation is that new construction adds to greenhouse gas (i.e., GHG) emissions. This is the case in comparing the “build” versus “no build” scenarios of Southwest Light Rail Transit (i.e., SWLRT). The final environmental impact statement issued by the Metropolitan Council found that building SWLRT adds to GHG emissions as compared to not building the SWLRT. This takes into account the approximately 6,0002 automobiles which are expected to be eliminated from the road with the planned transit operations of SWLRT per the project’s final environmental impact statement. Further, the Plan does not seem to account for the migration to electric vehicles nor for the relevant infrastructure investment needs associated with their use and travel patterns.

• The Plan presumes that the SWLRT expansion line will be built even though at the time of writing this document the required shared corridor agreement with BNSF railroad has not been secured and the Federal Transit Authority (i.e., FTA) has not approved funding for the project.

• The Plan does not give credit for accomplishments: ◦ Minneapolis ranks 11th in population density per square mile ahead of and Portland Oregon, and closely ranked behind and . This is impressive given that the City of Minneapolis ranks 46th for overall population [see Exhibit III]. ◦ School enrollment is not tied to where students live (which affords better access to schools of choice). ◦ City of Minneapolis Pedestrian Crash Study8 shows that Minneapolis has experienced an average of 1.5 deaths per 100,000 residents over the 10 year period ending 2016. While the loss of any community member is tragic, this is on-par with the gold standard exemplar of Stockholm, Sweden of approximately 1.1 deaths per 100,000.8

• The Plan does not reflect the potential developmental opportunities and pressures planned by adjacent cities (i.e., St Lois Park, Edina, Bloomington, Richfield, Roseville, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, St. Paul, etc.).

• The Plan has a goal of “Affordable and accessible housing: in 2040, all Minneapolis residents will be able to afford and access quality housing throughout the City.” Based on data from the Minneapolis City Assessor, the Consumer Price Index adjusted median home value as of mid-2018 is roughly what it was in 2003, before the housing crisis [see Exhibit V].

• The Plan overlooks important safety and health considerations of adding high density housing near active freight rail routes that regularly carry mile-long high-hazard ethanol trains through CIDNA [see Exhibit I]. Given the FTA’s expectations for affordable housing within ½-mile of the transit stations3, many of the housing units are to be occupied by individuals/families with income below the area mean income. Diesel particulate from trains is a known pollutant and health hazard. Emergency planners have not developed neighborhood specific evacuation plans in case of a hazardous freight train derailment/spill/fire. Adding more people in such risk areas is not responsible planning for any socioeconomic, race, or ethnic group. There has been no development of neighborhood specific evacuation planning and education. Evacuation and emergency management is made more complex by: ◦ Higher density ◦ Multi-story towers ◦ Co-location of SWLRT with high-hazard freight trains, TC&W hauls mile-long ethanol trains in this route on a regular basis. Based on 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data 60,000 residents live within ½-mile of the 7 to 9 miles of freight rail tracks that will be co-located with LRT per the planned SWLRT route. It is irresponsible to expose additional residents to this risk [see Exhibit I].

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 2

• The Plan is radical as it provides capacity beyond the 2 million housing units already allowed by current zoning ordinances - far exceeding the anticipated 500,000 Minneapolis residents in 2040. The Metropolitan Council requires that the City plan for only a 12% increase in actual housing over the next 20 years. Smart Growth, the Minneapolis 2030 Comprehensive Plan and current zoning code already accommodate the anticipated population growth of Minneapolis and as well as meets the Metropolitan Council Thrive 2040 targets for Minneapolis.

After participating in community workshops, conducting a joint neighborhood forum on the Plan [see Exhibit II], reviewing CIDNA NextDoor postings on the Plan, analyzing CIDNA resident Plan survey results, reading the Plan PDF document, considering other resident feedback on the Plan [see Exhibit III] and evaluating other data points [see Exhibits IV, V, and VI] --- the CIDNA board opposes the draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

Recommendations

• Carry forward the Smart Growth outlined in the Minneapolis 2030 Comprehensive Plan as it meets the Metropolitan Council requirements and provides for more than enough housing units to accommodate the expected growth in Minneapolis residents.

• Establish housing policies that: ◦ facilitate homeownership, ◦ support stability and growth of the home asset value, ◦ support tenants’ and landlords’ rights ◦ promote trust between residents and policy makers and do not pit groups against each other (i.e., young vs. mature, single occupants vs. families, renters vs. homeowners, residents vs. developers).

• Create an affordable housing plan that would include zoning mandates (i.e., inclusionary zoning4) and financial incentives for developers — which are not identified in the Plan. In fact such a policy could be developed and adopted by now.

• Eliminate the citywide four-plex concept and retain current zoning ordinances, which already allow for over 2 million housing units in Minneapolis including a vast array of rental options. The most recent Compass3 data reveal an approximate 45-55 split between renters and homeowners in CIDNA. In “The case for density in Minneapolis, St. Paul and beyond”,6 the Editorial Board of the Star Tribune states: The Minneapolis draft is more aggressive and prescriptive. With significant densification already underway on the periphery of downtown as well as in the University and Uptown districts, the draft anticipates taller buildings also in the West Loop and Lake/Excelsior areas and denser zoning along transit lines throughout the city. Most controversial is a proposal to allow fourplexes in neighborhoods now dominated by single-family homes. On that provision the city may have overplayed its hand (emphasis added), but it’s worth continuing the discussion of expanding the areas in which fourplexes are allowed.

• Preserve and enforce the Shoreland Overlay Districts.

• Change CIDNA to Interior 1 designation as opposed to Interior 2, which allows for the combination of property parcels to build up to 8-unit dwellings.

• Change CIDNA transit district(s) to be no more than Transit 15 rather than the Transit 30 designation. Transit 15 is in scale with other high-density dwelling-units in the thoroughfare along Lake Street West.

• Incorporate the West Lake Multimodal Transportation Study7 results into the Plan.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 3

• Acknowledge the Southwest Light Rail Transit project’s Memorandum of Understanding between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Minneapolis for preservation of public land as open space or parkland. This includes preserving the land in the Kenilworth Corridor and results in eliminating Corridor 4 designation.

• Prioritize zero emission vehicles to address climate issues, fossil fuel concerns, and effective mobility for residents for productivity and economic growth. Provide the necessary infrastructure such as roads, parking and charging stations.

• Support environmental and resiliency goals by developing a robust tree-planting program to hedge against climate chaos - trees provide shade, stabilize soil, provide oxygen and clean the air. Weather estimates for the near future indicate that the upper Midwest will be warmer and wetter. Trees can be planted on both sides of the freeways and major roads.

• Identify and use expert research from people experienced in the fields involved in the plan such the Federal Reserve Bank, realtors, economists, environmentalists/climatologist, community reconciliation experts, etc.

• Restore neighborhood planning and input, and recognize small area plans. CIDNA has respectfully engaged in past and recent development projects in the neighborhood. This has been accomplished in a collaborative way with developers and the City. Historically developers acknowledged the role of neighborhood organizations in shaping the neighborhood, and neighborhood organizations were given the role of providing meaningful input on development that potentially violated zoning ordinance.

• Reinstate policy that provides for adequate off-street parking for residences and businesses.

• Add a fifth action step to Policy 47: Take no actions that would threaten the intrinsic value of Minneapolis homes, including single-family homes, without thoroughly investigating the potential adverse effects.

Thank you for your consideration of our input. We believe that you share with us the desire to preserve the strengths of Minneapolis and the drive to develop initiatives that will serve to help all residents. Oppressive and lamentable facts of history, and effects of racism cannot be ignored. Efforts to support residents in reaching their full potential in regards to education, employment and pursuit of happiness could bring us together rather than divide us. Leadership will matter as we navigate the future. We look forward to further opportunity to shape the Plan as it moves through its subsequent iterations.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 4

Exhibit I Liability Immunity Zone Map – Residents at Risk Regarding public safety, the Metropolitan Council has highlighted the unique liability concerns in the case of a rail incident in a shared freight and passenger rail rights-of-way. Based on 2010 census data over 60,000 residents are exposed to this risk. Significant housing unit development has occurred in the ½-mile evacuation area since 2010 and the Plan sets a course for further residential density in the planned shared corridor. Given the FTA’s expectations for affordable housing within ½-mile of the transit stations, many of the housing units are to be occupied by individuals/families with income below the area mean income. It is irresponsible to expose additional residents to this risk. It remains unclear how residents will gain restitution from Metropolitan Council or another governmental unit, in the case of a co-location incident. A policy and procedure is needed and ought to be made available for public shaping and approval.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 5

Exhibit II Joint Neighborhood Forum on the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan CIDNA, EIRA, KIAA and LHNA Meeting Minutes

Held on June 6th, 2018 7:00-9:00pm @ St. Paul’s Church on Lake of the Isles

Estimated Attendance: 170

Hosted by: • Cedar-Isles-Dean Neighborhood Association • East Isles Residents Association • Kenwood-Isles Area Association • Lowry Hill Neighborhood Association

Together With: Minneapolis City Planning Staff – • Heather Worthington, Director of Long Range Planning • Joe Bernard, Long Range Planning Staff

Meeting Start Time 7:09pm Meeting KIAA Chair, Shawn Smith announces the collaboration of the 4 neighborhoods listed above in coordinating and planning this Info Session.

Review meeting ground rules and goals of the meeting.

The open comments until July 22nd, 2018 and ALL RESIDENTS are encouraged to send feedback directly to the City at www.minneapolis2040.com

Civic Engagement Announcement The comprehensive plan process was organized into five phases that are tied to the Topical Research Teams goals and methods of civic engagement, including gathering public and community feedback on various ideas and proposals that come to the surface as the project unfolded. The process started from early 2016 and lasts through 2018. The five phases are: • Phase 1 - Launch • Phase 2 - Big Questions • Phase 3 - Policy Framework (Phase 3A and Phase 3B ) • Phase 4 - Policy Document • Phase 5 - Review

There is now a PDF version of the draft plan available at https://minneapolis2040.com/pdf/

The aspects of this Comp Plan receiving the most attention are: • Housing • Transportation • Land Use & Built Form • City Values & Goals

City of Minneapolis 2040 Presentation by Heather Worthington & Brian Schaffer Minneapolis 2040 is a draft Comprehensive Plan that shapes how the city will grow and change. The draft covers topics such as housing, job access, the design of new buildings, and how we use our streets.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 6

The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires municipalities in the Twin Cities area to provide the Metropolitan Council with an updated Comprehensive Plan every ten years. This Comp Plan is a DRAFT with a four month comment period, not required, however the City wanted to offer public engagement. 150 City staff worked with multiple agencies including surrounding cities to help create this document. All the feedback will be used to draft a new plan that will be released in September 2018. Ms. Worthington emphasized that this is a planning document and not a policy document.

As Director Worthington pointed out, our city is expected to grow in the next few decades. That growth is coming and we need to best prepare for that. We are currently at a bit over 50% renters in Mpls right now.

The City is zoned for approximately 2 million housing units. This draft of the Comp Plan would increase that slightly. One proposal that Long Range Planning has presented is this new zoning change to allow for up to four unit buildings on what is currently single-residential lots. They explained that parts of our city lack housing varieties and that increasing choice for homeowners would help accommodate the influx of new residents, and provide housing options for current residents who may not want to own a single family home.

Questions to City Staff Moderated by Shawn Smith, KIAA Chair & Questions answered by Director, Heather Worthington (HW)

On the Overall Plan

1. Is this draft able to be changed? Do our responses matter and how will feedback be incorporated? Yes this draft can be changed and with your feedback we will be taking another look at the ncorpack we receive into the draft which will be published in September 2018. No changes to the online document will be made until AFTER the comment period ends. The plan will then go to City Council in December 2018.

2. What is the basis of the research supporting the population increase through 2040? We are hearing that millennials, retirees, wealthy are leaving the state. Where are the new residents coming from? We have gathered our information from the Census, Metropolitan Council U of M and the Federal Government. Birthrates are static; new residents are moving into Minneapolis from other states and countries. We are experiencing and upward tracking of population in our city and projecting in 2040 we will be at 459,000.

3. Specifically, please name the process for how community input was collected, what agencies and neighborhood organizations were engaged, what forums such as social media, open streets, etc. Were neighborhood organizations engaged and why or why not? The City reached out first to underrepresented groups such as disability, cultural communities, communities of color, the School District and many neighborhood organizations. We have documented the engagement on the website, which you can see on the website.

4. How does the plan address the quality of life for residents who are affected by an increase in density in the City: Air pollution; harm to the City’s beautiful lakes; lack of green space; increased noise; more crime; lack of road space to accommodate the increase of automobile traffic? We have put a lot of thought into these City assets of natural amenities. Air quality has also been looked at and we welcome your feedback on all these topics of concern.

5. The Comp Plan indicates that African and Native Americans experienced a disproportionate 40% drop of their income from 2000-2014. Do we know the cause, what was it, and if not how do we know that this plan is the right remedy? Not sure if we know why, however we have seen that 45% of income for families of color is spent on housing. Housing going up and income is down for people of color. This could be social issues, income issues, and generational poverty. We were asked to think about the disparities that are in our city and that they do not go deeper.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 7

6. Have you had an economist review the Comp Plan and its potential imposed on property tax values? We have not. This would be challenging and this is not what this plan is about.

On Density

1. One economist has developed a model that says that for every 3% increase in housing units, rent will drop by 2% - thus to achieve a 25% reduction in rent, rental units will need to increase by almost 40%. What is your basis for believing that increased density will increase affordable housing? Density does not make housing affordable. We never said this. The housing chapter is a draft and will be amended to reflect current policy discussions around housing. This is not a density issue at its core.

2. What is the predicted effect of placing higher density housing among single-family residences on the property values of those residences? I believe I said that generally we see higher values in all properties, specifically those located close to significant public transit investments.

3. Density increase in the Uptown Area just east of Hennepin has not done anything to make rentals more affordable – if the 2040 plan hopes to address this, how? This will likely be addressed in the housing policy work that is underway currently.

4. Traffic and parking will be issues with this type of extensive build out. Can you explain the total lack of parking to be available? Parking comes up a lot in this plan. Parking is valuable and the way we access parking does matter. We estimated by cutting cars by __% we would cut our emissions which will also help with environmental issues in our city.

On Environment

1. If we allow 30 story towers between Excelsior Blvd and the Greenway from Dean Parkway down to 32nd Street even the BP gas station triangle, isn’t that effectively nullifying the Shoreland Overlay District ordinance? We are now aware of this and will be looking at this at a deeper level. This is part of the zoning code and we are aware of that concern.

Open Microphone Time Moderated by Shawn Smith with Assistance from Mike Wilson • The character of our neighborhoods should be considered in the future of planning for our City. Fads in City planning have already taken down and destroyed many historic structures. There are many of us that are very concerned this plan will continue to destroy the character of our valued neighborhoods. (Resident statement, no response from HW)

• We need to be able to continue to access nature and preserve what we have in our City by honoring Shoreline Overlay and its natural corridors. (Resident statement, no response from HW)

• Many residents in the Southwest neighborhoods of Minneapolis did not know about this 2040 Plan. How were the locations chosen for these community meetings in the earlier phases of this engagement plan? We picked locations to try to provide access in five geographical locations that were roughly Southwest, Southeast, Northwest, Northeast and Downtown.

• Residents on Dean Parkway deal with constant traffic along with a very dangerous intersection at Lake and Dean Parkway. How is the City going to address the traffic issues? Traffic issues are generally dealt with by Public Works, and they have been a part of the Comp Plan draft process. They are now working on the Access Minneapolis plan - which will address traffic, transit, and alternative methods of transportation citywide. Look for more to come on that.

• We have concerns about traffic along with the destruction of our natural assets. The level of density this plan shows is something the lakes cannot support. (Resident statement, no response from HW)

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 8

• With the increased density how will deliveries and guests from outside the neighborhood get here to spend their money at local businesses? Finding balance between density and how that impacts access and desirability is a major goal of the plan; just as some areas of the City are concerned about gentrification, traffic and access are important issues.

• Will the higher density and increased traffic congestion slow ambulance and fire responses? We work closely with our partners in public safety to ensure that neighborhoods remain accessible to emergency vehicles, and that development does not hinder that access.

• We understand a lot of work has gone into the making of this Comp Plan draft, however there are MANY areas of this Comp Plan that need re-working. City hall needs to understand this and your Department needs to re- evaluate many valid points that are being brought to your attention from residents that have lived here for decades and will be severely affected if these plans turn to policy. (Resident statement, no response from HW)

• There is a 2040 planning coalition for residents who have concerns about this plan. Please check out www.minneapolisforeveryone.org (Resident statement, no response from HW)

• You said the plan is not policy. When does it become policy? How would you respond to the criticism that the built-form plan is not only policy but specific and radical? The plan can be changed after comments are in and will be reflected on the 2nd draft. Policy means a clear direction of what the City should do.

• Why has the plan chosen “arteries” as structure linear for growth rather than “nodes” to develop neighborhoods? From a transportation standpoint, corridor or artery plans help to address deeper transit investments, like high frequency buses, than node development. The node model was developed as part of the fixed-rail streetcar system in the early 20th Century. Because most of our transit service is now bus, it is difficult to revitalize the City or make investments in nodes. From a land use perspective, we have to think more broadly about corridors and how they carry high frequency transit. This also means that our transit providers have to think differently about how they provide that transit, and ensure that it is matching the land uses and density in those corridors. The streetcar nodes remain very valuable as neighborhood amenities and economic drivers, but they need to be “knit together” through a corridor strategy.

• What City in the U.S. do you think Minneapolis will look like in 2040? Director Worthington turned that question back to the audience and some of the responses were: Minneapolis, Toronto, Cincinnati, Portland. She then said, “We can take pieces of all these great cities and shape them into OUR city. 100 years ago they were having the same conversations about what they wanted their communities to look like. This is what we are currently doing right now.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 9

Exhibit III Representative CIDNA Resident Comments (Per CIDNA Survey and Emails)

• Provide research references supporting the sources supporting the Plan initiatives to address affordable housing. Include initiatives that have worked in successful cities such as Amsterdam and Toronto.

• The Plan lacks neighborhood specific solutions to address existing congestion such as on Lake Street and excelsior by Bde Maka Ska. It doesn't seem to make sense to add high density in an area with congestion from traffic using the area as a thoroughfare. The planned SWLRT is expected to remove less than 6,500 cars from the road by the year 2040.

• All Neighborhood Organizations should be valued and be allowed input to improve this Plan.

• I am concerned about the dramatic changes to the complexion of this part of Minneapolis for its EXISTING residents versus the yet-to-come residents. In addition to socio-economic diversity, there needs to be recognition of demographic diversity. Not everyone who lives here NOW is single and rides a bike and is under 35. I feel this is a disrespectful attempt to drastically alter the make up of this part of Minneapolis without concern for CURRENT residents. And, these new apartments will do NOTHING to provide truly affordable housing. They will be luxury units. We are paying political lip service to this fantasy idea of making Minneapolis a cool hip bike riding city of people under 30.

• How does the Plan address the quality of life for residents who are affected by an increase in density and safety in the city: air pollution (more auto gas emissions and accidents); harm to the city's beautiful lakes, lack of green space, increased noise, lack of enforcing speed limits, more crime, lack of road space to accommodate the increase in automobile traffic. The City leaders and the people need to work together to make the city livable for everyone.

• The density increase in the Uptown Area just east of Hennepin has not done anything to make rentals more affordable. The 2040 plan does not address this. The potential loss of so many single family homes going to re-zone to 4Plex undermines the strength and value of our city.

• Explain the total lack of parking to be available with all the proposed build out so it actually answers the question. Traffic and parking will be issues not only with extensive proposed building but with possible addition of light rail. We need affordable housing in ALL neighorhoods!!!

• I think this is the most horrendous idea I've heard in along time. We do not want increase density in this congested area. We do not want destroy our beautiful neighborhood. We do not support light rail either.

• Increasing population density does not improve citizens’ lives and will not provide affordable housing. The Plan does not address the negative impacts of increased density.

• The Shoreland Overlay ordinance is being effectively nullified by allowing 30-story towers between Excelsior Blvd. and the Greenway, from Dean Parkway down to West 32nd St. -- even on the triangle of land now occupied by the BP station. The density is not feasible given the existing highway and street structure, which Hennepin County has little ability and no plans to change per discussion with their staff.

• The Plan should value and protect single-family homes while developing neighborhood specific density projects that do not infiltrate the neighborhood interiors. Density buffers should be a feature of the plan.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 10

Exhibit IV City of Minneapolis Population Density

Minneapolis is approximately 54 square miles excluding lakes and parklands. The City goal of 500,000 residents in Minneapolis by 2040 represents approximately 9,100 residents per square mile. This is an additional 1,443 people per square mile over the 2016 data. Based on 2016 U.S. Census Bureau data, Minneapolis ranks 46th in population but 11th in density for cities over 350,000 people.

US Census 2016 Estimate for Cities Over 350,000 people

Density per sq mi Population

1 New York, New York 28,211 1 New York, New York 8,537,673 2 , California 18,581 2 Los Angeles, California 3,976,322 3 , Massachusetts 13,943 3 , Illinois 2,704,958 4 , Florida 12,645 4 , Texas 2,303,482 5 Chicago, Illinois 11,883 5 Phoenix, Arizona 1,615,017 6 , Pennsylvania 11,692 6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1,567,872 7 Washington DC 11,158 7 , Texas 1,492,510 8 Long Beach, California 9,348 8 , California 1,406,630 9 Los Angeles, California 8,484 9 , Texas 1,317,929 10 Seattle, Washington 8,391 10 San Jose, California 1,025,350 11 Minneapolis, Minnesota 7,664 11 Austin, Texas 947,890 12 , Maryland 7,594 12 Jacksonville, Florida 880,619 13 Oakland, California 7,528 13 San Francisco, California 870,887 14 Anaheim, California 7,043 14 Columbus, Ohio 860,090 15 , Wisconsin 6,191 15 , Indiana 855,164 16 Urban Honolulu, Hawaii 5,813 16 Fort Worth, Texas 854,113 17 San Jose, California 5,808 17 Charlotte, North Carolina 842,051 18 Sacramento, California 5,058 18 Seattle, Washington 704,352 19 Cleveland, Ohio 4,965 19 Denver, Colorado 693,060 20 , Michigan 4,849 20 El Paso, Texas 683,080 21 Portland, Oregon 4,795 21 Washington DC 681,170 22 Fresno, California 4,663 22 Boston, Massachusetts 673,184 23 , Nevada 4,660 23 Detroit, Michigan 672,795 24 Denver, Colorado 4,530 24 Nashville, Tennessee 660,388 25 San Diego, California 4,326 25 Memphis, Tennessee 652,717 26 Arlington, Texas 4,096 26 Portland, Oregon 639,863 27 Columbus, Ohio 3,960 27 , Oklahoma 638,367 28 Dallas, Texas 3,870 28 Las Vegas, Nevada 632,912 29 Houston, Texas 3,842 29 Louisville, Kentucky 616,261 30 Mesa, Arizona 3,551 30 Baltimore, Maryland 614,664 31 , Georgia 3,549 31 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 595,047 32 Omaha, Nebraska 3,517 32 Albuquerque, New Mexico 559,277 33 Tampa, Florida 3,326 33 Tucson, Arizona 530,706 34 San Antonio, Texas 3,238 34 Fresno, California 522,053 35 Raleigh, North Carolina 3,211 35 Sacramento, California 495,234 36 Austin, Texas 3,182 36 Mesa, Arizona 484,587 37 Phoenix, Arizona 3,126 37 Kansas City, Missouri 481,420 38 Albuquerque, New Mexico 2,979 38 Atlanta, Georgia 472,522 39 Charlotte, North Carolina 2,829 39 Long Beach, California 470,130 40 El Paso, Texas 2,676 40 Colorado Springs, Colorado 465,101 41 Bakersfield, California 2,648 41 Raleigh, North Carolina 458,880 42 Fort Worth, Texas 2,513 42 Miami, Florida 453,579 43 Wichita, Kansas 2,448 43 Virginia Beach, Virginia 452,602 44 Colorado Springs, Colorado 2,391 44 Omaha, Nebraska 446,970 45 Indianapolis, Indiana 2,366 45 Oakland, California 420,005 46 Tucson, Arizona 2,341 46 Minneapolis, Minnesota 413,651 47 Aurora, Colorado 2,338 47 Tulsa, Oklahoma 403,090 48 , Louisiana 2,311 48 Arlington, Texas 392,772 49 Memphis, Tennessee 2,072 49 New Orleans, Louisiana 391,495 50 Tulsa, Oklahoma 2,049 50 Wichita, Kansas 389,902 51 Louisville, Kentucky 1,895 51 Cleveland, Ohio 385,809 52 Virginia Beach, Virginia 1,818 52 Tampa, Florida 377,165 53 Kansas City, Missouri 1,529 53 Bakersfield, California 376,380 54 Nashville, Tennessee 1,390 54 Aurora, Colorado 361,710 55 Jacksonville, Florida 1,179 55 Urban Honolulu, Hawaii 351,792 56 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 1,053 56 Anaheim, California 351,043

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 11

Exhibit V Cedar-Isles-Dean Neighborhood Association Population Density

CIDNA is 0.35 habitable square miles (i.e., excluding lakes and parks). Per Minnesota Compass demographic data for 20163, the CIDNA population is 2,902. This represents a CIDNA population density of 8,281 per square mile, which is on-par with Seattle and Los Angeles.

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 12

Exhibit VI Minneapolis Median Home Value Adjusted for Inflation

The chart below shows the median home value in Minneapolis from 2000 to mid-2018, adjusted for the Consumer Price Index. The median home value in mid-year 2018 is right about exactly what it was in 2003, before the housing crisis.

Median Home Value $300,000

$250,000

$200,000

$150,000

$100,000

$50,000

$0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Median Home Value Inflation-Adjusted

Median Inflation- Year Home Value Adjusted 2001 $125,000 $178,151 2002 $143,000 $201,503 2003 $165,000 $226,618 2004 $183,000 $246,590 2005 $202,000 $264,341 2006 $209,000 $263,020 2007 $208,000 $256,438 2008 $192,200 $227,233 2009 $184,500 $218,064 2010 $177,000 $203,847 2011 $171,500 $194,342 2012 $160,500 $176,708 2013 $161,000 $174,475 2014 $172,500 $184,032 2015 $183,500 $195,943 2016 $190,500 $200,662 2017 $205,500 $216,462 2018 $225,500 $225,500

Source: Minneapolis City Assessor and Consumer Price Index Tables

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 13

Footnotes 1. Storm water management obligations waiver requests/appeal (denied by City so far) http://minneapolismn.gov/meetings/planning/WCMSP-211939

2. SWLRT impact on cars removed from the road - the ridership info in the FEIS says this: “A 39 percent increase is forecast for average weekday boardings (nearly 34,000 additional boardings)”. In an FTA filing there is a table that showed that at that time (this was before the FEIS), 1/3rd of the ridership was forecast to be new to transit. So 34,000 x 1/3 = 11,333. Then assuming everyone takes round trips, divide by 2: that actually yields 5,660 - rounding up the number of cars removed from the road are 6,000.

The SWLRT Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Air Quality section includes a table (FEIS Table 3.11-4) that details regional GHG in 2013, regional GHG in 2040 without building SWLRT, and regional GHG in 2040 if SWLRT is built. In the No Build (no SWLRT) condition, regional GHG declines from 2013 to 2040. The natural assumption is that regional GHG will decline even more in 2040 if SWLRT is built. This assumption is wrong. The total annual regional GHG is shown in FEIS Table 3.11-4 to be higher in 2040 with SWLRT (2040 Build condition) than in the 2040 No Build condition: “The Project operation will increase the GHG emission in the Twin Cities area by approximately 2,000 metric tons per year in 2040, compared to No Build alternative” (SWLRT FEIS, p 3-204).

https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Projects/Light-Rail-Projects/Southwest-LRT/Publications-And- Resources/Environmental-Documents/FEIS/Main/SWLRT-FEIS-Chapter-03_Environmental-Analysis.aspx

3. Minnesota Compass demographic information https://www.mncompass.org/profiles/neighborhoods/minneapolis/cedar-isles-dean

4. Definition of Inclusionary Zoning - Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is an affordable housing tool that links the production of affordable housing to the production of market-rate housing. IZ policies either require or encourage new residential developments to make a certain percentage of the housing units affordable to low- or moderate- income residents. Similar concept is being applied in the idea of overlaying R4 zoning to all current R1 properties. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/10/why-is-affordable-housing-so-expensive-to- build/543399/

5. FTA affordable housing requirements within ½-mile of transit stations, land use justifications (see page 11) https://www.apta.com/gap/fedreg/Documents/Final%20Interim%20Policy%20Guidance%20Federal%20T ransit%20Administration%20Capital%20Investment%20Grant%20Program.pdf

https://www.transit.dot.gov/CIG

6. In “The case for density in Minneapolis, St. Paul and beyond” the Editorial Board of the STAR TRIBUNE (June 15, 2018) declares city wide up-zoning of single family lots to four-plexes as possible overreach. http://m.startribune.com/the-case-for-density-in-minneapolis-st-paul-and-beyond/485712012/

7. West Lake Multimodal Transportation Study - as a result of the Southwest Light Rail Transit project’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Minneapolis, an area wide multimodal transportation study is being conducted for the West Lake LRT Station area. Study efforts will be coordinated with partner agencies to identify non-motorized needs, challenges, and opportunities in the vicinity of the planned West Lake LRT Station. Motorized travel will also be analyzed to guide intersection and roadway modifications that were identified as part of the preliminary designs for the West Lake LRT Station area. The goal of the study is to identify opportunities to address non-motorized and motorized travel within the West Lake LRT Station area with projects that can be implemented as a part of the construction of the Southwest LRT or as part of other capital initiatives. Potential longer-term improvements that would not occur before the LRT opening will also be identified. http://www.minneapolismn.gov/cip/completedprojects/west-lake-multimodal-transportation-study

8. City of Minneapolis Pedestrian Crash Study http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@publicworks/documents/webcontent/wcmsp- 206688.pdf (see page B-2) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/nyregion/de-blasio-looks-toward-sweden-for-road-safety.html

CIDNA Evaluation of the Draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan July 22, 2018 14