Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.03.10 CCP REGULARCITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall Council Chambers March 10, 2025 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. Attendees please turn off cell phones and pages during the meeting. A copy of the full meeting packet is available in the binder at the entrance to the Council Chambers. 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Informal Open Forum This is an opportunity for the public to address the City Council on items that are not on the agenda. It is limited to 15 minutes. It may not be used to make personal attacks, air personal grievances, make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with the presenter. Questions from the Council will be for clarification purposes only. It will not be used as a time for problem- solving or reacting to the comments made but for hearing the presenter for informational purposes only. The first call will be for those that have notified the Clerk that they would like to speak during the open forum and then ask if anyone connected to this meeting would like to speak. When called upon, please indicate your name and then proceed. Please be sure to state your name before speaking. a. Meeting Decorum 5. Invocation - Graves 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There isn't a separate discussion for these items unless a Councilmember so requests, then it is moved to the end of the Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes b. Approval of Licenses c. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2025-01, Well No. 11: Well and Pumphouse Project d. An Ordinance Amending Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Maximum Size of an Individual Non- Residential Use in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning Districts – Second Reading 7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a. Proclamation Recognizing March as National Women's History Month Page 1 of 367 b. Proclamation Recognizing March as Irish-American Heritage Month c. Finance Department Annual Report 8. Public Hearings 9. Planning Commission Items 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Urging the USDA to Process Reimbursements for the Cooling Minnesota Communities Program b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23-2700 of the City of Brooklyn Center to Establish Cannabis and Hemp Businesses Regulations - First Reading c. Amendment to January 27, 2025, Study Session Minutes d. Discussion of Resolution 2024-138; A resolution establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment Page 2 of 367 COUNCIL MEETING DECORUM To ensure meetings are conducted in a professional and courteous manner which enables the orderly conduct of business, all persons in attendance or who participate in such meetings shall conduct themselves in a manner that does not interfere with the ability of others to observe and, when allowed, to participate without disruption or fear of intimidation. A. Decorum. Persons who attend meetings must avoid conduct that disrupts, interferes with, or disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting or the ability of other attendees to observe and participate as appropriate. To that end, persons who attend meetings are subject to the following: (1) Members of the public may only speak during meetings when allowed under Council Rules and only after being recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may establish time limits for the acceptance of public comments or testimony. (2) Public comments or testimony must be addressed to the presiding officer and not to other Council Members, staff, or others in attendance. (3) All elected officials shall be referred to by their proper title and surname. (4) Public comments should avoid personal accusations, profanity, or other improper content for a public meeting. (5) Intimidating behaviors, threats of hostility, or actual violence are disallowed. (6) Audible demonstrations intended to disrupt the meeting should be avoided, including stomping of feet, snapping of fingers, clapping of hands, and other conduct that may be intimidating or threatening to others. (7) Holding, displaying, or placing banners, signs, objects, or other materials in any way that endangers others, prevents the free flow of individuals within the chamber, or obstructs or prevents the viewing of the meeting by others is not allowed. B. The presiding officer shall request any person(s) who disrupt, interfere with or disturb the orderly conduct of a meeting to cease the conduct and, as necessary, shall issue an oral warning to the individual(s) found to be in violation. If the individual(s) persists in disrupting, interfering with, or disturbing the meeting, the presiding officer may have the individual(s) removed or, under appropriate circumstances, temporarily clear the gallery. If for any reason the presiding officer fails to take such action, a majority vote may be substituted for action by the presiding officer to maintain order and decorum over the proceedings. C. The Council Chambers capacity is 76 persons per fire code. Page 3 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Barb Suciu, City Clerk THROUGH: Daren Nyquist, Deputy City Manager BY: Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve meeting minutes • January 27, 2025, Regular Session • February 24, 2025, Study Session • February 24, 2025, Regular Session • February 24, 2025, Work/EDA Session Background: In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 15.17, the official records of all meetings must be documented and approved by the governing body. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2025.01.27 CC - unapproved 2. 2025.02.24 SS - unapproved 3. 2025.02.24 CC - unapproved 4. 2025.02.24 WS - unapproved Page 4 of 367 1/27/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 27, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor April Graves at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Jesse Anderson, Economic Development Manager Ian Alexander, City Clerk Barb Suciu, Deputy City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM Mayor April Graves opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum and reviewed the decorum document. Jovita M. introduced herself as the founder of the Minnesota Immigrant Movement, a Statewide grassroots organization. She explained members of the Latinx community in Brooklyn Center and surrounding areas are concerned because their children are afraid to attend school due to immigration concerns. Jovita M. explained she hopes to partner with the City to educate folks on their rights. She suggested a media campaign be initiated, an ordinance be issued regarding immigrant rights, and that the Council coordinate with the schools. Mayor Graves confirmed Staff has already been coordinating with local schools. Dena S. noted she is appearing on behalf of her neighbors who are living in fear. She loves living in Brooklyn Center because of the diversity. She noted her appreciation of Jovita’s comments and encouraged the City to do more to support immigrants. Page 5 of 367 1/27/25 -2- DRAFT Jose R. introduced himself as a resident, husband, father, and pastor. He requested information be made more accessible to the immigrant community, specifically regarding immigrant rights. Mayor Graves asked when the statement from the City would be completed. Dr. Edwards stated Staff would complete the memo within the week. Melissa R. noted she is married to Jose R. She stated Brooklyn Center has a beautiful, diverse community, and no one should be living in fear. Brooklyn Center needs to be supportive of all members of its community. Mayor Graves agreed there is a lot of misinformation out there. Brooklyn Center will be releasing a statement soon. Nahid K. expressed her frustration with the Council’s recent repeal of the Council’s Code of Conduct. More than one year of work went into its development. The City’s leaders need to set a good example for all. Mercy is an important part of the conduct as well. Mayor Graves stated the commenter’s timeline is complete. Gretchen E. stated it was frustrating that the new Deputy City Manager was present at the previous City Council meeting but wasn’t introduced publicly. She thanked staff for compiling the minutes related to the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act. There are supposed to be quarterly reviews scheduled for expanded response and that hasn’t been happening. Mayor Graves pointed out the item is on the list for future work sessions. Gretchen E. pointed out there is a policy on Council travel related to continental US travel but nothing on international travel. Mayor Graves confirmed she is aware of the policy. Kevin S. stated it is concerning for two members of the Council to be out of the country at the same time. Julie B. noted her disappointment that travel, and professional development funds are not being used to support Councilmember Kragness’ opportunity to attend a conference in Manchester, UK. Safety is a growing concern in the community. It is disheartening that the council isn’t taking every opportunity to grow and learn. She reminded the Council that people pay attention to the individual votes of Councilmembers. Julie B. stated she has been interrupted multiple times during public comment periods due to allegations of personal attacks. Another person commented after her and directly named community members without interruption. She asked the City Attorney to define what a personal attack is. The podium should be an opportunity to hold Councilmembers accountable, particularly if the Council itself is speaking negatively of other community members. Page 6 of 367 1/27/25 -3- DRAFT Mayor Graves asked for City Attorney Siobhan Tolar to define “personal attack” for them. Councilmember Moore pointed out the Informal Open Forum is not allowed to include responses. Mayor Graves stated the request is for clarification purposes. Both the public and the Council could benefit from hearing from the City Attorney. Councilmember Moore stated all commenters need to be treated the same. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated she would prefer to review the policies before answering because there are implications related to the First Amendment. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 7:21 p.m. City Clerk Barb Suciu noted another hand was raised online while Julie B. had been speaking. Mayor Graves stated the Informal Open Forum was already over its allotted time. Motion passed unanimously. 5. INVOCATION Councilmember Kragness shared a message from her devotional about folks loving one another for who they are. She read a prayer about God’s presence and asking God to help people live like a city on a hill. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Graves noted she forgot to add an item regarding Commission appointments during the Study Session. City Clerk Barb Suciu confirmed it could still be added as a Council Consideration Item. Councilmember Kragness moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended with Consent Agenda Item 6d. Resolution Supporting the Pursuit of Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Redevelopment Grant Program Funding for the Acquisition of the Brown College Site at 5951 Earle Brown Drive becoming Council Consideration Item 10a. Resolution Supporting the Pursuit of Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Redevelopment Grant Program Funding for the Acquisition of the Brown College Site at 5951 Earle Brown Drive and adding Council Consideration Item 10b. Commission Appointments to the agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 13, 2025 – Study Session 2. January 13, 2025 – Regular Session 3. January 13, 2025 – Work Session 6b. LICENSES Page 7 of 367 1/27/25 -4- DRAFT MECHANICAL Owens Companies, Inc. 500 West 92nd Street Bloomington 55420 SPI Mechanical LLC 1116 Lincoln Street NE Minneapolis 55413 RENTAL RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 3513 47th Avenue N 6939 Baird Llc 7230 West River Road 7230 Riverside Property Llc 4007 Joyce Lane John Jorgensen 5819 Knox Avenue N G.b. Homes Llc 6018 Camden Avenue N Gb Homes Llc 6445 James Circle N Kaswa Hospitality Inc 7013 Knox Avenue N HPA II BORROWER 2021-1 LLC 7121 Knox Avenue N Seigonghyr W Korti Jr RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 3601 47th Avenue N 8411 Balboa Llc 5437 Logan Avenue N Nicholas Kaufman 5606 Bryant Avenue N Mnsf Ii W1 Llc RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 4118 Woodbine Lane Investment Solutions Llc 5319 Knox Avenue N Sydney 1 Llc 5614 Bryant Avenue N Lin Shuang Llc 6812 Fremont Place N Sharon K Mcgary RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 4204 Lakebreeze Avenue N AZ RENTAL APARTMENTS LLC Page 8 of 367 1/27/25 -5- DRAFT 2018 55th Avenue N Lancelot Properties Llc 3018 Nash Road T R CAVANAUGH REV LIV TRUST 3708 66th Avenue N Maxima Martinez Perez 5332 Humboldt Avenue N C A Morales & Z A Contreras 6215 Bryant Avenue N Tuuyen D Tran & Lan Tran SIGNHANGER DeMars Signs 410 93rd Avenue Coon Rapids 55433 GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Holiday #292 420 66th Ave N 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2025-020; ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDING FOR A FIFTH INTENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE PEACE OFFICER EDUCATION & TRAINING (ICPOET) POSITION 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2025-021; SUPPORTING THE PURSUIT OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE BROWN COLLEGE SITE AT 5951 EARLE BROWN DRIVE Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PURSUIT OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT Page 9 of 367 1/27/25 -6- DRAFT GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE BROWN COLLEGE SITE AT 5951 EARLE BROWN DRIVE Mayor Graves pointed out Councilmember Jerzak requested this item be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Council Consideration Items. Councilmember Jerzak noted he was surprised a grant request for such an amount was placed on the Consent Agenda considering the Council has been asking to review the Grant Policy. The grant includes a matching component and requires costs for the City such as demolition. Brooklyn Center already has 80 acres, and they have had a bad experience with Target. Numerous open sites have yet to be put to use. Councilmember Jerzak added the site is assessed at $2.3 million, which is a heavy lift. If an outside party purchases the site, then the City will get back $40,000 for the work they have put into it. He was open to listen to a presentation from Staff, but he is hesitant to support the item. City Manager Dr. Edwards explained it is the norm for grants to go on the Consent Agenda. The Council would need to approve the grant before it can be accepted. The item is purely for application. Economic Development Manager Ian Alexander stated he has inherited a difficult job. The City has put together a lot of developments without the proper infrastructure and some decisions have limited the power of the Council regarding development. A challenge of the Opportunity Site is the lack of infrastructure. Mr. Alexander explained the initial idea was to reach out to the original owner of 5951 Earle Brown Drive for more information. The owner had paid off the mortgage on the property then allowed it to go into forfeiture. Staff approached Hennepin County with a request to raise the right amount of money to purchase the site. His goal is to write down the cost of the property. Three affordable housing groups, one self-storage group, and one banquet hall group have shown interest in the site. Mr. Alexander noted the site is 6.46 acres adjacent to the Target site of 9.1 acres. The sites comprise the entire corner of the Opportunity Site. It is centrally located and has access to utilities. The City should steer redevelopment of the site in question to optimize the income-producing potential and tax base of the area. A goal of economic development is to increase the tax base. An affordable housing use would not grow the tax base and increase the burden on City services. Mr. Alexander stated the grant would offset the City’s financial burden and could cover up to 50 percent of the tax-assessed value of the property. Other grants are being sought out to cover more of the expense. Staff is confident the requirements of the grant would be met in the allotted time. If not, then the grant can be returned. Mr. Alexander added he wasn’t present when the city decided to purchase the Target site. The fact that the City purchased the Target site shows its effort to turn a bad situation into a slightly Page 10 of 367 1/27/25 -7- DRAFT better one. Holding additional land isn’t a strategy in and of itself. The strategy is the Opportunity Site as a whole. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out he is familiar with the Grant Policy as he helped to write it. He asked why Council didn’t receive have an opportunity to discuss the grant in advance. Dr. Edwards stated Staff utilized the same process as other grant applications would require. Councilmember Moore asked if the property was available to be acquired when the Target site was acquired. Mr. Alexander stated he is unsure. Councilmember Jerzak stated the acquisition of the Target site was done in good faith, but it didn’t work out well. The fire didn’t help the situation either. He explained he is prioritizing practical opportunities. The City needs to do something with what they have first. Councilmember Moore asked if the proposed site could have been included in the Target site acquisition. Community Development Director Jesse Anderson noted he believes the college was still operating when the Target site was acquired. Nonetheless, both sites are part of the 80-acre Opportunity Site. The plan was to use the proceeds from the sale to acquire additional land to the north. Councilmember Moore noted her agreement with Councilmember Jerzak. The best-laid plans continue to lay dormant across the City. The grant application does not benefit the City. Dr. Edwards asked what would happen if the grant was not acquired and what other efforts are being made to cover the costs. Mr. Alexander stated the intention is to find additional matching opportunities. If the grant isn’t received, then the site would likely go to tax forfeiture and be purchased for private development. Dr. Edwards explained Staff is attempting to obtain money to benefit the taxpayers rather than asking taxpayers to fund a project. The residents are not on the hook for the matching grant should it be accepted. Mayor Graves stated she wants Staff to pursue grants and build economic capacity in Brooklyn Center. The item is merely for an application. Mr. Alexander confirmed the item is only for an application, and they may not receive the grant. He noted his understanding of the concerns. Brooklyn Center is a great City, but its people are overly taxed due to the lack of a tax base and features to attract outside money. Staff is working on a project for the Target site that would overlap with the college site. If it were to work out, then the project would be a massive asset for the City. Mr. Alexander requested the application be approved because the Council would still need to accept the grant. He offered to meet individually with Councilmembers to further discuss the plans. Brooklyn Center needs to be more intentional with its grant-seeking efforts. The Council has inherited a difficult position regarding development. Their department is determined to build the Page 11 of 367 1/27/25 -8- DRAFT tax base. Mr. Alexander added he would be hesitant to move forward with the grant if he were in the Council’s position, and it is his responsibility to better communicate with the Council. Councilmember Moore pointed out the grant requires a 50 percent match. She asked if the requirement would put taxpayers on the hook for the funds. Dr. Edwards stated if they were unable to find grants or other money to match the grant in question, then the funds would be returned. Mr. Alexander noted other funding sources haven’t been utilized, which would require additional conversation. Dr. Edwards stated the General Fund would not go toward this site’s acquisition. Councilmember Kragness agreed the location is strategic and complementary to the Target site. She stated she would like to see a realistic plan from Staff on how the 50 percent match will be sought out. She added Staff are the experts on the matter, so she trusts their input. There is no harm in seeking out free money. Mr. Alexander requested the application be approved. In the interim, he could present a more detailed plan. There are very few funding options in existence. The plans are moving Brooklyn Center in a positive direction. Mayor Graves added Planning Commissioners are feeling excited about the direction of development in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Kragness reiterated she isn’t opposed to applying for the grant, but there needs to be a plan in place. Dr. Edwards confirmed Staff would put together a detailed plan. Councilmember Jerzak explained the Opportunity Site plans originally relied on a developer to provide the infrastructure. The Council wrote down the land to $1 and threw in $10 million, and the infrastructure still couldn’t be completed. Councilmember Jerzak noted his understanding of the intention of the application. The Council has only been told of vague projects such as a sports facility, but they need more details of potential projects to support Staff’s efforts. The constituents are not supportive of the City owning more vacant land. Councilmember Jerzak noted his appreciation of growing Brooklyn Center’s tax base. However, the project wouldn’t see taxes for 15 or more years. Mr. Alexander pointed out Tax Increment Funding (TIF) would follow a longer timeline such as 15 years, but they do not plan on using TIF. Councilmember Jerzak stated the Council doesn’t have that information. Mr. Alexander stated he would like to present more details to Staff. Page 12 of 367 1/27/25 -9- DRAFT Mayor Graves stated she doesn’t want the City to acquire more empty land. However, she does want Staff to be ambitious in building the tax base. She expressed her support of the application, but she would not support a 50 percent match from taxpayer money. Councilmember Moore asked if the resolution is just for an application. Dr. Edwards confirmed if the item is approved, then Staff will only apply for the grant. Should the City receive the grant, then the Council would need to accept the grant. Staff would have a plan for the additional matching funds at that time. Mr. Alexander added there would need to be a grant agreement approved by Council after an acceptance. Councilmember Jerzak stated the department deserves a chance to seek out the funds. He doesn’t like surprises, and he needs to be more fully informed to make decisions on behalf of taxpayers. He is open to the application, but he will be watching the process carefully. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to adopt RESOLUTION 2025-021, a Resolution Supporting the Pursuit of Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Redevelopment Grant Program Funding for the Acquisition of the Brown College Site at 5951 Earle Brown Drive for Redevelopment. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Mayor Graves stated the Councilmembers should have received an email from Ms. Suciu with the applications. It is important to appoint more Planning Commissioners for them to reach a quorum. She asked if other Commissions have openings. Ms. Suciu stated there would still be one vacancy on the Planning Commission, two or three on the Housing Commission, one on the Financial Commission, and two on the Cultural Arts Commission should the appointments be approved. Councilmember Jerzak stated there is a vacancy on the Charter Commission as well. Ms. Suciu stated there are one or two vacancies on the Charter Commission, but it is a different appointment process. More information is available online. Councilmember Moore pointed out she only received the applications a few hours before the City Council meeting. She requested information be provided to the Council with more notice. On the whole, she is supportive of anyone interested in volunteering to serve Brooklyn Center. Ms. Suciu stated she sent out the applications out as soon as she receives them. Two applications for the Planning Commission were received over the weekend. Because of the Thursday Planning Commission meeting, they are being considered on a quicker timeline. Page 13 of 367 1/27/25 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Kragness asked if the two Planning Commission appointees are aware of the meeting on Thursday. Ms. Suciu explained the Planning Commission recommendations are re- appointments. They reapplied after urgency was expressed to them. Councilmember Moore moved Councilmember Kragness seconded to appoint the recommended candidates to their respective Commissions. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Graves reiterated there is still one vacancy on the Planning Commission, two or three on the Housing Commission, one on the Financial Commission, and two on the Cultural Arts Commission. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Kragness reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •Attended the legislative breakfast, learned about the top priorities of nearby jurisdictions, and advocated for Brooklyn Center’s legislative priorities. Councilmember Jerzak reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •Met with constituents regarding Hwy 252 and water bills. Councilmember Moore reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •Attended the Parks and Recreation Commission and participated in discussions regarding sustainability. •Asked about the process for the minutes. Ms. Suciu stated once minutes are approved, they are posted online. •Noted Hennepin County is looking for Recycling Ambassadors. Mayor Graves reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •Attended Northwest Tourism annual meeting. •Recorded Mayor’s Minutes with CCX. •Met with constituents. •Participated in the Cultural Arts Commission meeting. Page 14 of 367 1/27/25 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak pointed out he attempted to attend the tourism meeting remotely, but it didn’t work. Mayor Graves stated she can ask for the presentation to be shared with the rest of the Council. Ms. Suciu explained when Staff sets up a meeting in the calendar, there is automatically a Teams meeting set up. They are still getting used to the new programs. She apologized for the error. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:08 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Page 15 of 367 2/24/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Kragness at 6:09 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Teneshia Kragness and Councilmembers Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, and Laurie Ann Moore. Mayor April Graves was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Mayor Pro Tem Kragness explained Mayor Graves was in Manchester as she was asked to present at a conference. She thanked her community for supporting her own journey with public speaking and professional development. DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2024-138; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION COMMISSION AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Mayor Pro Tem Kragness pointed out the item was tabled from a previous meeting because not all Councilmembers were present. She suggested the item be tabled again because the full Council was not present. Councilmember Moore stated that no other cities in Minnesota have rolled out a successful program as suggested. There is already a pilot program in place. The Council needs to focus on basic needs. Only a few of the original principles have remained at the forefront of subsequent proposals. The proposal also gives too much power to the Mayor. Councilmember Moore moved to move the item from the Study Session to the Council Consideration Items. Councilmember Jerzak noted the 45-day period has expired, the Council must fulfill its timeline commitment. He explained he has several concerns with Resolution 2024-138, and he has met with Dr. Edwards several times. The item was called for a vote at a late hour at the last meeting Page 16 of 367 2/24/25 -2- DRAFT of 2024. He added he agrees with comments made by Councilmember Moore and Mayor Graves has previously made her perspective on the matter clear. Dr. Edwards stated the motion needs to be addressed. Councilmember Jerzak seconded to move the item from the Study Session to the Council Consideration Items. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness pointed out Councilmember Jerzak previously requested more discussion on the item. Councilmembers have also requested the item be pushed back until all members of the Council could be present. On April 8, 2024, May 13, 2024, September 23, 2024, November 25, 2024, and January 27, 2025, Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson was absent. Her absences have required the item be pushed back time and time again. It would be unfortunate for the Council to move forward with the same item despite past convictions that the full Council should be present. Councilmember Jerzak noted the seven pages of Resolution 2024-138 was provided to the Council the evening of the December 9, 2024 meeting for a vote. They also wanted to wait on Resolution 2024-138 and the proposed Code of Conduct until a new Councilmember was sworn in. He stated he doesn’t like to leave the Mayor out of the conversation, but he supports the consensus of the Council. Dr. Edwards stated any further discussions on the item could be handled during the regular session if it were to be moved to Council Consideration Items. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness reiterated the Council must be consistent with their processes such as waiting for discussion until the full Council is present. Councilmember Jerzak stated he would like to hear from Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted her agreement with Mayor Pro Tem Kragness. Councilmember Moore added she is new to the Council. Therefore, she is not responsible for decisions of the Council prior to her appointment. She asked if Mayor Graves will be present at the next meeting. Dr. Edwards stated he doesn’t know Mayor Graves’ schedule without looking it up. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated she believes Mayor Graves will be present for the first meeting in March but not at the second March meeting. Councilmember Moore reiterated the Council doesn’t need to rely on precedents set by a group of Councilmembers that she wasn’t a part of. By waiting for discussion, they are continuing to prolong the topic. The item is low-hanging fruit. The City is hemorrhaging money. The City needs to get back to the basics such as functioning water meters. Page 17 of 367 2/24/25 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked what the present discussion is regarding. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness explained they are discussing the motion to move the item to the Regular Session. If approved, then the Council would need to make a final decision on Resolution 2024-138 during the Regular Session. Councilmember Moore stated there is a motion on the table. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated she has not acknowledged Councilmember Moore. Councilmember Moore asked for clarification on what is on the table. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated Councilmember Moore needs to wait to speak until she is acknowledged. Councilmember Moore stated she was done talking. Dr. Edwards stated there is a motion on the table. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to ask who supports the motion once discussion has been complete. Councilmember Jerzak asked what the motion is. Councilmember Moore explained her motion was to move the item from the Study Session to the Council Consideration Items. Councilmember Jerzak stated the item could be moved to the Council Consideration Items, then be tabled. Dr. Edwards confirmed the item could be tabled after being discussed on the Regular Session. If the present motion fails, then there would need to be a motion to extend the freeze. Councilmember Moore offered a friendly amendment to her motion. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to table the item until the next Council meeting and extend the 45-day timeline until it can be voted on by the majority of the Council. Dr. Edwards explained the item would need to be moved to Council Consideration Items before the item could be extended. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Moore asked if the motion was to move the item to Council Consideration Items which would allow for a vote on the item being tabled and extended. Dr. Edwards confirmed that was correct. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated on page seven of the January 27, 2025, Regular Council meeting minutes, there is an error. She asked for it to be corrected at the previous meeting, but it has not Page 18 of 367 2/24/25 -4- DRAFT been corrected. The third paragraph stated Councilmember Kragness supported the 45-day freeze of Resolution 2024-138. However, she did not support the freeze. Ms. Suciu stated the minutes can be pulled from the Consent Agenda to allow Staff time to review the recordings. Councilmember Moore pointed out there are recommendations for appointments to Commissions. She explained she would like to pull the appointments to the Cultural and Public Arts Commission. She had a discussion with the City Clerk about the application process. The applications are only one pages and from a few years ago when a different Mayor was in place. Councilmember Moore noted the Council just received the applications for the other positions. She has other concerns about the Cultural and Public Arts Commission. Dr. Edwards pointed out the Cultural and Public Arts Commission was not in existence a few years ago. There used to be a Sister Cities Commission. Councilmember Moore stated the application was only the name of the applicant, a redacted address, and details on how long the applicant had lived in Brooklyn Center. She was not part of a scoring process for the Cultural and Public Arts Commission as she was for the Financial Commission and Housing Commission. Councilmember Moore requested that she receive the entire applications for those recommended to serve on the Cultural and Public Arts Commission. She added all Commissions should have a consistent application and appointment process. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness explained the current process allows for the Mayor to make appointments, but the Council may provide input. If there is a concern with the process, then that would require a different discussion. Councilmember Moore stated she has an issue with the recommendations then. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated any issue with the recommendations could be communicated to Mayor Graves. Also, the applications could be requested from Staff in advance of the meeting. Ms. Suciu explained there were many applicants to the Cultural and Public Arts Commission during the initial recruitment for the Commission. Because of that, there was a scoring worksheet to handle the applications. The scoring sheet and the one-page application was provided to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness pointed out the City has had difficulty with filling and maintaining Commission positions. Therefore, she doesn’t want to hinder the appointment process. Page 19 of 367 2/24/25 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Moore stated the Council is supposed to receive recommendations of the Mayor before the meeting, but she did not receive the recommendations. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated the City Clerk passes the applications along to the Council as they are received. Ms. Suciu confirmed she passes along redacted applications to the Council as they are received. The Mayor provides her recommendations to Staff, and then the recommendations are put in the packet for Council review. The next Cultural and Public Arts Commission meeting is mid-March. Therefore, the appointments to the Cultural and Public Arts Commission can be postponed without issue. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness suggested the appointments to the Cultural and Public Arts Commission be postponed while the appointments to the Financial Commission and Housing Commission remain on the agenda as planned. There was no objection from Council. Dr. Edwards asked what additional information the Council is requesting regarding the appointments to the Cultural and Public Arts Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated Councilmember Moore has an issue with the recommended appointees. Councilmember Moore stated the appointments, application process, and recommendation process should be discussed privately. The appointments are intended to be a consensus of the Council. There needs to be a private conversation regarding potential Commissioners. She also has concerns about the scoring process. Councilmember Jerzak noted he forwards any concerns with applications to the Mayor after he reviews the application. It is the responsibility of the Mayor to appoint Commissioners. It is a priority for the Council to robustly discuss and refine the application process to avoid any public embarrassment of applicants. Councilmember Jerzak added any emails about applicants must not include the entire Council as it could violate open meeting laws. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness noted it was the consensus of the Council to postpone the appointments of the Cultural and Public Arts Commission. Councilmember Jerzak explained he attended a program with the League of Minnesota Cities. He learned the League will not be insuring for cannabis. Federal banking restrictions are very strict as well. Those regulations impact what is required of Staff. There is also a limited Staff capacity that must be considered. They also need to avoid a General Fund subsidy for non-performing assets. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the City wants to compete with early opportunity licenses. The licenses will first go to those representing communities that have been negatively impacted by cannabis laws in the past. State law requires all items being sold through municipalities be tracked, and there will be bureaucratic hurdles to navigate. The IRS regulations highly restrict cannabis Page 20 of 367 2/24/25 -6- DRAFT businesses, which impact taxes. The State of Minnesota is working to overcome the illicit market as well. Councilmember Jerzak stated cannabis is still considered as a Schedule I narcotic. It is unclear what the current administration will do in that space. Cannabis is a cash-only business. Councilmember Jerzak added Native communities already have a headstart on selling cannabis which may inhibit municipal sales. Councilmember Jerzak reiterated there are a number of important discussions the City must have regarding cannabis. The Minnesota League of Cities has an expert named Kyle Heartnet that can be a resource for Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Jerzak noted there may be other insurance opportunities for the City to pursue. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness thanked Councilmember Jerzak for sharing his insights. Dr. Edwards noted Staff has been working on the same issue. There is a presentation regarding cannabis licensing for the next meeting. A municipal cannabis store is a separate discussion. The Finance Director and Liquor Store Manager are working through considerations for a municipal store. Ms. Suciu stated the City’s licensing allows for three licenses. They are working on language to incorporate the license within the City’s licensure. The language will be presented to Council. Councilmember Jerzak requested the presentation include details on what would happen should Brooklyn Center pass up their license. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated the license doesn’t go back into the pool. However, the regulations may change. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES City Manager Reggie Edwards noted the Council has received a list of previously mentioned priorities. There is a ranking based on the Council’s recommendations along with the proposed timeline to address the priorities. The yellow items represent those in progress. The purple are the third quarter items and marked with a “C”. Lastly, items marked with “D” are for the fourth quarter. Dr. Edwards asked what the Council wants to discuss for the franchise fees and rental inspections. He explained the franchise fees topic is a low priority, but it would be an 18-month process. Page 21 of 367 2/24/25 -7- DRAFT Mayor Pro Tem Kragness thanked Staff for compiling the list. She requested any comments regarding franchise fees and rental inspections be emailed to Staff. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the Council wanted him to explain why he requested the rental inspections conversation. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated the explanation and comments could be sent to Staff. Dr. Edwards stated he would like emails from Council. Once the emails are received, the comments will be summarized and provided in a weekly update. Councilmember Jerzak asked if he could provide one example regarding rental inspections. The current process was written in 2012, which he was a part of. Every violation is written similarly even though different violations may be more severe. Staff also receives complaints about the need to restart the licensing steps. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked if there would be time to dive into one of the discussion items. Dr. Edwards stated there is not enough time. Councilmember Moore stated some items are a higher priority. For example, there are 400 dysfunctional and non-functioning water meters. Staff has not told Council if those water meters are being charged the minimum rates. Councilmember Moore noted the expanded response team has been operating for six months, and they are buying vehicles. There is a 20 percent cost share for the City, and it is important to discuss. She requested the item be discussed sooner. Councilmember Moore added the grants topic is not complete because the process is still unclear to her. The next budget meeting is in June, so they need to be informed about the grants before that. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness clarified the order of the items is based on each Councilmember’s submitted list of priorities. Even though Councilmember Moore may believe other items are more pressing, that was not the consensus of the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated non-functioning water meters are still being charged the minimum fee, per a recent Staff presentation. Dr. Edwards stated more answers about water meters can be included in the weekly update. Dr. Edwards added the update on the expanded response is scheduled as soon as possible. Councilmember Moore stated she is aware the presented list is in order of the Council’s priority ratings. However, she is allowed to add commentary as the list is a discussion item. She doesn’t need simple things repeated to her. Page 22 of 367 2/24/25 -8- DRAFT ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Kragness adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Page 23 of 367 2/24/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Kragness at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Teneshia Kragness and Councilmembers Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, and Laurie Ann Moore. Mayor April Graves was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director Angela Holm, Deputy City Manager Daren Nyquist, Communications Manager Joe Cordoza, IT Manager Kao Yang, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM Mayor Pro Tem Kragness opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum and reviewed the Rules of Decorum. Gretchen E. stated the expanded response team was initiated in August 2024, and there are supposed to be quarterly reports. The Council has yet to receive a report. The Council needs to prioritize transparency. Dr. Edwards stated the update is scheduled for a Staff presentation. Diane S. stated the Sun Post is Brooklyn Center’s newspaper. However, they are not available at local retailers. Also, it is no longer free for delivery to Brooklyn Center homes. She has to go to Eden Prairie to obtain a copy. Diane S. thanked the Council for acknowledging the life and service of Carol Kleven. Diane S. noted a neighbor has applied for the County’s tree removal. The County has agreed to remove seven of her dead trees and will replace them if she is interested. She encouraged others to apply to the program. Page 24 of 367 2/24/25 -2- DRAFT Diane S. added Don Helverson is a Brooklyn Center resident who turned 102 that day. He will be featured on the news. Councilmember Jerzak requested Diane S. provide information to the Clerk about the tree removal application. Diane S. pointed out that Councilmember Moore had shared the information on various Facebook groups. However, searching for diseased trees on the County’s website will bring up the program’s page. They do a monthly lottery. Dr. Edwards stated Staff would work to make the information available on the City’s website. Nahid K. noted she is the Chair of the Cultural and Public Arts Commission. They are working to develop a beautification plan, which began two mayors ago. A banner is being planned to reflect the diversity of Brooklyn Center. Mayor Graves is the Liaison to the Cultural and Public Arts Commission, and she fully supports the work and growth of the Commission. They are meeting every two months in 2025 instead of quarterly. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 7:15 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 5. INVOCATION This item was not addressed. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated Study Session Item 2a. Discussion of Resolution 2024-138; Resolution Establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities has been moved to become Council Consideration Item 10b. Discussion of Resolution 2024-138; Resolution Establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities. They have also removed the minutes for approval to allow for more edits to be completed. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with Study Session Item 2a. Discussion of Resolution 2024- 138; Resolution Establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities becoming Council Consideration Item 10b. Discussion of Resolution 2024-138; Resolution Establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities and removing item 6a. Approval of the regular City Council Minutes from the Consent Agenda and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 25 of 367 2/24/25 -3- DRAFT 1. January 27, 2025 – Study Session 2. January 27, 2025 – Regular Session; This item was tabled to the next meeting. 3. January 27, 2025 – Work/EDA Session 4. February 10, 2025 – Study Session 5. February 10, 2025 – Regular Session 6. February 10, 2025 – Work/EDA Session 6b. LICENSES MECHANICAL All Weather Heating and Air Condition LLC 10216 5th Avenue S Bloomington 55420 Mechanical Solutions Inc. PO Box 167 Cokato 55321 Professional Mechanical Services 19640 200th Avenue NW, Suite 9 Big Lake 55309 HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS Fairfield Inn & Suites 6250 Earle Brown Drive Quality Inn 1600 James Circle N Brooklyn Center Hotel 2200 Freeway Boulevard RENTAL RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 5400 Russell Avenue N Tai Pham 2406 Ericon Drive G B Homes Llc 5712 Logan Avenue N Penrod LlC 5849 Colfax Avenue N BAY STREET HOMES LLC RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 3305 53rd Avenue N Lake Point Apartments Llc 6511 Humboldt Avenue N The Pines North LLC 3319 66th Avenue N Thr Property Illinois L P Page 26 of 367 2/24/25 -4- DRAFT 3700 55th Avenue N James Ayotunde Olatunbosun 3906 Eckberg Drive William E Clabots 4019 Joyce Lane Ih2 Property Illinois Lp 6736 Perry Avenue N CCF2 MN LLC RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 4703 68th Avenue N P M Mcdonough & J Mcdonough 1208 57th Avenue N CommonGrowth LLC 3213 62nd Avenue N Easton Homes LlC 3834 Oak Street Prosperous Property 5509 Lyndale Avenue N Zoe M Hildreth 5712 Logan Avenue N Penrod Llc 6030 Colfax Avenue N Hector Vizcarra 6213 Chowen Avenue N Nazneen H Khatoon 7030 Regent Avenue N Rifive Inc 6c. AN ORDINANCE ADDING NEW SECTION 35-4500 TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADULT-USE CANNABIS BUSINESS ZONING REGULATIONS - SECOND READING RESOLUTION 2025-025 APPROVING A SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR THE ORDINANCE REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADULT- USE CANNABIS BUSINESS ZONING REGULATIONS - SECOND READING 6d. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 35-9200 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF URBAN AGRICULTURE - SECOND READING 6e. BROOKLYN CENTER LABOR AGREEMENT Page 27 of 367 2/24/25 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Moore asked if Councilmember Jerzak wanted to move the conversation about cannabis regulations to the Regular Session. Councilmember Jerzak stated he did not want to. Dr. Edwards asked if only the Regular Session minutes from January 27, 2025, were being removed. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness confirmed that was correct. Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION REMEMBERING AND HONORING FORMER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COUNCIL MEMBER CAROL KLEVEN Mayor Pro Tem Kragness pointed out Carol Kleven was her neighbor, and she really liked her. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she and Ms. Kleven were good friends. She was a dynamo. Her basement was like a store. Ms. Kleven was very sharp mentally and a sharp dresser. Councilmember Jerzak noted Ms. Kleven loved garage sales. Past Staff used to throw away garage sale signs. Ms. Kleven was unhappy with that, and she told him she would run for Council to change that rule. Ms. Kleven served the Council and changed the rules. She was a dynamo. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness read the Resolution remembering and honoring former City of Brooklyn Center City Council Member Carol Kleven. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to adopt RESOLUTION remembering and honoring former City of Brooklyn Center City Council Member Carol Kleven. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson added Ms. Kleven had flowers on top of her car so she could find it easier. Dr. Edwards asked who seconded the approval of the Consent Agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated Councilmember Moore seconded the approval of the Consent Agenda. 7b. BROOKLYN CENTER ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT ANNUAL PRESENTATION Dr. Edwards introduced the item and invited Deputy City Manager Daren Nyquist to continue the Staff presentation. Deputy City Manager Daren Nyquist showed the organizational structure for the Administration Department. The Deputy City Manager oversees the Department. Other roles in the Department Page 28 of 367 2/24/25 -6- DRAFT include the City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, Administrative Assistant, Communications Manager, Communications Specialist, IT Manager, IT Specialist, and IT Technician. Mr. Nyquist noted there are three divisions within the Department: Communications, Information Technology (IT), and City Clerk’s Office. He invited Communications Manager Joe Cordoza to continue the presentation. Communications Manager Joe Cordoza stated the Communications Division oversees the employee newsletter, City newsletter, City website, and City branding. In 2024, they integrated more languages into the City website. The four most spoken languages in Hennepin County are available on the Website. The languages are English, Spanish, Hmong, and Somali. Mr. Cordoza noted another accomplishment from 2024 was redesigning the logo for the Parks and Recreation Department. He showed a chart of their established social media calendar, which is a recent internal development. The interaction rate has doubled from 2023 to 2024. He showed a table with 2024 social media metrics. The City's Facebook has grown by 267 percent in interaction rate. There are 593 followers with 225 new followers. The Facebook page for the Parks and Recreation Department has 2,036 followers and gained 369 followers in 2024. Mr. Cordoza explained the Communications Department oversees a Facebook page for the City, Fire Department, Liquor Stores, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Police Department. They oversee the Instagram accounts for the City, Liquor Stores, and Police Department. They oversee the X accounts for the City, Fire Department, Liquor Stores, and Police Department. Lastly, they oversee the City’s LinkedIn page. Mr. Cordoza added there are 4,904 GovDelivery subscribers. The engagement rate is 66 percent, and there were 602 new subscribers in 2024. There were 168 bulletins sent in 2024. He showed a list of materials published in 2024. Mr. Cordoza pointed out the 2025 priorities include internal SharePoint development, social media policy development, and presentation, combining recreation brochures and City newsletters to save money, redesigning the City website, and continuing to strengthen communications across diverse populations. Mr. Cordoza added the information on the County’s tree removal program on the website. They will highlight the opportunity once the applications are open again. Mr. Nyquist introduced IT Manager Kao Yang and invited him to present in the IT Division. Mr. Yang explained the IT Division provides technology solutions that are efficient, secure, and accessible, provides technical support for City employees and departments, secure and resilient network connectivity across City sites, provides high availability and redundancy for critical infrastructure, ensures consistent uptime for first responders, and handles cyber security and compliance. Page 29 of 367 2/24/25 -7- DRAFT Mr. Yang pointed out that in 2024, IT completed the switch to Microsoft 365 (M365) and Office 365. The transition allows for more email storage because everyone now has 100 GB of email space, easier file sharing, better security, extra protection like multi-factor authentication, lower IT costs, and more update opportunities. Mr. Yang added that M365 includes access to Microsoft Power Platform, Microsoft Bookings, Microsoft Forms, Microsoft Planner, and Microsoft Power Automate. Mr. Yang stated the Primary Rate Interface (PRI) was retired, and the City transitioned to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) in 2024. For many years, Brooklyn Center relied on PRI technology, introduced in the late 1980s, as the backbone of voice communications. The system supported the phone network and service provider connections. In 2024, 95 percent of the City’s phones were transitioned to PRI to SIP to improve efficiency and reliability. The upgrade has modernized the phone system while reducing phone service costs by 60 percent or more. Mr. Yang noted 2024 also included upgrades of the City Hall camera system as part of the public safety initiatives. Mr. Yang stated in 2025, there will be trainings for M365 and Office 365 applications. They plan to provide workshops and training resources for employees and to draft documents with Scribe tools to share with all employees. Mr. Yang pointed out the Division will also oversee a wireless migration. The total cost of ownership is reduced by shifting to a hosted solution. The migration will modernize wireless configurations and clean up any potential security issues. The migration will also secure the wireless network and meet standards required by many Federal agencies. City Clerk Barb Suciu explained the City Clerk’s Office oversees advisory Commissions, business licensing, City Charter, City Code, City Council support, data practices, elections, and records management. Ms. Suciu stated the 2024 advisory Commissions included the Charter Commission, Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission, Cultural and Public Arts Commission, Financial Commission, Housing Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and the Sister City Commission. The Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Cultural and Public Arts Commission were new groups in 2024. Ms. Suciu stated in 2024, 99 licenses and permits were processed. There are 22 different license types offered by Brooklyn Center. 27 of the issued licenses were for liquor, 20 were for tobacco, and 17 were for special events. Ms. Suciu pointed out ten ordinances were codified in 2024. The City Clerk’s Office processed 92 agenda packets, 148 resolutions, and 92 sets of minutes. They also processed 89 data requests. Page 30 of 367 2/24/25 -8- DRAFT Ms. Suciu stated some legislative changes in 2024 included extending hours for in-person and absentee voting and the legalization of cannabis. Brooklyn Center held three elections in 2024. A total of 16,224 residents voted, and there were 97 election judges. Elections are the biggest responsibility of the City Clerk’s Office. Ms. Suciu stated the priorities for 2025 are creating a Commission packet to educate new Commissioners, developing a video to explain the business licensing process, documenting all processes and procedures with the new software Scribe, recodifying City Code to ensure they are updated, putting all contracts into the online database, and automating standard forms. Mr. Nyquist reiterated he has been in his role for just over one month. He has worked with Dr. Edwards to develop strategic priorities for 2025. First, he plans to build a system of process excellence within the Administration Department that can be modeled to the rest of the organization. They will define core functions, document the standard operating procedures that make up those functions, and clearly define ownership and accountability. Mr. Nyquist stated the second priority is to develop a system of measuring work and impact, beginning with the Administration Department. They will identify measures for success and track how much, how well, and who is better off by various Department efforts. Mr. Nyquist noted the third priority is to drive the execution of organizational strategic priorities. He hopes to establish government and accountability through leadership responsibilities, project management, and change management. They will also prioritize projects, establish a regular cadence of action plans, and focus on measuring impact and results. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness agreed with Mr. Nyquist’s support of standard operating procedure. The Council is excited to see the outcome of various metric measurements. Councilmember Jerzak requested the procedure to handle phishing emails be updated and provided to the Council. Councilmember Jerzak also requested invitations sent to the Council for ribbon cuttings or community meeting events. Mr. Nyquist stated he and his team look forward to making small changes that make life easier for Staff and Council. Councilmember Moore thanked Mr. Yang for his help with her onboarding. She stated the Department’s plan to determine core functions of various Divisions caught her off-guard. Dr. Edwards has focused on metrics for all Departments. Councilmember Moore stated Dr. Edwards has asked that all communication with Staff go through him. However, that request has hindered the Council from getting information in a timely function. Councilmember Moore asked how many Staff each of the directors have under them. She asked why it wasn’t involved in the presentation. Mr. Nyquist stated the organizational chart slide shows Page 31 of 367 2/24/25 -9- DRAFT all of the employees in the Department. One employee is part-time, which is also noted on the slide. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2025 ORGANICS RECYCLING RATES AND CHARGES City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the item and invited Finance Director Angela Holm to make the Staff presentation. Finance Director Angela Holm explained organics recycling rates were discussed when utility rates were set in 2024. They planned to start the rates in April 2025. Ms. Holm pointed out the majority of her knowledge regarding organics recycling was learned in the last couple of weeks. Studies have shown that 20 to 40 percent of all household waste is compromised of food scraps and non-recyclable paper. Organics can be recycled into valuable soil amendment materials. It is similar to fertilizer but without the chemicals. Hennepin County requires cities to make curbside organics recycling available to single-family households and buildings with up to four units. Ms. Holm stated organics recycling is provided by individual trash haulers. Effective April 1, 2025, the pick-up service will be administered by the Hennepin Recycling Group. Brooklyn Center is a member of the group along with Crystal and New Hope. Billing will be administered by Brooklyn Center utility billing Staff. Ms. Holm noted the City needs to ensure contract costs for Hennepin Recycling Group are covered and maintain a modest cash reserve within the fund. The proposed rate increase is $2.90 per month per dwelling unit for curbside pick-up service. Since the City bills quarterly, the increase will be $8.70 per quarter. Ms. Holm explained the action of organics recycling is not required. However, residents cannot opt out of the payment. All residents help cover the cost of organics recycling to make it accessible to all households. Apartment residents are not included in the requirement, but they are encouraged to use other organics recycling options. Ms. Holm stated once 11 percent of residents have signed up for the service, the monthly charge will increase to $3.60. A provision authorizing the change is included in the proposed Resolution should that percentage be met in 2025. Ms. Holm showed a table with the rate summary for various utilities. The recycling and organics bill was $15.42 in 2024. In 2025, it was set for $24.84 initially. The proposed amendment would change the bill to $33.78 per quarter. Page 32 of 367 2/24/25 -10- DRAFT Ms. Holm added Staff is encouraging residents to visit the Hennepin Recycling Group website for more information and sign up for the service. They also suggest residents review trash hauler bills after April 1, 2025 to ensure the organics charge has been removed. The sooner folks sign up for the program, the sooner they will receive the container. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness noted residents need to contact their current haulers to cancel any current organics recycling services. The residents should wait to sign up for organics recycling until their current services end. Ms. Holm stated residents are on a number of schedules for utility billing. Because of that, the new charge for organics recycling may appear in different time segments. Residents may cancel their existing service at any time they would like. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked how residents would be notified of any rate increases. Ms. Holm stated they plan to collaborate with the Communications Division to explain the rate change to residents. Tim Pratt, representative of Hennepin Recycling Group, pointed out small organics recycling bins will be provided to program participants. They need to be lined with a compostable bag. The compostable bag can be thrown into the organics bin, which will be picked up weekly. As of that afternoon, just under 300 residents have signed up for the program. The 11 percent mark is around 2,000 participants. The contract is through 2027. Mr. Pratt encouraged residents to sign up for a bin sooner rather than later. Those who sign up before March 7, 2025, will receive a bin before April 2025. Current haulers will pick up their bins, so he doesn’t want anyone to be without a bin. Councilmember Moore noted the 11 percent mark is across all three participating cities rather than just Brooklyn Center. It should be clarified to residents. The estimate of 2,000 households across the cities meeting the 11 percent mark seems low. Mr. Pratt stated he would obtain the exact number and provide it to Council. Councilmember Moore pointed out that the utilities rates in Brooklyn Center have been increasing too much recently. Mr. Pratt stated the proposed increase for organics recycling is the lowest rate available in Hennepin County. Councilmember Jerzak requested information on purchasing and using the compostable bags be published on the City’s website. He added many carts are not being well cared for and turning into blight in the community. Mr. Pratt stated there is a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) section on the Hennepin Recycling Group website. One FAQ is about purchasing the compostable bags. They are available at most retailers such as Menards, Target, Walmart, and the like. Page 33 of 367 2/24/25 -11- DRAFT Mr. Pratt added some haulers deliberately don’t pick up bins when folks move out because when a new resident moves in, the new resident assumes they have to use the same hauler. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness reminded Councilmembers to address Ms. Holm with any questions. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out some people use plastic bags for organics recycling. There needs to be more education on organics recycling. Ms. Holm confirmed plastic bags are not appropriate for organics recycling. Unlined paper bags may work. Ms. Holm added there are 8,000 units the City bills for utilities. 11 percent of that is close to 800, so Mr. Pratt’s math was likely close to the 11 percent for the three participating cities. Mr. Pratt showed the pamphlet about organics recycling. It does address the types of bags to use. Recycling in all forms requires ongoing education. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked how large the organics recycling container is. Mr. Pratt stated the standard size is 64 gallons. The smaller size is 32 gallons. The size information is included in the mailer. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated garbage cans are supposed to be screened from the street. She asked if the ordinance needs to be revised in light of the additional pickup container. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if Mr. Pratt uses the plastic container in his home. Mr. Pratt stated he has a ceramic one, but many people use the plastic one. Councilmember Lawrence- Anderson asked if the container was animal-proof. Mr. Pratt noted the plastic one is intended for indoor use, but it does snap shut. Councilmember Jerzak suggested neighbors share organics recycling bins if they don’t produce many organics themselves. Councilmember Jerzak moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Diane S. noted her appreciation of the organics recycling efforts. She shares an organics recycling container with her neighbor. Residents need to be better educated on their options. She stated the organics recycling bins are lightweight and may be moved by the wind. Diane S. added there is a class folks can take to become Recycling Ambassadors. She requested a Recycling Ambassador be highlighted at a community event. Kevin S. stated the additional cost is government overreach. The topic is Pandora’s box. If the City doesn’t reach a certain percentage, then the State will bring the hammer down on Brooklyn Center. The bins and vehicles are costly. He asked where the materials would go. There could be disposal issues. He asked if they had to pay for the new bins. The bins are lightweight and will Page 34 of 367 2/24/25 -12- DRAFT be blowing all over the place. It is also unfair that multi-family homes aren’t subject to the same costs. As time goes on, the fee will go up to $40 or $50. The program could be a farce. Plastic recycling is unusable and dumped in poor countries. He asked if the organics recycling will be dumped off in poor countries. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness agreed the program should disclose a maximum fee. She noted she would like information on if the bins are free. Kevin S. noted residents may want to get smaller bins from their haulers. He suggested there be only one hauling service used. Councilmember Kragness moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to close the Public Hearing. Julie B. asked if she could comment. Her hand was raised on Zoom. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated the Public Hearing was already closed. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2025-028 for 2025 Organics Recycling Rates and Charges. Councilmember Jerzak noted he only supports the program because it is a Hennepin County pass- through program. Councilmember Moore stated she knows it is mandated by Hennepin County, but the County didn’t consider the cost for residents. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated the rates are very low in comparison to other rates. Councilmembers Moore and Lawrence-Anderson voted against the same. Motion failed. Dr. Edwards stated Minnesota requires organics recycling. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated because the motion failed, the City will have to move forward with the more expensive rate through trash haulers. Ms. Holm stated Hennepin Recycling Group will bill the City starting in April 2025 because the contract is in place. The City will have to cover the contract with cash reserves. In 2026, they will have to determine the recycling rate based on the City’s expenses. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated the contract with Hennepin Recycling Group is through 2027. People are already complaining about utility rates, and they will increase significantly to rebuild the cash reserves. Ms. Holm confirmed the 2025 rates are already set. In 2026, they will have to determine the recycling rate based on the City’s expenses. Page 35 of 367 2/24/25 -13- DRAFT Mayor Pro Tem Kragness noted the water rate is already increasing significantly, and the recycling rate will increase as well because the rate change failed. Councilmember Moore stated she meant to vote in favor of the item because it is a Hennepin County program. She does not like when there is another body dictating what Brooklyn Center must do. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated the Council could vote to reconsider the item. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she supports composting. However, she would like to reconsider her vote because the financial implications were not shared with the Council. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to reconsider Resolution for 2025 Organics Recycling Rates and Charges. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out the item passes through Hennepin County. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if she should vote in favor of the item. Councilmember Moore stated the Council cannot tell her how to vote. Ms. Tolar explained the motion is to reconsider the rate change. Councilmember Moore noted the mandate was implemented by another body. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness reiterated the motion is only to reconsider the rate change. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION 2025-028 for 2025 Organics Recycling Rates and Charges. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out the item passes through Hennepin County. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pratt offered to return to a Council meeting to answer any questions they may have. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested a business card be provided to interested parties in the audience. Dr. Edwards stated they would take the Council’s and the public’s questions about organics recycling, obtain answers from Mr. Pratt, and provide the information to the Council in the weekly update. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Page 36 of 367 2/24/25 -14- DRAFT 9a. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2025-001 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 8,910-SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF CAPI'S IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR CAPI USA ADDITION, AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES (5930 AND 5950 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) Dr. Edwards introduced the item and invited Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh. Ms. McIntosh showed photos of the site in question. She explained CAPI USA is requesting review and consideration of a proposal that would renovate the current CAPI headquarters, which are located in an approximately 10,688-square-foot building, and construct an approximately 8,910-square-foot, two-story expansion with certain site improvements for its new Immigrant Opportunity Center. Ms. McIntosh pointed out that the application request requires approval of an Ordinance amendment to change the maximum size of “non-residential” use to “retail use,” Preliminary and Final Plat for CAPI USA addition, a Site and Building Plan, and variances to allow for deviation from the maximum secondary frontage setback and a maximum 50 percent frontage requirement within ten feet of the property line. Ms. McIntosh noted CAPI’s desire to expand is a response to the rapid growth and community demand for their services. Their mission is to guide immigrants and refugees in their journey to self-determination and social equity through workforce development, food access, health and wellness programming, and economic empowerment services. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant purchased the existing building and adjacent vacant lot, known as 5930 and 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, in 2017. Following their purchase, CAPI USA underwent an interior renovation of the building, which was constructed in 1970, to accommodate a general remodel of the office space, installation of an elevator lift, minor work to the parking lot, and installation of a new fence and trash enclosure. Ms. McIntosh explained due to the requests submitted as part of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, a public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on January 30, 2025. Mail notifications were sent to all physical addresses and taxpayer addresses located within 350 feet of the property, and a public hearing notice was published on the City website. Ms. McIntosh noted in reviewing requests for ordinance amendments, certain amendment criteria shall be considered as outlined under Section 35-71304. The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the necessary submittal requirements, facts, circumstances of the proposed amendment, and make a recommendation and decision on the amendment based on, but not limited to, consideration of the following criteria and policies: whether there is a clear and public need or benefit, whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications, whether all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property, whether there have been substantial physical or zoning Page 37 of 367 2/24/25 -15- DRAFT classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned, whether there is an evident, broad public purpose in the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, whether the subject property will bear fully the UDO development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts, whether the subject property is generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography, or location, whether the rezoning will result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by comprehensive planning, the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or the best interests of the community, and whether the proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel. Ms. McIntosh added following discussions with Staff regarding the existing size of the building, the proposed uses, and requested building expansion, City Staff indicated the applicant would need to request an amendment to Chapter 35 as the maximum size of an individual non-residential use is 10,000 square feet in the Neighborhood Mixed Use District (MX-N2) and 7,500-square-feet in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use District (MXN1). Ms. McIntosh pointed out that the existing CAPI building at 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard already exceeds 10,000 square feet. The purpose of the MX-N2 District is to accommodate small-scale, mixed-use neighborhood activity centers with comfortable gathering places, that are located and scaled to provide minor or convenience services near low-density residential neighborhoods and avoid strip development patterns or the creation of destination retail or business uses serving beyond the immediate neighborhoods. Similarly, the MX-N1 District is to accommodate low- to medium-density residential and multi-family residential development with or without small-scale ground-floor non-residential uses. Ms. McIntosh explained, as proposed, that the applicant would be seeking text amendments to Chapter 35 that would amend the maximum size of an individual non-residential use to the maximum size of an individual retail use. The respective maximum size requirements of 10,000 square feet in the MX-N2 District and 7,500 square feet in the MX-N1 District would remain in place. The changes would require an amendment to Sections 35-2301, 35-2301, and 35-5100. She pointed out retail uses generate higher traffic volumes, which would impact nearby single-family neighborhoods. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant intends to re-plat and consolidate the property from three parcels down to one. The northern parcel addressed as 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard and noted as Parcels 1 and 2 on the provided preliminary plat, is currently vacant. It is proposed for a combination with identified Parcel 3, addressed as 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard, and currently improved with an existing office building and site improvements. Ms. McIntosh noted the re-play would accommodate the building’s expansion while also working to meet the requirements of Section 35-8105. City Staff reached out to Hennepin County Transportation, and they didn’t have any major concerns. City Staff received preliminary comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting and a formal letter on February 14, 2024. Ms. McIntosh added the City Engineer reviewed the plats and provided a memorandum and a set of comments dated February 7, 2025. It was noted a ten-foot drainage and utility easement is Page 38 of 367 2/24/25 -16- DRAFT required for dedication around the entire perimeter of the property. Also, an existing drainage and utility easement requires vacation as part of the process to combine the three parcels into one. Ms. McIntosh stated that the property is currently limited to the single shared curb cut located off Brooklyn Boulevard. As proposed, the applicant is proposing a second curb cut off 60th Avenue North, which City Staff appreciates for the fact that the existing access of Brooklyn Boulevard is oftentimes congested and is in close proximity to the curb cut for Old National to the south. Ms. McIntosh noted the minimum parking space standards under Section 35-5504 for 90-degree, two-way parking is 8’8” wide by 18 feet deep, as measured with the curb overlay. As proposed, the existing parking lot appears to meet this requirement. The property currently provides 43 total parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 63 parking spaces would be provided, which includes 4 ADA stalls. Assuming the entirety of the building and expansion are calculated as “office,” a maximum of 59 parking spaces would be required. Ms. McIntosh pointed out the property is in a highly accessible area of Brooklyn Center, as it is located along Brooklyn Boulevard. A new sidewalk was recently installed on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard as part of the Phase II Brooklyn Boulevard modernization project, and a multi-use trail on the west side. Ms. McIntosh noted there is an existing bus stop located towards the north end of the Subject Property that provides service for Route 723, and the Subject Property is a 0.5-mile walk from the Brooklyn Center Transit Center. As proposed, the Applicant intends to connect the main entrance to the sidewalk running along Brooklyn Boulevard and install bike racks with outdoor seating. Internally, the Applicant intends to run a sidewalk towards 60th Avenue North and along the dedicated community garden area. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant proposes to shift an existing trash enclosure located on the east of the property to accommodate an expansion of the parking lot. Also, the new parking extension will be screened with juniper shrubs. Ms. McIntosh explained City Code requires the exterior wall finishes on any building to have no less than 60 percent face brick, natural or colored stone, pre-colored or factory stained or stained on-site textured pre-cast concrete panels, textured concrete block, stucco, glass, fiberglass, or similar materials. As proposed, the applicant intends to do minor exterior work to the existing, approximately 10,688-square-foot building. The applicant should revise their materials breakdown to incorporate the existing building, which appears to be predominantly comprised of brick and glazing. By incorporating the existing addition, City Staff anticipates the minimum materials requirements will be met. Ms. McIntosh noted Section 35-2302 requires each ground floor façade for a nonresidential use facing a public right-of-way to have transparent windows or other transparent glazed areas covering at least 50 percent of the ground floor façade area between three and eight feet above sidewalk grade. Required glazed areas shall have a visible light transmittance ratio of 0.6 or higher, and shall not include reflective, heavily tinted, or black glass windows. Page 39 of 367 2/24/25 -17- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh added the plans note approximately 340 square feet of window along the west and south elevations, for a total of 46.5 percent. An additional 25 square feet would meet the minimum required 50 percent of glazing or windows for the ground floor façade. City Staff requests the applicant revise the plans to account for the glazing on the north elevation of the new addition as it too is facing public right-of-way. The maximum allowable height in the MX-N2 District is 48 feet. As proposed, the two-story addition would be approximately 24.25 feet to the roof deck. Ms. McIntosh stated a photometric plan was submitted with the application submittal; however, the provided photometric plan does not include the southernmost existing parking lot and building into its scope to determine whether it meets the code provisions as outlined under Section 35-5400. Additionally, the wall-packs located on the existing building do not conform to City Code requirements and are only permitted in loading and service areas. City Staff requests the provided photometric plan be revised to incorporate the entirety of the site and include the existing and proposed building and parking lot areas. Ms. McIntosh noted the applicant will need to revise the illumination levels along the proposed parking lot extension to meet the minimum and maximum site lighting levels of 0.2 foot-candles to 4 foot-candles for open-air parking lots, and a maximum uniformity ratio of 20:1. The applicant should look for options to create more consistent lighting along the private sidewalk extension running north to 60th Avenue North as there appears to be significant drops in illumination between the light poles. The new main entry and northeast doors to the new building addition appear to meet the minimum 10-foot-candle requirements for primary building entrances and exits; however, the Applicant should revise the north door to meet the minimum foot-candle requirements. Ms. McIntosh pointed out that the applicant intends to reserve a significant portion of the north site for a dedicated community garden with water connections, and a place for a future greenhouse. City Staff discussed the greenhouse, and assuming the intended operations of the community garden and greenhouse are not of a commercial nature, the greenhouse would likely be considered an “accessory structure.” An inventory of existing plantings identifies 17 plantings on the property. Of these, four are scheduled for removal as they are located in proximity to where the new addition would be constructed. Despite this, a line of mature trees located along the southern property line would remain and a few located on the north and east ends of the property. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant also proposes a dedicated landscape courtyard with pedestrian- level lighting and a cistern located on the north side of the existing building. As currently proposed, this community garden area would be fenced. The site furnishings plan identifies areas for seating. Ms. McIntosh noted City Engineering's comments include sheet-by-sheet responses on the provided plan set, platting requirements, and general requirements, including the necessity of an NPDES permit and easement vacation, and construction and easement agreements pending approval of the project by City Council. Page 40 of 367 2/24/25 -18- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh added Building Official Dan Grinsteinner conducted a cursory review of the proposal. Ultimately, building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes and prior to the issuance of permits; however, it was noted that a fire sprinkler and monitoring system is required for installation throughout the building and is to be maintained at all times. Plans shall detail the locations and access points for any fire sprinkler room or wall connections. The proposed new elevator will require approval from the State. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant will also need to meet any minimum ADA requirements with regard to the building and site improvements, and prior to issuance of any building permits, a SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) determination shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and any associated fees paid at the time of permit issuance. The applicant will need to coordinate with the Hennepin County Health Department for any approvals for the food shelf and kitchen areas. Ms. McIntosh pointed out there are two variance requests. First off, the applicant is requesting a variance for the building and site design. City Code requires that at least 50 percent of the first floor of the front façade of each primary building be located no more than ten feet from the front lot line. The section of Brooklyn Boulevard in front of the building was recently redone. There are new sidewalks and many utility lines. The variance is for a six-foot deviation which would allow the building to be as close as possible to the front lot line. Ms. McIntosh explained the second variance request is regarding dimensional standards. The MX- N2 District where the property is located requires buildings to be located a minimum of five feet and a maximum of 20 feet from the primary and secondary street frontages, with a remaining minimum of 10-foot setbacks for the side interior and rear property lines. As proposed, the proposed expansion would be approximately 120 feet from the secondary build-to setback. The City is requiring them to consolidate their property into one. The City would then need to allow a very large building to meet the Code requirements. Ms. McIntosh explained a variance needs to be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the UDO and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additional requirements to approve a variance are that the property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Ms. McIntosh stated a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2025, and two members of the public were in attendance, with a third online. One resident expressed support for the proposed expansion, and CAPI's commitment to the community's diversity, cultural appreciation, and immigrant services. Although no formal comment was submitted, City Staff received one question earlier that day regarding potential sight obstructions of Brooklyn Boulevard from a neighboring resident who was in receipt of the public hearing notice. In reviewing their property location, City Staff did not foresee there being any sight obstructions as they were located near the north end of the property. Ms. McIntosh noted a resident inquired on whether the City of Brooklyn Center provided direct Page 41 of 367 2/24/25 -19- DRAFT funding to Applicant CAPI USA. Although not within the purview of the Planning Commission's scope of duties, the applicant and City Staff confirmed the City does not provide funding to CAPI. As has been done with other project proposals, the City has previously provided CAPI municipal support with grant applications and resolutions of support letters. Ms. McIntosh stated the Commissioners engaged in a discussion surrounding various aspects of the expansion, including: parking needs, snow removal, screening, potential farmers' market operations, and their capital campaign. CAPI’s Director of Finance and Operations, David Monterrosa, and project Architect, Wale Falade, were available at the meeting to answer questions about the project and CAPI's operations Ms. McIntosh noted there were additional questions around CAPI’s capital campaign, potential farmers’ market operations and outdoor events, potential users of two tenant spaces proposed with the expansion, community garden space, and food shelf operations. Ms. McIntosh explained the Planning Commission unanimously (4-0) recommended Council approve the application. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked if the engineering comments had been addressed. Ms. McIntosh stated the engineering comments are detailed in the packet. There is one outstanding item regarding the property lines. The County provided some clarity on the lines, which will help to resolve the issue. The County is open to Brooklyn Center cleaning up the property and the fee title issue. Councilmember Jerzak noted the packet states Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application by the Council. He asked for clarification. Ms. McIntosh explained she is hesitant to issue variances. However, the scenario is unique and at no fault of the applicant. Councilmember Jerzak asked if approving the variance would set a precedent for future projects. Ms. McIntosh confirmed the circumstances of the property are very unique. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar noted the City has to follow the law when a variance is requested. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001 for an approximately 8,910-square foot expansion of CAPI's Immigrant Opportunity Center and related site improvements, a preliminary and final plat for CAPI USA Addition, and associated variances. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending Sections 35-2301, 35- 2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the maximum size of individual non-residential use in the MX-N1 and Page 42 of 367 2/24/25 -20- DRAFT MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) zoning districts to the maximum size of individual retail use in the MX-N1 and MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) zoning districts, and set the second reading for March 10, 2025. Motion passed unanimously. SUSPENSION OF ADJOURNMENT RULES Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked if the Council would consider extending the meeting to 9:30 p.m. There was no objection from the Council. Councilmember Jerzak requested Council Consideration Item 10b. Discussion of Resolution 2024- 138; Resolution Establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities, be put on the next meeting’s Consent Agenda. Dr. Edwards stated the item has already been moved from the Study Session to a Council Consideration Item. It should only take a moment of discussion to agree to the request. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Kragness pointed out that the appointments to the Cultural and Public Arts Commission are being pushed to a future meeting. The item was discussed during the Study Session. To the Sister City Commission, Nahid Khan, Jacob Saffert, Eramus Williams, Tashawna Williams, and Famatta Zeon. To the Financial Commission, Mayor Graves recommended Janice Brandt be appointed. To the Housing Commission, Mayor Graves recommended Jamal Said and Landen Straub be appointed. Councilmember Moore explained she had requested the appointments to the Cultural Public Arts Commission because of newer applications on top of a lack of clarity on the initial application process. Councilmember Moore moved and Mayor Pro Tem Kragness seconded to ratify the Mayoral appointments to City Advisory Commissions for the Sister City Commission, Financial Commission, and the Housing Commission. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2024-138; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION COMMISSION AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Councilmember Jerzak moved and Mayor Pro Tem Kragness seconded to move the consideration Page 43 of 367 2/24/25 -21- DRAFT and vote on Resolution 2024-138 to the next meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson pointed out there was a discussion of extending the freeze on Resolution 2024-138. Ms. Tolar stated they would need to reconsider the motion to extend the freeze. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to reconsider Council Consideration Item 10b. Discussion of Resolution 2024-138; Resolution Establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to table the discussion of Resolution 2024-138 until the next Council meeting and extend the implementation of the Commission to a future date. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Edwards asked if the item should be put on the Study Session or the Regular Session item. The Study Session would allow for discussion while a Council Consideration Item in the Regular Session would intend for the item to be voted on. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated the Council needed more time to discuss the item. Councilmember Moore stated the Council doesn’t need more time to discuss the item. Councilmember Jerzak stated there is time for discussion during Council Consideration Items. He asked if the item needs to have a new motion. Dr. Edwards stated Council Consideration Items are typically intended for voting. 11. COUNCIL REPORT It was the consensus of the Council to skip 11. Council Report in consideration of the time. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Moore seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:06 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Page 44 of 367 2/24/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Pro Tem Kragness at 9:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Pro Tem Teneshia Kragness and Councilmembers/Commissioners Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, and Laurie Ann Moore. Mayor/President April Graves was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Public Works Planner Kory Andersen Wagner, Community Development Director Jesse Anderson, Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, City Attorney Siobhan Tolar, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. 2024 EAST PALMER LAKE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT & DRAFT SPEED TABLE POLICY City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the item and explained that multiple departments impact public safety. He invited Public Works Planner Kory Andersen Wagner to continue the Staff presentation. Public Works Planner Kory Andersen Wagner explained traffic calming reduces speeds, improves safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, enhances neighborhood livability, and reduces cut- through traffic. Common measures include speed bumps, speed tables, curb extensions, and roundabouts. Mr. Andersen Wagner stated the City was approached by East Palmer Lake Neighbors United in 2023. There were concerns regarding speeding primarily on Newton Avenue, pedestrian safety, cut-through traffic, and pushing drivers onto parallel streets. Mr. Andersen Wagner pointed out that before the intervention, 85 percent of drivers were at or below 44 miles per hour. If working properly, this should be 85 percent or below at 30 miles per hour. There were nearly 1400 vehicles each day in comparison to 500 or fewer on adjacent streets. An average of 50 vehicles per day traveled 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. Also, parallel streets had some speeding but not enough to warrant intervention. Page 45 of 367 2/24/25 -2- DRAFT Mr. Andersen Wagner stated data was collected on Newtown, Morgan, Logan, and Oliver. Proposed treatments were delineated posts and speed tables. There was a concern about shifting traffic to parallel streets. Staff engaged with the community through postcards, sandwich board signs, and attending an East Palmer Lake Neighborhood meeting. He showed images of the devices used. Mr. Anderson Wagner stated the pilot program ran from May 2024 to October 2024. With the delineated posts, the daily volume decreased traffic volume by 224 vehicles, decreased speeds by seven miles per hour, increased the percentage of drivers driving under the speed limit by five percent, decreased the five highest vehicle speeds by nine miles per hour, and reckless driving was decreased by 53 percent. Reckless driving is defined as driving 50 miles per hour or more. Mr. Anderson Wagner stated the speed tables decreased traffic volume by 570 vehicles daily, decreased speeds by 14 miles per hour, increased drivers driving under the speed limit by 36 percent, decreased the five highest vehicle speeds by 40 miles per hour and decreased reckless driving by 98 percent. Mr. Anderson Wagner showed a graph depicting daily traffic volume in the East Palmer Lake neighborhood throughout the project. On average, Newton saw 570 fewer vehicles daily, Logan saw 20 more vehicles daily, Morgan saw 155 more vehicles daily, and Oliver saw 4 fewer vehicles daily. He noted Morgan and Logan are at a similar level for traffic. The average residential street sees 200 to 500 vehicles per day. Overall, nearly 400 vehicles left the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson Wagner stated the daily speeds on all four streets decreased even though the interventions were on only one street. There was an overall decrease of 30 reckless drivers each day. Mr. Anderson Wagner explained the results show speed tables are effective at curbing traffic. Staff needs to be strategic in using speed tables because there are tradeoffs such as plowing or unpredictable traffic shifts. He showed images of roads being plowed with and without a speed table. Mr. Anderson Wagner added street narrowing can be effective but requires more testing. There have been requests for more policing in the area, but engineering implementations are much more cost-effective. 14 days of targeted enforcement costs $1,000 to $5,000. However, a single speed table costs $5,000 and a single pinch point costs $20,000. Mr. Andersen Wagner noted Public Works Staff will install permanent speed tables on Newtown in 2025. Staff will continue to monitor for traffic pattern shifts on parallel streets. Mr. Andersen Wagner stated as part of the 2024 work, Staff developed a speed table strategy that aligns with peer cities. The guidelines to require a speed table are Uniform Traffic Control Devices compliance, a local residential street with a posted speed limit at or below 30 miles per hour, meeting the 85th percentile speed of 10 miles per hour or greater over the posted limit, or an average of three or more crashed per year, and is not on a public transit route, not a Municipal State Aid Page 46 of 367 2/24/25 -3- DRAFT road, not on an emergency route. There are also requirements that other measures are deemed unfeasible, the implementation is financially feasible, and the implementation is approved by the Public Works Director. Mr. Andersen Wagner pointed out there may be an exception to the speeding and crash history criteria. For example, a location in a school zone or next to a park would be considered but still have requirements that it is not on a public transit route, not a Municipal State Aid road, and not on an emergency route. There are also requirements that other measures are deemed unfeasible, the implementation is financially feasible, and the implementation is approved by the Public Works Director. Mr. Andersen Wagner explained another exception to the speeding and crash history criteria would require additional requirements. 51 percent of property owners within 500 feet must support accepting reduced snowplowing quality in exchange for speed tables. Also, the petition must be approved by the Council. Mr. Anderson Wagner noted they plan to use the draft strategy for 2025 and evaluate its effectiveness. They hope to adopt an official speed table policy in 2026. There is another pilot project planned for the Grandview Neighborhood. Mayor/President Pro Tem Kragness asked if the single pinch point costs $20,000. Mr. Anderson Wagner explained it could cost up to $20,000 if utilities need to be moved. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked why Grandview is the next neighborhood. Mr. Andersen Wagner pointed out that the Department receives complaints about speeding or traffic across the City. They hope to be intentional with the program to ensure its effectiveness. Grandview has similar numbers to Newton. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore stated Staff is collecting data points around the City, but they are focusing on the squeaky wheel. Mr. Andersen Wagner stated they are open to working in any area that has a high crash rate or speed issues. They offer to do speed tests in various emails, especially ahead of construction projects. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked if the bumps in the road are permanent. She asked if the pilot program used rubber speed tables. Mr. Andersen Wagner confirmed the speed tables were rubber. The City got them through a grant program from Hennepin County. They have removed them and can be deployed elsewhere. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked how long a permanent speed table lasts. Mr. Anderson Wagner stated their strategy is to use in-house services for installation. The life of the speed table depends on traffic patterns or other variables. Another speed table in the City has lasted ten years without any need for repairs. Page 47 of 367 2/24/25 -4- DRAFT Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak noted the delineated posts can require a lot of maintenance. He asked if there is a dedicated funding source for the pilot programs. It is likely most neighborhoods will want similar interventions. Mr. Andersen Wagner stated they didn’t lose any posts in the pilot program. There is a dedicated funding source through the Capital Improvement Plan. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak asked if the most dangerous traffic areas will be addressed first. Mr. Andersen Wagner confirmed that is their strategy. Dr. Edwards reiterated public safety efforts can be supported through multiple departments. It is also important to rely on metrics to apply interventions. LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AID (LAHA) PROGRAM OPTIONS Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked if the item could be pushed off to a future meeting. Dr. Edwards stated the item should take ten minutes, and the Council/EDA has already discussed it. Community Development Director Jesse Anderson explained in 2023, the Minnesota Legislature established the Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) program, funded through a Metro Area Sales and Use Tax for Housing. For Hennepin County, the sales tax is expected to generate approximately $20 million annually. The first allocations arrived in late 2024. Brooklyn Center has been awarded $188,983.33 in LAHA funds. Staff have reviewed options for the LAHA funds and anticipate a higher amount to be received in 2025, but that amount has yet to be determined. Mr. Anderson noted the program aims to address housing challenges by providing emergency rental assistance, building or rehabilitating affordable housing, reducing homeownership disparities, and supporting nonprofit affordable housing owners and developers. There are income requirements. Mr. Anderson stated Staff is seeking direction from Council/EDA regarding fund distribution. The City’s aging housing stock requires significant maintenance. The current Home Repair Program has nearly 400 households on the waitlist. There is a need for additional funding to address the backlog and an opportunity to create a streamlined home improvement loan program. Mr. Anderson stated the proposed home improvement loan program would be administered through the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). It provides additional resources for homeowners on the waitlist, lowers barriers compared to federally funded programs, and is designed to be flexible and accessible for Brooklyn Center residents. Mr. Anderson added Staff looked at other cities’ programs, and information is in the packet. Mr. Anderson pointed out Brooklyn Center’s existing programs include a Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Rehab Program and the Brooklyn Center Fix-Up Fund. The Hennepin County CDBG-funded Rehab Program offers zero percent interest loans for Page 48 of 367 2/24/25 -5- DRAFT up to $30,000 for essential repairs without monthly payments. The Brooklyn Center Fix-Up Fund offers low-interest home rehabilitation loans at a three percent fixed rate. Loans are available for up to $50,000 and are administered through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and CEE. Mayor/President Pro Tem Kragness stated she supports putting more money toward home rehabilitation efforts. It was the consensus of the Council/EDA to support LAHA funding for local home rehabilitation. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson moved and Mayor/President Pro Tem Kragness seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:35 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Page 49 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Shannon Pettit, Deputy City Clerk THROUGH: Barb Suciu, City Clerk BY: Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Licenses Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve the licenses as presented. Background: The following businesses/persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business/person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. Mechanical Farr Plumbing & Heating LLC 2525 Nevada Ave N #104, Golden Valley 55427 Norse Heating & Air 1355 Geneva Ave N #102, Oakdale 55128 Hospitality Accommodations Country Inn and Suites 2550 Freeway Blvd Motel 6 2741 Freeway Blvd Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rental Criteria Page 50 of 367 2. For Council Approval 3.10.25 FOR COUNCIL 2.11 to 2.25 Page 51 of 367 Page 2 of 2 b.Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are “Family or household members” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category Impact 1-2 0-1 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 Categories 1-2 Greater than 3 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category (Based on Property Code Only) Number of Units Property Code Violations per Inspected Unit Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9 3+ units Greater than 3 Page 52 of 367 Location Address License Subtype Renewal/Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS* Final License Type** Previous License Type*** Consecutive Type IV's 5637 Girard Ave N Two Family Initial Julian Guo & Ruofei Xu 30 Type IV N/A Type IV N/A 0 4201 Lakeside Ave N, #104 Condo Initial Jmg Property Llc 0 Type I N/A Type II N/A N/A 5712 Bryant Ave N Single Initial CAG MINNESOTA FUND II LLC 1 Type I N/A Type II N/A N/A 7125 Riverdale Rd Single Initial STEPHANIE D ANDERSON GROTH 8 Type III N/A Type III N/A N/A 5211 Xerxes Ave N Multiple Family 2 Bldgs 24 Units Renewal Bmw Holdings Llc Met Requirements 54 = 2.25 per unit Type III 0 Type III Type III N/A 5843 Fremont Ave N Multiple Family 1 Bldg 7 Units Renewal Fremont Llc 16 = 2.29 per unit Type III 0 Type III Type I N/A 4207 Lakeside Ave N, #327 Condo Renewal Doug Hollman & Rachel Petz 2 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A 5103 Xerxes Ave N Two Family Renewal Donna Denise Williams Did not meet requirements 0 Type I 0 Type IV Type IV 2 6742 France Ave N Two Family Renewal Walter M Robinson Met Requirements 15 Type IV 0 Type IV Type IV 2 1312 68th La N Single Renewal Markon Rentals LLC Did not meet requirements 2 Type I 0 Type III Type III N/A 1339 67th La N Single Renewal Wagner Property Rentals LLC 4 Type II 0 Type II Type I N/A 2913 65th Ave N Single Renewal Maria Chang 3 Type II 0 Type II Type II N/A 3707 Urban Ave N Single Renewal Home Investments Llc 2 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A 5300 France Ave N Single Renewal Ih3 Property Minnesota Lp 21 Type IV 0 Type IV Type II 0 5307 Penn Ave N Single Renewal Ronnet Renay Dossman 18 Type IV 0 Type IV Type III 0 5330 Girard Ave N Single Renewal C Bright/wagner Prop Rnt Llc Met Requirements 5 Type II 0 Type II Type IV N/A 5425 70th Cir Single Renewal 786 Homes-m25 Llc 0 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A 5728 Logan Ave N Single Renewal Konstantin Ginzburg Did not meet requirements 3 Type II 0 Type III Type III N/A Rental Licenses for Council Approval 3.10.25 Page 53 of 367 5921 Ewing Ave N Single Renewal Rosa Elvira Lema Bonete 4 Type II 0 Type II Type II N/A 6116 Aldrich Ave N Single Renewal BRIDGE SFR IV SEED BWR LLC Did not meet requirements 26 Type IV 0 Type IV Type III 0 6706 Scott Ave N Single Renewal Green Jacket LLC Did not meet requirements 4 Type II 0 Type IV Type IV 2 6800 France Ave N Single Renewal WILBURT BROOKS ET AL 5 Type II 0 Type II Type I N/A 6828 Fremont Pl N Single Renewal 786 Homes-f28 Llc 0 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A 7018 France Ave N Single Renewal Cmcb Llc 3 Type II 0 Type IV Type IV 3 7207 Willow La N Single Renewal Ari R Woods 0 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A *CFS = Calls for service for renewal licenses only (Initial licenses are not applicable to CFS and will be listed as N/A) **License type being issued ***Initial licenses will not show a Type I = 3 year, Type II = 2 year, Type III = 1 year, Type IV = 6 months All properties are current on City utilities and property taxes Page 54 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Ahmed Omer, City Engineer THROUGH: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works BY: Ahmed Omer, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2025-01, Well No. 11: Well and Pumphouse Project Requested Council Action: Motion to approve the resolution accepting the lowest responsible bid and award a contract to American Liberty Construction, Inc. for Improvement Project No. 2025-01, Well No. 11: Well and Pumphouse Project. Background: Bids for the Project were received and opened on February 25, 2025. Three bids were received and results are tabulated below: Bidder Amount American Liberty Construction $1,791,498.35 Rice Lake Construction $2,072,600.00 Municipal Builders $2,120,505.00 Of the three bids received, the lowest bid of $1,791,498.35 was submitted by American Liberty Construction, Inc. of Rockford, Minnesota. This contractor has the experience, equipment and capacity to qualify as the lowest responsible bidder for the project. The city’s consultant, Bolton & Menk, recommends awarding a contract to American Liberty Construction, Inc. Budget Issues: The total estimated budget including contingencies, administration, engineering and legal was $3,000,000 and is amended to $2,684,498.35, an approximate 10.5 percent decrease from the originally budgeted amount (see attached Resolution – Costs and Revenues tables). Funding for this project is under the Water Utility Fund. Inclusive Community Engagement: N/A Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: N/A Strategic Priorities and Values: Page 55 of 367 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Well No. 11 Well and Pumphouse Bid Bid Award Res 2. Well No. 11 Award Memo Page 56 of 367 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2025-01, WELL NO. 11: WELL AND PUMPHOUSE PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 2025-01, bids were received, opened and tabulated on the 25th day of February, 2025. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Amount American Liberty Construction $1,791,498.35 Rice Lake Construction $2,072,600.00 Municipal Builders $2,120,505.00 WHEREAS, the city’s consultant, Bolton & Menk, recommends that the contract be awarded based on the total bid; WHEREAS, it appears that American Liberty Construction, Inc. of Rockford, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with American Liberty Construction, Inc. of Rockford, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 2025-01, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows: Amended COSTS Estimated per Low Bid Construction Cost $2,500,000.00 $1,791,498.35 Engineering and Administrative $ 250,000.00 $ 385,000.00 Contingency $ 250,000.00 $ 508,000.00 TOTAL $3,000,000.00 $ 2,684,498.35 Amended REVENUES Estimated per Low Bid Water Fund $3,000,000.00 $ 2,684,498.35 March 10, 2025 Date Mayor Page 57 of 367 RESOLUTION NO._______________ ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 58 of 367 M E M O R A N D U M Date: February 26, 2025 To: Ahmed Omer, P.E., City Engineer From: Kevin Kielb, P.E., Principal Engineer Subject: Bid Results and Recommendation Well No. 11 and Well House Construction Three bids were received for the above project. The bids were publicly read aloud at 10:00 A.M. on February 25, 2025. The Engineer’s estimate was $2.5 million for project cost. The bids were then reviewed, tabulated and the results are summarized below: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID American Liberty Construction $1,791,498.35 Rice Lake Construction $2,072,600.00 Municipal Builders $2,120,505.00 We reviewed American Liberty Construction’s bid and compared it to the Engineer’s Estimate and the other bids received. It is our opinion that the bid is responsive and not materially unbalanced. If the City of Brooklyn Center decides to award the project to the low bidder, we recommend awarding the contract to American Liberty Construction in the amount of $1,791,498.35. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 968-7760. Page 59 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Ginny McIntosh, Planning Manager THROUGH: Jesse Anderson, Community Development Director BY: Ginny McIntosh, Planning Manager SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Maximum Size of an Individual Non-Residential Use in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning Districts – Second Reading Requested Council Action: 1) Motion to approve a second reading of an ordinance amending Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the maximum size of an individual non-residential use in the MX-N1 and MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) zoning districts to the maximum size of an individual retail use in the MX-N1 and MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) zoning districts; and 2) Motion to approve a resolution for summary publication of the aforementioned ordinance amendments in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post. Background: Property Owner and Applicant CAPI USA submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001 for review and consideration by the City of Brooklyn Center’s respective Planning Commission and City Council. Their requests are to ultimately allow for the renovation of CAPI’s current offices and the construction of an approximately 8,910- square foot, two-story expansion and certain site improvements for their new Immigrant Opportunity Center. CAPI USA purchased the existing, approximately 10,688-square foot building and adjacent vacant lot, known as 5930 and 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, in 2017. Following discussions with City staff regarding the size of their existing building, the proposed uses, and requested building expansion, City staff indicated CAPI USA would need to request an amendment to Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances (Unified Development Ordinance) as the maximum size of an individual non-residential use is 10,000-square feet in the MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District where the Subject Property is located, and 7,500-square feet in the MX-N1 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District. The existing size of the CAPI building located at 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard already exceeds 10,000 square feet. Per Section 35-71301 (Applicability), an amendment of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance may be initiated by the City Council, Planning Commission, or a City property owner. As proposed, CAPI USA would be seeking text amendments to Chapter 35 (Unified Development Ordinance) that would amend the maximum size of an individual Page 60 of 367 non-residential use to the maximum size of an individual retail use for all Neighborhood Mixed-Use District zoned properties. The respective maximum size requirements of 10,000-square feet in the MX-N2 District, and 7,500-square feet in the MX-N1 District, would remain in place. In reviewing requests for ordinance amendments, certain amendment criteria shall be considered as outlined under Section 35-71304 (Amendment Criteria). The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the necessary submittal requirements, facts, circumstances of the proposed amendment, and make a recommendation and decision on the amendment based on, but not limited to, consideration of certain criteria and policies. Since the adoption of the new Chapter 35 code provisions in January 2023, City staff have begun to test these new provisions against real projects. City staff have, on a recurrent basis, come across situations where there is an existing user wanting to invest in their building, but are faced with existing non-conformities and/or multiple uses operating under a single owner or organization. Recent examples include: • Location siting for New Horizon Academy, who provides daycare and preschool care in buildings generally in excess of 10,000 square feet; • An existing health-oriented business that expressed interest in adding on to their lobby; and • CAPI’s proposal to expand their existing building to provide additional services and tenant space. In discussion with the City Attorney, City staff did not want to remove the maximum size restriction, but wanted to refine the types of businesses that would require size restrictions. In reviewing the purpose of the Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation as outlined under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and associated zoning districts of MX-N1 and MX-N2, City staff determined that the greatest threat to preserving neighboring low- density residential neighborhoods would be to generate additional traffic or congestion. The proposed text amendment seeks to refine the current Unified Development Ordinance, which City staff views as a living document, to limit retail uses to no more than 7,500-square feet in the MX-N1 District and no more than 10,000-square feet in the MX-N2 District, respectively. This is as retail uses generally demand the greatest parking requirements, and the purpose of the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts and future land use designation is to provide for neighborhood-scale retail, office, and commercial uses. Large-scale non- residential uses like big box stores or large retail spaces are generally more likely to create disruptions in neighborhoods through increased traffic, noise, and lighting, which may negatively impact the overall character and livability of a neighborhood. A limitation on larger retail users fosters a focus on smaller-scale retail establishments that are more likely to be locally owned, community-focused, and serve the daily needs of residents, which is the purpose of the district. Page 61 of 367 On February 13, 2025, the City of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission unanimously recommended (4-0) City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, which contemplated approvals for CAPI’s expansion, preliminary and final plat, certain variances, and the identified ordinance amendments to Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100. At the February 24, 2025 City Council meeting, City Council unanimously approved (4-0) Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, and the unanimous approval of a first reading for the requested ordinance amendment. Approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001 is conditioned upon approval of the requested ordinance amendment per City Council Resolution No. 2025- 029 – see attached. A copy of the Planning Commission Report for Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, dated February 13, 2025, City Council Resolution No. 2025-029, draft ordinance amendment language for Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100, and a resolution authorizing approval of a summary publication in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post are included with this memorandum. Budget Issues: None to consider at this time. Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report with Exhibits - Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001 2. City Council Resolution No. 2025-029 3. Ordinance Language - Non-Residential Use to Retail Use Ordinance 4. Resolution - Authorizing Summary Publication Page 62 of 367 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: February 13, 2025 Application No. 2025-001 Applicant | Property Owner: CAPI USA Location: 5930 and 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 | 03-118- 21-12-0006 and 03-118-21-12-0101 Requests: Text Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, Site and Building Plan (Major Amendment), and Variances Map 1. Subject Property Location. Requested Action Property Owner CAPI USA (“the Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of a proposal that would renovate CAPI’s current offices and construct an approximately 8,910-square foot, two-story expansion and certain site improvements for its new Immigrant Opportunity Center—refer to Exhibit A. The Applicant purchased the existing, approximately 10,688 square-foot building and adjacent vacant lot, known as 5930 and 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, in 2017. Following their purchase, CAPI USA underwent an • Application Filed: 01/14/2025 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 03/15/2025 • Extension Declared: No • Extended Review Period Deadline: Page 63 of 367 interior renovation of the building, which was constructed in 1970, to accommodate a general remodel of the office space, installation of an elevator lift, minor work to the parking lot, and installation of a new fence and trash enclosure. CAPI’s desire to expand is a response to the rapid growth and community demand for their services. Their mission is to guide immigrants and refugees in their journey to self-determination and social equity through workforce development, food access, health and wellness programming, and economic empowerment services. According to 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, 21.6 percent of Brooklyn Center residents are foreign born. Due to the requests submitted as part of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, a public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on January 30, 2025—refer to Exhibit B. Mail notifications were sent to all physical addresses and taxpayer addresses located within 350 feet of the Subject Property, and a public hearing notice was published on the City website. Background City staff initially became aware of the proposal in 2022, when the project architect reached out for clarification on the City’s Code requirements. It was also during this time that CAPI requested a resolution of support from City Council to apply to the LCDA Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account Predevelopment Grant. CAPI has since applied for two additional grants to help with their capital campaign to construct the new Immigrant Opportunity Center, and received funds for community engagement, feasibility studies, stormwater schematic design plans, and architectural site plans. The expansion would allow the Applicant to expand upon their service offerings, while providing additional tenant space for nonprofit partners, community events, and training spaces. Currently, CAPI offers employment search assistance, housing resources, benefits assistance, and civic engagement training as well. The Subject Property originally received site and building plan approval in 1970 under Planning Commission Application No. 70047 for what was originally intended to be a two-phase office development; however, the second office building was never constructed. At the time, the Subject Property was zoned in the C1 (Service/Office) District, which permitted offices, beauty and barber services, funeral and crematory services, financial institutions, daycares, and nursing homes in buildings three stories or less in height. BKBM Engineers was a long-time owner of 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard and the vacant parcel to the north, which is addressed as 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard. Site Data: 2040 Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Mixed Use (N-MU) Neighborhood: Garden City Current Zoning: Neighborhood Mixed Use 2 (MX-N2) District Site Area: Approximately 1.62 acres Surrounding Area: Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Neighborhood Mixed Use (N-MU) MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use 2) Commercial (Evans-Nordby Funeral Home) South Neighborhood Mixed Use (N-MU) MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use 2) Commercial (Old National Bank) Page 64 of 367 East Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Single Family Detached West Low Density Residential and PSP/Institutional Low Density Residential Undeveloped and Institutional (Cross of Glory Church) Existing Conditions Image 1. Existing Site Conditions at Subject Property and Neighboring Uses. Page 65 of 367 REQUESTS TEXT AMENDMENT Per Section 35-71301 (Applicability), an amendment of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance may be initiated by the City Council, Planning Commission, or a City property owner. Following discussions with City staff regarding the existing size of the building, the proposed uses, and requested building expansion, City staff indicated that the Applicant (Property Owner) would need to request an amendment to Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances (Unified Development Ordinance) as the maximum size of an individual non-residential use is 10,000-square feet in the MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District and 7,500- square feet in the MX-N1 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District. The existing size of CAPI building located at 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard already exceeds 10,000 square feet. The purpose of the MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District, where the Subject Property is located, is to accommodate small-scale, mixed-use neighborhood activity centers with comfortable gathering places, that are located and scaled to provide minor/convenience services near low density residential neighborhoods and avoid strip development patterns or the creation of destination retail or business uses serving beyond the immediate neighborhoods. Similarly, the MX-N1 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District is to accommodate low- to medium-density residential and multi-family residential development with or without small-scale ground floor non-residential uses. These districts, which were adopted as new zoning districts in January 2023, were guided under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan new future land use designation of “Neighborhood Mixed-Use” or N-MU in 2019. Per the 2040 Plan: As proposed, the Applicant would be seeking text amendments to Chapter 35 (Unified Development Ordinance) that would amend the maximum size of an individual non-residential use to the maximum size of an individual retail use. The respective maximum size requirements of 10,000-square feet in the MX- N2 District, and 7,500-square feet in the MX-N1 District would remain in place. These changes will require an amendment to Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100: Section 35-2300. MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Section 35-2301. MX-N1 – NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE b. MX-N1 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Page 66 of 367 Section 35-2302. MX-N2 – NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE Building Setbacks A Front build-to line (min-max) 5-20 feet on primary and secondary street frontage B Side building setback (minimum) 10 feet C Rear building setback (minimum) 20 feet D Minimum lot size N/A Accessory Structure setback, Interior side or rear (minimum) 5 feet Other Standards E Structure height (maximum) 48 feet Density 15-31 Units/acre Accessory Structure height (maximum) 20 feet Maximum size of individual non-residential retail use 7,500 Square Feet Page 67 of 367 b. MX-N2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Section 35-5100. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS SUMMARY. (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double-underline indicates new matter.) Building Setbacks A Front build-to line (min-max) 5-20 feet on primary and secondary street frontage B Side building setback (minimum) 10 feet C Rear building setback (minimum) 10 feet D Minimum lot size N/A Accessory Structure setback, Interior side or rear (minimum) 5 feet Other Standards E Structure height (maximum) 48 feet Density 15-31 Units/acre Accessory Structure height (maximum) 20 feet Maximum size of individual non-residential retail use 10,000 Square Feet Dimensional Standards Lot Dimensions (Minimum, only for lots created after the effective date) Zoning Districts R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 MX- N1 MX-N2 MX-C TOD C MX- B I O Lot area (Sq. ft/unit). 9,500 (Interior) 10,500 (Corner) 7,600 (One- family Interior), 8,500 (one- family corner), 5,000 (two- family) 4,000 2,200 1,400 -- -- Minimum 2 Acres Contiguous Parcel For Residential Use 2000 ft perimeter (max) -- -- -- -- Density (Units/acre) 3-5 3-10 5-15 10-25 20-31 15-31 15-31 10-60 31 – 130 -- -- -- -- Maximum size of individual non- residential retail use -- -- -- -- -- 7,500 SF 10,000 SF -- -- -- -- -- -- Page 68 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 7 In reviewing requests for ordinance amendments, certain amendment criteria shall be considered as outlined under Section 35-71304 (Amendment Criteria). The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the necessary submittal requirements, facts, circumstances of the proposed amendment, and make a recommendation and decision on the amendment based on, but not limited to, consideration of the following criteria and policies: a. Whether there is a clear and public need or benefit; b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications; c. Whether all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property; d. Whether there have been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned; e. Whether there is an evident, broad public purpose in the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals; f. Whether the subject property will bear fully the UDO development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts; g. Whether the subject property is generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography, or location; h. Whether the rezoning will result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) The best interests of the community. i. Whether the proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel. j. The specific policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and other City plans; k. The purpose and intent of this UDO, or in the case of a map amendment, whether it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district; and l. If applicable, the adequacy to buffer or transition between potentially incompatible districts. The Neighborhood Mixed-Use District properties are located along Brooklyn Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue North. While the City desires to create amenity hubs along these corridors and for the neighboring residential neighborhoods, these areas are almost entirely developed as of today. Any new investment would either require redevelopment on select parcels, or investment into existing buildings. Map 2. Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts (areas indicated in red). Page 69 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 8 Since the adoption of the new code provisions under Chapter 35, City staff have begun to test these new provisions against real projects. City staff have, on a recurrent basis, come across situations where there is an existing user wanting to invest in their building, but are faced with existing nonconformities and/or multiple uses operating under a single owner or organization. Recent examples include: • Location siting for New Horizon Academy, who provides daycare and preschool care in buildings generally in excess of 10,000 square feet; • An existing health-oriented business that expressed interest in adding onto their lobby; and • CAPI’s proposal to expand their existing building to provide additional services and tenant space. In discussion with the City Attorney, City staff did not want to remove the maximum size restriction, but wanted to refine the types of businesses that would require size restrictions. In reviewing the purpose of the Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation and zoning districts, City staff determined that the greatest threat to preserving neighboring low-density residential neighborhoods would be to generate additional traffic or congestion. The proposed text amendment seeks to refine the current Unified Development Ordinance, which City staff views as a living document, to limit retail uses to no more than 7,500-square feet in the MX-N1 District and no more than 10,000-square feet in the MX-N2 District, respectively. This is as retail uses generally demand the greatest parking requirements, and the purpose of the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts and future land use designation is to provide for neighborhood-scale retail, office, and commercial uses. Large-scale non-residential uses like big box stores or large retail spaces are generally more likely to create disruptions in neighborhoods through increased traffic, noise, and lighting, which may negatively impact the overall character and livability of a neighborhood. A limitation on larger retail users fosters a focus on smaller-scale retail establishments that are more likely to be locally owned, community-focused, and serve the daily needs of residents, which is the purpose of the district. In general, there are few parcels where City staff feels a major user could locate along either Brooklyn Boulevard or Humboldt Avenue North as the average lot depth is too shallow for large-scale development. The other location is the City EDA-owned property located off 57th Avenue North and Logan Avenue North. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan notes that the Neighborhood Mixed-Use future land use designation was designed to integrate small-scale commercial and retail uses into the neighborhood fabric, and that several key nodes primarily located within the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor could provide smaller-scale retail, restaurant, and service amenities to surrounding neighborhoods. By lifting the blanket maximum size restriction for non-residential uses and replacing it with a focus on retail uses, greater flexibility would be provided for non-retail businesses—such as offices or service- oriented uses, that often require larger spaces for their operations, but do not necessarily have the same disruptive impacts on residential areas as retail establishments do. By focusing on retail uses, the proposed amendment would ensure that large-scale commercial operations like big-box retailers or regional chain stores would have greater control, while non-retail uses, such as office space, medical and health uses, or cultural/social service organizations would be given greater latitude to contribute to the vibrancy of the neighborhood by encouraging diversity in the business types that locate along these thoroughfares and without infringing on the overall quality of life for residents. For context, the general size for a sit-down restaurant as contemplated within Shingle Creek Crossing, which is not zoned Neighborhood Mixed-Use District, is no more than 6,000 square feet. The Page 70 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 9 approximately 15,000-square foot former CVS Pharmacy building located at 5801 Brooklyn Boulevard, is zoned MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District and is therefore non-conforming with respect to size. By distinguishing between retail and non-retail uses, the proposed amendment is able to create a more targeted, business-friendly zoning regulation that allows businesses the space they need to grow (and in place), while adhering to the core purpose of the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts—which is to preserve the overall harmony and blending of residential and commercial activities. PRELMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Section 35-8105 (Combination of Land Parcels) outlines that in instances where “multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent,” and of which are “proposed to serve a single development use,” and “under common ownership,” shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey (RLS). As proposed, the Applicant intends to re-plat and consolidate the Subject Property from three parcels down to one. The northern parcel, addressed as 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, and noted as Parcels 1 and 2 on the provided preliminary plat, are currently vacant. It is proposed for a combination with identified Parcel 3, addressed as 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard, and currently improved with an existing office building and site improvements. Consolidation of these lots would allow for the Applicant to accommodate the proposed building expansion but also meet the requirements of Section 35-8105. The Applicant intends to dedicate certain portions of right-of-way along Brooklyn Boulevard and Beard Avenue North. These discussions were initially initiated with the City staff as the Applicant would not have met the MX-N2 District requirements outlined under Chapter 35 that require a minimum-maximum front build-to setback of between 5 and 20 feet, nor a requirement to locate a minimum of 50 percent (%) of the first floor of the front façade within 10 feet of the front property line. Although it was later determined as part of the design process that the Applicant would be unable to meet the latter requirement of locating 50 percent of the first floor within 10 feet of the property line due to an existing utility easement and sidewalk running along Brooklyn Boulevard, the dedication of right-of-way would allow the submitted proposal to meet the front build-to setback of between 5 and 20 feet. City Engineering reviewed the provided preliminary and final plat for the CAPI USA Addition and noted in their memorandum (Exhibit C) that a 10-foot drainage and utility easement would require dedication around the perimeter of the Subject Property. Additionally, there is an existing drainage and utility easements that requires vacation as part of the process to combine the three parcels into one. City Engineering has indicated they are in receipt of the necessary documentation to vacate this easement through a separate city approval process. Any easement vacations would need to be approved by City Council and filed before the new plat (CAPI USA Addition) could be filed at Hennepin County. As the Subject Property abuts County Road 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) and was located within the Phase II Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor project area, City staff submitted the preliminary and final plats, and civil set to Hennepin County for review. The County will prepare a formal letter but conducted an initial review at their Plat Review Committee meeting on February 4, 2025, and did not appear to have any major concerns. They indicated they did not see a need for additional right-of-way to be dedicated; however, they did not appear opposed to it. City staff requests revisions to the provided preliminary and final plat to clearly define the boundaries and Page 71 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 10 reflect dedication of right-of-way along Brooklyn Boulevard and Beard Avenue North, and the new property line. Any existing or proposed utilities should be noted on the preliminary plat per Section 35- 8106.b.2, and the zoning information provided on the preliminary plat should be revised to reflect the current zoning district of MX-N2. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report shall be provided to the City planning staff and City Attorney for review and comment, and the Applicant shall address any comments as outlined as part of the Hennepin County plat review process. The preliminary and final plat should be recorded with Hennepin County prior to the release of any building permits. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN Image 2. Architectural Rendering of Proposed CAPI Expansion. Image 3. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed Building Expansion and Site Improvements on Subject Property. Page 72 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 11 As proposed, the Applicant would expand their CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center to include a technology resource center, community and training rooms, entrepreneur training, technical assistance, and financial services to develop and expand BIPOC-led small businesses in childcare, urban farming, and other sectors; expand public benefits eligibility screening, tax assistance, financial coaching, and homebuyer services; create an outdoor play area; expanded parking; and unattached greenhouse surrounded by community garden plots and green space. Due to increasing demand, the Applicant desires to provide newly expanded community resources and services to the surrounding community. Based on a review of the proposed project scope, the expansion of the building and revisions to the site improvements will trigger a major site and building plan amendment under Section 35-7605 (Major Amendments), which notes that, “the review of major amendments shall follow the procedure set forth above for the issuance of a new site and building plan approval.” Section 35-7601 (Applicability) further notes that site and building plan approval is required where the construction or erection of a new building or add on to an existing building would result in an increase in gross floor areas of all buildings by more than 10 percent (%), or the expansion of change of building or parcel use that results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for additional parking. Additional triggers identified under Section 35-7605 include a: 20 percent (%) or greater change in the ground area covered by the project, or a 20 percent (%) or greater change in the number of parking spaces provided or required. Section 35-7604 (Site and Building Plan Criteria) provides that no site and building plan review application shall be approved unless it meets the following criteria: a. It fully complies with all applicable requirements of this UDO; b. It adequately protects residential uses from the potential adverse effects of a non- residential use; c. It is consistent with the use and character of surrounding properties; and d. It provides safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists and prevents the dangerous arrangement of pedestrian vehicular ways. Site Design The Applicant outlines in their narrative that they would renovate the interior of the approximately 10,688-square-foot existing building and construct an approximately 8,910-square foot new addition for offices, training rooms, tenant spaces, and an expansion for their food shelf. The exterior of the building would be expanded to the west towards Brooklyn Boulevard. Although City staff worked closely with the Applicant’s development team to address code provisions as outlined under Chapter 35, including consolidation of their lots into one parcel to accommodate the building’s expansion and unified ownership, and meeting maximum front build-to setback requirements, the Applicant requested approval of certain variances to address deficiencies to the maximum allowable front and secondary setbacks. These variance requests are addressed in the next section of the report. Alterations to the east side of the Subject Property would be minimal with the exception of a trash enclosure relocation to accommodate a parking lot expansion and secondary access off 60thAvenue North, and sitework for a landscaped courtyard, community gardening, and a future greenhouse. As proposed, there are no plans to alter the existing curb cut on Brooklyn Boulevard. Page 73 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 12 Generally, the site’s design is informed by the organization’s operations, which are generally conducted Monday through Friday, from 8:30 to 4:30 p.m., and its food shelf program operating three days per week, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Some evening and weekend programming does occur for special programs and events, and the Applicant indicates that the new site design would provide the additional space needed for CAPI’s farmers’ market and other outdoor events. A substantial portion of the site would be dedicated for a landscaped courtyard area, community gardening space, and a future greenhouse. The Applicant indicates in their submittal that they anticipate employing 46 full-time staff at their expanded facility, including workforce development specialists, case managers, and food shelf staff. Currently, CAPI serves over 10,000 individuals annually across various programs, including workforce training, general assistance, health access, and small business support. The newly expanded Immigrant Opportunity Center would allow for a potential 30% increase in service capacity. Dimensional Standards The MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District where the Subject Property is located requires buildings to be located a minimum of 5 feet and a maximum of 20 feet from the primary and secondary street frontages, with remaining minimum 10-foot setbacks for the side interior and rear property lines. Additionally, at least 50 percent of the first floor of the front façade of the primary building shall be located not more than 10 feet from the front lot line. As proposed, the proposed expansion would be situated approximately 16.25 feet off the front build-to setback, and approximately 120 feet from the secondary build-to setback. Due to an existing utility line and easement and sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard, the Applicant will require approval of certain variances. Image 4. Existing and Proposed New Site Plan for Subject Property. Page 74 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 13 Access |Circulation | Parking |Connection Hennepin County Review The Subject Property is situated along Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152). As Brooklyn Boulevard is a County highway, City staff submitted the preliminary and final plats, as well as the civil set to Hennepin County Transportation for review. A formal letter has not yet been issued, but the County conveyed to City staff that, following their Plat Review Committee meeting on February 4, 2025, there were no major concerns. The County indicated a general comfort with the new secondary access off the south side of 60th Avenue North, as well as the existing right-in, right-out access on Brooklyn Boulevard. Finally, the sidewalk on 60th Avenue North, while not currently connecting to anything beyond the site today, could prevent a future gap should sidewalks ever be installed to the east. Access and Circulation Access to the Subject Property currently limited to the single shared curb cut located off Brooklyn Boulevard. As proposed, the Applicant is proposing a second curb cut off 60th Avenue North, which City staff appreciates for the fact that the existing access of Brooklyn Boulevard is oftentimes congested and is in close proximity to the curb cut for Old National Bank (5920 Brooklyn Boulevard) to the south. The provision of a secondary access would provide some traffic relief. The additional access alone would provide for greater circulation in and through the Subject Property. The City Code requires a minimum of 24-feet in width for drive aisles to accommodate two-way traffic, and a minimum of 20 feet is required under Minnesota Fire Code for fire access purposes. As proposed, it appears the existing parking lot and proposed parking lot expansion would meet the minimum drive aisle width requirement: Image 5. Proposed Drive Aisle and Parking Space Dimensions. Parking The minimum parking space standards under Section 35-5504 (Parking Space Standards) for 90-degree, two-way parking are 8’8” (8.67 feet) wide by 18 feet deep, as measured with the curb overlay. As proposed, the existing and parking lot appears to meet this requirement. The Subject Property currently provides 43 total parking spaces (41 regular stalls, 2 ADA stalls). As proposed, a total of 63 parking spaces would be provided—this includes 4 ADA stalls. Assuming the entirety of the building and expansion are calculated as “office,” Section 35-5506 (Required Parking Spaces) requires the following: Page 75 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 14 Assuming a total square footage of approximately 19,598-square feet, a maximum of 59 parking spaces would be required. 2020 Minnesota Accessibility Code requires a minimum of three (3) ADA parking spaces assuming a range of 51-75 parking spaces. Typically, the City would require a reduction of parking spaces; however, as the Applicant has not yet identified potential users for its two tenant spaces, and as the Applicant operates uses less typical to an office building, such as the dedicated food shelf and proposed farmer’s market, City staff is comfortable maintaining the proposed 63 parking spaces. If it is later determined that less parking is needed, City staff would suggest a widening of the parking spaces to 9 feet, which is more typically proposed, and would help minimize door dings. City staff requests that the submitted sets be updated to provide a parking space inventory/table with additional dimensions as the submitted plans provide minimal details. The Applicant indicates plans for a portion of the new parking lot to be comprised of pervious pavers (Pavedrain system). In analyzing the provided stormwater report, it is noted that the proposed conditions would result in approximately 0.98 acres of impervious, and 0.64 acres of pervious area. Assuming a 1.62- acre site, the proposed building expansion and new site improvements would result in a site that is approximately 60.5 percent impervious. The maximum allowable impervious percentage for the MX-N2 District is 80 percent. Connection The Subject Property is in a highly accessibly area of Brooklyn Center, as it is located along Brooklyn Boulevard. A new sidewalk was recently installed on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard as part of the Phase II Brooklyn Boulevard modernization project, and a multi-use trail on the west side. There is an existing bus stop located towards the north end of the Subject Property that provides service for Route 723, and the Subject Property is a 0.5-mile walk from the Brooklyn Center Transit Center. As proposed, the Applicant intends to connect the main entrance to the sidewalk running along Brooklyn Boulevard and install bike racks with outdoor seating. Internally, the Applicant intends to run a sidewalk towards 60th Avenue North and along the dedicated community garden area. Lighting A photometric plan was submitted with the application submittal; however, the provided photometric plan does not include the southernmost existing parking lot and building into its scope to determine whether it meets the code provisions as outlined under Section 35-5400 (Exterior Lighting). Additionally, the wall-packs located on the existing building do not conform to City Code requirements and are only permitted in loading and service areas. City staff requests the provided photometric plan be revised to incorporate the entirety of the site and include the existing and proposed building and parking lot areas. In reviewing the provided photometric plan, the Applicant will need to revise the illumination levels along the proposed parking lot extension to meet the minimum and maximum site lighting levels of 0.2 foot- candles to 4 foot-candles for open-air parking lots, and a maximum uniformity ratio of 20:1. The Applicant Page 76 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 15 should look for options to create more consistent lighting along the private sidewalk extension running north to 60th Avenue North as there appears to be significant drops in illumination between the light poles. The new main entry and northeast doors to the new building addition appear to meet the minimum 10 foot-candle requirements for primary building entrances and exits; however, the Applicant should revise the north door to meet the minimum foot-candle requirements. Image 6. Submitted Photometric Plan for the Subject Property (missing spot illuminations noted in red). Section 35- 5400 (Exterior Lighting) dictates that any photometric plan provided shall clearly demonstrate consistent levels of illumination across the existing open-air parking lot and avoid pockets of very low or high levels of illumination. Spot illuminations shall be provided to clearly demonstrate adherence to minimum and maximum illumination levels, uniformity, and the proposed mounting heights for the wall and parking lot lighting. The Applicant did provide fixture specifications with proper heights for landscaped areas and the parking lot. Trash | Screening Image 7. Existing and Proposed Trash Enclosure Location. Page 77 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 16 The Applicant proposes to shift an existing trash enclosure located on the east of the property to accommodate an expansion of the parking lot. Sheet L1.0 (Site Furnishings Plan) references a proposed 8- foot metal panel enclosure with double swing gates and new concrete pad, which would replace an existing wood fence enclosure. All ground mounted equipment over 30-inches in height or greater than 12-cubic feet (e.g. transformers, mechanical) shall be effectively screened from public view. Similarly, any existing or new roof-mounted equipment shall also be screened from view through the use of parapets, wall/fencing materials, or paint compatible and complementary to the building. Architectural Materials Image 8. Existing and Proposed Alterations to the Subject Property. City Code requires the exterior wall finishes on any building to have no less than 60-percent face brick, natural or colored stone, pre-colored or factory stained or stained on site textured pre-cast concrete panels, textured concrete block, stucco, glass, fiberglass, or similar materials. As proposed, the Applicant intends to do minor exterior work to the existing, approximately 10,688- square foot building (e.g. painting of the brick, replacement of roof and roof coping). For the proposed addition, the Applicant proposes to use a mixture of stained acetylated wood, stucco, architectural precast panels, and glazing (glass). Page 78 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 17 Image 9. Proposed Material Breakdown for West and South Elevations of Addition. The Applicant should revise their materials breakdown to incorporate the existing building, which appears to be predominantly comprised of brick and glazing. By incorporating the existing addition, City staff anticipates the minimum materials requirements will be met. Section 35-2302 (MX-N2 – Neighborhood Mixed-Use) requires each ground floor façade for a nonresidential use facing a public right-of-way to have transparent windows or other transparent glazed areas covering at least 50 percent (%) of the ground floor façade area between three (3) and eight (8) feet above sidewalk grade. Required glazed areas shall have a visible light transmittance ratio of 0.6 or higher, and shall not include reflective, heavily tinted, or black glass windows. Image 10. Window/Glazing Requirement for Ground Floor Façade (noted with red dash). Sheet A2.1 (Exterior Elevations) notes approximately 340 square feet of window along the west and south elevations, for a total of 46.5%. An additional 25-square feet would meet the minimum required 50% of glazing or windows for the ground floor façade. City staff requests the Applicant revise this sheet to Page 79 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 18 account for the glazing on the north elevation of the new addition as it too is facing public right-of-way (Brooklyn Boulevard). The maximum allowable height in the MX-N2 District is 48 feet. As proposed, the two-story addition would be approximately 24.25 feet to the roof deck. Landscaping Image 11. Proposed Community Garden Space on Subject Property. The project submittal contains a planting plan (Sheet L5.0) as well as a site furnishings plan (Sheet L1.0). For the City’s mixed-use zoning districts, including the MX-N2 District where the Subject Property is located, Section 35-5603 (District Landscaping Requirements) sets minimum landscape requirements that are based off project valuation. Any landscaping shall be coordinated with lighting plans, and City staff requests the landscape plan be layered over the project utility plan to ensure no plantings will be located within utility easements or over utility lines, or that different plantings are selected for these areas. To promote species diversity and resilience, no more than 40 percent (%) of the total number of trees may be of the same species, and landscape vegetation should use native and resilient plant types where possible in order to promote landscape resiliency and reduce site maintenance requirements. Section 35-5513 (Parking Lot Landscaping) provides that any off-street parking facilities accommodating Page 80 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 19 more than six (6) cars shall include landscaping adjacent to the lot, to the extent of at least 3 percent of the total surface area of all impervious parking areas. Additionally, and with certain exceptions, parking lot islands shall provide a minimum of one (1) deciduous tree per island. As proposed, a Boulevard Linden tree (deciduous) would be planted at each of the new parking lot islands. As part of the parking lot expansion, the Applicant notes a line of 55 sea green junipers along the eastern edge of the parking lot. City staff appreciate the use of junipers as they will provide some screening from headlights that might otherwise shine into the windows of residential homes along Beard Avenue North. Table 1. Planting Schedule for Subject Property. The Applicant intends to reserve a significant portion of the north site for a dedicated community garden with water connections, and a place for a future greenhouse. City staff discussed the greenhouse, and assuming the intended operations of the community garden and greenhouse are not of a commercial nature, the green house would likely be considered an “accessory structure.” This is noteworthy as there are different requirements for greenhouses and hoop houses as provided for under the commercial urban agriculture definition. An inventory of existing plantings identifies 17 plantings on the Subject Property. Of these, four (4) are scheduled for removal as they are located in proximity to where the new addition would be constructed. Despite this, a line of mature trees located along the southern property line would remain and a few located on the north and east ends of the Subject Property. The Applicant should identify these trees and update Sheet L5.0. The Applicant also proposes a dedicated landscaped courtyard with pedestrian level lighting, and a cistern located at the north side of the existing building. As currently proposed, this community garden area would be fenced. The site furnishings plan identifies areas for seating. Page 81 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 20 Signs No specific signage requests were made as part of the Application submittal. The Subject Property currently has one (1) freestanding sign located on the Subject Property at this time, which will require removal to accommodate the new building addition and site improvements. Any new signage would be required to comply with the provisions outlined within Section 35-6000 (Signs) of the City Code. Engineering Review Principal Engineer Touyia Lee initially reviewed the submitted plan set and prepared a memorandum dated February 7, 2025—Refer to Exhibit C. Memo comments addressed include sheet-by-sheet responses o the provided plan set, platting requirements, general requirements, including the necessity of an NPDES permit and easement vacation, and construction and easement agreements pending approval of the project by City Council. Building Review Building Official Dan Grinsteinner conducted a cursory review of the proposal. Ultimately, building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes and prior to the issuance of permits; however, it was noted that a fire sprinkler and monitoring system is required for installation throughout the building and is to be maintained at all times. Plans shall detail the locations and access points for any fire sprinkler room or wall connections. The proposed new elevator will require approval from the State. The Applicant will also need to meet any minimum ADA requirements with regard to the building and site improvements, and prior to issuance of any building permits, a SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) determination shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and any associated fees paid at time of permit issuance. The Applicant will need to coordinate with Hennepin County Health Department for any approvals for the food shelf and kitchen areas. Variance Variances may only be granted when the Applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6, the City Council may only grant approval of a variance where “practical difficulties” exist as to the strict compliance with the City’s Unified Development Ordinance and each of the following criteria are satisfied (Note: Applicant responses are transcribed from their submitted documentation—Exhibit A): 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant Response: The variance is in harmony and meets the intent and purpose of the MX-N2 district. The proposed building has a mix of offices, grocery store (food shelf), and meeting rooms permitted in the district. The proposal is NOT a strip development or destination retail. City Staff Response (Finding): The Applicant has worked with City staff to try to meet the requirements of the City’s new Unified Development Ordinance despite having a considerably large property with three frontages and a non-conforming office building. Despite revising plans, consolidating the parcels, and planning to dedicate right-of-way to meet these new requirements, the Applicant falls short of meeting the City’s requirements due to unique circumstances. Despite this, the Applicant has designed the proposed building expansion to try and meet the intended Page 82 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 21 purpose of the City’s MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) District and dimensional standards while creating minimal impacts to the surrounding properties and residential neighborhood to the east. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant Response: The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will fall in the future land use category of N-MU which guides land surrounding key neighborhood intersections for a mix of residential, retail and commercial/office uses. The proposal has a neighborhood scale building and plans for a plaza and community garden that will integrate well into the residential neighborhood bounding it and enhance the natural environment. City Staff Response (Finding): As is indicated by the Applicant, the Subject Property is located within the Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU) future land use designation under the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Subject Property also falls within Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay designation, which is a 1,200-foot (600 foot on each side of the centerline) corridor that calls attention to land adjacent to the roadway for special consideration at time of redevelopment. Both the Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation and Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District are identified as key areas for change, and where the community is focused on creating a walkable, transit-connected, experience-based place that brings the City forward and offers new opportunities to existing and future residents. As it exists today, and as proposed, CAPI’s Immigrant Opportunity Center would provide service amenities to the surrounding neighborhoods. With its location along Brooklyn Boulevard, the recent Brooklyn Boulevard modernization project brought improved roadway conditions for automobile traffic, but also for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The proposed variances take into consideration the recently replaced sidewalk section running along the western edge of the proposed building addition. While the sidewalk will require replacement to facilitate the building expansion, the Applicant proposes a new entrance at the southwest corner of the new building and along Brooklyn Boulevard with outdoor seating and dedicated bike racks. Private sidewalks would directly connect to the public ways to the west, and there is an existing bus stop situated at the north end of the Subject Property. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this UDO. Applicant Response: The proposal would be used in a reasonable manner – an addition to CAPI’s existing office building that will include additional office space, meeting rooms, and expansion of the grocery store (culturally appropriate food shelf). The project is unable to comply with the setback requirements in the UDO. City Staff Response (Finding): The Property Owner intends to utilize the property in a manner permitted by the City’s Unified Development Ordinance. CAPI USA, who currently occupies the Subject Property, would construct additional office space for their organization, as well as meeting and training rooms. There are two tenant spaces proposed; however, the Applicant is still working to identify potential users. They had indicated the potential for a daycare in one of the tenant spaces—this use is permitted via issuance of a conditional use permit. If the Applicant decides to Page 83 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 22 enter into an agreement with a daycare provider, the Applicant would submit a separate Planning Commission Application for separate consideration. Assuming the future proposed green house and community garden plots are conducted as a non- commercial operation, urban agriculture is permitted in the MX-N2 District as an accessory use. CAPI currently operates the CAPI Gardens Project, which empowers immigrants and refugees to become leaders through gardening and small-scale farming. CAPI’s current food shelf serves those in need by providing culturally specific foods and fresh fruits and vegetables. Groceries and related products are considered a permitted use in the MX-N2 District. If CAPI intends to host regular farmer’s markets or other outdoor events, they will likely need to submit an application to the City of Brooklyn Center for a special event permit. The City has approved regularly occurring events such as farmers’ markets at other locations in the City on a recurring basis, which helps streamline the approval process. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Image 12. Proposed Addition with Identified Utility Easement (in red) and Sidewalk Constraints (in grey). Page 84 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 23 Applicant Response: a. Existing circumstances previously unknown to the property owner has made it difficult to comply with the setback requirements of the UDO. A utility line and easement runs on the west side of the property along Brooklyn Boulevard – this makes it difficult to have a building at a 10 ft set back from the Brooklyn Boulevard property line. b. The building proposal is an addition to an existing building set far inward from the north property line along 60th. An addition to the existing building that extends to the 10 ft setback along 60th Street is not feasible. City Staff Response (Finding): The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The Subject Property is unique in the fact that it is technically a triple frontage parcel, and with access off Brooklyn Boulevard (west), 60th Avenue North (north), and Beard Avenue North (east). Given there is an existing office building centrally located on the lot, and on the south end of the Subject Property, this makes it extremely difficult to comply with the City’s new Unified Development Ordinance standards for front build-to and secondary setbacks in the MX-N2 District unless an exceptionally large building is constructed. Even if this were achieved, the Applicant would still require a variance due to certain utility and public way constraints along Brooklyn Boulevard. The variance request is only being made after the Applicant had already undertaken separate measures to try and conform with the City’s new Unified Development Ordinance, which was adopted in January 2023. These include the preparation of a preliminary and final plat to consolidate the Applicant’s three lots down to one parcel, and the dedication of certain right-of- way as a means to meet the minimum front build-to setback requirement of between 5 and 20 feet. Although the Applicant is able to achieve an approximately 16.25-foot setback assuming a new westerly property line along Brooklyn Boulevard, the Applicant is unable to meet a requirement specific to Neighborhood Mixed-Use District properties where “at least 50 percent of the first floor of the front façade of each primary building shall be located not more than ten feet from the front lot line.” As proposed, the building would be approximately 6 feet deficient in meeting the minimum 10-foot setback for 50 percent of the front building façade. As noted by the Applicant, there is an existing utility line and easement running north-south along Brooklyn Boulevard that makes it impossible for the Applicant to meet the aforementioned requirement unless the utility line and easement were relocated. There is also a section of concrete sidewalk that was installed as part of the Phase II Brooklyn Boulevard project. City staff has been clear that, where possible, they want minimal to no disruption to these newly installed improvements. The other variance request, as indicated above, is with respect to the maximum build-to line on a secondary frontage—in this case, 60th Avenue North. With the consolidation of the two lots to allow for the building’s expansion and comply with a City Code requirement requiring consolidation for parcels under common ownership (Section 35-8105), the resulting parcel is approximately 1.62 acres in size. Despite an approximately 9,000-square foot expansion, the northern extent of the new building addition will be located approximately 120 feet from the secondary property line along 60th Avenue North. This leaves the new building addition Page 85 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 24 approximately 100 feet deficient in its maximum allowable setback off 60th Avenue North. 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Applicant Response: The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It will be in line with the UDO and enhance the public realm. City Staff Response (Finding): Preparation on the proposed building expansion began in advance of the City’s adoption of the new Unified Development Ordinance. The existing office building, which would remain, has sat at 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard since 1970, with the parcel to the north remaining vacant since the 1970s. Prior to this, there appears to have been housing located on the two lots comprising 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard. Although the building expansion would extend towards the north lot, the essential character of the property and surrounding locality would remain relatively the same with the exception of an expanded parking lot, community garden plots, and a future greenhouse. The variance request to not provide for at least 50 percent of the first floor of the front façade of each primary building within 10 feet of the front lot line should not negatively impact the essential character of the locality as other nearby redevelopments, such as Wangstad Commons, have recently come in under the City’s new regulations. It should be further noted that economic considerations alone shall not constitute a “practical difficulty.” In considering a variance application, “quasi-judicial” authority is exercised in that the City evaluates the facts presented against a legal standard. Prior to requesting consideration of a variance, an Applicant should always review all possible alternatives that would meet code requirements before applying for a variance. Anticipated Permitting and Conditions Following a review of the submittal materials and requests, approval of all application requests (i.e. text amendment, preliminary and final plat, major site and building plan amendment, and variances) are required in order to forward the application request. It should be reiterated that in order to approve the variance requests, satisfaction of all criteria is required. City staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001 for the Subject Property located at 5930 and 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, which contemplates the approval of an approximately 8,910-square foot, two-story expansion and certain site improvements for CAPI USA: 1. Any major changes or modifications to this site and building plan, and as outlined within the City Code, can only be made by an amendment to the approved site and building plan and approval by City Council. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any site and building plan approval and any proposed modifications. a. A fire sprinkler and monitoring system is required to be installed and shall be maintained on a consistent basis per City Code requirements. 4. A SAC determination shall be submitted by the Applicant to the Metropolitan Council and any Page 86 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 25 associated fees paid at time of any building permit issuance. 5. An application to and approval from the Hennepin County Health Department for the expanded food shelf and kitchen area. 6. Applicant shall revise the submitted photometric plan to provide a sitewide lighting plan for the existing and proposed building, parking lot, and landscaped areas, and with lighting in compliance with Section 35-5400 (Exterior Lighting). 7. Applicant shall comply with Section 35-5600 (Landscaping, Screening, and Fences) and revise provided landscape plan as necessary to identify any preserved plantings, and ensure planting locations are not within identified utility easements or over utility lines. a. Applicant shall ensure an irrigation system is in place or install a new system where necessary to facilitate maintenance of site lighting and green areas, and irrigation shop drawing shall be provided for review and approval prior to installation. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view per City Code requirements and a detail sheet provided. 9. Applicant shall comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Principal Engineer’s review memorandum, dated February 7, 2025. 10. Applicant shall submit a sign permit application for any proposed signage (e.g. wall, freestanding) and receive issuance of a permit prior to any installation. All signage shall conform to Section 35- 6000 (Signs) of the City Code. 11. Platting: a. Approval of the preliminary and final plat for CAPI USA ADDITION are contingent upon the addressing of comments by Principal Engineer Touyia Lee in a memorandum dated February 7, 2025, and the following additional revisions: i. Clearly denote area intended for right-of-way dedication and new property lines; ii. Any new or existing utility lines to be noted on preliminary plat per Section 35- 8106.b.2; and iii. Updating of zoning information on preliminary plat to reflect MX-N2 District. b. Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances. c. Addressing of final plat comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County. d. Addressing of final plat comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically regarding an updated certified abstract of title. e. Vacation of existing drainage and utility easement. f. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County in advance of building permit issuance. Recommendation Based on the above-noted findings, City staff recommend the Planning Commission recommend City Council: Approval of (1) an ordinance amending Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the maximum allowable size of a retail use in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use zoning districts, (2) preliminary and final plat for CAPI USA ADDITION, (3) a major amendment to the site and building plan for the Subject Property located at 5930 and 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard that would construct an approximately 8,910-square foot, two-story addition and related site improvements, and (4) variances to Sections 35-2302 and 35-5100 regarding the maximum allowable build-to setback for a secondary frontage to allow for an approximately 120 foot setback along 60th Avenue North, and a deviation from a requirement Page 87 of 367 App. No. 2025-001 PC 02/13/2025 Page 26 that at least 50% of the first floor of the front façade of the primary building be located not more than 10 feet from the front lot line, based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, as amended by the Conditions of Approval in the February 13, 2025 Planning Commission Report. Attachments Exhibit A – Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, submitted January 14, 2025. Exhibit B – Public Hearing Notice, submitted for publication in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and dated January 30, 2025. Exhibit C – Review memorandum, prepared by Principal Engineer Touyia Lee, and last revised February 7, 2025. Page 88 of 367 Project Narrative CAPI USA operates as a multi-service nonprofit organization focused on supporting immigrants, refugees, and underserved communities in the Twin Cities. Through workforce development, food access, health and wellness programs, and economic empowerment services, we help individuals and families achieve long-term stability. CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center – Addition and Renovation This application includes a request to combine 3 parcels owned by CAPI USA into a single lot for an addition to the existing building. CAPI is expanding their services at their current Brooklyn Center location to create a new Immigrant Opportunity Center. An 8,910 SF, 2-story addition will provide additional space for offices, training rooms, tenant spaces, and expansion of the food shelf. The addition will be located at the west side of the existing building along Brooklyn Boulevard with the main entry at the south facade of the addition. The interior of the existing building (10,688 SF) will be renovated. Exterior changes to the existing building are limited to painting the exterior brick and replacing the roofing and roof coping. The existing parking lot will be expanded to the north with an additional entry to 60th Avenue North. The expanded parking lot will provide parking for clients and guests as well as providing space for CAPI’s farmer’s market and other outdoor events. Site work will also include a landscaped courtyard area and provide utilities for a future greenhouse. Operations & Staffing •The new Immigrant Opportunity Center (IOC) will serve as a hub for our expanding programs. •Hours of operation will align with our core services, typically Monday–Friday, 8:30 AM–4:30 PM, with some evening and weekend availability for special programs and events. •We anticipate housing approximately 46 full-time staff within the new facility, including workforce development specialists, case managers, and food shelf staff. Community Impact •The expansion will allow us to increase capacity to serve more individuals and families, providing vital services in employment training, small business support, and social services. •The IOC will create a welcoming space where immigrants and refugees can access culturally specific resources, direct assistance, and financial education. •This project will have a direct positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, bringing essential services closer to those in need and supporting local businesses through entrepreneurship programs and economic development initiatives. Number of People Served Exhibit A Page 89 of 367 • Currently, CAPI serves over 10,000 individuals annually across various programs, including workforce training, assistance, health access, and small business support. • Our small business assistance program will support 12 businesses with technical assistance, financing guidance, and compliance support. • With the new center, we anticipate a 30% increase in service capacity. Food Shelf Operations • CAPI’s Food Shelf Program is a critical component of our Basic Needs services, ensuring food security for individuals and families facing economic hardship. • The food shelf operates 3 days a week 10am to 4pm, serving an average of 450 households per month and distributing 320,000 pounds of food annually. • With the expansion, we will have increased storage and distribution capacity, allowing us to serve more families and enhance access to culturally relevant food items. Page 90 of 367 4453 Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis MN 55419 | www.locusarchitecture.com CAPI VARIANCE REQUEST 1)The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this UDO; a.The variance is in harmony and meets the intent and purpose of the MX-N2 district. The proposed building has mixed of offices, grocery store (food shelf), and meeting rooms permitted in the district. The proposal is NOT a strip development or destination retail. 2)The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; a.The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will fall in the future land use category of N-MU which guides land surrounding key neighborhood intersections for a mix of residential, retail and commercial/office uses. The proposal has a neighborhood scale building and plans for plaza and community garden that will integrate well into the residential neighborhood bounding it and enhance the natural environment. 3)3) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this UDO; a.The proposal would be used in a reasonable manner – an addition to CAPI’s existing office building that will include additional office space, meeting rooms, and expansion of the grocery store (culturally appropriate food shelf). The project is unable to comply with the setback requirements in the UDO. 4)4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. a.Existing circumstances previously unknown to the property owner has made it difficult to comply with the setback requirements of the UDO. A utility line and easement run on the west side of the property along Brooklyn Boulevard – this makes it difficult to have a building at 10ft set back from the Brooklyn Boulevard property line. b.The building proposal is an addition to an existing building set far inward from the north property line along 60th. An addition to the existing building that extends to the 10ft setback along 60th Street is not feasible. 5)The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. a.The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It will be in line with the UDO and enhance the public realm. Page 91 of 367 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 60TH AVE N BE A R D A V E N PROJECT LOCATION B R O O K L Y N B L V D . ( E ) S I D E W A L K EXISTING BUILDING PARKING 60TH AVE N BE A R D A V E N PROPERTY LINES, TYP 82' - 0" 86 ' - 3 " 1 6 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 0 " M I N PROPERTY LINE, TYP SETBACK LINE, TYP M I N 5 ' - 0 " 34' - 11" M A X 2 0 ' - 0 " 11 0 ' - 3 " FUTURE GREENHOUSE SHED MIN 10' - 0" MI N 10 ' - 0 " 5930 BROOKLYN BLVD BUILDING ADDITION tcc860.11 tcc860.69 860.96 tcc861.76 LightPole 8 6 2 . 1 Bench Serv 861.0 8 6 2 . 1 tcc861.90 8 6 2 . 2 8 6 2 . 1 tcc861.57Catch Basinrim=860.85 C HV 8 6 1 . 6 8 6 1 . 5 LightPole tcc861.11 tcc860.68 8 6 1 . 0 8 6 1 . 1 8 6 0 . 2 8 6 0 . 2 tcc860.49 tcc859.73 859.20 859.35 tcc859.90Sign 86 0 . 1 86 0 . 3 FFE860.3 859.7 12"860.5 14"860.4 12"861.7 12"862.0 860.6 S Sanitary Manhole t c = 8 6 0 . 2 4 tcc860.18 859.49 8 5 9 . 6 tcc859.45 8 5 9 . 8 859.2 860.1 860.2 859.4 859.7 859.1 Sign 8 5 9 . 9 8 5 9 . 7 Sign LightPole tcc860.30 tcc859.71 18"859.9 18"859.9 tcc859.91 18"860.1 12"859.8 18"860.0 tcc860.00 Catch Basin 859.1 859.7 859.9 860.1 860.1 14"860.0 tcc860.05 20"860.1 12"859.8 14"860.2 tcc860.21 859.1 24"860.3 14"860.4 12"859.9 tcc860.22 Sign Sign tcc860.26 859.5 859.8 tcc860.23 859.8 859.8859.9 tcc860.14 tcc860.14 tcc860.18 859.9 Sign tcc860.18 859.8tcc860.15 859.3 Catch Basin 859.4tcc860.19 tcc860.18 tcc860.04 tcc860.22 859.7 859.1 859.0 Catch Basin E G 858.5 859.6 36"860.4860.6 860.8 861.0 859.8 859.9 860.8 859.6 Sign tcc859.33 tcc858.83 T tped 859.2 858.8 859.1 858.7 Sign tcc858.48 tcc858.36 857.39 Sign 858.5 857.6 tcc857.80tcc857.86 tcc858.00 S Sanitary Manholerim=858.15 tcc858.33 tcc858.92 858.4 857.9 Gate Valve tcc858.76 tcc858.41 Catch Basin 858.13 858.7 859.0 859.3 859.3 859.5 859.3 60th Avenue North (60' Wide Public Right-of-Way) N 89°28'24" E 206.93 80 . 8 80 . 8 10 10 10 10 1 0 10 10 5 5N 89°28'24" E 220.41 S 0 0 ° 5 2 ' 3 4 " W 1 6 1 . 6 0 S 0 0 ° 5 2 ' 3 4 " W 1 6 1 . 6 0 N 0 4 ° 5 8 ' 2 6 " W 1 3 2 . 0 4 80 . 8 80 . 8 B R O O K L Y N B L V D . ( C o u n t y R o a d N o . 1 5 2 ) 81.0 66 . 1 81.0 66 . 1 BE A R D A V E N U E 61.5 WO O D F E N C E ADMIRAL LANE 42.0 EA S T L I N E O F L O T 4 0 , A U D S U B D . N o . 2 1 6 (6 0 ' p u b l i c r i g h t o f w a y ) 30 ' R I G H T O F W A Y P E R A V A I L A B L E M A P S 30 30 11 85 . 2 17 1 . 4 86 0 859 8 6 0 S 89°28'24" W 246.22 W E S T L I N E O F L O T 4 0 , A U D . S U B D . N o . 2 1 6 BE A R D A V E . N . A S D E D I C A T E D I N T H E P L A T O F S T E E N A D D I T I O N 31.0 42.0 42.0 52.0 30 60 60 60 Partially Abandoned N 0 4 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " W 1 6 1 . 9 5 859.3 858.3 859.0858.7 Gate Valve 858.7 H Handhole Riser 861.1 859.7 859.2 859.3 859.7860.4 860.4 859.4 859.3 860.1860.2 859.8 860.4860.6 859.7 860.5 860.0 859.4 860.2 860.3 859.7 859.0 858.9 859.0 858.8 858.2 858.2 857.9 858.6 859.0 859.2 859.2 859.2 859.0 858.8 858.6 857.7 857.8 858.6 858.9 859.0 859.3 FFE860.3 magnail magnail magnail 860.0 FFE860.3 Catch Basinrim=857.1515" inv=853.42 857.82Tccb Catch Basinrim=857.2015" inv=852.66 tnh861.53 magnail magnail 12" HDPE 12 " H D P E 12" R C P 6" C I P W a t e r m a n i 8" V C P S a n i t a r y S e w e r 10 10 11 14 Drainage & Utility Easement per the plat of STEEN ADDITION NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 323.2 FEET OF LOT 40, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 216 MEASURED ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 40. PARCEL 1 NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 242.4 FEET OF LOT 40, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 216 AS MEASURED ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 40. N 89°28'24" E 11.20 PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 SOUTH LINE OF LOT 40, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 216 12" PVCrim=857.93inv=853.11 inv=850.22 2-S-Brick BuildingNo. 5930 rim=858.48inv=855.33 rim= 858.43N inv=855.01W inv=854.50E inv=855.02 rim=858.48inv=855.44 ConcreteSlab Concrete Post tw862.2bw860.2 tw862.2bw860.3 tw862.2bw860.2 Vault Sign tw860.6bw860.0 inv=848.60 i n v = 8 5 1 . 6 9 inv=851.88 co n c r e t e concrete BITUMINOUSSURFACE c o n c r e t e 14 Parking Stalls 8 Parking Stalls 7 P a r k i n g S t a l l s 12 P a r k i n g S t a l l s N 89°28'24" E 30.01 40.7 5 N 42 ° 1 4 ' 5 9 " E Dr a i n a g e & U t i l i t y E a s e m e n t p e r th e p l a t o f S T E E N A D D I T I O N 1 0 ' S i d e w a l k E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . N o . 1 0 3 2 8 8 0 C a t c h B a s i n JLM not found JLM not found ST R E E T P E R D O C . N o . 3 1 3 4 5 8 4 P E R PL A T O F S T E E N A D D I T I O N Drainage, Utility & Sidewalk Easement per Doc. No. 10911724 & 5791357 Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : HP M i n n e s o t a I L L C Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : Es t e f a n y G a l l a r d o M o l i n a Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : Ch a V a n g Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : Lo w e l l S t u n i c k Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : Ph i l l i p & A l e x u s C h a Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : Ca r o l S j o q u i s t Adjoining Property Owner:Old National Bank Zoned MX-N2 Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : Cr o s s o f G l o r y L u t h e r a n C h u r c h Ad j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y O w n e r : Ci t y o f B r o o k y n C e n t e r Adjoining Property Owner:Team Schutz, LLC overha n g 67 ° 3 8 ' 0 5 " NORTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 3 N 89°57'06" W 1734.87 N 89°57'06" W 1741.08 NE CORNER OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 3, TWP. 118, R.21 W REVISION SUMMARY SURVEY FOR:DEVELOPMENT OF:TYPE OF SURVEY: CAPI USA ADDITION F:\survey\auditors subdivision - hennepin\216-40 - hennepin\40-216\01 Surveying - 90722\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg 1 OF 1 SHEET NO. PROJECT: 90722A DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PRELIMINARY PLATCAPI USA FIELD BY: FB No: 1135-62 7601 73rd Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093 DemarcInc.com tm tm GRP Legal Description Miscellaneous Notes Legal description and easements per title commitment from Commercial Partners Title Commitment No. CP73715, dated May 10, 2024.Note: Property Address: 5930 & 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 PID No.: 03-118-21-12-0006 and 03-118-21-12-0101 Total Area of Parcel = 77,514 sq. ft. Property located in Section 3, Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Bearings are based on North line of STEEN ADDITION. MN 1 MN 2 MN 3 MN 4 MN 5 Parcel 1: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Steen Addition, embraced within the North 80.8 feet of the South 323.2 feet of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision 216, measured on the East line of said lot and with North and South lines parallel to the South line of said lot. Excepting therefrom the East 30 feet conveyed to the Village of Brooklyn Center for use as a public street or road by Deed Document No. 3134584. And Also Excepting therefrom all that part of the subject property: Which lies Southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 42 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the North line of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 21 West, distant 1734.87 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence run Southeasterly at an angle of 67 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds with said North section line for 102.12 feet; thence deflect to the right of an angle of 17 degrees 20 minutes 35.2 seconds for 1000 feet and there terminating; Together with a triangular piece adjoining and Northeasterly of the above described strip and Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly boundary of the above described strip, distant 30 feet Southeasterly of its intersection with the South line of 60th Avenue North; thence run Northeasterly to a point of said South line, distant 30 feet Easterly of said intersection; by amended Final Certificate filed as Document No. 4730734, according to the recorded plat thereof, and the situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Steen Addition, embraced within that part of the North 80.8 feet of the South 242.4 feet of Lot 40, as measured along the East line of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 216, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of a line drawn parallel to and 42 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 3, Township 118, Range 21; thence West along the North line of said Section 3, a distance of 1741.08 feet; thence Southeasterly, deflecting to the left 111 degrees, 58 minutes, 07.7 seconds, a distance of 104.54 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Southeasterly, deflecting to the right 17 degrees, 20 minutes, 35.2 seconds, a distance of 1000 feet and there terminating. The South line and part of the East line of said Lot 40 are marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 10896. Parcel 3: That part of the South 161.6 feet of Lot 40 measured along the East line of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 216, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Easterly of a line drawn parallel to and 42 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 3, Township 118, Range 21; thence West along the North line of said Section 3, a distance of 1741.08 feet; thence Southeasterly deflecting to the left 111 degrees 58 minutes 07.7 seconds, a distance of 104.54 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Southeasterly deflecting to the right 17 degrees 20 minutes 35.2 seconds a distance of 1000 feet and there terminating. Source of Information: City Address: City Phone: City of Brooklyn Center Zoning web site 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 763-569-3300 Zoning Classification:MX-N2 Neighborhood Mixed Use NOTE: Zoning district listed is the new zoning District, current zoning is C-1 Building Setback Requirements for principal structures Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Observed Required Notes Parking Tabulation Observed Required Notes Regular Spaces Handicapped Spaces Total Parking Spaces Maximum Height Bulk Restrictions Lot Area Other: Observed Required Notes Height Restrictions Observed Max. Allowed Notes 61.5 feet see note 2 stalls see note not measured 77,469 Sq. Ft. N/A see note 85.2 feet 10 feet N/A 41 stalls see note 43 stalls 48 feet N/A N/A NOTE: Because there may be a need for further interpretation of the applicable zoning codes, we refer you to the above referenced municipality and the applicable zoning codes. 10 feet Parking requirements dependent on use of property. Corner Yard Setback 171.4 feet see note Current Zoning Information Subject Property Address: 5930 & 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 5' Min. - 20' Max on primary & secondary street frontage SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 90 Benchmark Signed: ____________________________________________ Gregory R. Prasch Registration No. 24992 Prepared this 24th day of September 2024. I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Zoning & Development Information Property Currently Zoned: MX-N2 Neighborhood Mixed Use Proposed Zoning: MX-N2 Neighborhood Mixed Use Zoning Ordinance Requirements: Building Setbacks (for main structure) Front - 5' Min. - 20' Max on primary & secondary street frontage Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Minimum Lot Size - N/A Minimum Lot Size - 10,000 sq.ft (non-residential use) Refer to City code for additional requirements Proposed Number of Lots = 1 Area of proposed: Lot 1, Block 1 = 70,766 sq.ft Right-of-Way dedication - Brooklyn Blvd = 1,900 sq.ft Right-of-Way dedication - Beard Ave = 4,848 sq.ft DEVELOPER: CAPI USA 5930 Brooklyn Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 PROPERTY OWNER: CAPI USA 5930 Brooklyn Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 SURVEYOR DemarcSurveying and Engineering 7601 73rd Avenue N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Attn: Greg Prasch phone: 763-560-3093 e-mail: gregprasch@demarcinc.com Development Personnel Denotes Found Iron Monument Denotes Iron Monument Set Bollard Light Power Pole Sanitary Manhole Storm Manhole Manhole (use not determined) Catch Basin Communication Pedestal Riser Sign Telephone Pedestal Risertped cped Legend Gas Main Underground Communications Underground Electric Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Watermain Overhead Wires 12-20-24 additional field info Page 93 of 367 EA S T L I N E O F L O T 4 0 , A U D S U B D . N o . 2 1 6 SOUTH LINE OF LOT 40, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 216 NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 323.2 FEET OF LOT 40, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 216 MEASURED ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 40. ALSO THE SOUTH LINE OF 60TH AVENUE NORTH NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 242.4 FEET OF LOT 40, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 216 AS MEASURED ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 40. W E S T L I N E O F L O T 4 0 , A U D . S U B D . N o . 2 1 6 B o u n d a r y N 89°28'24" E 206.93 S 0 0 ° 5 2 ' 3 4 " W 1 6 1 . 6 0 30.01 S 0 0 ° 5 2 ' 3 4 " W 1 6 1 . 6 0 S 89°28'24" W 246.25 N 0 4 ° 5 8 ' 2 6 " W 1 3 2 . 0 4 N 89°28'24" E S 0 4 ° 5 8 ' 2 6 " E 2 9 4 . 0 8 S 0 0 ° 5 2 ' 3 4 " W 3 2 3 . 2 0 203.89 30.01 JLM not found Capped No. 8039 Drainage, Utility & Sidewalk Easement per Doc. No. 10911724 & 5791357 60 30 60 84 11.60 15.3 2 PK Nail Set PK Nail Set PK Nail Set L O T 1 B L O C K 1 BE A R D A V E N U E B R O O K L Y N B L V D E X C E P T I O N 42.0 80 . 8 N 0 4 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " W 1 6 1 . 9 5 42.0 12.33 N 89°28'24" E 11.20 JLM not found PK Nail Set N 42 ° 1 4 ' 5 9 " E 40.7 5 St r e e t D e e d e d t o C i t y p e r D o c . N o . 3 1 3 4 5 8 4 30 30 3 0 PK Nail Set 30 67 ° 3 8 ' 0 5 " NORTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 3, TWP. 118, R. 21 N 89°57'06" W 1734.87N 89°57'06" W 1741.08 1 0 2 . 1 2 17°20'3 5 . 2 " 111° 5 8 ' 0 7 . 7 " 1 0 4 . 5 4 17°20'3 5 . 2 " 830.72 N 89°57'06" W NE CORNER OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 3, TWP. 118, R.21 W HENNEPIN COUNTY CASTIRON MONUMENT FOUND 10 10 55 HENNEPIN COUNTY CASTIRON MONUMENT FOUND REFERENCEMONUMENT F:\survey\auditors subdivision - hennepin\216-40 - hennepin\40-216\01 Surveying - 90722\01 CAD\01 Source\02 Final Plat.dwg CAPI USA ADDITION 7601 73rd Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093 DemarcInc.com SCALE IN FEET 0 8040 120 BEARING REFERENCE: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT THE SOUTH LINE OF 60TH AVENUE NORTH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR NORTH 89°28'24" EAST. DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NUMBER 24992, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DENOTES FOUND OPEN END 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA This plat of CAPI USA ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this______ day of _________________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. City Council, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota By _____________________________________________, Mayor By _____________________________________________, Clerk COUNTY AUDITOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in _________ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of ______________________, 20______. Daniel Rogan, Hennepin County Auditor By _________________________________________ Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 383B.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this ______ day of _______________________, 20______. Chris F. Mavis, Hennepin County Surveyor By __________________________________________ REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of CAPI USA ADDITION was filed in this office this _________ day of_______________________, 20______, at_______o'clock_____M. Amber Bougie, Registrar of Titles By__________________________________________Deputy COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of CAPI USA ADDITION was recorded in this office this _________ day of_______________________, 20______, at_______o'clock_____M. Amber Bougie, Hennepin County Recorder By__________________________________________Deputy I Gregory R. Prasch do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this ____________day of ____________________, 20 ______. ___________________________________________ Gregory R. Prasch, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 24992 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______ day of _______________________, 20_______ by Gregory R. Prasch. . Signature of Notary __________________________________ (Notary's Printed Name)_______________________________ Notary Public, ________________________ County, Minnesota My commission expires _______________________________ KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That CAPI USA, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, owner of the following described property: Parcel 1: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Steen Addition, embraced within the North 80.8 feet of the South 323.2 feet of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision 216, measured on the East line of said lot and with North and South lines parallel to the South line of said lot. Excepting therefrom the East 30 feet conveyed to the Village of Brooklyn Center for use as a public street or road by Deed Document No. 3134584. And Also Excepting therefrom all that part of the subject property: Which lies Southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 42 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the North line of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 21 West, distant 1734.87 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence run Southeasterly at an angle of 67 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds with said North section line for 102.12 feet; thence deflect to the right of an angle of 17 degrees 20 minutes 35.2 seconds for 1000 feet and there terminating; Together with a triangular piece adjoining and Northeasterly of the above described strip and Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly boundary of the above described strip, distant 30 feet Southeasterly of its intersection with the South line of 60th Avenue North; thence run Northeasterly to a point of said South line, distant 30 feet Easterly of said intersection; by amended Final Certificate filed as Document No. 4730734, according to the recorded plat thereof, and the situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Steen Addition, embraced within that part of the North 80.8 feet of the South 242.4 feet of Lot 40, as measured along the East line of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 216, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of a line drawn parallel to and 42 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 3, Township 118, Range 21; thence West along the North line of said Section 3, a distance of 1741.08 feet; thence Southeasterly, deflecting to the left 111 degrees, 58 minutes, 07.7 seconds, a distance of 104.54 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Southeasterly, deflecting to the right 17 degrees, 20 minutes, 35.2 seconds, a distance of 1000 feet and there terminating. The South line and part of the East line of said Lot 40 are marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 10896. Parcel 3: That part of the South 161.6 feet of Lot 40 measured along the East line of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 216, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Easterly of a line drawn parallel to and 42 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 3, Township 118, Range 21; thence West along the North line of said Section 3, a distance of 1741.08 feet; thence Southeasterly deflecting to the left 111 degrees 58 minutes 07.7 seconds, a distance of 104.54 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Southeasterly deflecting to the right 17 degrees 20 minutes 35.2 seconds a distance of 1000 feet and there terminating. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as CAPI USA ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public way and drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. In witness whereof said CAPI USA, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ____________________, 20____. Signed: CAPI USA By _____________________________________________ its _____________________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ________________ This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of __________________, 20____, by _________________________________, ______________________________ of CAPI USA, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Signature of Notary __________________________________ (Notary's Printed Name)_______________________________ Notary Public, ________________________ County, Minnesota My commission expires _______________________________ R. T. DOC. NO.___________________________ C. R. DOC. NO.___________________________ DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT LINES. CITY REVIEW Page 94 of 367 Page 95 of 367 Page 96 of 367 Page 97 of 367 Page 98 of 367 Page 99 of 367 Page 100 of 367 Page 101 of 367 Page 102 of 367 Page 103 of 367 Page 104 of 367 Page 105 of 367 Page 106 of 367 Page 107 of 367 Page 108 of 367 G S S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND/OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. CONTRACTOR MUST COORDINATE ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION WORK INCLUDING ITEMS DONE BY OTHERS THAT MAY IMPACT CONSTRUCTION INCLUDED IN CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. TLAL-LI COLLABORATIVE OFFERS NO GUARANTEE, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, FOR THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF THE INDICATED EXISTING CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL CRITICAL EXISTING CONDITIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXISTING BUILDING LOCATIONS, UTILITY LOCATIONS AND INVERT ELEVATIONS, AND EXISTING SITE GRADES PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL INSTALLATION BEGINS CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN AND/OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S LAYOUT. ANY OBSERVED DEVIATIONS FROM CONDITIONS INDICATED IN THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ARCHITECT OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY. NO WORK SHALL PROCEED IN THE AREAS OF ANY DISCOVERED DEVIATIONS UNTIL THE DIFFERENCES ARE RESOLVED. CONTRACTOR TO CONTAIN OPERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS OF WORK AT ALL TIMES. WORK OUTSIDE OF THESE LIMITS WILL BE DONE AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE PROJECT MANAGER OR OWNER IN WRITING. LIMITS OF WORK SHOWN ON PLAN(S) MAY BE ADJUSTED IN FIELD BY THE PROJECT MANAGER IF DEEMED NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR MUST DAILY MONITOR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND STAY WITHIN LIMITS OF WORK, KEEP AREA CLEAN OF DEBRIS AND ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS DIRECTED BY THE PROJECT MANAGER. ANY DISTURBANCE CREATED BY CONSTRUCTION STAGING MUST BE REMOVED AND RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS. REFER TO CIVIL FOR DRAINAGE, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AND REQUIREMENTS. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR SPOT ELEVATIONS AND SLOPES INDICATING FINISH GRADES, UNLESS NOTED ON LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. ELEVATIONS TO BE FIELD-VERIFIED. ADJUST AS NEEDED TO MATCH FINISH GRADES AND DRAINAGE SLOPES. ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND/OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. CHANGES IN THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL DRAINAGE, SLEEVING AND CONDUIT PLACEMENT OF ALL TRADES ON PROJECT. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. SEE LIGHTING PLANS FOR SPECIFIC LIGHTING LAYOUT AND OTHER ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS AS STATED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL ELEMENTS AS SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS AND GET APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONDUCTING ANY WORK. SIDEWALK TO BE STAKED BY CONTRACTOR FOR REVIEW BY PROJECT MANAGER AND/OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR TO SCORE CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PAVING AS SHOWN IN PLANS. ANY CHANGES TO THE SCORING LAYOUT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND/OR PROJECT MANAGER. CONCRETE TYPE 1 CONCRETE TYPE 2 DECOMPOSED STONE AGGREGATE HARDWOOD MULCH BEE LAWN MIX W/ OVERHEAD SPRAY IRRIGATION NATIVE TURF SEED - NOT IRRIGATED DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH AREAS WITH DRIP IRRIGATION STEEL EDGING BOULDERS STEPPING STONE PATH EXISTING TREE, TYP. B r o o k l y n B l v d 60th Ave N Be a r d A v e N PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E EA S E M E N T PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION EXISTING BUS STOP AND SEATING AREA EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING TURF TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED E A S E M E N T EXISTING TURF NOT IRRIGATED EXISTING CAPI IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER FUTURE COMMUNITY GARDEN N.I.C. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION FUTURE SHED N.I.C. FUTURE GREENHOUSE N.I.C. COMMUNITY GARDEN FENCE EXISTING ELECTRICAL BOX WATER CONNECTION - SEE CIVIL PARKING SIGNAGE - SEE CIVIL18" MAINTENANCE STRIP BIKE RACKS 8' HT. METAL PANEL TRASH ENCLOSURE - W/ DOUBLE SWING GATE C C EB D EXISTING NATURAL GAS METER PAVERS A A A A C CISTERN AND SLAB EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN C C A B C D CUSTOM RAISED PLANTER W/ BENCH CUSTOM WATER FEATURE 04 ALT 05 ALT 06 ALT WASTE RECEPTACLE CUSTOM TERRACED BENCH SYSTEM E BENCHES, CHAIRS, AND TABLES GENERAL NOTES LEGEND - MATERIAL I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. SIGNED DATE LICENSE # copyright © 2023, Locus Architecture # Date Description DOCUMENT ISSUANCE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 4453 Nicollet Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55419 612.706.5600 www.locusarchitecture.com 46692 Ana Nelson 202103-00 AHS AN SITE FURNISHINGS PLAN L1.0 5930 & 5950 BROOKLYN BLVD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 CAPI IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER PROJECT TEAM STRUCTURAL MBJ 510 MARQUETTE AVE. S. STE 900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 612-338-0713 MARSHA@MBJENG.COM CIVIL ENGINEERING PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES INC. 9298 CENTRAL AVE NE, SUITE 312 BLANE, MN 763-537-1311 PPA@PIERCEPINI.COM MEP VICTUS ENGINEERING 2327 WYCLIFF STREET, SUITE 230 SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 612-859-8299 WILLOW@VICTUSENGINEERING.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE TLALLI COLLABORATIVE, LLC 323 WASHINGTON AVE #200 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-430-6655 ANELSON@TLALLICOLLABORATIVE.COM INTERIOR FMYH STUDIO 612-389-8691 ASHLEY@FMYH.CO DD 01.14.25 LAND USE SUBMITTAL 0'10' 20'40'60' SCALE = 1"=20' N 1" = 20'-0"1 OVERALL SITE FURNISHING PLAN LEGEND - KEYNOTES W/ ALTERNATES 01.14.25 Page 111 of 367 G S S EXISTING TREE, TYP. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PLANT SCHEDULE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLAN IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT MATERIAL SELECTIONS AND OTHER SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE PLANT MATERIAL SELECTIONS OR SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF BID AND/OR QUOTATION. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR LAYOUT AND STAKING OF PLANT MATERIAL. MATERIAL SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN(S). ALL STAKING AND BASE GRADING TO BE VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN FIELD PRIOR TO ANY FINAL SURFACE MATERIAL INSTALLATIONS. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF PLANT LOCATIONS. NO PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. KEEP FINAL ELEVATIONS OF SOIL AND MULCH FROM BLOCKING INTENDED STORM WATER FLOW. SEE CIVIL AND/OR LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR GRADING PLAN. SALVAGE TOPSOIL FOR REUSE FROM THE EARTHWORK AREAS AS APPROPRIATE AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND STOCKPILE IN LOCATION APPROVED BY OWNER. PROJECT MANAGER TO REVIEW, DIRECT AND APPROVE ALL REQUIRED SOIL CORRECTIONS PRIOR TO BASE MATERIAL PLACEMENT. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN ALL AREAS. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. EDGE AREAS WHERE TURF/SOD MEET PLANTING BEDS AS SHOWN IN PLANS AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. TURF AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING AND/OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION INCIDENTALS SHALL BE REPLACED, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE SUCH AS WATERING AND WEEDING OF NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS, AND REPLACEMENTS, FOR ENTIRE WARRANTY PERIOD. SEE SPECIFICATIONS. ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. PROPERTY LINE EA S E M E N T B r o o k l y n B l v d 60th Ave N Be a r d A v e N EXISTING CAPI IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION P R O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION SH 23 BG 30 CA 14 AS 17SH 26 RAISED PLANTERS TO BE PLANTED BY CLIENT / COMMUNITY, TYP. BG 34 SH 25 CA 17 CA 4 EH 8 CA 3 EH 8 CA 5 EH 8 CA 5 CL 30 BG 28 CL 22 BG 4 AS 7 CA 3 SH 12 AT 10 MP 2 BG 33 AS 12 CL 6 RH 16 AS 16 CL 6 CL 6 RH 16 CL 6 AS 16 CL 6 RH 12 AS 22 EH 20 AS 16 BG 17 EH 12 CA 8 RH 8 AS 8 RH 9 AS 8 SH 4 AS 5 RH 8 AS 10 RH 8 AS 8CL 11 CA 8 CA 6 CA 3 CA 3 CA 3 CA 3 RH 24 BG 7 BG 9 RH 20 BG 8 MP 2 BG 22 EH 16 CA 10 JC 55 AC 2 TA 1 TA 1 TA 1 OV 1 OV 1 TA 1 TA 1 TA 1 TA 1 TA 1 TA 1 OV 1 OV 1 OV 1 OV 1 AC 1 AC 1 TA 1 TA 1 TA 1 AC 1 FUTURE COMMUNITY GARDEN N.I.C. FUTURE SHED N.I.C. FUTURE GREENHOUSE N.I.C. COMMUNITY GARDEN FENCE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUS STOP AND SEATING AREA EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING TURF TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED E A S E M E N T EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN PLANTING SCHEDULE Key Qty Common Name Botanical Name Size Description TREE ORNAMENTAL MP 4 PRAIRIEFIRE FLOWERING CRABAPPLE MALUS ‘PRAIRIEFIRE’1.5" CAL. B&B TREE DECIDUOUS TA 12 BOULEVARD LINDEN TILIA AMERICANA 'BOULEVARD' 2" CAL. B&B OV 6 IRONWOOD OSTRYA VIRGINIANA 2" CAL. B&B AC 5 FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE ACER SACCHARUM 'BAILSTA'2" CAL. B&B SHRUBS DECIDUOUS CA 92 NEON BURST DOGWOOD CORNUS ALBA 'BYBOUGHEN'#2 CONT. SHRUBS CONIFEROUS JC 55 SEA GREEN JUNIPER JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS 'SEA GREEN' #2 CONT. PERENNIALS RH 121 BLACK-EYED SUSAN RUDBECKIA HIRTA #1 CONT. OC 31 INTERRUPTED FERN OSMUNDA CLAYTONIANA #1 CONT. HB 26 BLUE MOUSE EARS MINIATURE HOSTA HOSTA 'BLUE MOUSE EARS'#1 CONT. AT 10 BUTTERFLY WEED ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA #1 CONT. AS 150 PRAIRIE ONION ALLIUM STELLATUM #1 CONT. AP 19 MAIDENHAIR FERN ADIANTUM PEDATUM #1 CONT. GRASSES SH 90 PRAIRIE DROPSEED SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS #1 CONT. EH 72 BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS ELYMUS HYSTRIX #1 CONT. CR 21 ROSY SEDGE CAREX ROSEA #1 CONT. CL 93 BLUE-JOINT GRASS CALAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS #1 CONT. BG 192 BLUE GRAMA BOUTELOUA GRACILIS #1 CONT. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. SIGNED DATE LICENSE # copyright © 2023, Locus Architecture # Date Description DOCUMENT ISSUANCE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PROJECT TEAM SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 4453 Nicollet Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55419 612.706.5600 www.locusarchitecture.com 46692 Ana Nelson 202103-00 Author Checker PLANTING PLAN L5.0 5930 & 5950 BROOKLYN BLVD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 CAPI IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER MBJ 510 MARQUETTE AVE. S. STE 900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 612-338-0713 MARSHA@MBJENG.COM PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES INC. 9298 CENTRAL AVE NE, SUITE 312 BLANE, MN 763-537-1311 PPA@PIERCEPINI.COM STRUCTURAL CIVIL ENGINEER VICTUS ENGINEERING 2327 WAYCLIFF STREET, SUITE 230 SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 612-859-8299 WILLOW@VICTUSENGINEERING.COM MEP FMYH STUDIO 612-389-8691 ASHLEY@FMYH.CO INTERIOR TLALLI COLLABORATIVE, LLC 323 WASHINGTON AVE #200 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-430-6655 ANELSON@TLALLICOLLABORATIVE.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 01.14.25 LAND USE SUBMITTAL LEGEND - PLANTING PLANTING NOTES 0'10' 20'40'60' SCALE = 1"=20' N 1" = 20'-0"1 OVERALL PLANTING PLAN 01.14.25 Page 112 of 367 3 A2.1 2 A2.1 1 A2.1 4 A2.1 TENANT SPACE 900 SF TRAINING/MEETING 1290 SF TRAINING/MEETING 570 SF TRAINING/ MEETING 396 SF FOOD SHELF 1720 SF ELEVATOR PIT ELEVATION: +/-855.3 3 A2.1 2 A2.1 1 A2.1 4 A2.1 CAPI OFFICE 5958 SF TENANT SPACE 1207 SF SECOND LEVEL (E)110' - 9" FIRST LEVEL (E) 100' - 0" BO ROOF DECK - NEW124' - 3" SECOND LEVEL - NEW111' - 9" FIRST LEVEL - NEW 100' - 0" TO PARAPET - NEW127' - 5" PREFINISHED METAL CAP, TYP STAINED, ACETYLATED WOOD, TYP GLAZING, TYP EXISTING BRICK TO BE PAINTED, TYP. COLOR TBD STUCCO, TYP ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST, TYP NEW ADDITIONEXISTING BUILDING RTU WITH SCREENING EXISTING RTU WITHOUT SCREENING SECOND LEVEL (E) 110' - 9" BO ROOF DECK - NEW124' - 3" SECOND LEVEL - NEW 111' - 9" FIRST LEVEL - NEW 100' - 0" TO PARAPET - NEW 127' - 5" 3' - 0 " 8' - 0 " RTU WITH SCREENING 5' - 1 0 " SIGNAGE AREA, 55 SF PREFINISHED COLORED METAL TRIM PREFINISHED METAL FASCIA 3' - 6"2' - 3"3' - 6"5' - 2"4' - 11"7' - 2"3' - 8"8' - 2"3' - 8" PREFINISHED METAL CAP, TYP STAINED, ACETYLATED WOOD, TYPGLAZING, TYP STUCCO, TYP ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST, TYP 55 SF EXISTING BUILDING BEYOND BO ROOF DECK - NEW 124' - 3" SECOND LEVEL - NEW111' - 9" FIRST LEVEL - NEW100' - 0" TO PARAPET - NEW127' - 5" PREFINISHED METAL CAP, TYP STAINED, ACETYLATED WOOD, TYP GLAZING, TYP BRONZE ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES, TYP STUCCO, TYP ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST, TYP FIBER CEMENT SIDING, TYP, COLOR TO MATCH WINDOW FRAMES EXISTING BRICK TO BE PAINTED, TYP. COLOR TBD NEW ADDITIONEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGNEW ADDITION EXISTING RTU WITHOUT SCREENING EXISTING RTU WITHOUT SCREENING RTU WITH SCREENING SECOND LEVEL (E) 110' - 9" BO ROOF DECK - (E) 122' - 1" FIRST LEVEL (E)100' - 0" BO ROOF DECK - NEW124' - 3" SECOND LEVEL - NEW111' - 9" FIRST LEVEL - NEW100' - 0" TO PARAPET - NEW127' - 5" 8' - 0 " 3' - 0 " MAIN ENTRY SIGNAGE AREA, 55 SF RTU WITH SCREENING 18' - 8"8' - 1"PREFINISHED METAL FASCIA PREFINISHED METAL CAP, TYPSTAINED, ACETYLATED WOOD, TYP GLAZING, TYP STUCCO, TYP ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST, TYP EXISTING BRICK TO BE PAINTED, TYP. COLOR TBD 55 SF NEW ADDITIONEXISTING BUILDING EXISTING RTU WITHOUT SCREENING STAINED, ACETYLATED WOOD STUCCO ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST 1632.35 SF 479.48 SF 166.77 SF 54.30% 15.95% 5.55% GLAZING 727.46 SF 24.20% MATERIAL BREAKDOWN ALONG WEST & SOUTH ADDITION ELEVATION - BROOKLYN BLVD GLAZING PERCENTAGE AT WEST AND SOUTH ADDITION ELEVATION - BROOKLYN BLVD 340 SF OF WINDOW = 46.5% (50% WOULD BE 365 SF) AREA OF WALL = 730 SF AREA OF WDW = 340 SF copyright © 2023, Locus Architecture # Date Description DOCUMENT ISSUANCE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PREL I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N PROJECT TEAM SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 4453 Nicollet Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55419 612.706.5600 www.locusarchitecture.com 2024-002 Author Checker EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A2.1 5930 & 5950 BROOKLYN BLVD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 CAPI IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER MBJ 510 MARQUETTE AVE. S. STE 900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 612-338-0713 MARSHA@MBJENG.COM PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES INC. 9298 CENTRAL AVE NE, SUITE 312 BLAINE, MN 763-537-1311 PPA@PIERCEPINI.COM STRUCTURAL CIVIL VICTUS ENGINEERING 2327 WYCLIFF STREET, SUITE 230 SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 612-859-8299 WILLOW@VICTUSENGINEERING MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING FMYH STUDIO 612-389-8691 ASHLEY@FMYH.CO INTERIOR DESIGN TLALLI COLLABORATIVE, LLC 323 N WASHINGTON AVE #200 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-430-6655 ANELSON@TLALLICOLLABORATIVE.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.1 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.1 2 WEST ELEVATION - BROOKLYN BLVD 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.1 4 EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 01.14.25 LAND USE SUBMITTAL Page 115 of 367 FIRST LEVEL (E) 100' -0" 30' - 0" 7' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 7' - 0" FIRST LEVEL (E) 100' -0" 7' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 60' - 0" GENERAL NOTES ELECTRICAL SITE ? ? 10 10 14 Bench G E S C H V E T FFE 860.3 859.7 860.6 859.9 12" PVC rim=857.93 inv=853.11 rim=858.48 inv=855.33 rim=858.48 inv=855.44 Catch Basin t c = 8 6 0 . 2 4 A. INSTALL ALL ELECTRICAL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LATEST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OR ORDINANCES GOVERNING THE PROJECT. PERFORM ALL WORK UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A LICENSED MASTER ELECTRICIAN. NOTIFY THE ENGINEER, IN WRITING, OF ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO MAKING ANY CHANGES TO PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS. B. JUNCTION BOXES AND CONNECTIONS ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. PROVIDE A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF RACEWAY AND CONDUCTORS AS REQUIRED FOR THE INDICATED CIRCUITRY. C. COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF DEVICES WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER LOCATIONS SHOWN ON ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. D. VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ROUGH-IN REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNER FURNISHED EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO ROUGH-IN. E. PROVIDE SITE UNDERGROUND CONDUITS/ WIRING PER SPECIFICATIONS. PROVIDE SITE UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SIZED 1" MINIMUM, BURIED AT A DEPTH OF 36" MINIMUM. F. REFER TO RISER DIAGRAM FOR ADDITION INFORMATION REGARDING UNDERGROUND FEEDERS, ETC. G. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS IS AS EXACT AS COULD BE SECURED. ABSOLUTE ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS, MEASUREMENTS, LEVELS, SPACE REQUIREMENTS, POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH OTHER TRADES, ETC. AT THE SITE AND SHALL SATISFACTORILY ADAPT THEIR WORK TO ACTUAL CONDITIONS. THE DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATICAL IN NATURE AND SHALL NOT BE SCALED. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT RELIEVE ANY SUB-CONTRACTOR FROM COORDINATING THEIR WORK WITH ALL OTHER TRADES AND FROM ADJUSTING THEIR WORK AS REQUIRED BY THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT. ANY SLIGHT (WITHIN 10 FEET) LOCATION CHANGES SHALL BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION AND WILL BE ACCOMMODATED AT NO CHARGE TO THE OWNER. B R O O K L Y N B L V D . ( E ) S I D E W A L K NEW ADDITION EXISTING BUILDING 60TH AVE N BE A R D A V E N PROPERTY LINES XA1 XA1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XC1 XC1 XC1 XC1 XC XB1 XB1 XB1 XC P05 P08 P08 P07 P07P07 P09 UTILITY TRANSFORMER XC XD1 XD1 XD1 XD1 XD1 XD1 XD2XD2XD2 XW1 XW1 XW2 XW2 XD2 XD2 XD2 XB1 1 1 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. SIGNED DATE LICENSE # copyright © 2023, Locus Architecture # Date Description DOCUMENT ISSUANCE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PROJECT TEAM SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 4453 Nicollet Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55419 612.706.5600 www.locusarchitecture.com WILLOW S. NICHOLS 49864 01/31/25 2024-002 ECM WSN ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN ES101 5930 & 5950 BROOKLYN BLVD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 CAPI IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER MBJ 510 MARQUETTE AVE. S. STE 900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 612-338-0713 MARSHA@MBJENG.COM PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES INC. 9298 CENTRAL AVE NE, SUITE 312 BLAINE, MN 763-537-1311 PPA@PIERCEPINI.COM STRUCTURAL CIVIL ENGINEERING VICTUS ENGINEERING 2327 WYCLIFF STREET, SUITE 230 SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 612-859-8299 WILLOW@VICTUSENGINEERING MEP FMYH STUDIO 612-389-8691 ASHLEY@FMYH.CO INTERIOR TLALLI COLLABORATIVE, LLC 323 N WASHINGTON AVE #200 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-430-6655 ANELSON@TLALLICOLLABORATIVE.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE N KEYNOTES P05 PROVIDE L14-50 RECEPTACLE AT PARKING LOT LIGHT POLE (2#6, #6G, 1"C) FROM DEDICATED 50A CIRCUIT BREAKER AT PANEL LP12A IN ROOM 128 FOR FOOD TRUCK CONNECTION. VERIFY RECEPTACLE TYPE AND CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION PRIOR TO ROUGH-IN. P07 PROVIDE DUPLEX WP GFCI RECEPTACLE AT BOLLARD. P08 PROVIDE DUPLEX WP GFCI RECEPTACLE AT CATENARY LIGHTING SUPPORT POLE. P09 PROVIDE 2" CONDUIT PATHWAY FROM MDP IN ROOM 128 TO FUTURE GREENHOUSE LOCATION. 1" = 20'-0"1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 1 01.31.25 LAND USE RESUBMITTAL 01.14.25 LAND USE SUBMITTAL 12.04.24 100% DD Page 118 of 367 Calculation Summary Plan Area Avg (fc) Max (fc)Min (fc)Max/Min Courtyard Seating 11.51 38.4 0.2 192.00 New Parking Lot 1.15 2.4 0.2 12.00 North Covered Patio 8.85 11.1 5.4 2.06 North Entrance 10.40 10.4 10.4 1.00 North Side Entrance 11.30 11.3 11.3 1.00 Rock Garden 2.79 10.8 0.2 54.00 Sidewalk North End 2.59 12.8 0.1 128.00 South Entrance - Addition 11.20 11.3 11.1 1.02 South Patio 9.49 35.4 0.1 354.00 0 . 7 2 0 . 9 1 . 9 1 3 . 7 3 2 . 2 2 . 6 2 6 . 8 1 1 . 4 0 . 2 1 6 . 7 2 8 . 3 0 . 9 0 . 4 3 8 . 4 1 8 . 6 0 . 3 2 . 8 1 . 6 0 . 2 1 .3 0 .9 0.4 1.3 0 .5 0 .2 0.3 0 . 5 0 .5 0.4 0.4 0 .4 0 .4 0.4 0.4 0 .4 0 .5 0.4 0.4 0 .4 0.4 0 .5 0 .5 0.6 0.7 0 .7 0 .8 0.8 0.8 0 .9 0 .8 0.8 0.7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .6 0.8 1.0 1 .2 1 .3 1.4 1.4 1 .4 1 .5 1.5 1.6 1 .5 1 .3 1.1 0.6 0 .8 1 .1 1.4 1.9 2 .1 2 .0 1.8 1.7 1 .8 2 .0 2 . 2 2 . 2 1 .8 0.8 1.1 1 .6 2 .2 2.4 2 . 2 1 .9 1 .7 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 .3 2 .2 1 . 8 0 .7 0 . 9 1 . 3 1 .9 2 .3 1 . 7 1 1 . 1 1 1 . 0 7 . 9 5 . 4 3 .7 1 .1 0 .4 10.8 0 .2 1.3 2 .5 0.6 4.3 7.9 0.3 0.8 1.6 0.2 8.0 1.5 0.6 2.0 1.7 0.9 1.1 0.5 12.8 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.3 9.5 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 6.9 0.5 0.6 8.9 0.5 9.8 1.0 10.8 11.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 35.4 9.0 10.8 7.3 12.8 ? ? 10 10 14 Bench G E S C H V E T FFE 860.3 859.7 860.6 859.9 rim=858.48 inv=855.33 rim=858.48 inv=855.44 Catch Basin t c = 8 6 0 . 2 4 B R O O K L Y N B L V D . ( E ) S I D E W A L K NEW ADDITION EXISTING BUILDING 60TH AVE N BE A R D A V E N PROPERTY LINES XA1 XA1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XB1 XC1 XC1 XC1 XC1 XC XB1 XB1 XB1 XC XC XW1 XW1 XW2 XW2 XD1 XD1 XD1 XD1 XD1 XD1 XD2 XD2 XD2 XD2 XD2 XD2 EXISTING BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING ON SOUTH FACE AND EAST FACE OF BUILDING WILL REMAIN TO SERVE EXISTING PARKING AREA. 1 1 1 1 1 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. SIGNED DATE LICENSE # copyright © 2023, Locus Architecture # Date Description DOCUMENT ISSUANCE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PROJECT TEAM SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 4453 Nicollet Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55419 612.706.5600 www.locusarchitecture.com WILLOW S. NICHOLS 49864 01/31/25 2024-002 ECM WSN ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN E700 5930 & 5950 BROOKLYN BLVD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 CAPI IMMIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER MBJ 510 MARQUETTE AVE. S. STE 900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 612-338-0713 MARSHA@MBJENG.COM PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES INC. 9298 CENTRAL AVE NE, SUITE 312 BLAINE, MN 763-537-1311 PPA@PIERCEPINI.COM STRUCTURAL CIVIL ENGINEERING VICTUS ENGINEERING 2327 WYCLIFF STREET, SUITE 230 SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 612-859-8299 WILLOW@VICTUSENGINEERING MEP FMYH STUDIO 612-389-8691 ASHLEY@FMYH.CO INTERIOR TLALLI COLLABORATIVE, LLC 323 N WASHINGTON AVE #200 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-430-6655 ANELSON@TLALLICOLLABORATIVE.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1" = 20'-0" 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN - FOR REFERENCE ONLY LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TYPE DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER MODEL VOLTAGE WATTAGE CCT CRI MOUNTING NOTES XA1 UNIVERSAL POLE MOUNTED LED FIXTURE. TYPE 3 DISTRIBUTION. LITHONIA DSX0 LED P3 40K 80CRI T3M 120 V 69 W 4000 K POLE MOUNT FIXTURE ON 18' POLE XB1 6" DIAMETER CAST ALUMINUM BOLLARD, 39" HIGH. LUMINIS KIM LIGHTING LN601B L1L10 LD3 H39 35 120 120 V 11 W 3500 K BOLLARD XC CATENARY LIGHTING SUPPORT POLE LUMINIS TBD 120 V 0 W 0 K POLE 12' POLE XC1 18" DIAMETER, 5.35" TALL DIECAST ALUMINIUM CATENARY MOUNTED LED FIXTURE WITH COATED POLYMER LENS. LUMINIS CT101 L2L25 35K 120V CAT3 12IN STC 120 V 25 W 3500 K SUSPENDED - CATENARY XD1 4" DIAMETER LED CYLINDER - WET LOCATION LISTED LITHONIA LDN4 35/07 LO4 AR LD 120 V 9 W 3500 K RECESSED XD2 4" DIAMETER LED CYLINDER - WET LOCATION LISTED LITHONIA LDN4 35/10 LO4 AR LD 120 V 11 W 3500 K RECESSED XW1 4" DIAMETER WALL MOUNTED LED CYLINDER LUMINIS SYP400 L1L10 FLD 35 MVOLT 120 V 12 W 3500 K SURFACE WALL XW2 4" DIAMETER WALL MOUNTED LED CYLINDER LUMINIS SYP400 L1L20 FLD 35 MVOLT 120 V 23 W 3500 K SURFACE WALL 1 01.31.25 LAND USE RESUBMITTAL 01.14.25 LAND USE SUBMITTAL Page 119 of 367 Page 120 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 1 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR D-Series Size 0 LED Area Luminaire Specifications Catalog Number Notes Type Introduction The modern styling of the D-Series features a highly refined aesthetic that blends seamlessly with its environment. The D-Series offers the benefits of the latest in LED technology into a high performance, high efficacy, long-life luminaire. The photometric performance results in sites with excellent uniformity, greater pole spacing and lower power density. D-Series outstanding photometry aids in reducing the number of poles required in area lighting applications, with typical energy savings of 70% and expected service life of over 100,000 hours. EPA:0.44 ft2 (0.04 m2) Length:26.18" (66.5 cm) Width:14.06" (35.7 cm) Height H1:2.26" (5.7 cm) Height H2:7.46" (18.9 cm) Weight:23 lbs (10.4 kg) Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. Ordering Information EXAMPLE: DSX0 LED P6 40K 70CRI T3M MVOLT SPA NLTAIR2 PIRHN DDBXD DSX0 LED Series LEDs Color temperature 2 Color Rendering Index 2 Distribution Voltage Mounting DSX0 LED Forward optics P1 P5 P2 P6 P3 P7 P4 Rotated optics P10 1 P12 1 P11 1 P13 1 (this section 70CRI only) 30K 3000K 40K 4000K 50K 5000K (this section 80CRI only, extended lead times apply) 27K 2700K 30K 3000K 35K 3500K 40K 4000K 50K 5000K 70CRI 70CRI 70CRI 80CRI 80CRI 80CRI 80CRI 80CRI AFR Automotive front row T1S Type I short T2M Type II medium T3M Type III medium T3LG Type III low glare 3 T4M Type IV medium T4LG Type IV low glare 3 TFTM Forward throw medium T5M Type V medium T5LG Type V low glare T5W Type V wide BLC3 Type III backlight control 3 BLC4 Type IV backlight control 3 LCCO Left corner cutoff 3 RCCO Right corner cutoff 3 MVOLT (120V-277V) 4 HVOLT (347V-480V) 5,6 XVOLT (277V-480V) 7,8 120 16, 24 208 16, 24 240 16, 24 277 16, 24 347 16, 24 480 16, 24 Shipped included SPA Square pole mounting (#8 drilling, 3.5" min. SQ pole) RPA Round pole mounting (#8 drilling, 3" min. RND pole) SPA5 Square pole mounting (#5 drilling. 3" min. SQ pole) 9 RPA5 Round pole mounting (#5 drilling, 3" min. RND pole) 9 SPA8N Square narrow pole mounting (#8 drilling, 3" min. SQ pole) WBA Wall bracket 10 MA Mast arm adapter (mounts on 2 3/8" OD horizontal tenon) Control options Other options Finish (required) Shipped installed NLTAIR2 PIRHN nLight AIR gen 2 enabled with bi-level motion / ambient sensor, 8-40' mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 2fc. 11, 12, 18, 19 PIR High/low, motion/ambient sensor, 8-40’ mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 2fc 13, 18, 19 PER NEMA twist-lock receptacle only (controls ordered separate) 14 PER5 Five-pin receptacle only (controls ordered separate) 14, 19 PER7 Seven-pin receptacle only (controls ordered separate) 14, 19 FAO Field adjustable output 15, 19 BL30 Bi-level switched dimming, 30% 16, 19 BL50 Bi-level switched dimming, 50% 16, 19 DMG 0-10v dimming wires pulled outside fixture (for use with an external control, ordered separately) 17 Shipped installed HS Houseside shield (black finish standard) 20 L90 Left rotated optics 1 R90 Right rotated optics 1 CCE Coastal Construction 21 HA 50°C ambient operation 22 BAA Buy America(n) Act and/or Build America Buy America Qualified SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) 24 DF Double fuse (208, 240, 480V) 24 Shipped separately EGSR External Glare Shield (reversible, field install required, matches housing finish) BSDB Bird Spikes (field install required) DDBXD Dark Bronze DBLXD Black DNAXD Natural Aluminum DWHXD White DDBTXD Textured dark bronze DBLBXD Textured black DNATXD Textured natural aluminum DWHGXD Textured white L H1 W H2 L H1 W H2 Items marked by a shaded background qualify for the Design Select program and ship in 15 days or less. To learn more about Design Select, visit www.acuitybrands.com/designselect. *See ordering tree for detailsDesign Select options indicated by this color background. Page 121 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 2 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR 1.750" for aluminum poles 2.750" - for other poles type Drilling Ordering Information Accessories Ordered and shipped separately. DLL127F 1.5 JU Photocell - SSL twist-lock (120-277V) 23 DLL347F 1.5 CUL JU Photocell - SSL twist-lock (347V) 23 DLL480F 1.5 CUL JU Photocell - SSL twist-lock (480V) 23 DSHORT SBK Shorting cap 23 DSX0HS P#House-side shield (enter package number P1-7, P10-13 in place of #) DSXRPA (FINISH) Round pole adapter (#8 drilling, specify finish) DSXRPA5 (FINISH) Round pole adapter #5 drilling (specify finish) DSXSPA5 (FINISH) Square pole adapter #5 drilling (specify finish) DSX0EGSR (FINISH) External glare shield (specify finish) DSX0BSDB (FINISH) Bird spike deterrent bracket (specify finish) Shield Accessories NOTES 1 Rotated optics available with packages P10, P11, P12 and P13. Must be combined with option L90 or R90. 2 30K, 40K, and 50K available in 70CRI and 80CRI. 27K and 35K only available with 80CRI. Contact Technical Support for other possible combinations. 3 T3LG, T4LG, BLC3, BLC4, LCCO, RCCO not available with option HS. 4 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). 5 HVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 347-480V (50/60 Hz). 6 HVOLT not available with package P1, P2 and P10 when combined with option NLTAIR2 PIRHN or option PIR. 7 XVOLT operates with any voltage between 277V and 480V (50/60 Hz). 8 XVOLT not available in packages P1, P2 or P10. XVOLT not available with fusing (SF or DF). 9 SPA5 and RPA5 for use with #5 drilling only (Not for use with #8 drilling). 10 WBA cannot be combined with Type 5 distributions plus photocell (PER). 11 NLTAIR2 and PIRHN must be ordered together. For more information on nLight Air 2. 12 NLTAIR2 PIRHN not available with other controls including PIR, PER, PER5, PER7, FAO, BL30, BL50 and DMG. NLTAIR2 PIRHN not available with P1, P2 and P10 using HVOLT. NLTAIR2 PIRHN not available with P1, P2 and P10 using XVOLT. NLTAIR2 PIRHN not available with P1 using MVOLT. 13 PIR not available with NLTAIR2, PER, PER5, PER7, FAO BL30, BL50 and DMG. PIR not available with P1, P2 and P10 using HVOLT. PIR not available with P1, P2 and P10 using XVOLT. PIR not available with P1 using MVOLT. 14 PER/PER5/PER7 not available with NLTAIR2, PIR, BL30, BL50. Photocell ordered and shipped as a separate line item from Acuity Brands Controls. See accessories. Shorting Cap included. 15 FAO not available with other dimming control options NLTAIR2 PIRHN, PIR, PER5, PER7, BL30, BL50, or DMG. 16 BL30 and BL50 are not available with NLTAIR2 PIRHN, PIR, PER, PER5, PER7, FAO and DMG. BL30 or BL50 must specify 120, 277 or 347V. Consult tech support for 208, 240 or 480V. 17 DMG not available with NLTAIR2 PIRHN, PIR, PER, PER5, PER7, BL30, BL50 and FAO. 18 Reference Motion Sensor Default Settings table on page 4 to see functionality. 19 Reference Controls Options table on page 4. 20 Option HS not available with T3LG, T4LG, BLC3, BLC4, LCCO and RCCO distribution. Also available as a separate accessory; see Accessories information. 21 CCE option not available with option BS and EGSR. Contact Technical Support for availability. 22 Option HA not available with performance packages P6, P7, P12 and P13. 23 Requires luminaire to be specified with PER, PER5 or PER7 option. See Controls Table on page 4. 24 Single fuse (SF) requires 120V, 277V, or 347V. Double fuse (DF) requires 208V, 240V or 480V. XVOLT not available with fusing (SF or DF). Top of Pole 0.563" 1.325"0.400"(2 PLCS) Template #8 A Handhole B C D HANDHOLE ORIENTATION (from top of pole) 2.650" Tenon Mounting Slipfitter Tenon O.D. Mounting Single Unit 2 @ 180 2 @ 90 3 @ 90 3 @120 4 @ 90 2-3/8"RPA AS3-5 190 AS3-5 280 AS3-5 290 AS3-5 390 AS3-5 320 AS3-5 490 2-7/8"RPA AST25-190 AST25-280 AST25-290 AST25-390 AST25-320 AST25-490 4"RPA AST35-190 AST35-280 AST35-290 AST35-390 AST35-320 AST35-490 External Glare Shield (EGSR)House Side Shield (HS) Fixture Quantity & Mounting Configuration Single DM19 2 @ 180 DM28 2 @ 90 DM29 3 @ 90 DM39 3 @ 120 DM32 4 @ 90 DM49 Mounting Type DSX0 with SPA 0.44 0.88 0.96 1.18 --- 1.16 DSX0 with SPA5, SPA8N 0.51 1.02 1.06 1.26 ---1.29 DSX0 with RPA, RPA5 0.51 1.02 1.06 1.26 1.24 1.29 DSX0 with MA 0.64 1.28 1.24 1.67 1.70 1.93 DSX0 Area Luminaire - EPA *Includes luminaire and integral mounting arm. Other tenons, arms, brackets or other accessories are not included in this EPA data. Minimum Acceptable Outside Pole Dimension SPA #8 3.5" 3.5" 3.5"3.5"3.5" RPA #8 3" 3" 3"3"3" 3" SPA5 #5 3" 3" 3"3"3" RPA5 #5 3" 3"3"3"3"3" SPA8N #8 3" 3"3"3"3" Mounting Option Drilling Template Single 2 @ 180 2 @ 90 3 @ 90 3 @ 120 4 @ 90 Head Location Side B Side B & D Side B & C Side B, C & D Round Pole Only Side A, B, C & D Drill Nomenclature #8 DM19AS DM28AS DM29AS DM39AS DM32AS DM49AS Page 122 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 3 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR To see complete photometric reports or download .ies files for this product, visit Lithonia Lighting’s homepage. Photometric Diagrams Isofootcandle plots for the DSX0 LED P7 40K 70CRI. Distances are in units of mounting height (20'). LEGEND 0.1 fc 0.5 fc 1.0 fc T1S T2M T3M 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 4 3 2 1 0 4321 T3LG T4M TFTM T4LG T5M T5W T5LG AFR BLC3 BLC4 LCCO RCCO 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 4 3 2 1 0 43216 5 65 4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 6 -5 -6 Page 123 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 4 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR Performance Data Current (A) Performance Package LED Count Drive Current (mA)Wattage 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V Forward Optics (Non-Rotated) P1 20 530 34 0.28 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.07 P2 20 700 45 0.38 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.09 P3 20 1050 69 0.57 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.20 0.14 P4 20 1400 94 0.78 0.45 0.39 0.34 0.27 0.19 P5 40 700 89 0.75 0.43 0.38 0.33 0.26 0.19 P6 40 1050 136 1.14 0.66 0.57 0.49 0.39 0.29 P7 40 1300 170 1.42 0.82 0.71 0.62 0.49 0.36 Rotated Optics (Requires L90 or R90) P10 30 530 51 0.42 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.11 P11 30 700 67 0.57 0.33 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.14 P12 30 1050 103 0.86 0.50 0.43 0.37 0.30 0.22 P13 30 1300 129 1.07 0.62 0.54 0.46 0.37 0.27 Electrical Load Motion Sensor Default Settings Option Unoccupied Dimmed Level High Level (when occupied)Phototcell Operation Dwell Time Ramp-up Time Dimming Fade Rate PIR 30%100%Enabled @ 2FC 7.5 min 3 sec 5 min NLTAIR2 PIRHN 30%100%Enabled @ 2FC 7.5 min 3 sec 5 min Controls Options Nomenclature Description Functionality Primary control device Notes FAO Field adjustable output device installed inside the luminaire; wired to the driver dimming leads. Allows the luminaire to be manually dimmed, effectively trimming the light output. FAO device Cannot be used with other controls options that need the 0-10V leads DS (not available on DSX0) Drivers wired independently for 50/50 luminaire operation The luminaire is wired to two separate circuits, allowing for 50/50 operation. Independently wired drivers Requires two separately switched circuits. Consider nLight AIR as a more cost effective alternative. PER5 or PER7 Twist-lock photocell receptacle Compatible with standard twist-lock photocells for dusk to dawn operation, or advanced control nodes that provide 0-10V dimming signals. Twist-lock photocells such as DLL Elite or advanced control nodes such as ROAM. Pins 4 & 5 to dimming leads on driver, Pins 6 & 7 are capped inside luminaire. Cannot be used with other controls options that need the 0-10V leads. PIR Motion sensor with integral photocell. Sensor suitable for 8' to 40' mounting height. Luminaires dim when no occupancy is detected. Acuity Controls rSBG Cannot be used with other controls options that need the 0-10V leads. NLTAIR2 PIRHN nLight AIR enabled luminaire for motion sensing, photocell and wireless communication. Motion and ambient light sensing with group response. Scheduled dimming with motion sensor over-ride when wirelessly connected to the nLight Eclypse. nLight Air rSBG nLight AIR sensors can be programmed and commissioned from the ground using the ClAIRity Pro app. Cannot be used with other controls options that need the 0-10V leads. BL30 or BL50 Integrated bi-level device that allows a second control circuit to switch all light engines to either 30% or 50% light output BLC device provides input to 0-10V dimming leads on all drivers providing either 100% or dimmed (30% or 50%) control by a secondary circuit BLC UVOLT1 BLC device is powered off the 0-10V dimming leads, thus can be used with any input voltage from 120 to 480V Lumen Ambient Temperature (LAT) Multipliers Use these factors to determine relative lumen output for average ambient temperatures from 0-40°C (32-104°F). Ambient Lumen Multiplier 0°C 32°F 1.04 5°C 41°F 1.04 10°C 50°F 1.03 15°C 50°F 1.02 20°C 68°F 1.01 25°C 77°C 1.00 30°C 86°F 0.99 35°C 95°F 0.98 40°C 104°F 0.97 Projected LED Lumen Maintenance Data references the extrapolated performance projections for the platforms noted in a 25°C ambient, based on 10,000 hours of LED testing (tested per IESNA LM-80-08 and projected per IESNA TM-21-11). To calculate LLF, use the lumen maintenance factor that corresponds to the desired number of operating hours below. For other lumen maintenance values, contact factory. Operating Hours Lumen Maintenance Factor 0 1.00 25,000 0.94 50,000 0.89 100,000 0.80 70 CRI 80CRI 90CRI Lumen Multiplier Availability Lumen Multiplier Availability Lumen Multiplier Availability 5000K 102% Standard 92% Extended lead-time 71% (see note) 4000K 100% Standard 92% Extended lead-time 67% (see note) 3500K 100% (see note) 90% Extended lead-time 63% (see note) 3000K 96% Standard 87% Extended lead-time 61% (see note) 2700K 94% (see note) 85% Extended lead-time 57% (see note) LED Color Temperature / Color Rendering Multipliers Note: Some LED types are available as per special request. Contact Technical Support for more information. *Note: Calculated values are based on original performance package data. When calculating new values for given FAO position, use published values for each package based on input watts and lumens by optic type. FAO Position % Wattage % Lumen Output 8 100%100% 7 93%95% 6 80%85% 5 66%73% 4 54%61% 3 41%49% 2 29%36% 1 15%20% FAO Dimming Settings Page 124 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 5 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of configurations shown within the tolerances described within LM-79. Contact factory for performance data on any configurations not shown here. Forward Optics Performance Package System Watts LED Count Drive Current (mA)Distribution Type 30K 40K 50K (3000K, 70 CRI)(4000K, 70 CRI)(5000K, 70 CRI) Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW P1 33W 20 530 T1S 4,906 1 0 1 148 5,113 1 0 1 154 5,213 1 0 1 157 T2M 4,545 1 0 2 137 4,736 1 0 2 143 4,829 1 0 2 145 T3M 4,597 1 0 2 138 4,791 1 0 2 144 4,885 1 0 2 147 T3LG 4,107 1 0 1 124 4,280 1 0 1 129 4,363 1 0 1 131 T4M 4,666 1 0 2 141 4,863 1 0 2 146 4,957 1 0 2 149 T4LG 4,244 1 0 1 128 4,423 1 0 1 133 4,509 1 0 1 136 TFTM 4,698 1 0 2 141 4,896 1 0 2 147 4,992 1 0 2 150 T5M 4,801 3 0 1 145 5,003 3 0 1 151 5,101 3 0 1 154 T5W 4,878 3 0 1 147 5,084 3 0 2 153 5,183 3 0 2 156 T5LG 4,814 2 0 1 145 5,018 2 0 1 151 5,115 2 0 1 154 BLC3 3,344 0 0 1 101 3,485 0 0 1 105 3,553 0 0 1 107 BLC4 3,454 0 0 2 104 3,599 0 0 2 108 3,670 0 0 2 111 RCCO 3,374 0 0 1 102 3,517 0 0 1 106 3,585 0 0 1 108 LCCO 3,374 0 0 1 102 3,517 0 0 1 106 3,585 0 0 1 108 AFR 4,906 1 0 1 148 5,113 1 0 1 154 5,213 1 0 1 157 P2 45W 20 700 T1S 6,328 1 0 1 140 6,595 1 0 1 146 6,724 1 0 1 149 T2M 5,862 1 0 2 130 6,109 1 0 2 135 6,228 1 0 2 138 T3M 5,930 1 0 3 131 6,180 1 0 3 137 6,301 1 0 3 140 T3LG 5,297 1 0 1 117 5,521 1 0 1 122 5,628 1 0 1 125 T4M 6,018 1 0 3 133 6,272 1 0 3 139 6,395 1 0 3 142 T4LG 5,474 1 0 1 121 5,705 1 0 1 126 5,816 1 0 1 129 TFTM 6,060 1 0 3 134 6,316 1 0 3 140 6,439 1 0 3 143 T5M 6,192 3 0 1 137 6,453 3 0 2 143 6,579 3 0 2 146 T5W 6,293 3 0 2 139 6,558 3 0 2 145 6,686 3 0 2 148 T5LG 6,210 2 0 1 138 6,472 3 0 1 143 6,598 3 0 1 146 BLC3 4,313 0 0 2 96 4,495 0 0 2 100 4,583 0 0 2 102 BLC4 4,455 0 0 2 99 4,643 0 0 2 103 4,733 0 0 2 105 RCCO 4,352 0 0 2 96 4,536 0 0 2 100 4,624 0 0 2 102 LCCO 4,352 0 0 2 96 4,536 0 0 2 100 4,624 0 0 2 102 AFR 6,328 1 0 1 140 6,595 1 0 1 146 6,724 1 0 1 149 P3 69W 20 1050 T1S 9,006 1 0 2 131 9,386 1 0 2 136 9,569 1 0 2 139 T2M 8,343 2 0 3 121 8,694 2 0 3 126 8,864 2 0 3 129 T3M 8,439 2 0 3 122 8,795 2 0 3 128 8,967 2 0 3 130 T3LG 7,539 1 0 2 109 7,857 1 0 2 114 8,010 1 0 2 116 T4M 8,565 2 0 3 124 8,926 2 0 3 129 9,100 2 0 3 132 T4LG 7,790 1 0 2 113 8,119 1 0 2 118 8,277 1 0 2 120 TFTM 8,624 1 0 3 125 8,988 1 0 3 130 9,163 2 0 3 133 T5M 8,812 3 0 2 128 9,184 4 0 2 133 9,363 4 0 2 136 T5W 8,955 4 0 2 130 9,333 4 0 2 135 9,515 4 0 2 138 T5LG 8,838 3 0 1 128 9,211 3 0 1 134 9,390 3 0 1 136 BLC3 6,139 0 0 2 89 6,398 0 0 2 93 6,522 0 0 2 95 BLC4 6,340 0 0 3 92 6,607 0 0 3 96 6,736 0 0 3 98 RCCO 6,194 1 0 2 90 6,455 1 0 2 94 6,581 1 0 2 95 LCCO 6,194 1 0 2 90 6,455 1 0 2 94 6,581 1 0 2 95 AFR 9,006 1 0 2 131 9,386 1 0 2 136 9,569 1 0 2 139 P4 93W 20 1400 T1S 11,396 1 0 2 122 11,877 1 0 2 128 12,109 2 0 2 130 T2M 10,557 2 0 3 113 11,003 2 0 3 118 11,217 2 0 3 121 T3M 10,680 2 0 3 115 11,130 2 0 3 120 11,347 2 0 3 122 T3LG 9,540 1 0 2 103 9,942 1 0 2 107 10,136 1 0 2 109 T4M 10,839 2 0 3 117 11,296 2 0 3 121 11,516 2 0 4 124 T4LG 9,858 1 0 2 106 10,274 1 0 2 110 10,474 1 0 2 113 TFTM 10,914 2 0 3 117 11,374 2 0 3 122 11,596 2 0 3 125 T5M 11,152 4 0 2 120 11,622 4 0 2 125 11,849 4 0 2 127 T5W 11,332 4 0 3 122 11,811 4 0 3 127 12,041 4 0 3 129 T5LG 11,184 3 0 1 120 11,656 3 0 2 125 11,883 3 0 2 128 BLC3 7,768 0 0 2 83 8,096 0 0 2 87 8,254 0 0 2 89 BLC4 8,023 0 0 3 86 8,362 0 0 3 90 8,524 0 0 3 92 RCCO 7,838 1 0 2 84 8,169 1 0 2 88 8,328 1 0 2 90 LCCO 7,838 1 0 2 84 8,169 1 0 2 88 8,328 1 0 2 90 AFR 11,396 1 0 2 122 11,877 1 0 2 128 12,109 2 0 2 130 Performance Data Lumen Output Page 125 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 6 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of configurations shown within the tolerances described within LM-79. Contact factory for performance data on any configurations not shown here. Forward Optics Performance Package System Watts LED Count Drive Current (mA)Distribution Type 30K 40K 50K (3000K, 70 CRI)(4000K, 70 CRI)(5000K, 70 CRI) Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW P5 90W 40 700 T1S 12,380 2 0 2 137 12,902 2 0 2 143 13,154 2 0 2 146 T2M 11,468 2 0 3 127 11,952 2 0 3 133 12,185 2 0 3 135 T3M 11,601 2 0 3 129 12,091 2 0 3 134 12,326 2 0 4 137 T3LG 10,363 2 0 2 115 10,800 2 0 2 120 11,011 2 0 2 122 T4M 11,774 2 0 4 131 12,271 2 0 4 136 12,510 2 0 4 139 T4LG 10,709 1 0 2 119 11,160 2 0 2 124 11,378 2 0 2 126 TFTM 11,856 2 0 3 132 12,356 2 0 4 137 12,596 2 0 4 140 T5M 12,114 4 0 2 134 12,625 4 0 2 140 12,871 4 0 2 143 T5W 12,310 4 0 3 137 12,830 4 0 3 142 13,080 4 0 3 145 T5LG 12,149 3 0 2 135 12,662 3 0 2 141 12,908 3 0 2 143 BLC3 8,438 0 0 2 94 8,794 0 0 2 98 8,966 0 0 2 99 BLC4 8,715 0 0 3 97 9,083 0 0 3 101 9,260 0 0 3 103 RCCO 8,515 1 0 2 94 8,874 1 0 2 98 9,047 1 0 2 100 LCCO 8,515 1 0 2 94 8,874 1 0 2 98 9,047 1 0 2 100 AFR 12,380 2 0 2 137 12,902 2 0 2 143 13,154 2 0 2 146 P6 137W 40 1050 T1S 17,545 2 0 3 128 18,285 2 0 3 133 18,642 2 0 3 136 T2M 16,253 3 0 4 119 16,939 3 0 4 124 17,269 3 0 4 126 T3M 16,442 2 0 4 120 17,135 3 0 4 125 17,469 3 0 4 128 T3LG 14,687 2 0 2 107 15,306 2 0 2 112 15,605 2 0 2 114 T4M 16,687 2 0 4 122 17,391 3 0 5 127 17,730 3 0 5 129 T4LG 15,177 2 0 2 111 15,817 2 0 2 115 16,125 2 0 2 118 TFTM 16,802 2 0 4 123 17,511 2 0 4 128 17,852 2 0 5 130 T5M 17,168 4 0 2 125 17,893 5 0 3 131 18,241 5 0 3 133 T5W 17,447 5 0 3 127 18,183 5 0 3 133 18,537 5 0 3 135 T5LG 17,218 4 0 2 126 17,944 4 0 2 131 18,294 4 0 2 134 BLC3 11,959 0 0 3 87 12,464 0 0 3 91 12,707 0 0 3 93 BLC4 12,352 0 0 4 90 12,873 0 0 4 94 13,124 0 0 4 96 RCCO 12,067 1 0 3 88 12,576 1 0 3 92 12,821 1 0 3 94 LCCO 12,067 1 0 3 88 12,576 1 0 3 92 12,821 1 0 3 94 AFR 17,545 2 0 3 128 18,285 2 0 3 133 18,642 2 0 3 136 P7 171W 40 1300 T1S 20,806 2 0 3 122 21,683 2 0 3 127 22,106 2 0 3 129 T2M 19,273 3 0 4 113 20,086 3 0 4 118 20,478 3 0 4 120 T3M 19,497 3 0 5 114 20,319 3 0 5 119 20,715 3 0 5 121 T3LG 17,416 2 0 2 102 18,151 2 0 2 106 18,504 2 0 2 108 T4M 19,787 3 0 5 116 20,622 3 0 5 121 21,024 3 0 5 123 T4LG 17,997 2 0 2 105 18,756 2 0 2 110 19,121 2 0 2 112 TFTM 19,924 3 0 5 117 20,765 3 0 5 122 21,170 3 0 5 124 T5M 20,359 5 0 3 119 21,217 5 0 3 124 21,631 5 0 3 127 T5W 20,689 5 0 3 121 21,561 5 0 3 126 21,982 5 0 3 129 T5LG 20,418 4 0 2 120 21,279 4 0 2 125 21,694 4 0 2 127 BLC3 14,182 0 0 3 83 14,780 0 0 3 87 15,068 0 0 3 88 BLC4 14,647 0 0 4 86 15,265 0 0 4 89 15,562 0 0 4 91 RCCO 14,309 1 0 3 84 14,913 1 0 3 87 15,204 1 0 3 89 LCCO 14,309 1 0 3 84 14,913 1 0 3 87 15,204 1 0 3 89 AFR 20,806 2 0 3 122 21,683 2 0 3 127 22,106 2 0 3 129 Lumen Output Performance Data Page 126 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 7 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR Performance Data Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of configurations shown within the tolerances described within LM-79. Contact factory for performance data on any configurations not shown here. Rotated Optics Performance Package System Watts LED Count Drive Current (mA)Distribution Type 30K 40K 50K (3000K, 70 CRI)(4000K, 70 CRI)(5000K, 70 CRI) Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW P10 51W 30 530 T1S 7,399 3 0 3 145 7,711 3 0 3 151 7,862 3 0 3 154 T2M 6,854 3 0 3 135 7,144 3 0 3 140 7,283 3 0 3 143 T3M 6,933 3 0 3 136 7,225 3 0 3 142 7,366 3 0 3 145 T3LG 6,194 2 0 2 122 6,455 2 0 2 127 6,581 2 0 2 129 T4M 7,036 3 0 3 138 7,333 3 0 3 144 7,476 3 0 3 147 T4LG 6,399 2 0 2 126 6,669 2 0 2 131 6,799 2 0 2 134 TFTM 7,086 3 0 3 139 7,385 3 0 3 145 7,529 3 0 3 148 T5M 7,239 3 0 2 142 7,545 3 0 2 148 7,692 3 0 2 151 T5W 7,357 3 0 2 145 7,667 3 0 2 151 7,816 4 0 2 154 T5LG 7,260 3 0 1 143 7,567 3 0 1 149 7,714 3 0 1 152 BLC3 5,043 3 0 3 99 5,256 3 0 3 103 5,358 3 0 3 105 BLC4 5,208 3 0 3 102 5,428 3 0 3 107 5,534 3 0 3 109 RCCO 5,089 0 0 2 100 5,303 0 0 2 104 5,407 0 0 2 106 LCCO 5,089 0 0 2 100 5,303 0 0 2 104 5,407 0 0 2 106 AFR 7,399 3 0 3 145 7,711 3 0 3 151 7,862 3 0 3 154 P11 68W 30 700 T1S 9,358 3 0 3 138 9,753 3 0 3 143 9,943 3 0 3 146 T2M 8,669 3 0 3 127 9,034 3 0 3 133 9,211 3 0 3 135 T3M 8,768 3 0 3 129 9,138 3 0 3 134 9,316 3 0 3 137 T3LG 7,833 3 0 3 115 8,164 3 0 3 120 8,323 3 0 3 122 T4M 8,899 3 0 3 131 9,274 3 0 3 136 9,455 3 0 3 139 T4LG 8,093 3 0 3 119 8,435 3 0 3 124 8,599 3 0 3 126 TFTM 8,962 3 0 3 132 9,340 3 0 3 137 9,522 3 0 3 140 T5M 9,156 4 0 2 135 9,542 4 0 2 140 9,728 4 0 2 143 T5W 9,304 4 0 2 137 9,696 4 0 2 143 9,885 4 0 2 145 T5LG 9,182 3 0 1 135 9,569 3 0 1 141 9,756 3 0 1 143 BLC3 6,378 3 0 3 94 6,647 3 0 3 98 6,777 3 0 3 100 BLC4 6,587 3 0 3 97 6,865 3 0 3 101 6,999 3 0 3 103 RCCO 6,436 0 0 2 95 6,707 0 0 2 99 6,838 0 0 2 101 LCCO 6,436 0 0 2 95 6,707 0 0 2 99 6,838 0 0 2 101 AFR 9,358 3 0 3 138 9,753 3 0 3 143 9,943 3 0 3 146 P12 103W 30 1050 T1S 13,247 3 0 3 128 13,806 3 0 3 134 14,075 3 0 3 136 T2M 12,271 4 0 4 119 12,789 4 0 4 124 13,038 4 0 4 126 T3M 12,412 4 0 4 120 12,935 4 0 4 125 13,187 4 0 4 128 T3LG 11,089 3 0 3 107 11,556 3 0 3 112 11,782 3 0 3 114 T4M 12,597 4 0 4 122 13,128 4 0 4 127 13,384 4 0 4 129 T4LG 11,457 3 0 3 111 11,940 3 0 3 116 12,173 3 0 3 118 TFTM 12,686 4 0 4 123 13,221 4 0 4 128 13,479 4 0 4 130 T5M 12,960 4 0 2 125 13,507 4 0 2 131 13,770 4 0 2 133 T5W 13,170 4 0 3 127 13,726 4 0 3 133 13,994 4 0 3 135 T5LG 12,998 3 0 2 126 13,546 3 0 2 131 13,810 3 0 2 134 BLC3 9,029 3 0 3 87 9,409 3 0 3 91 9,593 3 0 3 93 BLC4 9,324 4 0 4 90 9,718 4 0 4 94 9,907 4 0 4 96 RCCO 9,110 1 0 2 88 9,495 1 0 2 92 9,680 1 0 2 94 LCCO 9,110 1 0 2 88 9,494 1 0 2 92 9,680 1 0 2 94 AFR 13,247 3 0 3 128 13,806 3 0 3 134 14,075 3 0 3 136 P13 129W 30 1300 T1S 15,704 3 0 3 122 16,366 3 0 3 127 16,685 4 0 4 130 T2M 14,547 4 0 4 113 15,161 4 0 4 118 15,457 4 0 4 120 T3M 14,714 4 0 4 114 15,335 4 0 4 119 15,634 4 0 4 121 T3LG 13,145 3 0 3 102 13,700 3 0 3 106 13,967 3 0 3 108 T4M 14,933 4 0 4 116 15,563 4 0 4 121 15,867 4 0 4 123 T4LG 13,582 3 0 3 105 14,155 3 0 3 110 14,431 3 0 3 112 TFTM 15,039 4 0 4 117 15,673 4 0 4 122 15,979 4 0 4 124 T5M 15,364 4 0 2 119 16,013 4 0 2 124 16,325 4 0 2 127 T5W 15,613 5 0 3 121 16,272 5 0 3 126 16,589 5 0 3 129 T5LG 15,409 3 0 2 120 16,059 3 0 2 125 16,372 4 0 2 127 BLC3 10,703 4 0 4 83 11,155 4 0 4 87 11,372 4 0 4 88 BLC4 11,054 4 0 4 86 11,520 4 0 4 89 11,745 4 0 4 91 RCCO 10,800 1 0 2 84 11,256 1 0 2 87 11,475 1 0 3 89 LCCO 10,800 1 0 2 84 11,255 1 0 2 87 11,475 1 0 3 89 AFR 15,704 3 0 3 122 16,366 3 0 3 127 16,685 4 0 4 130 Lumen Output Page 127 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 8 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR 27.70" 2.26" 14.06" 7.80" 28.00" 2.26" 14.06" 8.90" 32.17" 2.26" 14.06" 7.59" DSX0 with RPA, RPA5, SPA5, SPA8N mount Weight: 25 lbs Dimensions 2.41" 3.16" SPA (STANDARD ARM) 2.41"3.16" RPA 2.41" 3.16" SPA8N 4.25" RPA5 4.25" SPA5 DSX0 with WBA mount Weight: 27 lb DSX0 with MA mount Weight: 28 lbs Page 128 of 367 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2024 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX0-LED Rev. 10/09/24 Page 9 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR nLight Control - Sensor Coverage and Settings nLight Sensor Coverage Pattern NLTAIR2 PIRHN Top Side FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE The sleek design of the D-Series Size 0 reflects the embedded high performance LED technology. It is ideal for many commercial and municipal applications, such as parking lots, plazas, campuses, and pedestrian areas. CONSTRUCTION Single-piece die-cast aluminum housing has integral heat sink fins to optimize thermal management through conductive and convective cooling. Modular design allows for ease of maintenance and future light engine upgrades. The LED driver is mounted in direct contact with the casting to promote low operating temperature and long life. Housing driver compartment is completely sealed against moisture and environmental contaminants (IP66). Vibration rated per ANSI C136.31 for 3G. Low EPA (0.44 ft2) for optimized pole wind loading. FINISH Exterior parts are protected by a zinc-infused Super Durable TGIC thermoset powder coat finish that provides superior resistance to corrosion and weathering. A tightly controlled multi-stage process ensures a minimum 3 mils thickness for a finish that can withstand extreme climate changes without cracking or peeling. Available in both textured and non-textured finishes. COASTAL CONSTRUCTION (CCE) Optional corrosion resistant construction is engineered with added corrosion protection in materials and/or pre-treatment of base material under super durable paint. Provides additional corrosion protection for applications near coastal areas. Finish is salt spray tested to over 5,000 hours per ASTM B117 with scribe rating of 10. Additional lead-times may apply. OPTICS Precision-molded proprietary silicone lenses are engineered for superior area lighting distribution, uniformity, and pole spacing. Light engines are available in 3000 K, 4000 K or 5000 K (70 CRI) configurations. 80CRI configurations are also available. The D-Series Size 0 has zero uplight and qualifies as a Nighttime Friendly™ product, meaning it is consistent with the LEED® and Green Globes™ criteria for eliminating wasteful uplight. ELECTRICAL Light engine(s) configurations consist of high-efficacy LEDs mounted to metal- core circuit boards to maximize heat dissipation and promote long life (up to L80/100,000 hours at 25°C). Class 1 electronic drivers are designed to have a power factor >90%, THD <20%, and an expected life of 100,000 hours with <1% failure rate. Easily serviceable 10kV surge protection device meets a minimum Category C Low operation (per ANSI/IEEE C62.41.2). STANDARD CONTROLS The DSX0 LED area luminaire has a number of control options. DSX Size 0, comes standard with 0-10V dimming driver. Dusk to dawn controls can be utilized via optional NEMA twist-lock photocell receptacles. PIR integrated motion sensor with on-board photocell feature field-adjustable programing and are suitable for mounting heights up to 40 feet. Control option BL features a bi-level device that allows a second control circuit to switch all light engines to either 30% or 50% light output. nLIGHT AIR CONTROLS The DSX0 LED area luminaire is also available with nLight® AIR for the ultimate in wireless control. This powerful controls platform provides out-of-the-box basic motion sensing and photocontrol functionality and is suitable for mounting heights up to 40 feet. Once commissioned using a smartphone and the easy-to- use CLAIRITY app, nLight AIR equipped luminaries can be grouped, resulting in motion sensor and photocell group response without the need for additional equipment. Scheduled dimming with motion sensor over-ride can be achieved when used with the nLight Eclypse. Additional information about nLight Air can be found here. INSTALLATION Integral mounting arm allows for fast mounting using Lithonia standard #8 drilling and accommodates pole drilling's from 2.41 to 3.12" on center. The standard “SPA” option for square poles and the “RPA” option for round poles use the #8 drilling. For #5 pole drillings, use SPA5 or RPA5. Additional mountings are available including a wall bracket (WBA) and mast arm (MA) option that allows luminaire attachment to a 2 3/8” horizontal mast arm. LISTINGS UL listed to meet U.S. and Canadian standards. UL Listed for wet locations. Light engines are IP66 rated; luminaire is IP66 rated. Rated for -40°C minimum ambient. DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) Premium qualified product and DLC qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC Premium qualified or DLC qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at www.designlights.org/ QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) Fixture Seal of Approval (FSA) is available for all products on this page utilizing 3000K color temperature only. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT BAA – Buy America(n) Act: Product with the BAA option qualifies as a domestic end product under the Buy American Act as implemented in the FAR and DFARS. Product with the BAA option also qualifies as manufactured in the United States under DOT Buy America regulations. BABA – Build America Buy America: Product with the BAA option also qualifies as produced in the United States under the definitions of the Build America, Buy America Act. Please refer to www.acuitybrands.com/buy-american for additional information. WARRANTY 5-year limited warranty. This is the only warranty provided and no other statements in this specification sheet create any warranty of any kind. All other express and implied warranties are disclaimed. Complete warranty terms located at: www.acuitybrands.com/support/warranty/terms-and-conditions Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C. Specifications subject to change without notice. Page 129 of 367 PROJECT NAME: QUANTITY: TYPE: ORDERING CODE: LN601B/LN602B INLINE BOLLARD LN601B/LN602B Rev. 11/20/24 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 1 of 6 ➀ Heavy cast aluminum top cover. ➁ Optical system assembly. ➂ Access door to rotation mechanism. ➃ Ø6” (152mm) extruded aluminum body. ➄ Modules rotate 355º and are field-adjustable (shipped facing same direction). ➅ Cast aluminum internal mounting base.LN601B ➄ ➅ MATERIALS Inline is made of corrosion resistant 356 heavy duty cast aluminum alloy with a copper (CU) content of less than 0.1% with stainless steel hardware. ELECTRICAL DRIVER Driver is 0-10V dimming-ready (dims to 10%) with: 120-277 multi- volt compatibility (50-60Hz), operating temperatures of -40°C/-40°F to 55°C/131°F, output over voltage protection, output over current protection, output short circuit protection with auto-recovery. LED LIGHT ENGINE Offered in 2700K/3000K/3500K/4000K CCT with 80 CRI. Optional true amber LED for turtle sensitive areas. Wavelengths: 585nm to 597nm. 70% LED lumen maintenance at 60,000 hours (L70/B50) based on IESNA LM-80-08 LED extrapolated life, calculated per IESNA TM-21-21. FINISH Five-stage preparation process including preheating of cast aluminum parts for air extraction, and an environmentally friendly alloy sealant. Polyester powder coating is applied through an electrostatic process and oven cured for long term finish. CERTIFICATION UL Certified to Canadian and U.S. safety standards. Certified for use in wet locations. Rated IP65. Photometric testing performed by an independent laboratory in accordance with IES LM-79-08 standards at 25°C. Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. WARRANTY 5-year limited warranty. This is the only warranty provided and no other statements in this specification sheet create any warranty of any kind. All other express and implied warranties are disclaimed. Complete warranty terms located at: https://www.acuitybrands.com/ support/warranty/terms-and-conditions MOUNTING Mounts with a set of 4 x 1/2”-13 x 18” lg. galvanized anchor bolts. See mounting details for more information. MEASUREMENTS ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ LN602B LN601B-H39LN601B-H24 LN602B Ø6”(152mm) Ø6”(152mm) Ø6” (152mm) 14.8” (376mm) 14.8” (376mm) OAH 39” (991mm)OAH 24” (610mm) 28.4” (721mm) OAH 46” (1168mm) Page 130 of 367 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 2 of 6 LN601B/LN602B INLINE BOLLARD LN601B/LN602B Rev. 11/20/24 ORDERING CODE *SERIES *LIGHT OUTPUT *DISTRIBUTION *BOLLARD HEIGHT *CCT2 *VOLTAGE LN601B Static White L1L10 1116 lm / 11w L1L20 2143 lm / 23w L1L30 3156 lm / 36w L1L40 4191 lm / 53w True Amber L1LK2A 229 lm / 11w 1 Delivered lumens calculated at 4000K/80CRI except for amber. FLD distribution. Typical power consumption. Refer to LCF table for outputs at other CCTs. NR Narrow optics 15° FLD Flood optics 30° VWD Wide flood optics 55° LD3 Type III, Short For LCF refer to chart. H24 24" H39 39" 27K 2700K 30K 3000K 35K 3500K 40K 4000K AMB Wavelengths: 585nm to 597nm 120 120V 277 277V 347 347V 480 480V HVOLT 347V-480V MVOLT 120V-277V FUSE SURGE PROTECTOR GFI EMERGENCY *FINISH10 WOOD FINISH13 FS Fuse SP Surge protector CGF Circuit ground fault interruption receptacle with clear in-use cover3,4,5 GFI Circuit ground fault interruption receptacle3,4,6 REM7 Remote emergency battery, 90 min7,8,9 BKT Jet black BZT Bronze CHT Champagne DGT Gun metal GRT Titanium gray MST Matte silver SGT Steel gray WHT Snow white CMC Custom matched color11 RAL RAL color12 ADG American douglas BRC Birch CHN Chestnut CRY Cherry KNP Knotty pine MPL Maple OFL Oak RSW Rosewood TEK Teak WLN Walnut ENVIRONMENT LESS ANCHOR BOLTS MG Marine grade paint14 L/AB Less anchor bolts NOTES *- Denotes a required field 1- Available only with AMB. 2- For IDA certification compliance, luminaire must be ordered with 3000K or warmer. 3- Available only on LN601B-H39. 4- GFI and CGF requires 120V feed. GFI and CGF are installed 15” above grade. 5- CGF cover protrudes by 3.75” (95mm). 6- GFI cover protrudes by 1.75” (45mm). 7- 120V or 277V only. 8- Remote mount 50ft - 12” (305mm) square enclosure with access cover. Cable between fixture and remote box is provided by other. 9- California Title 20 Compliant. 10- For any standard finish, access door will be painted black to reduce glare and minimize uplight. Different access door color available on demand. 11- Contact factory to coordinate custom matching color. 12- Specify RAL number. 13- Faux wood finish not applied to the fixture head or accessories. For faux wood finish, access door will have same faux wood finish. See example in option details. Additional delay required. Not compatible with marine grade paint. 14- Marine grade paint for harsh, coastal environment and exposure to salt water. Additional delay required. Page 131 of 367 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 3 of 6 LN601B/LN602B INLINE BOLLARD LN601B/LN602B Rev. 11/20/24 ORDERING CODE *SERIES *LIGHT OUTPUT *DISTRIBUTION *CCT3 *VOLTAGE FUSE LN602B1 Static White L2L10 2232 lm / 22w L2L20 4286 lm / 46w L2L30 6312 lm / 72w L2L40 8382 lm / 106w True Amber L2LK2A 458 lm / 22w2 Delivered lumens calculated at 4000K/80CRI except for amber. FLD distribution. Typical power consumption. Refer to LCF table for outputs at other CCTs. NR Narrow optics 15° FLD Flood optics 30° VWD Wide flood optics 55° LD3 Type III, Short For LCF refer to chart. 27K 2700K 30K 3000K 35K 3500K 40K 4000K AMB Wavelengths: 585nm to 597nm 120 120V 277 277V 347 347V 480 480V HVOLT 347V-480V MVOLT 120V-277V FS Fuse SURGE PROTECTOR EMERGENCY *FINISH8 WOOD FINISH11 ENVIRONMENT SP Surge protector REM7 Remote emergency battery, 90 min4,5,6,7 BKT Jet black BZT Bronze CHT Champagne DGT Gun metal GRT Titanium gray MST Matte silver SGT Steel gray WHT Snow white CMC Custom matched color9 RAL RAL color10 ADG American douglas BRC Birch CHN Chestnut CRY Cherry KNP Knotty pine MPL Maple OFL Oak RSW Rosewood TEK Teak WLN Walnut MG Marine grade paint12 LESS ANCHOR BOLTS L/AB Less anchor bolts NOTES *- Denotes a required field 1- All light modules are factory-assembled in the same direction. They can be rotated in the field. 2- Available only with AMB. 3- For IDA certification compliance, luminaire must be ordered with 3000K or warmer. 4- 120V or 277V only. 5- Remote mount 50ft - 12” (305mm) square enclosure with access cover. Cable between fixture and remote box is provided by other. 6- California Title 20 Compliant. 7- Only the bottom light module will light up during emergency mode. 8- For any standard finish, access door will be painted black to reduce glare and minimize uplight. Different access door color available on demand. 9- Contact factory to coordinate custom matching color. 10- Specify RAL number. 11- Faux wood finish not applied to the fixture head or accessories. For faux wood finish, access door will have same faux wood finish. See example in option details. Additional delay required. Not compatible with marine grade paint. 12- Marine grade paint for harsh, coastal environment and exposure to salt water. Additional delay required. Page 132 of 367 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 4 of 6 LN601B/LN602B INLINE BOLLARD LN601B/LN602B Rev. 11/20/24 TYPICAL PHOTOMETRY SUMMARY LN601B-L1L40-NR LN601B-L1L40-FLD LN601B-L1L40-LD3LN601B-L1L40-VWD Total Lms: 3939 Lumens Total Input Watts: 53 W Efficacy: 74 Lumens/Watt BUG: B0-U1-G0 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 27389 @ 0°/42.5°V Total Lms: 4191 Lumens Total Input Watts: 53 W Efficacy: 79 Lumens/Watt BUG: B0-U1-G0 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 12608 @ 0°/40°V Total Lms: 4065 Lumens Total Input Watts: 53 W Efficacy: 77 Lumens/Watt BUG: B0-U1-G0 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 7814 @ 0°/40°V Total Lms: 3185 Lumens Total Input Watts: 53 W Efficacy: 60 Lumens/Watt BUG: B0-U1-G1 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 3520 @ 0°/42.5°V LUMEN CONVERSION FACTOR (LCF) CCT CRI LCF 2700K 80 0.94 3000K 80 0.97 3500K 80 0.99 4000K 80 1.00 LUMEN CONVERSION FACTOR (LCF) DISTRIBUTION LCF NR 0.94 FLD 1.00 VWD 0.97 LD3 0.76 All Photometry shown use the 80CRI 4000K LEDs. Please visit our web site www.luminis.com for complete I.E.S. file. 6847 13695 20542 27389 R15-L1L40 1954 3907 5861 7814 R55-L1L40 3152 6304 9456 12608 R30-L1L40 880 1760 2640 3520 TYP3-L1L40 Page 133 of 367 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 5 of 6 LN601B/LN602B INLINE BOLLARD LN601B/LN602B Rev. 11/20/24 MOUNTING DETAILS Base is secured with a set of (4) 1/2”-13 x 18” lg. galvanized anchor bolts. 2.8” (71mm) Anchor bolt projection above finished grade 4.25” (108mm) Bolt circle2.12” (54mm) 5.69” (144.5mm) 4 x 1/2”-13 BOLTS @ 90º FAUX WOOD Access door will have same faux wood finish. Faux wood finish not applied to rest of the fixture and accessories. Not compatible with marine grade finish. STANDARD COLOR For any standard finish, access door will be black color to reduce glare and minimize uplight. Different access door color available on demand. Access door Access door FINISH DETAILS Page 134 of 367 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 6 of 6 LN601B/LN602B INLINE BOLLARD LN601B/LN602B Rev. 11/20/24 GFI/CGF GFI and CGF options are installed 15” above grade. GFI cover protrudes by 1.75” (45mm). CGF cover protrudes by 3.75” (95mm). LN601B-H39 only. REM7 Remote mount 120/277V emergency battery pack (624 lm/90 min). Test switch provided within enclosure with 5” (127mm) leads. Max. distance 50ft. (15.2 M) 4.1”(104mm) 12”(305mm) 10”(254mm) (4) Mtg. holesØ 0.2” (5mm) GFI CGF OPTION DETAILS Page 135 of 367 PROJECT NAME: QUANTITY: TYPE: ORDERING CODE: CT101 CLERMONT PENDANT/CATENARY CT101 Rev. 11/18/24 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 1 of 4 ➀ Field adjustable suspension stem or silver braided power cable with aircraft safety cable. Also, offered with a catenary suspension attachment. ➁ Comfort optic series. ➂ Corrosion resistant diecast aluminum housing. ➃ Indirect LED lighting on highly reflective dome for visual comfort. ➄ Clear tempered glass. ➅ All stainless steel hardware ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄ ➅ MATERIALS Clermont is made of aluminum diecast offering exceptional precision and durability. The main housing is sealed with durable gasket. LED boards are hidden between coated polymer that diffuses and reflects the light at 96%. It is UV stabilized and antistatic, which does not attract dust. The driver is preinstalled inside the main housing, sealed with gasket, and secured with four captive screws which makes it easy for maintenance. ELECTRICAL DRIVER Standard driver is 0-10V dimming-ready (dims to 10%) with: 120-277 multi-volt compatibility (50-60Hz), operating temperature range of -40°C to +55°C -40°F to +131°F, output over voltage protection, output over current protection and output short circuit protection with auto- recovery. Optional 347/480V available. LED LIGHT ENGINE Offered in 2700K, 3000K, 3500K & 4000K / 80CRI. 70% LED lumen maintenance at 60,000 hours (L70/B50) based on IESNA LM-80-08 LED extrapolated life, calculated per IESNA TM-21-21. FINISH Five-stage preparation process includes preheating of cast aluminum parts for air extraction. Polyester powder coating is applied through an electrostatic process, and oven cured for long term finish. CERTIFICATION UL Certified to Canadian and U.S. safety standards. Certified for use in wet locations. Rated IP65/IK9. Photometric testing performed by an independent laboratory in accordance with IES LM-79-08 standards at 25°C. Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. WARRANTY 5-year limited warranty. This is the only warranty provided and no other statements in this specification sheet create any warranty of any kind. All other express and implied warranties are disclaimed. Complete warranty terms located at: https://www.acuitybrands.com/ support/warranty/terms-and-conditions MOUNTING The mounting plate is designed to fit on a 4” (102mm) octagonal electrical box using 3.5” (89mm) C/C mounting holes. For STM, fixture must be installed on a finished ceiling for exterior applications and/or when exposed to inclement weather. For CAT3: see option details. MEASUREMENTS Maximum weight: 27 lbs (12 kg) 5.35” (136mm) 18” (457mm) 13” (330mm) CT101-STM CT101-SPG CT101-CAT3 Page 136 of 367 CT101 CLERMONT PENDANT/CATENARY CT101 Rev. 11/18/24 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 2 of 4 ORDERING CODE *SERIES *LIGHT OUTPUT *CCT3 *VOLTAGE *MOUNTING SUSPENSION LENGTH CT101 Static White L2L25 2639 lm / 25w L2L35 3695 lm / 35w L2L45 4360 lm / 45w L2L50 4996 lm / 55w L2L55 5604 lm / 65w Warm Dimming L2LDW 5000 lm / 57w1 Tunable White L2LWT 5000 lm / 57w2 Delivered lumens calculated at 4000K/80CRI for static white. Typical power consumption. Refer to LCF table for outputs at other CCTs. Delivered lumens calculated at 5000K/80CRI for warm dimming and tunable white. 27K 2700K 30K 3000K 35K 3500K 40K 4000K WDIM 2700K-4000K TUWH 2700K-5000K 120 120V 277 277V 347 347V 480 480V MVOLT 120V-277V HVOLT 347V-480V CAT3 Catenary suspension attachment SPG Silver braided power cord with aircraft cable4 STM Field-cuttable hang straight stem 12IN 12" 24IN 24" 36IN 36" 48IN 48" 60IN 60" Available up to 240” in 12” increments. Required field for SPG, STM. MOUNTING ACCESSORY CONTROLS FUSE SURGE PROTECTOR EMERGENCY STC Set of 3 stabilizer cables5 NLTH nLight AIR 2.0 integrated in head6 RD10 Remote driver7 FS Fuse SP Surge protector EM7 7W integral emergency battery, 90 min8 REM7 Remote emergency battery, 90 min, 7W9 *FINISH ENVIRONMENT BKT Jet black BZT Bronze CHT Champagne DGT Gun metal GRT Titanium gray MST Matte silver SGT Steel gray WHT Snow white CMC Custom matched color10 RAL RAL color11 MG Marine grade paint12 NT Natatorium suitable13 NOTES *- Denotes a required field 1- Available only with WDIM. Not available with 347V, 480V, HVOLT or EM7. 2- Available only with TUWH. Not available with 347V, 480V, HVOLT or EM7. 3- For IDA certification compliance, luminaire must be ordered with 3000K or warmer. 4- For interior applications only. 5- Available only with STM. 6- Not available with 347V, 480V, HVOLT, REM7, EM7, WDIM, TUWH. 7- Remote mount 50ft - 12” (305mm) square enclosure with access cover. The remote enclosure must be interior. Cable between fixture and remote box is provided by others. 8- Integral to luminaire housing. Integral is not suitable for temperatures under 0ºC (32ºF). Not available with 347V, 480V, HVOLT or RD10. 9- Remote mount 50ft - 12” (305mm) square enclosure with access cover. Not available with 347V, 480V or HVOLT. The remote enclosure must be interior. Cable between fixture and remote box is provided by others. 10- Contact factory to coordinate custom matching color. 11- Specify RAL number. 12- Marine grade paint for harsh, coastal environment and exposure to salt water. Additional delay required. 13- Available only in WHT and BKT. Page 137 of 367 CT101 CLERMONT PENDANT/CATENARY CT101 Rev. 11/18/24 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 3 of 4 TYPICAL PHOTOMETRY SUMMARY CT101-L2L25 CT101-L2L35 CT101-L2L50CT101-L2L45 LUMEN CONVERSION FACTOR (LCF) CCT CRI LCF 2700K 80 0.91 3000K 80 0.94 3500K 80 0.98 4000K 80 1.00 0-10V Input 1 CCT control 2700K CCT scale 5000K 0 10V 0-10V Input 2 Intensity control 1% Intensity scale 100% 0 10V User can modify the correlated color temperature (CCT) and intensity of the source using two slider controls or an intelligent lighting management system. 0-10V Input 1CCT & Intensity control 2700K Intensity & CCT scale 4000K 0 10V Warm dimming (0-10V) lowers the LED temperature (CCT) as it is dimmed. The lower the brightness, the warmer the CCT. TUNABLE WHITE WARM DIMMING Total Lms: 2647 Lumens Total Input Watts: 25 W Efficacy: 106 Lumens/Watt BUG: B1-U0-G0 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 866 @ 180°H/2°V Total Lms: 3695 Lumens Total Input Watts: 35 W Efficacy: 106 Lumens/Watt BUG: B1-U0-G1 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 1213 @ 180°H/2°V Total Lms: 4360 Lumens Total Input Watts: 45 W Efficacy: 97 Lumens/Watt BUG: B2-U0-G1 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 1431 @ 180°H/2°V Total Lms: 5012 Lumens Total Input Watts: 50 W Efficacy: 91 Lumens/Watt BUG: B2-U0-G1 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 1639 @ 180°H/2°V CT101-L2L55 CT101-L2LWT CT101-L2LDW Total Lms: 5622 Lumens Total Input Watts: 65 W Efficacy: 86 Lumens/Watt BUG: B2-U0-G1 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 1839 @ 180°H/2°V Total Lms: 5016 Lumens Total Input Watts: 57 W Efficacy: 88 Lumens/Watt BUG: B2-U0-G1 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 1641 @ 180°H/2°V Total Lms: 5016 Lumens Total Input Watts: 57 W Efficacy: 88 Lumens/Watt BUG: B2-U0-G1 CCT/CRI: 4000K/80 Maximum Candela: 1641 @ 180°H/2°V All Photometry shown use the 80CRI 4000K LEDs. Please visit our web site www.luminis.com for complete I.E.S. file. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Page 138 of 367 CT101 CLERMONT PENDANT/CATENARY CT101 Rev. 11/18/24 LUMINIS.COM Toll free: (866) 586-4647 | Fax: (514) 683-8872 | Email: info@luminis.com 260 Labrosse, Pointe-Claire (QC) Canada H9R 5L5 © 2024 Acuity Brands Lighting Canada, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications subject to change without notice.Page 4 of 4 OPTION DETAILS CAT3 Cast aluminum catenary junction box with 4 sealed connectors by Luminis and pre-inserted into housing. Ready to accept 1/4” or 1/2” stainless steel suspension cable. Weight: 29.5 lbs (13.4 kg) / EPA: 0.19 ft² (Structural design, power cable, control cable, stainless steel catenary cable, cable fittings, and fittings for mounting to support structure provided by others.) SPG Silver braided power cord with onsite adjustable aircraft safety cable, consisting of 3 long cables joined Ø 4.50” (114mm) canopy. STM Heavy duty 45° hang straight swivel, with Ø 4.50” (114mm) canopy and universal mounting plate. Ø 7/8” (22mm) suspension stem with aircraft safety cable. STEM Ø 1/4” aircraft cable Catenary junction box 5.50” (140mm) 11”(276mm) 18” (452mm) STC Set of three stabilizer cables. For stem mount only. NLTH nLight AIR Control gen2 and black antenna. Available with SPG, STM or CAT3 ANGLE ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM 12 12 Power cable in: 3 conductor x 14 gauge AWG. The 2 cable glands located at the top can accommodate a cable ranging from 10mm - 14mm. Control cable in: The 2 cable glands on the bottom can accommodate a cable ranging from 6mm - 11mm. REM7 Remote mount 120/277V emergency battery pack (1110 lm/90 min). Test switch provided within enclosure with 5” (127mm) leads. Applicable for all mount options. Max. distance 50ft. (15.2 M) 4.10”(104mm) 12”(305mm)10”(254mm) 10”(254mm) (4) Mtg. holesØ 0.20” (5mm) Page 139 of 367 Page 140 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 1 SECTION 32 84 00 - UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Planting irrigation requirements (design-build subcontract). B. Related Sections: 1. Section 329200 – Lawns and Grasses. 2. Section 329300 – Planting. 3. Section 329220 – Native Seeding. 4. Division 22 Plumbing for water metering requirements. 5. Division 23 HVAC for water metering equipment. 1.2 REFERENCES A. Irrigation Association, “Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices”, 2014 (IR BMP). 1.3 DEFINITIONS A. Controllers, Climate-based: Weather-based irrigation controls that use real-time or historical weather information along with landscape parameters entered by the vendor to schedule or allow for irrigation when plants need water. B. Controllers, Sensor-based: Soil-moisture-based irrigation controls that are inserted into the soil to measure moisture enabling irrigation when the plants need water. C. Rain Sensors: A rain shut-off device designed to interrupt a scheduled cycle of an automatic irrigation system controller (i.e. timer) when a certain amount of rainfall has occurred. D. Main Piping: Downstream from point of connection to water distribution piping to, and including, control valves. Piping is under water-distribution -system pressure. E. Circuit Piping: Downstream from control valves to sprinklers, specialties, and drain valves. Piping is under pressure during flow. F. Drain Piping: Downstream from circuit-piping drain valves. Piping is not under pressure. G. Low Voltage: As defined in NFPA 70 for circuits and equipment operating at less than 50 V or for remote-control, signaling power-limited circuits. H. Hydrozone: Planting designed in clusters with similar water requirements to conserve water. Page 141 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 2 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Planting Irrigation Submittal Package: For irrigation systems indicated to comply with specified performance requirements and design criteria. Include the following: 1. Project Analysis and Basis of Design: Statement of design clarifications and assumptions, including: a. Water sources to be used. b. Total landscape water demand based on area, effective rainfall, water window, assumed irrigation efficiency, and energy constraints for system operation. c. Temporary system needs, if applicable d. Indicate compliance with local water laws or regulations, permitting requirements and applicable codes. e. Connection requirements to Owner’s existing irrigation system, including required modifications. 2. Component Product Data: For each type of product indicated. Include the following: a. Manufacturers, model numbers, product features and specifications. b. Rated capacities, operating characteristics, electrical characteristics, and furnished specialties and accessories. c. Labels indicating compliance with WaterSense or SWAT as applicable. 3. Drawings: Irrigation systems, drawn to scale, on which components are shown and coordinated with each other. Include the following: a. Adjustments necessary to avoid plantings and obstructions such as signs and light standards. 4. Wiring Diagrams: For power, signal, and control wiring. B. Informational Submittals: 1. Qualification Data: For qualified Installer. 2. Zoning Chart: Show each irrigation zone and its control valve. 3. Controller Timing Schedule: Indicate timing settings for each automatic controller zone. 4. Field quality -control reports. C. Closeout Submittals: 1. Operation and Maintenance Data: For sprinklers controllers and valves to include in operation and maintenance manuals. Include instructions indicating procedures for routine operation and maintenance of the irrigation system, including controllers, during first year of plant establishment, and one typical year including maintenance for climatic variations. Page 142 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 3 1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Planting Irrigation Specialist: Engage an experienced firm with minimum 3 years’ experience in work similar in material, design, and extent to that indicated for this Project and as follows: 1. Irrigation Association, Certified Irrigation Contractor (CIC). B. Pre-Installation Conference: Convene a pre-installation meeting minimum one week prior to commencing work of this Section. 1. Require attendance of parties directly affecting Work of this Section. 2. Review conditions of operations, procedures and coordination with related Work. 3. Agenda: a. Tour, inspect, and discuss conditions of planting materials. b. Review planting schedule and maintenance. c. Review required inspections. d. Review environmental procedures. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.1 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS / DESIGN CRITERIA A. General: Design and provide by irrigation system, by a qualified irrigation specialist, using performance requirements and design criteria indicated. 1. Connect to and extend Owner’s existing irrigation system. a. Modify portions of existing irrigation system as required to accommodate new system. 2. Coverage: Indicated on Drawings. B. Irrigation Efficiency: Design and provide planting irrigation systems that complies with the following: 1. Reduces irrigation potable water use by 50 percent from a calculated mid- summer baseline. a. Calculate baseline irrigation usage for July as follows: 1) Baseline Usage = Landscaped Area X Evapotranspiration Rate X 0.62. b. Reduction Contribution: Reduction may be achieved by a combination of the following: 1) Irrigation efficiency. 2) Plant species, density, and microclimate factor. 3) Use of captured rainwater. 4) Use of recycled wastewater. Page 143 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 4 5) Use of water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for non-potable uses. 2. Irrigation water usage meets specified irrigation water budget. 3. Landscape irrigation systems shall not direct water onto building exterior surfaces, foundations or exterior paved surfaces. Systems shall not generate runoff. 4. Irrigation zones shall be based on plant water needs with plants of similar need grouped together. a. Turfgrass shall not be grouped with other plantings on the same zone. C. Site Assessment: Conduct a Project site assessment as required to design system to meet specified performance requirements and design criteria, including weather data and physical site features. 1. Planting Areas: Indicated on Drawings (Landscape series). 2. Landscape Water Budgeting Calculations: Perform calculations as required to estimate water requirements and compare water allowance. a. Comply with IR BMP 3.2 and Appx B. b. If water requirement is greater than water budget, notify Architect to make landscape or planting adjustments. 3. Establish water window and frequency. 4. Calculate base irrigation schedule. 5. Design and provide separate irrigation zones as required to supply planting. 6. Identify specimen or heritage trees, or other special features. D. Water Sources for Irrigation: 1. Irrigation Water Sources: a. Connection to existing irrigation water source. b. Municipal potable water. 2. Point of Water Connection: Locate and determine. 3. Meters: Dedicated irrigation -only meters and flow sensors that measure and indicate the amount of water applied to the landscape. 4. Backflow Prevention: Assembly located downstream of POC at non-turfgrass areas and accessible for servicing, and also protected from vandalism, theft, and freezing. 5. Municipal Water Supplies: Calculate maximum safe flow rates. E. Irrigation Components, General: Select and provide as required to comply with specified performance requirements and design criteria. F. Sprinklers: Products with heads and nozzles that apply water uniformly to target areas indicated, and are compatible with water source quality indicated, and as follows: Page 144 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 5 1. Calculations: Calculate the precipitation/application rate of the sprinklers for each zone. a. For turfgrass areas, specify a minimum low quarter distribution uniformity (DUlq) based upon size and geometry of the area. 2. Do not exceed manufacturer’s sprinkler spacing recommendations. 3. Do not include landscape areas less than 4 feet (1230 mm) in any dimension. 4. Do not include slopes greater than 1 unit vertical to 4 units horizontal (25- percent slope). 5. Design system so sprinklers operate within manufacturer’s recommended operating pressure. 6. Use matched precipitation rate sprinklers (+/– 5 percent) within a zone. 7. Design system to target each planting area with no overspray of impervious surfaces or adjacent planting areas. Prevent runoff of water from the site. Avoid above ground fixed risers near pedestrian walkways, bicycle paths, etc. 8. Space sprinklers a minimum of 2 inches from hard surface edges but farther than 2 inches where possible to minimize overspray, back ‐splash or wind drift. 9. Design for a pop‐up height of the sprinkler to clear interference from vegetation. 10. Design the system to avoid or eliminate low‐head drainage. G. Micro-Irrigation System: Equip with pressure regulators, filters, and flush end assemblies. Provide one or a combination of drip irrigation, micro-spray jets, micro- sprinklers, or bubbler-style watering system. 1. Calculations: Water delivery rate shall be proportional to the plant type and size. Determine application rate per zone, management allowed depletion factor, and monthly zone run times based on local historical evapotranspiration (ET). a. Create a separate schedule for plant establishment. 2. Design separate drip irrigation zones for each planting area where drip irrigation will be used. Do not mix subsurface drip with other drip areas. Design micro-irrigation zones separate from other sprinkler zones. 3. Emitter Type and Placement: Select emitter type and coordinate placement to accommodate soils, plants, and slopes indicated. 4. Piping: Looped where practical to improve system hydraulics and mitigate possible contamination of tubing if system is damaged. Avoid any dead ends that cannot be flushed. 5. Include pressure regulators, filtration filters, flush valves, and relief and check valves as required to regulate the system. a. Pressure Regulators: Not greater than 40 psi (275.8 kPa), filters, and flush end assemblies. H. Valves and Valve Boxes: Page 145 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 6 1. Calculations: Designate an acceptable operating pressure range (minimum to maximum). Calculate the flow rate for each zone control valve. 2. Install valves to accommodate identified hydrozones. 3. Size zone control valve so that flow through valve is within manufacturer’s stated flow range, and so that pressure loss does not exceed 10 percent of static pressure. 4. Install valves above grade in a valve box large enough to service or access. 5. Locate valve boxes out of pedestrian pathways, equipment access. 6. Drainage Backfill: Cleaned gravel or crushed stone, graded from 3/4 inch (19 mm) minimum to 3 inches (75 mm) maximum. I. Pipes and Fittings: Design to comply with the following: 1. Calculations: a. Pressure loss for the “worst‐case” zone (largest or farthest from POC, or greatest elevation change). b. Flow in plastic pipe operating at full system capacity. 2. Piping: a. Working pressure rating of mainline pipe minimum of 200 psi or at least twice the anticipated design pressure of the system, whichever is greater. b. Mainline piping sized to optimize pressure/flow conditions and same pressure rating throughout. c. Lateral pipes pressure rating at least two times the operating pressure of sprinklers. d. Lateral piping sized to minimize pressure losses and optimize flow conditions. 3. Fittings and Connections: Suitable for the type of pipe, exposure, operating pressure and flow applications. a. Gasketed fittings on piping with restraints or thrust blocking. b. HDPE fittings of fusion or socket joined with same dimension ratio (DR) as pipe. c. Fittings for PE pipe of insert‐type or compression‐type, suitable for size and pressure rating of system, and using suitable clamps. d. Threaded PVC pipe for nipples of Schedule 80 or better. J. Controllers: Demand based irrigation controls, of weather-based, or soil moisture- based type, complying with the most current definitions and testing protocols published by Smart Water Application Technologies (SWAT). 1. Rain Sensors: Equip irrigation systems with rain sensors. 2. Controller Location: Interior. a. Interior Control Enclosures: NEMA 250, Type 12, drip-proof, with locking cover and two matching keys. Page 146 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 7 b. overall dimensions of controller. Include opening for wiring. Page 147 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 8 3. Equipped irrigation systems with controllers that contain the following features: a. Multiple programming capabilities; minimum of three different programs to allow for separate schedules. b. Multiple start times (cycling, cycle/soak, stackable start times); minimum of three different start times to allow for multiple irrigation cycles on the same zone for areas prone to runoff. c. Variable run times. d. Variable scheduling; minimum of 14 days to allow for watering on even day scheduling, odd day scheduling, calendar day scheduling, and interval scheduling. e. Percent Up/Down Adjust, or water budget feature, that permits the user to increase or decrease the run-times or application rates for each zone by a prescribed percentage, by means of one adjustment without modifying the settings for that individual zone. f. Capability to accept external soil moisture and/or rain sensors. g. Non-volatile memory or self -charging battery circuit. h. Complete shutoff capability for total cessation of outdoor irrigation. 4. Wiring: UL 493, Type UF multiconductor, with solid-copper conductors; insulated cable; suitable for direct burial. a. Electrical Connections: Solid mechanical connection of copper conductors using a UL‐listed devices and waterproof kit for electrical insulation of connection. Connector assemblies listed under UL 486D. 5. Controller Map and Base Schedule: Laminated and placed adjacent to or within the controller. Include field modifications. Denote boundaries of each irrigation zone, and correlate with stations on controller. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.1 PREPARATION A. Utilities: Contact utility locating service companies prior to installation to locate gas lines, electrical, telephone, cable TV and other applicable utilities. Do not being installation until underground utilities are located and marked. B. Protection: C. Verify that erosion and sedimentation controls are in place prior to installation of irrigation systems. D. Excavating, trenching, and backfilling are specified in Civil documents. E. Drain Pockets: Excavate to sizes indicated. Backfill with cleaned gravel or crushed stone, graded from 3/4 to 3 inches (19 to 75 mm), to 12 inches (300 mm) below grade. Cover gravel or crushed stone with sheet of asphalt-saturated felt and backfill remainder with excavated material. Page 148 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 9 F. Install warning tape directly above pressure piping, 12 inches (300 mm) below finished grades, except 6 inches (150 mm) below subgrade under pavement and slabs. G. Set stakes to identify locations of proposed irrigation system. Obtain Architect's approval before excavation. H. Verify that water sources, points of connection, including pump stations, flow rate, and static and dynamic pressures meet design criteria. 3.2 INSTALLATION A. Install irrigation system in accordance with approved Irrigation Plan, and as follows: 1. Comply with product manufacturer’s written installation instructions as applicable. 2. Ensure all sprinklers and valve boxes are set to proper grade and that valve boxes are properly supported. 3. Wire valves in logical sequence (for example, walking order clockwise from the controller) for ease of maintenance. 4. Make all necessary final sprinkler adjustments to avoid unwanted overspray and to ensure sprinklers are precisely set to water only the target areas. B. Depth of Pipe Bury: Provide minimum cover over top of underground piping 1. Irrigation Main Piping: Minimum depth not less than 18 inches (450 mm) below average local frost depth. 2. Circuit Piping: 12 inches (300 mm). 3. Drain Piping: 12 inches (300 mm). 4. Sleeves: 24 inches (600 mm). C. Piping Installation: 1. Location and Arrangement: Drawings indicate location and arrangement of piping systems. Install piping as indicated unless deviations are approved on Coordination Drawings. 2. Install piping at minimum uniform slope of 0.5 percent down toward drain valves. 3. Install piping free of sags and bends. 4. Install groups of pipes parallel to each other, spaced to permit valve servicing. 5. Install fittings for changes in direction and branch connections. 6. Install unions adjacent to valves and to final connections to other components with NPS 2 (DN 50) or smaller pipe connection. 7. Install flanges adjacent to valves and to final connections to other components with NPS 2-1/2 (DN 65) or larger pipe connection. Page 149 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 10 D. Joint Construction: 1. Ream ends of pipes and tubes and remove burrs. Bevel plain ends of steel pipe. 2. Remove scale, slag, dirt, and debris from inside and outside of pipe and fittings before assembly. 3. Threaded Joints: Thread pipe with tapered pipe threads according to ASME B1.20.1. Cut threads full and clean using sharp dies. Ream threaded pipe ends to remove burrs and restore full ID. Join pipe fittings and valves as follows: a. Apply appropriate tape or thread compound to external pipe threads unless dry seal threading is specified. b. Damaged Threads: Do not use pipe or pipe fittings with threads that are corroded or damaged. Do not use pipe sections that have cracked or open welds. 4. Flanged Joints: Select rubber gasket material, size, type, and thickness for service application. Install gasket concentrically positioned. Use suitable lubricants on bolt threads. E. Valve Installation: 1. Underground Curb Valves: Install in curb-valve casings with tops flush with grade. 2. Aboveground Valves: Install as components of connected piping system. 3. Throttling Valves: Install in underground piping in boxes for automatic control valves. 4. Drain Valves: Install in underground piping in boxes for automatic control valves. F. Sprinkler Installation: 1. Install sprinklers after hydrostatic test is completed. 2. Install sprinklers at manufacturer's recommended heights. 3. Locate part-circle sprinklers to maintain a minimum distance of 4 inches (100 mm) from walls and 2 inches (50 mm) from other boundaries unless otherwise indicated. G. Control System Installation: 1. Equipment Mounting: Install interior controllers on wall. a. Place and secure anchorage devices. Use setting drawings, templates, diagrams, instructions, and directions furnished with items to be embedded. b. Install anchor bolts to elevations required for proper attachment to supported equipment. c. equipment. 2. Install control cable in same trench as irrigation piping and at least 2 inches (51 mm) below piping. Provide conductors of size not smaller than Page 150 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 11 recommended by controller manufacturer. Install cable in separate sleeve under paved areas. 3.3 IDENTIFICATION A. Identify system components. B. Equipment Nameplates and Signs: Install engraved plastic -laminate equipment nameplates and signs on each automatic controller. 1. Text: In addition to identifying unit, distinguish between multiple units, inform operator of operational requirements, indicate safety and emergency precautions, and warn of hazards and improper operations. C. Warning Tapes: Arrange for installation of continuous, underground, detectable warning tapes over underground piping during backfilling of trenches. 3.4 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL A. Tests and Inspections: Perform tests and inspections as follows: 1. Manufacturer's Field Service: Engage a factory -authorized service representative to inspect components, assemblies, and equipment installations, including connections, and to assist in testing. 2. Test the irrigation system to verify the operating pressure and ensure that there are no leaks and components are adjusted correctly to meet the design criteria 3. Charge system and test for leaks. Repair leaks and retest until no leaks exist. 4. Operational Test: After electrical circuitry has been energized, operate controllers and automatic control valves to confirm proper system operation. a. Program the irrigation controller with the irrigation schedule that will meet the landscape water requirement for the current time of year. b. The schedule will take into account site conditions and will mitigate runoff. c. Produce a written copy and post the controller settings so they can be used for review and reference. 5. Test and adjust controls and safeties. Replace damaged and malfunctioning controls and equipment. B. Any irrigation product will be considered defective if it does not pass tests and inspections. C. Prepare test and inspection reports. 3.5 STARTUP AND ADJUSTING A. Perform startup service. 1. Complete installation and startup checks according to manufacturer's written instructions. 2. Verify that controllers are installed and connected according to the Page 151 of 367 LOCUS Architecture CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center 2024-002 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION 32 84 00 - 12 Contract Documents. 3. Verify that electrical wiring installation complies with manufacturer's submittal. B. Adjust settings of controllers. C. Adjust automatic control valves to provide flow rate at rated operating pressure required for each sprinkler circuit. D. Adjust sprinklers and devices, except those intended to be mounted aboveground, so they will be flush with, or not more than 1/2 inch (13 mm) above, finish grade. 3.6 CLEANING A. Flush dirt and debris from piping before installing sprinklers and other devices. 3.7 DEMONSTRATION A. Train Owner's maintenance personnel to adjust, operate, and maintain automatic control valves and controllers. END OF SECTION Page 152 of 367 Page 153 of 367 PIERCE PINI + ASSOCIATES, INC. C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • E M A I L : R H O N D A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M STORMWATER CALCULATIONS FOR CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center January 14th, 2025 Revised: January 31st, 2025 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 41333 01/14/2025 Name: Reg. No. Date Page 154 of 367 – 2 – 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • E M A I L : R H O N D A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M INDEX 1. Drainage Narrative 2. Stormwater Calculations Summary 3. Drainage Maps a. Existing Conditions Drainage Map b. Proposed Conditions Drainage Map 4. HydroCAD Report 5. Geotechnical Report Page 155 of 367 CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center PPA Project #24-019 Stormwater Narrative Page 1 of 3 STORMWATER MANGEMENT NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The existing site consists of a commercial building, parking lot, sidewalks and a large green space area. The total site area is 70,766 square feet (1.63 acres) of which 23,643 square feet (0.54 acre) is impervious and 47,123 square feet (1.08 acres) is pervious. Currently no stormwater management system exists onsite. The building roof discharges through scuppers and downspouts to grade and runoff from the existing sidewalk and parking lot flows into a series of catchbasins which discharge to city storm sewer in Beard Avenue. Runoff from the remainder of the site sheet flows offsite to the city streets. Soils borings and a geotechnical report were prepared for the site by Haugo Geotechnical Services. The existing onsite fill soils consist of poorly graded sand and poorly graded sand with silt overlain with coarse alluvial soils. The alluvial soils consist of fine to coarse grained poorly graded sand. Groundwater was encountered at elevations ranging from 847.5-849.0 which corresponds to approximately 10-12.5 feet below grade. Due to high groundwater and the existing building and utility infrastructure in the area, infiltration is infeasible and not practical for this project. Proposed Conditions The proposed project consists of the renovation and expansion of the existing building. The parking lot will also be expanded to the north with a new curb cut to 60th Avenue North. There will be new sidewalks, plazas, outdoor gathering spaces and gardens on the property. The proposed conditions will consist of 42,823 square feet (0.98 acre) of impervious area and 27,943 square feet (0.64 acre) of pervious area. Runoff from the site and roof will be collected via catchbasins, area drains and storm sewer pipe which route to the onsite stormwater management systems. The stormwater management for the site will consist of two stormwater filtration systems: • The north parking lot stormwater management system consists of a Pavedrain section underlain with rock storage. There is draintile at the bottom of the rock storage and the section is wrapped in an HDPE liner to prevent infiltration. The draintile flows into a Contech Jellyfish filtration vault which discharges to a manhole that connects to a city catchbasin in 60th Avenue North. There is an overflow pipe from the Pavedrain filtration section, for larger storm events that bypasses the filtration vault, that connects to a manhole that discharges to the city storm sewer. • The south parking lot stormwater management system consists of a 54” diameter corrugated metal pipe gallery. The pipe gallery is embedded in a rock section which is enveloped in a geotextile separating fabric. The pipe gallery flows to a Contech Jellyfish filtration vault that discharges to a manhole that connects to an existing city catchbasin in Brooklyn Boulevard. There is an overflow pipe from the pipe gallery, for larger events that bypasses the filtration vault, that connects to the same manhole that discharges to the city storm sewer. Page 156 of 367 CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center PPA Project #24-019 Stormwater Narrative Page 2 of 3 Stormwater Management Requirements The Local Governing Unit for stormwater is the City of Brooklyn Center and the requirements are as follows: 1. Projects that disturb more than one acre and more than 50% of the site are required to meet rate control, volume control, and water quality requirements for the entire site. 2. Rate Control Requirements - Peak runoff rates may not exceed existing rates for the 2- year, 10-year, and 100-year, 24-hour, and 100-year, 10-day critical storm events. 3. Volume Control Requirements: Stormwater runoff volume abstraction via infiltration shall be provided onsite in the amount equivalent to 1.1-inch times the sum of the new and fully reconstructed impervious surfaces required to be treated. a. If infiltration is infeasible/prohibited, the required stormwater runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.82. The filtration BMP shall provide this volume below the invert of the low overflow outlet. 4. Water Quality Requirements: There shall be no net increase in TP or TSS from pre- development land cover. a. Pre-development land cover is defined as the predominant land cover over the previous 10 years. The site meets the City of Brooklyn Center requirements as follows: 1. Rate Control Requirement – The following is a summary of the existing and proposed rates discharging from the site. The table shows the proposed rates for the 2-year, 10- year, 100-year, 24-hour, and 100-year, 10-day critical storm events are less than the existing conditions. Runoff Rate Summary Table Existing Conditions Rate (cfs) Proposed Conditions Rate (cfs) 2-Year Event 1.51 1.41 10-Year Event 4.51 1.58 100-Year Event 12.81 4.62 100-Year, 10-Day Critical 2.65 1.40 2. Water Quality Volume Requirement – The tables shows the proposed water quality volume provided for the 1.1” rain event water quality volume with 1.82 filtration multiplier. Water Quality Volume Summary – North System PaveDrain Filtration System Treatment Amount Total Impervious Area (SF) Total Site Required Volume (CF) (Imp. Area * (1.1”/12)*1.82) 19,462 3,247 Treatment System New Impervious Area (SF) Required Treatment Volume (CF)* Treatment Volume Provided (CF) Excess Volume (CF) Filtration System 19,462 3,244 4,142 895 Page 157 of 367 CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center PPA Project #24-019 Stormwater Narrative Page 3 of 3 Water Quality Volume Summary – South System Pipe Gallery Filtration System Treatment Amount Total Impervious Area (SF) Total Site Required Volume (CF) (Imp. Area * (1.1”/12)*1.82) 21,623 3,607 Treatment System New Impervious Area (SF) Required Treatment Volume (CF)* Treatment Volume Provided (CF) Excess Volume (CF) Filtration System 21,623 3,607 4,893 1,286 3. Water Quality Requirement – The 1.1” volume with the 1.82 multiplier for filtration provided as shown in the above table. The water flows through a Contech Jellyfish water quality vault to meet the requirements of no net increase in TP or TSS. 4. 100-Year High Water Level (HWL) – The 100-year storm event HWL for the filtration system is: a. 857.44 feet for the north PaveDrain filtration system b. 856.34 feet for the south pipe gallery filtration system 5. Drawdown Time – Both filtration systems draw down in 72 hours according to the HydroCAD model. Sediment and Erosion Control Silt fence, catchbasin inserts and biologs will be placed within the site and along the perimeter of the disturbed construction area before construction to prevent sediment displacement from the site into the city street, storm sewer and construction stormwater management filtration systems. A rock construction entrance will be established, and site street sweeping performed throughout construction to address tracking from the site. Soil stockpiles will be covered when not used for more than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to prevent windblown sediment from transporting off- site. Permanent erosion control will consist of garden landscaping, seed, sod and pavement. Slopes and swales will be stabilized with a heavy-duty erosion control mat designed for the intended area. A SWPPP has been prepared and will be implemented for the project as the disturbance area is greater than one acre. An NPDES permit will be submitted for this project. Page 158 of 367 EX1 46,259 1.062 49 22,191 0.509 98 68,450 1.571 65 EX2 864 0.020 49 1,452 0.033 98 2,316 0.053 80 Total 47,123 1.082 49 23,643 0.543 98 70,766 1.625 65 P1 19,682 0.452 49 19,462 0.447 98 39,144 0.899 73 P2 6,779 0.156 49 21,623 0.496 98 28,402 0.652 86 P3 1,482 0.034 49 1,738 0.040 98 3,220 0.074 75 Total 27,943 0.641 49 42,823 0.983 98 70,766 1.625 79 Storm Event 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 100-Yr 10-Day Crit Beard Ave (1E)1.37 4.23 12.22 2.55 Storm Event Existing Proposed Brooklyn Blvd (2E)0.14 0.28 0.59 0.10 2-Year 1.51 1.41 10-Year 4.51 1.58 100-Year 12.81 4.62 Storm Event 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 100-Yr 10-Day Crit 100-Yr 10-Day Crit 2.65 1.40 Beard Ave (1R)0.63 0.63 2.81 0.63 Brooklyn Blvd (2R)0.78 0.95 1.81 0.77 4,142 4,893 3,247 3,607 895 1,286 Proposed Runoff Rates (CFS) Rate Summary Table (CFS) Total Site Provided Volume (CF)= Total Site Required Volume (CF)= Total Site Excess Volume (CF)= Treatment System Stormwater Management BMP Provided Treatment Volume (CF) 2P (P2)UG Pipe Gallery 4,893 Water Quality Volume (CMP) Treatement Amount Total Impervious Area (SF) Total Site Required Imp. Area * ((1.1"/12)*1.82)21,623 3,607 CN Value Impervious Area [SF] Total Site Provided Volume Existing Runoff Rates (CFS) Total Site Required Volume Provided Treatment Volume (CF) Water Quality Volume (Pavedrain) 1P (P1)Pavedrain with Rock Storage 4,142 Treatement Amount Total Impervious Area (SF) Total Site Required Volume (CF) Imp. Area * ((1.1"/12)*1.82) 19,462 3,247 CAPI Expansion PN: 24-019 Date: 1/31/25 Drainage Area Pervious Area [SF] Pervious Area [AC] Existing Conditions Total Area [SF]Impervious Area [AC]CN ValueImpervious Area [SF]CN Value Total Site Excess Volume Treatment System Stormwater Management BMP Proposed Conditions CN ValuePervious Area [AC] Impervious Area [AC] CN Value Total Area [AC] Total Area [AC]Total Area [SF] CN ValueDrainage Area Pervious Area [SF] Page 159 of 367 Legend Runoff to city sewer in Beard Ave Runoff to city sewer in Brooklyn Blvd Impervious Area Page 160 of 367 Legend Runoff to Pavedrain System. Pavedrain discharges to Beard Ave storm sewer Runoff to CMP System. CMP discharges to Brooklyn Blvd storm sewer Direct runoff to Brooklyn Blvd storm sewer Impervious Area Page 161 of 367 Existing Proposed EX1 Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots EX2 West Boulevard P1 North Site P2 South Site P3 West Boulevard 1E Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer 1R Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer 2E Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer 2R Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer 1P Pavedrain w Jellyfish 2P SE CMP w Jellyfish Routing Diagram for CAPI Stormwater Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates, Printed 1/30/2025 HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Page 162 of 367 CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.723 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A (EX1, EX2, P1, P2, P3) 1.526 98 Paved parking, HSG A (EX1, EX2, P1, P2, P3) 3.249 72 TOTAL AREA Page 163 of 367 CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 3.249 HSG A EX1, EX2, P1, P2, P3 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 3.249 TOTAL AREA Page 164 of 367 CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (selected nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 1P 853.82 853.50 44.0 0.0073 0.012 12.0 0.0 0.0 2 1P 856.50 856.40 5.0 0.0200 0.010 12.0 0.0 0.0 3 2P 852.20 852.00 7.0 0.0286 0.012 12.0 0.0 0.0 4 2P 855.50 855.34 32.0 0.0050 0.012 8.0 0.0 0.0 Page 165 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=68,450 sf 32.42% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.44"Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Tc=6.0 min CN=65 Runoff=1.37 cfs 0.058 af Runoff Area=2,316 sf 62.69% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.15"Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Tc=6.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.14 cfs 0.005 af Runoff Area=39,144 sf 49.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.77"Subcatchment P1: North Site Tc=6.0 min CN=73 Runoff=1.56 cfs 0.058 af Runoff Area=28,402 sf 76.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.54"Subcatchment P2: South Site Tc=6.0 min CN=86 Runoff=2.28 cfs 0.084 af Runoff Area=3,220 sf 53.98% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.87"Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Tc=6.0 min CN=75 Runoff=0.15 cfs 0.005 af Inflow=1.37 cfs 0.058 afReach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Outflow=1.37 cfs 0.058 af Inflow=0.63 cfs 0.058 afReach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Outflow=0.63 cfs 0.058 af Inflow=0.14 cfs 0.005 afReach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Outflow=0.14 cfs 0.005 af Inflow=0.78 cfs 0.089 afReach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Outflow=0.78 cfs 0.089 af Peak Elev=854.35' Storage=581 cf Inflow=1.56 cfs 0.058 afPond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Outflow=0.63 cfs 0.058 af Peak Elev=853.35' Storage=952 cf Inflow=2.28 cfs 0.084 afPond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Outflow=0.63 cfs 0.084 af Total Runoff Area = 3.249 ac Runoff Volume = 0.210 af Average Runoff Depth = 0.78" 53.04% Pervious = 1.723 ac 46.96% Impervious = 1.526 ac Page 166 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Runoff = 1.37 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Depth= 0.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf)CN Description 46,259 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 22,191 98 Paved parking, HSG A 68,450 65 Weighted Average 46,259 67.58% Pervious Area 22,191 32.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Runoff Area=68,450 sf Runoff Volume=0.058 af Runoff Depth=0.44" Tc=6.0 min CN=65 1.37 cfs Page 167 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.29 0.01 0.04 13.00 2.45 0.28 0.15 14.00 2.59 0.33 0.05 15.00 2.66 0.36 0.05 16.00 2.70 0.38 0.02 17.00 2.74 0.39 0.02 18.00 2.77 0.41 0.02 19.00 2.80 0.42 0.02 20.00 2.82 0.43 0.01 21.00 2.84 0.43 0.01 22.00 2.85 0.44 0.01 23.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 24.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 25.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 26.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 27.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 28.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 29.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 30.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 31.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 32.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 33.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 34.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 35.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 36.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 37.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 38.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 39.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 40.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 41.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 42.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 43.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 44.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 45.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 46.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 47.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 48.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 49.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 50.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 51.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 52.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 54.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 55.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 56.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 57.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 58.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 59.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 60.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 61.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 62.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 63.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 64.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 65.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 66.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 67.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 68.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 69.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 70.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 71.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 72.00 2.86 0.44 0.00 Page 168 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Runoff = 0.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Depth= 1.15" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf)CN Description 864 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 1,452 98 Paved parking, HSG A 2,316 80 Weighted Average 864 37.31% Pervious Area 1,452 62.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Runoff Area=2,316 sf Runoff Volume=0.005 af Runoff Depth=1.15" Tc=6.0 min CN=80 0.14 cfs Page 169 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.29 0.19 0.04 13.00 2.45 0.85 0.01 14.00 2.59 0.95 0.00 15.00 2.66 1.00 0.00 16.00 2.70 1.03 0.00 17.00 2.74 1.06 0.00 18.00 2.77 1.08 0.00 19.00 2.80 1.10 0.00 20.00 2.82 1.12 0.00 21.00 2.84 1.13 0.00 22.00 2.85 1.14 0.00 23.00 2.86 1.14 0.00 24.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 25.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 26.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 27.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 28.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 29.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 30.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 31.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 32.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 33.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 34.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 35.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 36.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 37.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 38.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 39.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 40.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 41.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 42.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 43.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 44.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 45.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 46.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 47.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 48.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 49.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 50.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 51.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 52.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 54.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 55.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 56.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 57.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 58.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 59.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 60.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 61.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 62.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 63.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 64.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 65.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 66.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 67.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 68.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 69.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 70.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 71.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 72.00 2.86 1.15 0.00 Page 170 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: North Site Runoff = 1.56 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Depth= 0.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf)CN Description 19,682 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 19,462 98 Paved parking, HSG A 39,144 73 Weighted Average 19,682 50.28% Pervious Area 19,462 49.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P1: North Site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Runoff Area=39,144 sf Runoff Volume=0.058 af Runoff Depth=0.77" Tc=6.0 min CN=73 1.56 cfs Page 171 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P1: North Site Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.29 0.07 0.34 13.00 2.45 0.54 0.13 14.00 2.59 0.61 0.04 15.00 2.66 0.66 0.04 16.00 2.70 0.68 0.02 17.00 2.74 0.70 0.02 18.00 2.77 0.72 0.02 19.00 2.80 0.73 0.01 20.00 2.82 0.75 0.01 21.00 2.84 0.76 0.01 22.00 2.85 0.77 0.01 23.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 24.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 25.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 26.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 27.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 28.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 29.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 30.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 31.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 32.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 33.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 34.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 35.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 36.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 37.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 38.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 39.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 40.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 41.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 42.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 43.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 44.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 45.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 46.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 47.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 48.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 49.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 50.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 51.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 52.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 54.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 55.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 56.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 57.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 58.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 59.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 60.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 61.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 62.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 63.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 64.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 65.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 66.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 67.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 68.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 69.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 70.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 71.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 72.00 2.86 0.77 0.00 Page 172 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: South Site Runoff = 2.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Depth= 1.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf)CN Description 6,779 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 21,623 98 Paved parking, HSG A 28,402 86 Weighted Average 6,779 23.87% Pervious Area 21,623 76.13% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P2: South Site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Runoff Area=28,402 sf Runoff Volume=0.084 af Runoff Depth=1.54" Tc=6.0 min CN=86 2.28 cfs Page 173 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P2: South Site Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.41 0.00 0.01 12.00 1.29 0.36 0.87 13.00 2.45 1.20 0.14 14.00 2.59 1.31 0.05 15.00 2.66 1.38 0.04 16.00 2.70 1.41 0.02 17.00 2.74 1.44 0.02 18.00 2.77 1.47 0.02 19.00 2.80 1.49 0.01 20.00 2.82 1.51 0.01 21.00 2.84 1.52 0.01 22.00 2.85 1.53 0.01 23.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 24.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 25.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 26.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 27.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 28.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 29.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 30.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 31.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 32.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 33.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 34.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 35.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 36.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 37.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 38.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 39.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 40.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 41.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 42.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 43.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 44.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 45.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 46.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 47.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 48.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 49.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 50.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 51.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 52.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 54.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 55.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 56.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 57.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 58.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 59.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 60.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 61.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 62.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 63.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 64.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 65.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 66.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 67.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 68.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 69.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 70.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 71.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 72.00 2.86 1.54 0.00 Page 174 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Runoff = 0.15 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Depth= 0.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf)CN Description 1,482 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 1,738 98 Paved parking, HSG A 3,220 75 Weighted Average 1,482 46.02% Pervious Area 1,738 53.98% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Runoff Area=3,220 sf Runoff Volume=0.005 af Runoff Depth=0.87" Tc=6.0 min CN=75 0.15 cfs Page 175 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.29 0.10 0.04 13.00 2.45 0.62 0.01 14.00 2.59 0.70 0.00 15.00 2.66 0.75 0.00 16.00 2.70 0.77 0.00 17.00 2.74 0.79 0.00 18.00 2.77 0.81 0.00 19.00 2.80 0.83 0.00 20.00 2.82 0.84 0.00 21.00 2.84 0.85 0.00 22.00 2.85 0.86 0.00 23.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 24.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 25.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 26.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 27.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 28.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 29.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 30.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 31.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 32.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 33.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 34.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 35.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 36.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 37.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 38.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 39.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 40.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 41.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 42.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 43.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 44.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 45.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 46.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 47.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 48.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 49.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 50.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 51.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 52.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 54.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 55.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 56.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 57.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 58.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 59.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 60.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 61.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 62.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 63.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 64.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 65.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 66.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 67.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 68.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 69.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 70.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 71.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 72.00 2.86 0.87 0.00 Page 176 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =1.571 ac, 32.42% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.44" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.37 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af Outflow = 1.37 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=1.571 ac 1.37 cfs 1.37 cfs Page 177 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.04 0.04 13.00 0.15 0.15 14.00 0.05 0.05 15.00 0.05 0.05 16.00 0.02 0.02 17.00 0.02 0.02 18.00 0.02 0.02 19.00 0.02 0.02 20.00 0.01 0.01 21.00 0.01 0.01 22.00 0.01 0.01 23.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 178 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.899 ac, 49.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.77" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af Outflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.899 ac 0.63 cfs 0.63 cfs Page 179 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.13 0.13 13.00 0.21 0.21 14.00 0.04 0.04 15.00 0.04 0.04 16.00 0.02 0.02 17.00 0.02 0.02 18.00 0.02 0.02 19.00 0.01 0.01 20.00 0.01 0.01 21.00 0.01 0.01 22.00 0.01 0.01 23.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 180 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.053 ac, 62.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.15" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af Outflow = 0.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Inflow Area=0.053 ac 0.14 cfs 0.14 cfs Page 181 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.04 0.04 13.00 0.01 0.01 14.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 182 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.726 ac, 73.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.47" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.78 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af Outflow = 0.78 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.726 ac 0.78 cfs 0.78 cfs Page 183 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.01 0.01 12.00 0.64 0.64 13.00 0.64 0.64 14.00 0.05 0.05 15.00 0.04 0.04 16.00 0.02 0.02 17.00 0.02 0.02 18.00 0.02 0.02 19.00 0.01 0.01 20.00 0.01 0.01 21.00 0.01 0.01 22.00 0.01 0.01 23.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 184 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Inflow Area = 0.899 ac, 49.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.77" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.56 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af Outflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Atten= 60%, Lag= 3.3 min Primary = 0.63 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 854.35' @ 12.29 hrs Surf.Area= 4,142 sf Storage= 581 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 10.0 min calculated for 0.058 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 10.0 min ( 815.4 - 805.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1B 854.00' 6,634 cf 58.75'W x 70.50'L x 4.47'H Field B 18,500 cf Overall - 1,916 cf Embedded = 16,584 cf x 40.0% Voids #2B 858.00' 428 cf PaveDrain S6-45 x 4480 Inside #1 Inside= 7.1"W x 5.6"H => 0.10 sf x 1.00'L = 0.1 cf Outside= 12.0"W x 5.6"H => 0.43 sf x 1.00'L = 0.4 cf 4480 Chambers in 64 Rows 7,061 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 853.82'12.0" Round Culvert L= 44.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 853.82' / 853.50' S= 0.0073 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 856.50'12.0" Round PVC Overflow Outlet L= 5.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 856.50' / 856.40' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #3 Device 1 854.00'0.63 cfs Jellyfish JF6 at all elevations Primary OutFlow Max=0.63 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=854.32' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.63 cfs of 0.81 cfs potential flow) 2=PVC Overflow Outlet ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Jellyfish JF6 (Exfiltration Controls 0.63 cfs) Page 185 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish - Chamber Wizard Field B Chamber Model = PaveDrain S6-45 (PaveDrain 12x12 Block with gap storage) Inside= 7.1"W x 5.6"H => 0.10 sf x 1.00'L = 0.1 cf Outside= 12.0"W x 5.6"H => 0.43 sf x 1.00'L = 0.4 cf 12.0" Wide - 1.0" Nesting = 11.0" C-C Row Spacing 70 Chambers/Row x 1.00' Long = 70.00' Row Length +0.50' Row Offset = 70.50' Base Length 64 Rows x 12.0" Wide - 1.0" Nesting x 63 = 58.75' Base Width 48.0" Base + 5.6" Chamber Height = 4.47' Field Height 4,480 Chambers x 0.1 cf = 427.8 cf Chamber Storage 4,480 Chambers x 0.4 cf = 1,916.4 cf Displacement 18,500.4 cf Field - 1,916.4 cf Chambers = 16,583.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 6,633.6 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 7,061.3 cf = 0.162 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 38.2% Overall System Size = 70.50' x 58.75' x 4.47' 4,480 Chambers 685.2 cy Field 614.2 cy Stone Page 186 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=0.899 ac Peak Elev=854.35' Storage=581 cf 1.56 cfs 0.63 cfs Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Primary Stage-Discharge Discharge (cfs) 543210 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 858 857 856 855 854 PVC Overflow Outlet Jellyfish JF6 Page 187 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Storage Stage-Area-Storage Storage (cubic-feet) 7,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 858 857 856 855 854 Field B PaveDrain S6-45 Page 188 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 28HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 12.50 0.30 424 854.26 0.61 15.00 0.04 15 854.01 0.04 17.50 0.02 7 854.00 0.02 20.00 0.01 4 854.00 0.01 22.50 0.00 2 854.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 27.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 32.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 47.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 52.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 57.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 62.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 67.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 Page 189 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 29HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 854.00 0.00 854.05 0.20 854.10 0.29 854.15 0.39 854.20 0.51 854.25 0.63 854.30 0.63 854.35 0.63 854.40 0.63 854.45 0.63 854.50 0.63 854.55 0.63 854.60 0.63 854.65 0.63 854.70 0.63 854.75 0.63 854.80 0.63 854.85 0.63 854.90 0.63 854.95 0.63 855.00 0.63 855.05 0.63 855.10 0.63 855.15 0.63 855.20 0.63 855.25 0.63 855.30 0.63 855.35 0.63 855.40 0.63 855.45 0.63 855.50 0.63 855.55 0.63 855.60 0.63 855.65 0.63 855.70 0.63 855.75 0.63 855.80 0.63 855.85 0.63 855.90 0.63 855.95 0.63 856.00 0.63 856.05 0.63 856.10 0.63 856.15 0.63 856.20 0.63 856.25 0.63 856.30 0.63 856.35 0.63 856.40 0.63 856.45 0.63 856.50 0.63 856.55 0.64 856.60 0.67 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 856.65 0.73 856.70 0.80 856.75 0.88 856.80 0.97 856.85 1.07 856.90 1.18 856.95 1.30 857.00 1.43 857.05 1.57 857.10 1.72 857.15 1.87 857.20 2.02 857.25 2.19 857.30 2.35 857.35 2.52 857.40 2.69 857.45 2.85 857.50 3.02 857.55 3.19 857.60 3.35 857.65 3.50 857.70 3.64 857.75 3.77 857.80 3.88 857.85 3.98 857.90 4.16 857.95 4.32 858.00 4.41 858.05 4.51 858.10 4.60 858.15 4.69 858.20 4.77 858.25 4.86 858.30 4.94 858.35 5.02 858.40 5.10 858.45 5.18 Page 190 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 30HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 854.00 0 854.05 83 854.10 166 854.15 249 854.20 331 854.25 414 854.30 497 854.35 580 854.40 663 854.45 746 854.50 828 854.55 911 854.60 994 854.65 1,077 854.70 1,160 854.75 1,243 854.80 1,325 854.85 1,408 854.90 1,491 854.95 1,574 855.00 1,657 855.05 1,740 855.10 1,822 855.15 1,905 855.20 1,988 855.25 2,071 855.30 2,154 855.35 2,237 855.40 2,319 855.45 2,402 855.50 2,485 855.55 2,568 855.60 2,651 855.65 2,734 855.70 2,816 855.75 2,899 855.80 2,982 855.85 3,065 855.90 3,148 855.95 3,231 856.00 3,314 856.05 3,396 856.10 3,479 856.15 3,562 856.20 3,645 856.25 3,728 856.30 3,811 856.35 3,893 856.40 3,976 856.45 4,059 856.50 4,142 856.55 4,225 856.60 4,308 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 856.65 4,390 856.70 4,473 856.75 4,556 856.80 4,639 856.85 4,722 856.90 4,805 856.95 4,887 857.00 4,970 857.05 5,053 857.10 5,136 857.15 5,219 857.20 5,302 857.25 5,384 857.30 5,467 857.35 5,550 857.40 5,633 857.45 5,716 857.50 5,799 857.55 5,881 857.60 5,964 857.65 6,047 857.70 6,130 857.75 6,213 857.80 6,296 857.85 6,378 857.90 6,461 857.95 6,544 858.00 6,627 858.05 6,742 858.10 6,848 858.15 6,939 858.20 7,005 858.25 7,022 858.30 7,031 858.35 7,040 858.40 7,049 858.45 7,058 Page 191 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 31HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Inflow Area = 0.652 ac, 76.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.54" for 2-Year event Inflow = 2.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af Outflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Atten= 72%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.63 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 853.35' @ 12.33 hrs Surf.Area= 2,596 sf Storage= 952 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 12.3 min calculated for 0.083 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 9.9 min ( 791.7 - 781.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 852.50'0 cf 22.00'W x 118.00'L x 4.00'H Field A 10,384 cf Overall - 6,082 cf Embedded = 4,302 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 852.50' 6,082 cf CMP Round 48 x 20 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L Row Length Adjustment= +10.00' x 12.57 sf x 4 rows 22.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 552.9 cf Inside 6,082 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 852.20'12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 852.20' / 852.00' S= 0.0286 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 855.50'8.0" Round Overflow Outlet L= 32.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 855.50' / 855.34' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 1 852.50'0.63 cfs Jellyfish JF6 at all elevations Primary OutFlow Max=0.63 cfs @ 12.05 hrs HW=852.71' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.63 cfs of 0.97 cfs potential flow) 2=Overflow Outlet ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Jellyfish JF6 (Exfiltration Controls 0.63 cfs) Page 192 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 32HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L Row Length Adjustment= +10.00' x 12.57 sf x 4 rows 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 5 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +10.00' Row Adjustment +4.00' Header x 2 = 118.00' Row Length 4 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 3 = 22.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height = 4.00' Field Height 20 Chambers x 251.3 cf +10.00' Row Adjustment x 12.57 sf x 4 Rows + 22.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 6,082.1 cf Chamber Storage 10,384.0 cf Field - 6,082.1 cf Chambers = 4,301.9 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 6,082.1 cf = 0.140 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 58.6% Overall System Size = 118.00' x 22.00' x 4.00' 20 Chambers 384.6 cy Field 159.3 cy Stone Page 193 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 33HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.652 ac Peak Elev=853.35' Storage=952 cf 2.28 cfs 0.63 cfs Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Primary Stage-Discharge Discharge (cfs) 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 856 855 854 853 Overflow Outlet Jellyfish JF6 Page 194 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 34HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Storage Stage-Area-Storage Storage (cubic-feet) 6,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 856 855 854 853 Field A + CMP Round 48 Page 195 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 35HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 7.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 10.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 12.50 0.34 849 853.29 0.63 15.00 0.04 1 852.50 0.04 17.50 0.02 0 852.50 0.02 20.00 0.01 0 852.50 0.01 22.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 25.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 27.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 32.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 35.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 37.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 42.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 45.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 47.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 52.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 55.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 57.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 62.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 65.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 67.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 Page 196 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 36HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 852.50 0.00 852.52 0.42 852.54 0.47 852.56 0.52 852.58 0.57 852.60 0.63 852.62 0.63 852.64 0.63 852.66 0.63 852.68 0.63 852.70 0.63 852.72 0.63 852.74 0.63 852.76 0.63 852.78 0.63 852.80 0.63 852.82 0.63 852.84 0.63 852.86 0.63 852.88 0.63 852.90 0.63 852.92 0.63 852.94 0.63 852.96 0.63 852.98 0.63 853.00 0.63 853.02 0.63 853.04 0.63 853.06 0.63 853.08 0.63 853.10 0.63 853.12 0.63 853.14 0.63 853.16 0.63 853.18 0.63 853.20 0.63 853.22 0.63 853.24 0.63 853.26 0.63 853.28 0.63 853.30 0.63 853.32 0.63 853.34 0.63 853.36 0.63 853.38 0.63 853.40 0.63 853.42 0.63 853.44 0.63 853.46 0.63 853.48 0.63 853.50 0.63 853.52 0.63 853.54 0.63 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 853.56 0.63 853.58 0.63 853.60 0.63 853.62 0.63 853.64 0.63 853.66 0.63 853.68 0.63 853.70 0.63 853.72 0.63 853.74 0.63 853.76 0.63 853.78 0.63 853.80 0.63 853.82 0.63 853.84 0.63 853.86 0.63 853.88 0.63 853.90 0.63 853.92 0.63 853.94 0.63 853.96 0.63 853.98 0.63 854.00 0.63 854.02 0.63 854.04 0.63 854.06 0.63 854.08 0.63 854.10 0.63 854.12 0.63 854.14 0.63 854.16 0.63 854.18 0.63 854.20 0.63 854.22 0.63 854.24 0.63 854.26 0.63 854.28 0.63 854.30 0.63 854.32 0.63 854.34 0.63 854.36 0.63 854.38 0.63 854.40 0.63 854.42 0.63 854.44 0.63 854.46 0.63 854.48 0.63 854.50 0.63 854.52 0.63 854.54 0.63 854.56 0.63 854.58 0.63 854.60 0.63 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 854.62 0.63 854.64 0.63 854.66 0.63 854.68 0.63 854.70 0.63 854.72 0.63 854.74 0.63 854.76 0.63 854.78 0.63 854.80 0.63 854.82 0.63 854.84 0.63 854.86 0.63 854.88 0.63 854.90 0.63 854.92 0.63 854.94 0.63 854.96 0.63 854.98 0.63 855.00 0.63 855.02 0.63 855.04 0.63 855.06 0.63 855.08 0.63 855.10 0.63 855.12 0.63 855.14 0.63 855.16 0.63 855.18 0.63 855.20 0.63 855.22 0.63 855.24 0.63 855.26 0.63 855.28 0.63 855.30 0.63 855.32 0.63 855.34 0.63 855.36 0.63 855.38 0.63 855.40 0.63 855.42 0.63 855.44 0.63 855.46 0.63 855.48 0.63 855.50 0.63 855.52 0.63 855.54 0.63 855.56 0.64 855.58 0.65 855.60 0.65 855.62 0.67 855.64 0.68 855.66 0.69 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 855.68 0.71 855.70 0.73 855.72 0.75 855.74 0.77 855.76 0.79 855.78 0.82 855.80 0.84 855.82 0.87 855.84 0.89 855.86 0.92 855.88 0.95 855.90 0.98 855.92 1.01 855.94 1.05 855.96 1.08 855.98 1.11 856.00 1.14 856.02 1.18 856.04 1.21 856.06 1.25 856.08 1.28 856.10 1.31 856.12 1.35 856.14 1.38 856.16 1.41 856.18 1.44 856.20 1.47 856.22 1.50 856.24 1.53 856.26 1.56 856.28 1.58 856.30 1.61 856.32 1.63 856.34 1.64 856.36 1.65 856.38 1.65 856.40 1.65 856.42 1.68 856.44 1.70 856.46 1.72 856.48 1.75 856.50 1.77 Page 197 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 37HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 852.50 0 852.55 14 852.60 40 852.65 74 852.70 114 852.75 158 852.80 207 852.85 260 852.90 317 852.95 376 853.00 439 853.05 504 853.10 572 853.15 642 853.20 715 853.25 789 853.30 866 853.35 944 853.40 1,024 853.45 1,106 853.50 1,189 853.55 1,274 853.60 1,359 853.65 1,446 853.70 1,535 853.75 1,624 853.80 1,714 853.85 1,805 853.90 1,897 853.95 1,990 854.00 2,083 854.05 2,177 854.10 2,272 854.15 2,367 854.20 2,462 854.25 2,558 854.30 2,655 854.35 2,751 854.40 2,848 854.45 2,944 854.50 3,041 854.55 3,138 854.60 3,235 854.65 3,331 854.70 3,428 854.75 3,524 854.80 3,620 854.85 3,715 854.90 3,810 854.95 3,905 855.00 3,999 855.05 4,092 855.10 4,185 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 855.15 4,277 855.20 4,368 855.25 4,458 855.30 4,548 855.35 4,636 855.40 4,723 855.45 4,809 855.50 4,893 855.55 4,976 855.60 5,058 855.65 5,138 855.70 5,216 855.75 5,293 855.80 5,367 855.85 5,440 855.90 5,510 855.95 5,578 856.00 5,643 856.05 5,706 856.10 5,766 856.15 5,822 856.20 5,875 856.25 5,924 856.30 5,968 856.35 6,008 856.40 6,042 856.45 6,068 856.50 6,082 Page 198 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 38HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=68,450 sf 32.42% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19"Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Tc=6.0 min CN=65 Runoff=4.23 cfs 0.156 af Runoff Area=2,316 sf 62.69% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.28"Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Tc=6.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.28 cfs 0.010 af Runoff Area=39,144 sf 49.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.73"Subcatchment P1: North Site Tc=6.0 min CN=73 Runoff=3.57 cfs 0.130 af Runoff Area=28,402 sf 76.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.80"Subcatchment P2: South Site Tc=6.0 min CN=86 Runoff=4.04 cfs 0.152 af Runoff Area=3,220 sf 53.98% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.88"Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Tc=6.0 min CN=75 Runoff=0.32 cfs 0.012 af Inflow=4.23 cfs 0.156 afReach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Outflow=4.23 cfs 0.156 af Inflow=0.63 cfs 0.130 afReach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Outflow=0.63 cfs 0.130 af Inflow=0.28 cfs 0.010 afReach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Outflow=0.28 cfs 0.010 af Inflow=0.95 cfs 0.164 afReach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Outflow=0.95 cfs 0.164 af Peak Elev=855.32' Storage=2,194 cf Inflow=3.57 cfs 0.130 afPond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Outflow=0.63 cfs 0.130 af Peak Elev=854.24' Storage=2,547 cf Inflow=4.04 cfs 0.152 afPond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Outflow=0.63 cfs 0.153 af Total Runoff Area = 3.249 ac Runoff Volume = 0.460 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.70" 53.04% Pervious = 1.723 ac 46.96% Impervious = 1.526 ac Page 199 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 39HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Runoff = 4.23 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.156 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf)CN Description 46,259 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 22,191 98 Paved parking, HSG A 68,450 65 Weighted Average 46,259 67.58% Pervious Area 22,191 32.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Runoff Area=68,450 sf Runoff Volume=0.156 af Runoff Depth=1.19" Tc=6.0 min CN=65 4.23 cfs Page 200 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 40HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.93 0.12 0.96 13.00 3.66 0.84 0.35 14.00 3.87 0.95 0.11 15.00 3.99 1.02 0.10 16.00 4.05 1.06 0.05 17.00 4.10 1.09 0.05 18.00 4.15 1.11 0.04 19.00 4.18 1.14 0.03 20.00 4.22 1.16 0.03 21.00 4.24 1.17 0.02 22.00 4.26 1.18 0.02 23.00 4.27 1.19 0.01 24.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 25.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 26.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 27.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 28.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 29.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 30.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 31.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 32.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 33.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 34.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 35.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 36.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 37.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 38.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 39.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 40.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 41.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 42.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 43.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 44.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 45.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 46.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 47.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 48.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 49.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 50.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 51.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 52.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 54.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 55.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 56.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 57.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 58.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 59.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 60.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 61.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 62.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 63.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 64.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 65.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 66.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 67.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 68.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 69.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 70.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 71.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 72.00 4.28 1.19 0.00 Page 201 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 41HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 2.28" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf)CN Description 864 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 1,452 98 Paved parking, HSG A 2,316 80 Weighted Average 864 37.31% Pervious Area 1,452 62.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Runoff Area=2,316 sf Runoff Volume=0.010 af Runoff Depth=2.28" Tc=6.0 min CN=80 0.28 cfs Page 202 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 42HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.62 0.01 0.00 12.00 1.93 0.52 0.10 13.00 3.66 1.77 0.02 14.00 3.87 1.94 0.01 15.00 3.99 2.03 0.00 16.00 4.05 2.08 0.00 17.00 4.10 2.12 0.00 18.00 4.15 2.16 0.00 19.00 4.18 2.19 0.00 20.00 4.22 2.22 0.00 21.00 4.24 2.24 0.00 22.00 4.26 2.26 0.00 23.00 4.27 2.27 0.00 24.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 25.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 26.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 27.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 28.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 29.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 30.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 31.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 32.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 33.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 34.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 35.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 36.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 37.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 38.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 39.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 40.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 41.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 42.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 43.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 44.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 45.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 46.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 47.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 48.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 49.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 50.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 51.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 52.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 54.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 55.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 56.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 57.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 58.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 59.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 60.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 61.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 62.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 63.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 64.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 65.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 66.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 67.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 68.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 69.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 70.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 71.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 72.00 4.28 2.28 0.00 Page 203 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 43HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: North Site Runoff = 3.57 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.130 af, Depth= 1.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf)CN Description 19,682 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 19,462 98 Paved parking, HSG A 39,144 73 Weighted Average 19,682 50.28% Pervious Area 19,462 49.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P1: North Site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Runoff Area=39,144 sf Runoff Volume=0.130 af Runoff Depth=1.73" Tc=6.0 min CN=73 3.57 cfs Page 204 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 44HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P1: North Site Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.93 0.29 1.15 13.00 3.66 1.29 0.25 14.00 3.87 1.44 0.08 15.00 3.99 1.52 0.07 16.00 4.05 1.56 0.04 17.00 4.10 1.60 0.03 18.00 4.15 1.63 0.03 19.00 4.18 1.66 0.02 20.00 4.22 1.68 0.02 21.00 4.24 1.70 0.02 22.00 4.26 1.72 0.01 23.00 4.27 1.73 0.01 24.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 25.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 26.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 27.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 28.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 29.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 30.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 31.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 32.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 33.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 34.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 35.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 36.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 37.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 38.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 39.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 40.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 41.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 42.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 43.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 44.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 45.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 46.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 47.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 48.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 49.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 50.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 51.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 52.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 54.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 55.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 56.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 57.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 58.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 59.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 60.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 61.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 62.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 63.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 64.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 65.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 66.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 67.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 68.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 69.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 70.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 71.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 72.00 4.28 1.73 0.00 Page 205 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 45HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: South Site Runoff = 4.04 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.152 af, Depth= 2.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf)CN Description 6,779 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 21,623 98 Paved parking, HSG A 28,402 86 Weighted Average 6,779 23.87% Pervious Area 21,623 76.13% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P2: South Site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Runoff Area=28,402 sf Runoff Volume=0.152 af Runoff Depth=2.80" Tc=6.0 min CN=86 4.04 cfs Page 206 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 46HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P2: South Site Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.41 0.00 0.01 11.00 0.62 0.04 0.06 12.00 1.93 0.79 1.71 13.00 3.66 2.24 0.24 14.00 3.87 2.43 0.08 15.00 3.99 2.54 0.07 16.00 4.05 2.59 0.03 17.00 4.10 2.64 0.03 18.00 4.15 2.68 0.03 19.00 4.18 2.71 0.02 20.00 4.22 2.74 0.02 21.00 4.24 2.77 0.01 22.00 4.26 2.78 0.01 23.00 4.27 2.80 0.01 24.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 25.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 26.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 27.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 28.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 29.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 30.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 31.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 32.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 33.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 34.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 35.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 36.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 37.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 38.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 39.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 40.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 41.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 42.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 43.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 44.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 45.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 46.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 47.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 48.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 49.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 50.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 51.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 52.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 54.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 55.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 56.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 57.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 58.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 59.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 60.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 61.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 62.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 63.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 64.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 65.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 66.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 67.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 68.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 69.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 70.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 71.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 72.00 4.28 2.80 0.00 Page 207 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 47HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth= 1.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf)CN Description 1,482 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 1,738 98 Paved parking, HSG A 3,220 75 Weighted Average 1,482 46.02% Pervious Area 1,738 53.98% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28" Runoff Area=3,220 sf Runoff Volume=0.012 af Runoff Depth=1.88" Tc=6.0 min CN=75 0.32 cfs Page 208 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 48HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 12.00 1.93 0.35 0.11 13.00 3.66 1.42 0.02 14.00 3.87 1.57 0.01 15.00 3.99 1.66 0.01 16.00 4.05 1.70 0.00 17.00 4.10 1.74 0.00 18.00 4.15 1.78 0.00 19.00 4.18 1.81 0.00 20.00 4.22 1.83 0.00 21.00 4.24 1.85 0.00 22.00 4.26 1.87 0.00 23.00 4.27 1.88 0.00 24.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 25.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 26.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 27.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 28.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 29.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 30.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 31.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 32.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 33.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 34.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 35.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 36.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 37.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 38.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 39.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 40.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 41.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 42.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 43.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 44.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 45.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 46.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 47.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 48.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 49.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 50.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 51.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 52.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 54.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 55.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 56.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 57.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 58.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 59.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 60.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 61.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 62.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 63.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 64.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 65.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 66.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 67.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 68.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 69.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 70.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 71.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 72.00 4.28 1.88 0.00 Page 209 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 49HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =1.571 ac, 32.42% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.19" for 10-Year event Inflow = 4.23 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.156 af Outflow = 4.23 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.156 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.571 ac 4.23 cfs 4.23 cfs Page 210 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 50HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.96 0.96 13.00 0.35 0.35 14.00 0.11 0.11 15.00 0.10 0.10 16.00 0.05 0.05 17.00 0.05 0.05 18.00 0.04 0.04 19.00 0.03 0.03 20.00 0.03 0.03 21.00 0.02 0.02 22.00 0.02 0.02 23.00 0.01 0.01 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 211 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 51HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.899 ac, 49.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.73" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.130 af Outflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.130 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.899 ac 0.63 cfs 0.63 cfs Page 212 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 52HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.40 0.40 13.00 0.63 0.63 14.00 0.25 0.25 15.00 0.07 0.07 16.00 0.04 0.04 17.00 0.03 0.03 18.00 0.03 0.03 19.00 0.02 0.02 20.00 0.02 0.02 21.00 0.02 0.02 22.00 0.01 0.01 23.00 0.01 0.01 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 213 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 53HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.053 ac, 62.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.28" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af Outflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=0.053 ac 0.28 cfs 0.28 cfs Page 214 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 54HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.10 0.10 13.00 0.02 0.02 14.00 0.01 0.01 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 215 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 55HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.726 ac, 73.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.71" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.95 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.164 af Outflow = 0.95 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.164 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=0.726 ac 0.95 cfs 0.95 cfs Page 216 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 56HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.01 0.01 11.00 0.06 0.06 12.00 0.74 0.74 13.00 0.65 0.65 14.00 0.64 0.64 15.00 0.07 0.07 16.00 0.04 0.04 17.00 0.03 0.03 18.00 0.03 0.03 19.00 0.02 0.02 20.00 0.02 0.02 21.00 0.02 0.02 22.00 0.01 0.01 23.00 0.01 0.01 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 217 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 57HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Inflow Area = 0.899 ac, 49.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.73" for 10-Year event Inflow = 3.57 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.130 af Outflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.130 af, Atten= 82%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.63 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.130 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 855.32' @ 12.48 hrs Surf.Area= 4,142 sf Storage= 2,194 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 29.9 min calculated for 0.130 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 29.9 min ( 821.9 - 792.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1B 854.00' 6,634 cf 58.75'W x 70.50'L x 4.47'H Field B 18,500 cf Overall - 1,916 cf Embedded = 16,584 cf x 40.0% Voids #2B 858.00' 428 cf PaveDrain S6-45 x 4480 Inside #1 Inside= 7.1"W x 5.6"H => 0.10 sf x 1.00'L = 0.1 cf Outside= 12.0"W x 5.6"H => 0.43 sf x 1.00'L = 0.4 cf 4480 Chambers in 64 Rows 7,061 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 853.82'12.0" Round Culvert L= 44.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 853.82' / 853.50' S= 0.0073 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 856.50'12.0" Round PVC Overflow Outlet L= 5.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 856.50' / 856.40' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #3 Device 1 854.00'0.63 cfs Jellyfish JF6 at all elevations Primary OutFlow Max=0.63 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=854.46' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.63 cfs of 1.26 cfs potential flow) 2=PVC Overflow Outlet ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Jellyfish JF6 (Exfiltration Controls 0.63 cfs) Page 218 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 58HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish - Chamber Wizard Field B Chamber Model = PaveDrain S6-45 (PaveDrain 12x12 Block with gap storage) Inside= 7.1"W x 5.6"H => 0.10 sf x 1.00'L = 0.1 cf Outside= 12.0"W x 5.6"H => 0.43 sf x 1.00'L = 0.4 cf 12.0" Wide - 1.0" Nesting = 11.0" C-C Row Spacing 70 Chambers/Row x 1.00' Long = 70.00' Row Length +0.50' Row Offset = 70.50' Base Length 64 Rows x 12.0" Wide - 1.0" Nesting x 63 = 58.75' Base Width 48.0" Base + 5.6" Chamber Height = 4.47' Field Height 4,480 Chambers x 0.1 cf = 427.8 cf Chamber Storage 4,480 Chambers x 0.4 cf = 1,916.4 cf Displacement 18,500.4 cf Field - 1,916.4 cf Chambers = 16,583.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 6,633.6 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 7,061.3 cf = 0.162 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 38.2% Overall System Size = 70.50' x 58.75' x 4.47' 4,480 Chambers 685.2 cy Field 614.2 cy Stone Page 219 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 59HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.899 ac Peak Elev=855.32' Storage=2,194 cf 3.57 cfs 0.63 cfs Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Primary Stage-Discharge Discharge (cfs) 543210 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 858 857 856 855 854 PVC Overflow Outlet Jellyfish JF6 Page 220 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 60HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Storage Stage-Area-Storage Storage (cubic-feet) 7,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 858 857 856 855 854 Field B PaveDrain S6-45 Page 221 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 61HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 12.50 0.59 2,193 855.32 0.63 15.00 0.07 29 854.02 0.07 17.50 0.03 12 854.01 0.03 20.00 0.02 8 854.00 0.02 22.50 0.01 4 854.00 0.01 25.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 27.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 32.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 47.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 52.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 57.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 62.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 67.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 Page 222 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 62HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 854.00 0.00 854.05 0.20 854.10 0.29 854.15 0.39 854.20 0.51 854.25 0.63 854.30 0.63 854.35 0.63 854.40 0.63 854.45 0.63 854.50 0.63 854.55 0.63 854.60 0.63 854.65 0.63 854.70 0.63 854.75 0.63 854.80 0.63 854.85 0.63 854.90 0.63 854.95 0.63 855.00 0.63 855.05 0.63 855.10 0.63 855.15 0.63 855.20 0.63 855.25 0.63 855.30 0.63 855.35 0.63 855.40 0.63 855.45 0.63 855.50 0.63 855.55 0.63 855.60 0.63 855.65 0.63 855.70 0.63 855.75 0.63 855.80 0.63 855.85 0.63 855.90 0.63 855.95 0.63 856.00 0.63 856.05 0.63 856.10 0.63 856.15 0.63 856.20 0.63 856.25 0.63 856.30 0.63 856.35 0.63 856.40 0.63 856.45 0.63 856.50 0.63 856.55 0.64 856.60 0.67 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 856.65 0.73 856.70 0.80 856.75 0.88 856.80 0.97 856.85 1.07 856.90 1.18 856.95 1.30 857.00 1.43 857.05 1.57 857.10 1.72 857.15 1.87 857.20 2.02 857.25 2.19 857.30 2.35 857.35 2.52 857.40 2.69 857.45 2.85 857.50 3.02 857.55 3.19 857.60 3.35 857.65 3.50 857.70 3.64 857.75 3.77 857.80 3.88 857.85 3.98 857.90 4.16 857.95 4.32 858.00 4.41 858.05 4.51 858.10 4.60 858.15 4.69 858.20 4.77 858.25 4.86 858.30 4.94 858.35 5.02 858.40 5.10 858.45 5.18 Page 223 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 63HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 854.00 0 854.05 83 854.10 166 854.15 249 854.20 331 854.25 414 854.30 497 854.35 580 854.40 663 854.45 746 854.50 828 854.55 911 854.60 994 854.65 1,077 854.70 1,160 854.75 1,243 854.80 1,325 854.85 1,408 854.90 1,491 854.95 1,574 855.00 1,657 855.05 1,740 855.10 1,822 855.15 1,905 855.20 1,988 855.25 2,071 855.30 2,154 855.35 2,237 855.40 2,319 855.45 2,402 855.50 2,485 855.55 2,568 855.60 2,651 855.65 2,734 855.70 2,816 855.75 2,899 855.80 2,982 855.85 3,065 855.90 3,148 855.95 3,231 856.00 3,314 856.05 3,396 856.10 3,479 856.15 3,562 856.20 3,645 856.25 3,728 856.30 3,811 856.35 3,893 856.40 3,976 856.45 4,059 856.50 4,142 856.55 4,225 856.60 4,308 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 856.65 4,390 856.70 4,473 856.75 4,556 856.80 4,639 856.85 4,722 856.90 4,805 856.95 4,887 857.00 4,970 857.05 5,053 857.10 5,136 857.15 5,219 857.20 5,302 857.25 5,384 857.30 5,467 857.35 5,550 857.40 5,633 857.45 5,716 857.50 5,799 857.55 5,881 857.60 5,964 857.65 6,047 857.70 6,130 857.75 6,213 857.80 6,296 857.85 6,378 857.90 6,461 857.95 6,544 858.00 6,627 858.05 6,742 858.10 6,848 858.15 6,939 858.20 7,005 858.25 7,022 858.30 7,031 858.35 7,040 858.40 7,049 858.45 7,058 Page 224 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 64HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Inflow Area = 0.652 ac, 76.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.80" for 10-Year event Inflow = 4.04 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.152 af Outflow = 0.63 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.153 af, Atten= 84%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.63 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.153 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 854.24' @ 12.47 hrs Surf.Area= 2,596 sf Storage= 2,547 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 29.9 min ( 803.7 - 773.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 852.50'0 cf 22.00'W x 118.00'L x 4.00'H Field A 10,384 cf Overall - 6,082 cf Embedded = 4,302 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 852.50' 6,082 cf CMP Round 48 x 20 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L Row Length Adjustment= +10.00' x 12.57 sf x 4 rows 22.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 552.9 cf Inside 6,082 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 852.20'12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 852.20' / 852.00' S= 0.0286 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 855.50'8.0" Round Overflow Outlet L= 32.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 855.50' / 855.34' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 1 852.50'0.63 cfs Jellyfish JF6 at all elevations Primary OutFlow Max=0.63 cfs @ 11.95 hrs HW=852.70' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.63 cfs of 0.92 cfs potential flow) 2=Overflow Outlet ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Jellyfish JF6 (Exfiltration Controls 0.63 cfs) Page 225 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 65HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L Row Length Adjustment= +10.00' x 12.57 sf x 4 rows 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 5 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +10.00' Row Adjustment +4.00' Header x 2 = 118.00' Row Length 4 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 3 = 22.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height = 4.00' Field Height 20 Chambers x 251.3 cf +10.00' Row Adjustment x 12.57 sf x 4 Rows + 22.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 6,082.1 cf Chamber Storage 10,384.0 cf Field - 6,082.1 cf Chambers = 4,301.9 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 6,082.1 cf = 0.140 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 58.6% Overall System Size = 118.00' x 22.00' x 4.00' 20 Chambers 384.6 cy Field 159.3 cy Stone Page 226 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 66HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.652 ac Peak Elev=854.24' Storage=2,547 cf 4.04 cfs 0.63 cfs Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Primary Stage-Discharge Discharge (cfs) 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 856 855 854 853 Overflow Outlet Jellyfish JF6 Page 227 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 67HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Storage Stage-Area-Storage Storage (cubic-feet) 6,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 856 855 854 853 Field A + CMP Round 48 Page 228 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 68HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 7.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 10.00 0.01 0 852.50 0.01 12.50 0.57 2,544 854.24 0.63 15.00 0.07 1 852.51 0.07 17.50 0.03 0 852.50 0.03 20.00 0.02 0 852.50 0.02 22.50 0.01 0 852.50 0.01 25.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 27.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 32.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 35.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 37.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 42.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 45.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 47.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 52.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 55.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 57.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 62.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 65.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 67.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 Page 229 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 69HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 852.50 0.00 852.52 0.42 852.54 0.47 852.56 0.52 852.58 0.57 852.60 0.63 852.62 0.63 852.64 0.63 852.66 0.63 852.68 0.63 852.70 0.63 852.72 0.63 852.74 0.63 852.76 0.63 852.78 0.63 852.80 0.63 852.82 0.63 852.84 0.63 852.86 0.63 852.88 0.63 852.90 0.63 852.92 0.63 852.94 0.63 852.96 0.63 852.98 0.63 853.00 0.63 853.02 0.63 853.04 0.63 853.06 0.63 853.08 0.63 853.10 0.63 853.12 0.63 853.14 0.63 853.16 0.63 853.18 0.63 853.20 0.63 853.22 0.63 853.24 0.63 853.26 0.63 853.28 0.63 853.30 0.63 853.32 0.63 853.34 0.63 853.36 0.63 853.38 0.63 853.40 0.63 853.42 0.63 853.44 0.63 853.46 0.63 853.48 0.63 853.50 0.63 853.52 0.63 853.54 0.63 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 853.56 0.63 853.58 0.63 853.60 0.63 853.62 0.63 853.64 0.63 853.66 0.63 853.68 0.63 853.70 0.63 853.72 0.63 853.74 0.63 853.76 0.63 853.78 0.63 853.80 0.63 853.82 0.63 853.84 0.63 853.86 0.63 853.88 0.63 853.90 0.63 853.92 0.63 853.94 0.63 853.96 0.63 853.98 0.63 854.00 0.63 854.02 0.63 854.04 0.63 854.06 0.63 854.08 0.63 854.10 0.63 854.12 0.63 854.14 0.63 854.16 0.63 854.18 0.63 854.20 0.63 854.22 0.63 854.24 0.63 854.26 0.63 854.28 0.63 854.30 0.63 854.32 0.63 854.34 0.63 854.36 0.63 854.38 0.63 854.40 0.63 854.42 0.63 854.44 0.63 854.46 0.63 854.48 0.63 854.50 0.63 854.52 0.63 854.54 0.63 854.56 0.63 854.58 0.63 854.60 0.63 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 854.62 0.63 854.64 0.63 854.66 0.63 854.68 0.63 854.70 0.63 854.72 0.63 854.74 0.63 854.76 0.63 854.78 0.63 854.80 0.63 854.82 0.63 854.84 0.63 854.86 0.63 854.88 0.63 854.90 0.63 854.92 0.63 854.94 0.63 854.96 0.63 854.98 0.63 855.00 0.63 855.02 0.63 855.04 0.63 855.06 0.63 855.08 0.63 855.10 0.63 855.12 0.63 855.14 0.63 855.16 0.63 855.18 0.63 855.20 0.63 855.22 0.63 855.24 0.63 855.26 0.63 855.28 0.63 855.30 0.63 855.32 0.63 855.34 0.63 855.36 0.63 855.38 0.63 855.40 0.63 855.42 0.63 855.44 0.63 855.46 0.63 855.48 0.63 855.50 0.63 855.52 0.63 855.54 0.63 855.56 0.64 855.58 0.65 855.60 0.65 855.62 0.67 855.64 0.68 855.66 0.69 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 855.68 0.71 855.70 0.73 855.72 0.75 855.74 0.77 855.76 0.79 855.78 0.82 855.80 0.84 855.82 0.87 855.84 0.89 855.86 0.92 855.88 0.95 855.90 0.98 855.92 1.01 855.94 1.05 855.96 1.08 855.98 1.11 856.00 1.14 856.02 1.18 856.04 1.21 856.06 1.25 856.08 1.28 856.10 1.31 856.12 1.35 856.14 1.38 856.16 1.41 856.18 1.44 856.20 1.47 856.22 1.50 856.24 1.53 856.26 1.56 856.28 1.58 856.30 1.61 856.32 1.63 856.34 1.64 856.36 1.65 856.38 1.65 856.40 1.65 856.42 1.68 856.44 1.70 856.46 1.72 856.48 1.75 856.50 1.77 Page 230 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 10-Year Rainfall=4.28"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 70HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 852.50 0 852.55 14 852.60 40 852.65 74 852.70 114 852.75 158 852.80 207 852.85 260 852.90 317 852.95 376 853.00 439 853.05 504 853.10 572 853.15 642 853.20 715 853.25 789 853.30 866 853.35 944 853.40 1,024 853.45 1,106 853.50 1,189 853.55 1,274 853.60 1,359 853.65 1,446 853.70 1,535 853.75 1,624 853.80 1,714 853.85 1,805 853.90 1,897 853.95 1,990 854.00 2,083 854.05 2,177 854.10 2,272 854.15 2,367 854.20 2,462 854.25 2,558 854.30 2,655 854.35 2,751 854.40 2,848 854.45 2,944 854.50 3,041 854.55 3,138 854.60 3,235 854.65 3,331 854.70 3,428 854.75 3,524 854.80 3,620 854.85 3,715 854.90 3,810 854.95 3,905 855.00 3,999 855.05 4,092 855.10 4,185 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 855.15 4,277 855.20 4,368 855.25 4,458 855.30 4,548 855.35 4,636 855.40 4,723 855.45 4,809 855.50 4,893 855.55 4,976 855.60 5,058 855.65 5,138 855.70 5,216 855.75 5,293 855.80 5,367 855.85 5,440 855.90 5,510 855.95 5,578 856.00 5,643 856.05 5,706 856.10 5,766 856.15 5,822 856.20 5,875 856.25 5,924 856.30 5,968 856.35 6,008 856.40 6,042 856.45 6,068 856.50 6,082 Page 231 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 71HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=68,450 sf 32.42% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.39"Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Tc=6.0 min CN=65 Runoff=12.22 cfs 0.444 af Runoff Area=2,316 sf 62.69% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.04"Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Tc=6.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.59 cfs 0.022 af Runoff Area=39,144 sf 49.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26"Subcatchment P1: North Site Tc=6.0 min CN=73 Runoff=8.63 cfs 0.319 af Runoff Area=28,402 sf 76.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.72"Subcatchment P2: South Site Tc=6.0 min CN=86 Runoff=7.91 cfs 0.311 af Runoff Area=3,220 sf 53.98% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.48"Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Tc=6.0 min CN=75 Runoff=0.74 cfs 0.028 af Inflow=12.22 cfs 0.444 afReach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Outflow=12.22 cfs 0.444 af Inflow=2.81 cfs 0.319 afReach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Outflow=2.81 cfs 0.319 af Inflow=0.59 cfs 0.022 afReach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Outflow=0.59 cfs 0.022 af Inflow=1.81 cfs 0.338 afReach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Outflow=1.81 cfs 0.338 af Peak Elev=857.44' Storage=5,693 cf Inflow=8.63 cfs 0.319 afPond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Outflow=2.81 cfs 0.319 af Peak Elev=856.34' Storage=5,997 cf Inflow=7.91 cfs 0.311 afPond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Outflow=1.64 cfs 0.310 af Total Runoff Area = 3.249 ac Runoff Volume = 1.124 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.15" 53.04% Pervious = 1.723 ac 46.96% Impervious = 1.526 ac Page 232 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 72HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Runoff = 12.22 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.444 af, Depth= 3.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Area (sf)CN Description 46,259 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 22,191 98 Paved parking, HSG A 68,450 65 Weighted Average 46,259 67.58% Pervious Area 22,191 32.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Runoff Area=68,450 sf Runoff Volume=0.444 af Runoff Depth=3.39" Tc=6.0 min CN=65 12.22 cfs Page 233 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 73HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment EX1: Existing Buildign, Parking Lot, and Grass Lots Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 11.00 1.06 0.00 0.00 12.00 3.32 0.66 4.27 13.00 6.31 2.58 0.82 14.00 6.66 2.85 0.26 15.00 6.87 3.00 0.23 16.00 6.97 3.08 0.12 17.00 7.06 3.15 0.11 18.00 7.14 3.21 0.09 19.00 7.21 3.26 0.08 20.00 7.26 3.31 0.06 21.00 7.31 3.34 0.05 22.00 7.34 3.37 0.04 23.00 7.36 3.38 0.02 24.00 7.37 3.39 0.01 25.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 26.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 27.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 28.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 29.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 30.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 31.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 32.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 33.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 34.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 35.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 36.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 37.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 38.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 39.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 40.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 41.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 42.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 43.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 44.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 45.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 46.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 47.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 48.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 49.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 50.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 51.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 52.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 54.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 55.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 56.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 57.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 58.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 59.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 60.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 61.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 62.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 63.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 64.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 65.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 66.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 67.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 68.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 69.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 70.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 71.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 72.00 7.37 3.39 0.00 Page 234 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 74HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Runoff = 0.59 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Depth= 5.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Area (sf)CN Description 864 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 1,452 98 Paved parking, HSG A 2,316 80 Weighted Average 864 37.31% Pervious Area 1,452 62.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Runoff Area=2,316 sf Runoff Volume=0.022 af Runoff Depth=5.04" Tc=6.0 min CN=80 0.59 cfs Page 235 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 75HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment EX2: West Boulevard Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.71 0.02 0.00 11.00 1.06 0.10 0.01 12.00 3.32 1.49 0.25 13.00 6.31 4.06 0.03 14.00 6.66 4.39 0.01 15.00 6.87 4.57 0.01 16.00 6.97 4.67 0.00 17.00 7.06 4.75 0.00 18.00 7.14 4.82 0.00 19.00 7.21 4.88 0.00 20.00 7.26 4.94 0.00 21.00 7.31 4.98 0.00 22.00 7.34 5.01 0.00 23.00 7.36 5.03 0.00 24.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 25.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 26.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 27.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 28.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 29.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 30.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 31.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 32.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 33.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 34.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 35.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 36.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 37.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 38.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 39.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 40.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 41.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 42.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 43.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 44.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 45.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 46.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 47.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 48.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 49.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 50.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 51.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 52.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 54.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 55.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 56.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 57.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 58.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 59.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 60.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 61.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 62.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 63.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 64.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 65.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 66.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 67.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 68.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 69.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 70.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 71.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 72.00 7.37 5.04 0.00 Page 236 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 76HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: North Site Runoff = 8.63 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Area (sf)CN Description 19,682 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 19,462 98 Paved parking, HSG A 39,144 73 Weighted Average 19,682 50.28% Pervious Area 19,462 49.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P1: North Site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Runoff Area=39,144 sf Runoff Volume=0.319 af Runoff Depth=4.26" Tc=6.0 min CN=73 8.63 cfs Page 237 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 77HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P1: North Site Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 11.00 1.06 0.03 0.07 12.00 3.32 1.06 3.42 13.00 6.31 3.35 0.53 14.00 6.66 3.65 0.17 15.00 6.87 3.82 0.15 16.00 6.97 3.91 0.08 17.00 7.06 3.99 0.07 18.00 7.14 4.05 0.06 19.00 7.21 4.11 0.05 20.00 7.26 4.16 0.04 21.00 7.31 4.20 0.03 22.00 7.34 4.23 0.02 23.00 7.36 4.25 0.01 24.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 25.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 26.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 27.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 28.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 29.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 30.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 31.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 32.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 33.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 34.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 35.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 36.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 37.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 38.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 39.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 40.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 41.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 42.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 43.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 44.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 45.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 46.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 47.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 48.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 49.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 50.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 51.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 52.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 54.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 55.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 56.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 57.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 58.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 59.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 60.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 61.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 62.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 63.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 64.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 65.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 66.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 67.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 68.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 69.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 70.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 71.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 72.00 7.37 4.26 0.00 Page 238 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 78HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: South Site Runoff = 7.91 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.311 af, Depth= 5.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Area (sf)CN Description 6,779 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 21,623 98 Paved parking, HSG A 28,402 86 Weighted Average 6,779 23.87% Pervious Area 21,623 76.13% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P2: South Site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Runoff Area=28,402 sf Runoff Volume=0.311 af Runoff Depth=5.72" Tc=6.0 min CN=86 7.91 cfs Page 239 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 79HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P2: South Site Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.50 0.02 0.01 10.00 0.71 0.07 0.05 11.00 1.06 0.23 0.19 12.00 3.32 1.94 3.63 13.00 6.31 4.70 0.44 14.00 6.66 5.04 0.14 15.00 6.87 5.24 0.12 16.00 6.97 5.34 0.06 17.00 7.06 5.42 0.05 18.00 7.14 5.50 0.05 19.00 7.21 5.56 0.04 20.00 7.26 5.62 0.03 21.00 7.31 5.66 0.03 22.00 7.34 5.69 0.02 23.00 7.36 5.71 0.01 24.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 25.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 26.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 27.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 28.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 29.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 30.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 31.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 32.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 33.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 34.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 35.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 36.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 37.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 38.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 39.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 40.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 41.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 42.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 43.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 44.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 45.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 46.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 47.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 48.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 49.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 50.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 51.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 52.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 54.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 55.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 56.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 57.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 58.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 59.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 60.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 61.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 62.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 63.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 64.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 65.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 66.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 67.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 68.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 69.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 70.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 71.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 72.00 7.37 5.72 0.00 Page 240 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 80HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Runoff = 0.74 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth= 4.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Area (sf)CN Description 1,482 49 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 1,738 98 Paved parking, HSG A 3,220 75 Weighted Average 1,482 46.02% Pervious Area 1,738 53.98% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37" Runoff Area=3,220 sf Runoff Volume=0.028 af Runoff Depth=4.48" Tc=6.0 min CN=75 0.74 cfs Page 241 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 81HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Subcatchment P3: West Boulevard Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 11.00 1.06 0.04 0.01 12.00 3.32 1.18 0.30 13.00 6.31 3.55 0.04 14.00 6.66 3.86 0.01 15.00 6.87 4.03 0.01 16.00 6.97 4.12 0.01 17.00 7.06 4.20 0.01 18.00 7.14 4.27 0.00 19.00 7.21 4.33 0.00 20.00 7.26 4.38 0.00 21.00 7.31 4.42 0.00 22.00 7.34 4.45 0.00 23.00 7.36 4.47 0.00 24.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 25.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 26.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 27.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 28.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 29.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 30.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 31.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 32.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 33.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 34.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 35.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 36.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 37.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 38.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 39.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 40.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 41.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 42.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 43.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 44.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 45.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 46.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 47.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 48.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 49.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 50.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 51.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 52.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 Time (hours) Precip. (inches) Excess (inches) Runoff (cfs) 53.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 54.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 55.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 56.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 57.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 58.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 59.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 60.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 61.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 62.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 63.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 64.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 65.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 66.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 67.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 68.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 69.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 70.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 71.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 72.00 7.37 4.48 0.00 Page 242 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 82HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =1.571 ac, 32.42% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.39" for 100-Year event Inflow = 12.22 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.444 af Outflow = 12.22 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.444 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.571 ac 12.22 cfs 12.22 cfs Page 243 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 83HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 1E: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 4.27 4.27 13.00 0.82 0.82 14.00 0.26 0.26 15.00 0.23 0.23 16.00 0.12 0.12 17.00 0.11 0.11 18.00 0.09 0.09 19.00 0.08 0.08 20.00 0.06 0.06 21.00 0.05 0.05 22.00 0.04 0.04 23.00 0.02 0.02 24.00 0.01 0.01 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 244 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 84HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.899 ac, 49.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 100-Year event Inflow = 2.81 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af Outflow = 2.81 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.899 ac 2.81 cfs 2.81 cfs Page 245 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 85HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 1R: Runoff to Beard Ave City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.05 0.05 12.00 0.63 0.63 13.00 0.77 0.77 14.00 0.63 0.63 15.00 0.63 0.63 16.00 0.14 0.14 17.00 0.07 0.07 18.00 0.06 0.06 19.00 0.05 0.05 20.00 0.04 0.04 21.00 0.03 0.03 22.00 0.02 0.02 23.00 0.01 0.01 24.00 0.01 0.01 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 246 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 86HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.053 ac, 62.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.04" for 100-Year event Inflow = 0.59 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af Outflow = 0.59 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.053 ac 0.59 cfs 0.59 cfs Page 247 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 87HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 2E: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.01 0.01 12.00 0.25 0.25 13.00 0.03 0.03 14.00 0.01 0.01 15.00 0.01 0.01 16.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 248 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 88HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area =0.726 ac, 73.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.58" for 100-Year event Inflow = 1.81 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.338 af Outflow = 1.81 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.338 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.726 ac 1.81 cfs 1.81 cfs Page 249 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 89HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Reach 2R: Runoff to Brooklyn Blvd City Storm Sewer Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.01 0.01 10.00 0.05 0.05 11.00 0.20 0.20 12.00 0.93 0.93 13.00 0.75 0.75 14.00 0.64 0.64 15.00 0.64 0.64 16.00 0.01 0.01 17.00 0.06 0.06 18.00 0.05 0.05 19.00 0.04 0.04 20.00 0.04 0.04 21.00 0.03 0.03 22.00 0.02 0.02 23.00 0.01 0.01 24.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) 53.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00 0.00 58.00 0.00 0.00 59.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 Page 250 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 90HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Inflow Area = 0.899 ac, 49.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 100-Year event Inflow = 8.63 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af Outflow = 2.81 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af, Atten= 67%, Lag= 10.0 min Primary = 2.81 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 857.44' @ 12.30 hrs Surf.Area= 4,142 sf Storage= 5,693 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 51.4 min calculated for 0.319 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 51.4 min ( 830.6 - 779.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1B 854.00' 6,634 cf 58.75'W x 70.50'L x 4.47'H Field B 18,500 cf Overall - 1,916 cf Embedded = 16,584 cf x 40.0% Voids #2B 858.00' 428 cf PaveDrain S6-45 x 4480 Inside #1 Inside= 7.1"W x 5.6"H => 0.10 sf x 1.00'L = 0.1 cf Outside= 12.0"W x 5.6"H => 0.43 sf x 1.00'L = 0.4 cf 4480 Chambers in 64 Rows 7,061 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 853.82'12.0" Round Culvert L= 44.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 853.82' / 853.50' S= 0.0073 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 856.50'12.0" Round PVC Overflow Outlet L= 5.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 856.50' / 856.40' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #3 Device 1 854.00'0.63 cfs Jellyfish JF6 at all elevations Primary OutFlow Max=2.81 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=857.44' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 2.81 cfs of 6.60 cfs potential flow) 2=PVC Overflow Outlet (Barrel Controls 2.18 cfs @ 3.70 fps) 3=Jellyfish JF6 (Exfiltration Controls 0.63 cfs) Page 251 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 91HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish - Chamber Wizard Field B Chamber Model = PaveDrain S6-45 (PaveDrain 12x12 Block with gap storage) Inside= 7.1"W x 5.6"H => 0.10 sf x 1.00'L = 0.1 cf Outside= 12.0"W x 5.6"H => 0.43 sf x 1.00'L = 0.4 cf 12.0" Wide - 1.0" Nesting = 11.0" C-C Row Spacing 70 Chambers/Row x 1.00' Long = 70.00' Row Length +0.50' Row Offset = 70.50' Base Length 64 Rows x 12.0" Wide - 1.0" Nesting x 63 = 58.75' Base Width 48.0" Base + 5.6" Chamber Height = 4.47' Field Height 4,480 Chambers x 0.1 cf = 427.8 cf Chamber Storage 4,480 Chambers x 0.4 cf = 1,916.4 cf Displacement 18,500.4 cf Field - 1,916.4 cf Chambers = 16,583.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 6,633.6 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 7,061.3 cf = 0.162 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 38.2% Overall System Size = 70.50' x 58.75' x 4.47' 4,480 Chambers 685.2 cy Field 614.2 cy Stone Page 252 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 92HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.899 ac Peak Elev=857.44' Storage=5,693 cf 8.63 cfs 2.81 cfs Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Primary Stage-Discharge Discharge (cfs) 543210 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 858 857 856 855 854 PVC Overflow Outlet Jellyfish JF6 Page 253 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 93HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Storage Stage-Area-Storage Storage (cubic-feet) 7,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 858 857 856 855 854 Field B PaveDrain S6-45 Page 254 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 94HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 12.50 1.27 5,262 857.18 1.95 15.00 0.15 1,513 854.91 0.63 17.50 0.06 25 854.02 0.06 20.00 0.04 16 854.01 0.04 22.50 0.02 7 854.00 0.02 25.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 27.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 32.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 47.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 52.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 57.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 62.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 67.50 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 854.00 0.00 Page 255 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 95HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 854.00 0.00 854.05 0.20 854.10 0.29 854.15 0.39 854.20 0.51 854.25 0.63 854.30 0.63 854.35 0.63 854.40 0.63 854.45 0.63 854.50 0.63 854.55 0.63 854.60 0.63 854.65 0.63 854.70 0.63 854.75 0.63 854.80 0.63 854.85 0.63 854.90 0.63 854.95 0.63 855.00 0.63 855.05 0.63 855.10 0.63 855.15 0.63 855.20 0.63 855.25 0.63 855.30 0.63 855.35 0.63 855.40 0.63 855.45 0.63 855.50 0.63 855.55 0.63 855.60 0.63 855.65 0.63 855.70 0.63 855.75 0.63 855.80 0.63 855.85 0.63 855.90 0.63 855.95 0.63 856.00 0.63 856.05 0.63 856.10 0.63 856.15 0.63 856.20 0.63 856.25 0.63 856.30 0.63 856.35 0.63 856.40 0.63 856.45 0.63 856.50 0.63 856.55 0.64 856.60 0.67 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 856.65 0.73 856.70 0.80 856.75 0.88 856.80 0.97 856.85 1.07 856.90 1.18 856.95 1.30 857.00 1.43 857.05 1.57 857.10 1.72 857.15 1.87 857.20 2.02 857.25 2.19 857.30 2.35 857.35 2.52 857.40 2.69 857.45 2.85 857.50 3.02 857.55 3.19 857.60 3.35 857.65 3.50 857.70 3.64 857.75 3.77 857.80 3.88 857.85 3.98 857.90 4.16 857.95 4.32 858.00 4.41 858.05 4.51 858.10 4.60 858.15 4.69 858.20 4.77 858.25 4.86 858.30 4.94 858.35 5.02 858.40 5.10 858.45 5.18 Page 256 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 96HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Pavedrain w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 854.00 0 854.05 83 854.10 166 854.15 249 854.20 331 854.25 414 854.30 497 854.35 580 854.40 663 854.45 746 854.50 828 854.55 911 854.60 994 854.65 1,077 854.70 1,160 854.75 1,243 854.80 1,325 854.85 1,408 854.90 1,491 854.95 1,574 855.00 1,657 855.05 1,740 855.10 1,822 855.15 1,905 855.20 1,988 855.25 2,071 855.30 2,154 855.35 2,237 855.40 2,319 855.45 2,402 855.50 2,485 855.55 2,568 855.60 2,651 855.65 2,734 855.70 2,816 855.75 2,899 855.80 2,982 855.85 3,065 855.90 3,148 855.95 3,231 856.00 3,314 856.05 3,396 856.10 3,479 856.15 3,562 856.20 3,645 856.25 3,728 856.30 3,811 856.35 3,893 856.40 3,976 856.45 4,059 856.50 4,142 856.55 4,225 856.60 4,308 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 856.65 4,390 856.70 4,473 856.75 4,556 856.80 4,639 856.85 4,722 856.90 4,805 856.95 4,887 857.00 4,970 857.05 5,053 857.10 5,136 857.15 5,219 857.20 5,302 857.25 5,384 857.30 5,467 857.35 5,550 857.40 5,633 857.45 5,716 857.50 5,799 857.55 5,881 857.60 5,964 857.65 6,047 857.70 6,130 857.75 6,213 857.80 6,296 857.85 6,378 857.90 6,461 857.95 6,544 858.00 6,627 858.05 6,742 858.10 6,848 858.15 6,939 858.20 7,005 858.25 7,022 858.30 7,031 858.35 7,040 858.40 7,049 858.45 7,058 Page 257 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 97HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Inflow Area = 0.652 ac, 76.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.72" for 100-Year event Inflow = 7.91 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.311 af Outflow = 1.64 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.310 af, Atten= 79%, Lag= 14.7 min Primary = 1.64 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.310 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 856.34' @ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 2,596 sf Storage= 5,997 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 61.8 min calculated for 0.310 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 60.4 min ( 824.8 - 764.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 852.50'0 cf 22.00'W x 118.00'L x 4.00'H Field A 10,384 cf Overall - 6,082 cf Embedded = 4,302 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 852.50' 6,082 cf CMP Round 48 x 20 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L Row Length Adjustment= +10.00' x 12.57 sf x 4 rows 22.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 552.9 cf Inside 6,082 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 852.20'12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 852.20' / 852.00' S= 0.0286 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 855.50'8.0" Round Overflow Outlet L= 32.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 855.50' / 855.34' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 1 852.50'0.63 cfs Jellyfish JF6 at all elevations Primary OutFlow Max=1.63 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=856.33' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.63 cfs of 7.20 cfs potential flow) 2=Overflow Outlet (Barrel Controls 1.00 cfs @ 2.96 fps) 3=Jellyfish JF6 (Exfiltration Controls 0.63 cfs) Page 258 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 98HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L Row Length Adjustment= +10.00' x 12.57 sf x 4 rows 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 5 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +10.00' Row Adjustment +4.00' Header x 2 = 118.00' Row Length 4 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 3 = 22.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height = 4.00' Field Height 20 Chambers x 251.3 cf +10.00' Row Adjustment x 12.57 sf x 4 Rows + 22.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 6,082.1 cf Chamber Storage 10,384.0 cf Field - 6,082.1 cf Chambers = 4,301.9 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 6,082.1 cf = 0.140 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 58.6% Overall System Size = 118.00' x 22.00' x 4.00' 20 Chambers 384.6 cy Field 159.3 cy Stone Page 259 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 99HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.652 ac Peak Elev=856.34' Storage=5,997 cf 7.91 cfs 1.64 cfs Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Primary Stage-Discharge Discharge (cfs) 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 856 855 854 853 Overflow Outlet Jellyfish JF6 Page 260 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 100HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Storage Stage-Area-Storage Storage (cubic-feet) 6,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 856 855 854 853 Field A + CMP Round 48 Page 261 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 101HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 7.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 10.00 0.05 1 852.50 0.05 12.50 1.06 5,879 856.20 1.48 15.00 0.12 1,983 853.95 0.63 17.50 0.05 1 852.50 0.05 20.00 0.03 1 852.50 0.03 22.50 0.01 0 852.50 0.01 25.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 27.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 32.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 35.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 37.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 42.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 45.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 47.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 52.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 55.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 57.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 62.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 65.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 67.50 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 852.50 0.00 Page 262 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 102HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 852.50 0.00 852.52 0.42 852.54 0.47 852.56 0.52 852.58 0.57 852.60 0.63 852.62 0.63 852.64 0.63 852.66 0.63 852.68 0.63 852.70 0.63 852.72 0.63 852.74 0.63 852.76 0.63 852.78 0.63 852.80 0.63 852.82 0.63 852.84 0.63 852.86 0.63 852.88 0.63 852.90 0.63 852.92 0.63 852.94 0.63 852.96 0.63 852.98 0.63 853.00 0.63 853.02 0.63 853.04 0.63 853.06 0.63 853.08 0.63 853.10 0.63 853.12 0.63 853.14 0.63 853.16 0.63 853.18 0.63 853.20 0.63 853.22 0.63 853.24 0.63 853.26 0.63 853.28 0.63 853.30 0.63 853.32 0.63 853.34 0.63 853.36 0.63 853.38 0.63 853.40 0.63 853.42 0.63 853.44 0.63 853.46 0.63 853.48 0.63 853.50 0.63 853.52 0.63 853.54 0.63 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 853.56 0.63 853.58 0.63 853.60 0.63 853.62 0.63 853.64 0.63 853.66 0.63 853.68 0.63 853.70 0.63 853.72 0.63 853.74 0.63 853.76 0.63 853.78 0.63 853.80 0.63 853.82 0.63 853.84 0.63 853.86 0.63 853.88 0.63 853.90 0.63 853.92 0.63 853.94 0.63 853.96 0.63 853.98 0.63 854.00 0.63 854.02 0.63 854.04 0.63 854.06 0.63 854.08 0.63 854.10 0.63 854.12 0.63 854.14 0.63 854.16 0.63 854.18 0.63 854.20 0.63 854.22 0.63 854.24 0.63 854.26 0.63 854.28 0.63 854.30 0.63 854.32 0.63 854.34 0.63 854.36 0.63 854.38 0.63 854.40 0.63 854.42 0.63 854.44 0.63 854.46 0.63 854.48 0.63 854.50 0.63 854.52 0.63 854.54 0.63 854.56 0.63 854.58 0.63 854.60 0.63 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 854.62 0.63 854.64 0.63 854.66 0.63 854.68 0.63 854.70 0.63 854.72 0.63 854.74 0.63 854.76 0.63 854.78 0.63 854.80 0.63 854.82 0.63 854.84 0.63 854.86 0.63 854.88 0.63 854.90 0.63 854.92 0.63 854.94 0.63 854.96 0.63 854.98 0.63 855.00 0.63 855.02 0.63 855.04 0.63 855.06 0.63 855.08 0.63 855.10 0.63 855.12 0.63 855.14 0.63 855.16 0.63 855.18 0.63 855.20 0.63 855.22 0.63 855.24 0.63 855.26 0.63 855.28 0.63 855.30 0.63 855.32 0.63 855.34 0.63 855.36 0.63 855.38 0.63 855.40 0.63 855.42 0.63 855.44 0.63 855.46 0.63 855.48 0.63 855.50 0.63 855.52 0.63 855.54 0.63 855.56 0.64 855.58 0.65 855.60 0.65 855.62 0.67 855.64 0.68 855.66 0.69 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 855.68 0.71 855.70 0.73 855.72 0.75 855.74 0.77 855.76 0.79 855.78 0.82 855.80 0.84 855.82 0.87 855.84 0.89 855.86 0.92 855.88 0.95 855.90 0.98 855.92 1.01 855.94 1.05 855.96 1.08 855.98 1.11 856.00 1.14 856.02 1.18 856.04 1.21 856.06 1.25 856.08 1.28 856.10 1.31 856.12 1.35 856.14 1.38 856.16 1.41 856.18 1.44 856.20 1.47 856.22 1.50 856.24 1.53 856.26 1.56 856.28 1.58 856.30 1.61 856.32 1.63 856.34 1.64 856.36 1.65 856.38 1.65 856.40 1.65 856.42 1.68 856.44 1.70 856.46 1.72 856.48 1.75 856.50 1.77 Page 263 of 367 MSE 24-hr 1 100-Year Rainfall=7.37"CAPI Stormwater Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Pierce Pini and Associates Page 103HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 09890 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 2P: SE CMP w Jellyfish Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 852.50 0 852.55 14 852.60 40 852.65 74 852.70 114 852.75 158 852.80 207 852.85 260 852.90 317 852.95 376 853.00 439 853.05 504 853.10 572 853.15 642 853.20 715 853.25 789 853.30 866 853.35 944 853.40 1,024 853.45 1,106 853.50 1,189 853.55 1,274 853.60 1,359 853.65 1,446 853.70 1,535 853.75 1,624 853.80 1,714 853.85 1,805 853.90 1,897 853.95 1,990 854.00 2,083 854.05 2,177 854.10 2,272 854.15 2,367 854.20 2,462 854.25 2,558 854.30 2,655 854.35 2,751 854.40 2,848 854.45 2,944 854.50 3,041 854.55 3,138 854.60 3,235 854.65 3,331 854.70 3,428 854.75 3,524 854.80 3,620 854.85 3,715 854.90 3,810 854.95 3,905 855.00 3,999 855.05 4,092 855.10 4,185 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 855.15 4,277 855.20 4,368 855.25 4,458 855.30 4,548 855.35 4,636 855.40 4,723 855.45 4,809 855.50 4,893 855.55 4,976 855.60 5,058 855.65 5,138 855.70 5,216 855.75 5,293 855.80 5,367 855.85 5,440 855.90 5,510 855.95 5,578 856.00 5,643 856.05 5,706 856.10 5,766 856.15 5,822 856.20 5,875 856.25 5,924 856.30 5,968 856.35 6,008 856.40 6,042 856.45 6,068 856.50 6,082 Page 264 of 367 September 13, 2024 HGTS Project Number: 24-0494 Mr. David Monterrosa CAPI 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed CAPI Immigrant Center Expansion, 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Monterrosa: We have completed the geotechnical exploration report for the proposed CAPI Immigrant Center Expansion in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. A brief summary of our results and recommendations is presented below. Specific details regarding our procedures, results and recommendations follow in the attached geotechnical exploration report. Ten (10) soil borings were completed for this project that encountered a pavement section or about a foot of topsoil at the surface underlain by sandy native alluvial soils that extended to the termination depths of the borings. Except that 2 of the borings encountered Fill soils that extended to depths ranging from about 7 to 9 feet below the ground surface and some concrete debris was noted in the Fill. Groundwater was encountered in the soil borings at depths ranging from about 10 to 12 ½ feet below the ground surface. The pavement, topsoil and Fill are not suitable for foundation support and will need to be removed from below the building and oversize areas and replaced with suitable compacted engineered fill. In our opinion, the underlying native alluvial soils are suitable for foundation support. With the building pad prepared as recommended it is our opinion that the foundations for the proposed addition can be designed for a net allowable soil bearing capacity up to 3,000 pounds per square foot. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Paul Gionfriddo at 612-729-2959. Sincerely, Haugo GeoTechnical Services Paul Gionfriddo, P.E. Senior Engineer Page 265 of 367 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT PROJECT: Proposed CAPI Immigrant Center Expansion 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, Minnesota PREPARED FOR: CAPI 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 PREPARED BY: Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 24-0494 September 13, 2024 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Paul Gionfriddo, P.E. Senior Engineer License Number: 23093 Page 266 of 367 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Purpose 1 1.3 Site Description 1 1.4 Scope of Services 1 1.5 Documents Provided 2 1.6 Locations and Elevations 2 2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 2 3.0 RESULTS 3 3.1 Soil Conditions 3 3.2 Groundwater 3 3.3 Laboratory Testing 4 3.4 OSHA Soil Classification 5 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 4.1 Proposed Construction 5 4.2 Discussion 6 4.3 Site Grading Recommendations 8 4.4 Dewatering 10 4.5 Interior Slabs 10 4.6 Below Grade Walls 11 4.7 Exterior Slabs 12 4.8 Site Grading and Drainage 12 4.9 Utilities & Stormwater Management System 12 4.10 Infiltration Rates 13 4.11 Bituminous Pavement Recommendations 14 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 15 5.1 Excavation 15 5.2 Observations 15 5.3 Backfill and Fills 15 5.4 Testing 15 5.5 Winter Construction 15 6.0 PROCEDURES 16 6.1 Soil Classification 16 6.2 Groundwater Observations 16 7.0 GENERAL 16 7.1 Subsurface Variations 16 7.2 Review of Design 16 7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations 16 7.4 Use of Report 17 7.5 Level of Care 17 APPENDIX Boring Location Sketch, Figure 1 Soil Boring Logs, SB-1 thru SB-10 Descriptive Terminology Page 267 of 367 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description CAPI is preparing for construction of an approximate 10,000 square foot addition to the west side of their facility at 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard. The project will also include an approximate 15,000 to 25,000 cubic foot stormwater management system, new parking areas, a greenhouse and community garden. CAPI retained Haugo GeoTechnical Services (HGTS) to perform a geotechnical exploration to evaluate the suitability of site soil conditions to support the proposed improvements. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and provide recommendations for foundation design and construction. 1.3 Site Description The proposed addition will be located on the west side of the existing building. At the time of this assessment, the project site included parking areas on the east and south sides of the existing building with the remainder of the property vacant and grass/lawn covered. Topography across the site was relatively flat with the elevations at the soil boring locations ranging from about 858 ½ to 861 ½ feet above mean sea level. Based on a brief review of historical aerial photographs available on Google Earth it appears that one home and possibly 2 homes existed on the overall property. One of the homes was located immediately north of the existing building and was removed sometime between 2002 and 2004. The second home was located further to the north and appears to have been removed sometime between 1991 and 2002. 1.4 Scope of Services Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo GeoTechnical Services proposal 24-0494 dated June 28, 2024. Our scope of services was performed under the terms of our General Conditions and limited to the following tasks:  Performing private utility locates.  Completing seven (7) standard penetration test soil borings extending to nominal depths of 20 feet and three (3) borings extending to nominal depths of 30 feet.  Sealing the borings in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health requirements.  Visually/manually classifying samples recovered from the soil borings.  Performing laboratory moisture content and P-200 content tests on selected samples.  Preparing soil boring logs describing the materials encountered and the results of groundwater level measurements.  Preparing an engineering report describing current soil and groundwater conditions and providing recommendations for foundation and pavement design and construction and providing estimated soil infiltration rates. Page 268 of 367 2 1.5 Documents Provided To aid in preparing this proposal were provided a Request for Bid for Geotechnical Exploration Report (RFP) which included a project description and requirements of the geotechnical exploration. Included in the RFP was plan sheet “EX A – Boring Locations” that showed the proposed boring locations. We were also provided a plan sheet titled “CAPI Expansion Stormwater Management” that consisted of a civil schematic design narrative of the proposed improvements. The plan sheet was prepared by Locus Architecture/Pierce Pini & Associated but was not dated. 1.6 Locations and Elevations The soil boring locations was selected by CAPI, Locus Architecture and/or others members of the design team. HGTS staked the boring in the filed based on the plan Sheet EX A – Boring Locations that was included in the RFP. The approximate locations of the soil borings are shown on Figure 1, “Soil Boring Location Sketch,” in the Appendix. The sketch was prepared by HGTS using an aerial image from Google Earth as a base. HGTS obtained the GPS coordinates and ground surface elevations at the soil boring locations using GPS technology based on the US State Plane Coordinate System. GPS coordinates and ground surface elevations are shown on Figure 2 in the Appendix. 2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES The 10 standard penetration test borings were advanced on August 21st and 22nd, 2024 by HGTS with a rotary drilling rig, using continuous flight augers to advance the boreholes. Representative samples were obtained from the borings, using the split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel spoon is driven into the ground with a 140- pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration is recorded as the standard penetration resistance value, or "N" value. The results of the standard penetration tests are indicated on the boring logs. The samples were sealed in containers and provided to HGTS for testing and soil classification. A field log of each boring was prepared by HGTS. The logs contain visual classifications of the soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes. The final boring logs included with this report represents an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples. The soil boring logs, general terminology for soil description and identification, and classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil boring log identify and describe the materials encountered, the relative density or consistency Page 269 of 367 3 based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-value, “blows per foot”) and groundwater observations. The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the boring. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Soil Conditions At the surface soil borings, SB-1 thru SB-8, encountered about a foot of topsoil that was composed of silty sand or poorly graded sand with silt that was dark brown to black in color and contained some roots. Soil borings SB-9 and SB-10 encountered a pavement section that consisted of about 3 inches of bituminous over about 5 ½ to 11 inches of aggregate base. Below the topsoil or pavement section soil borings SB-4 and SB-10 encountered Fill or Possible Fill that extend to depths ranging from about 7 to 9 ½ feet below the ground surface. The Fill was composed of poorly graded sand and poorly graded sand with silt that was brown or dark brown in color. Some concrete debris was noted in the Fill in each of these borings. Penetration resistance values (N-Values), shown as blows per foot (bpf) on the boring logs, within the Fill soils ranged from 5 to 17 bpf. These values indicate the soils had a loose to medium dense relative density. Below the topsoil, pavements or Fill the soil borings encountered native alluvial soils that extended to the termination depths of the borings. The alluvial soils consisted of fine to coarse grained poorly graded sand and poorly graded sand with silt that were brown in color. The exception was soil boring SB-5 which encountered sandy lean clay at about 19 ½ feet that extended to the termination depth of the boring at about 21 feet below the ground surface. N-Values within the sandy alluvial soils ranged from 2 to 26 bpf. These values indicate the soils had a very loose to medium dense relative density. The N-Value within the sandy lean clay was 13 bpf indicating the sandy lean clay had a stiff consistency. 3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in each of the soil borings at depths ranging from about 10 to 12 ½ feet below the ground surface while drilling and sampling corresponding to elevations ranging from about 846 ½ to 849 ½. The observed water levels are summarized in Table 1. Page 270 of 367 4 Table 1. Summary of Groundwater Levels Boring Number Measured Surface Elevation (feet) Approximate Depth to Groundwater (feet)* Approximate Groundwater Elevation (feet)* SB-1 860.1 12 ½ 847 ½ SB-2 861.4 12 ½ 849 SB-3 861.4 12 ½ 849 SB-4 860.1 12 ½ 847 ½ SB-5 858.8 10 849 SB-6 859.3 10 849 ½ SB-7 858.3 10 848 ½ SB-8 858.3 10 848 ½ SB-9 859.2 12 ½ 846 ½ SB-10 859.1 12 ½ 846 ½ * = Depths and elevations were rounded to the nearest ½ foot. Water levels were measured on the dates as noted on the boring logs and the period of water level observations was relatively short. Groundwater monitoring wells or piezometers would be required to more accurately determine water levels. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater levels should be expected. 3.3 Laboratory Testing Laboratory moisture content and percent passing the #200 sieve (P-200) tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the soil borings. Table 2 summarizes the results of the laboratory tests and the test results are also shown on the boring logs adjacent to the sample tested. Moisture content ranged from about 11 ½ to 20 ½ percent. Table 2. Summary of Laboratory Tests Boring Number Sample Number Depth (feet) Moisture Content (%) * P-200 Content (%) * SB-1 SS-58 2 ½ 5 - SB-2 SS-68 2 ½ 4 ½ - SB-3 SS-78 2 ½ 7 - SB-4 SS-34 2 ½ 8 ½ - SB-5 SS-2 2 ½ 5 ½ 3 SB-5 SS-3 5 3 ½ 1 ½ SB-6 SS-10 2 ½ 4 ½ 4 SB-6 SS-12 7 ½ 6 ½ 1 ½ SB-7 SS-19 5 10 ½ 3 ½ SB-7 SS-21 10 19 ½ 2 ½ SB-8 SS-26 2 ½ 8 7 ½ SB-8 SS-27 5 14 ½ 8 SB-9 SS-42 2 ½ 8 10 SB-10 SS-50 2 ½ 9 13 *Moisture content and P-200 contents were rounded to the nearest ½ percent. Page 271 of 367 5 3.4 OSHA Soil Classification The soils encountered in the borings at the anticipated excavation depths consisted of; silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt and poorly graded sand meeting the ASTM Classifications of SM, SP-SM and SP. These soils will generally be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Proposed Construction Addition The addition will be constructed to the west side of the existing building. The building structural system has not been determined but could be a structural steel or reinforced concrete structural system. The lateral system will be steel braced frames, CMU shear walls, or concrete shear walls depending on the primary structural system layout. Most of the building will be on grade with a potential basement under the north end of the addition. Based on the assumed construction, we anticipate that soil bearing pressures up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) will be required for adequate foundation support. Finished floor grades were not provided; however, we assume the floor grades of the addition will match that of the existing facility and will be constructed at or near elevation 860.3 feet. We assume the basement level, if any, will be constructed about 10 feet below the main level corresponding to about elevation 850.3 feet Stormwater Management Based on information provided in the RFP the stormwater management system will likely consist of a 15,000 to 20,000 cubic foot underground storage and infiltration system but could potentially consist of a surface pond or infiltration basin. The underground system, if selected is assumed to consist of large diameter corrugated metal pipes supported on a bedding layer of gravel/rock. We further assume that the top of the system will bear at least 3 feet below the ground surface with the base of the system about 8 feet below the ground surface. The system will likely be situated near the location of soil borings SB-6 and SB-7. Community Garden, Rock Garden, Green House & Play Area A community garden, rock garden, green house and play area will be constructed on the north side of the existing facility. We were not provided any information regarding these structures and for the purposes of this evaluation we assume the community garden, rock garden and play are will not require any special subgrade improvements except for possibly removing any vegetation and topsoil. Page 272 of 367 6 We anticipate the greenhouse will likely consist of light gauge steel framing with glass panels that will likely be supported on circular pier foundations or conventional frost depth strip footings. The greenhouse will be a relatively light building and we estimate that column/footing loads will be less than 5 kips (5,000 pounds) and floor slab loads will be less than 250 pounds per square foot (psf). We assume the community garden, rock garden, green house and play area will be constructed at or near exiting site grades so that cuts or fills to attain design grades will be on the order of 2 feet or less. Pavements and Underground Utilities New parking and drive lanes will be constructed to the north of the existing parking area on the east side of the building. New pavements are assumed to be constructed to match existing pavement elevations. The parking lot expansion could also include new storm sewer installations. We have attempted to describe our understanding of the project. If the proposed loads exceed these values or if the design or location of the proposed addition changes, we should be informed. Additional analyses and revised recommendations may be necessary. 4.2 Discussion Addition Soil borings SB-1, SB-2 and SB-3 were completed within the proposed addition area and encountered about a foot of vegetation and topsoil at the surface. The vegetation and topsoil are not suitable for foundation support and will need to be removed and replaced as needed with suitable compacted engineered fill to attain design grades. It is our opinion that the underlying sandy native alluvial soils are generally suitable for foundation support. However, the upper portions of the native sand soils had a very loose relative density and will need to be compacted to increase their density and uniformity prior to placing additional fill and/or footings. Likewise, any soils disturbed during clearing and grubbing, grading or demolition activities will need to be compacted to increase their density and uniformity prior to placing additional fill and/or footings. The proposed addition will adjoin the existing building. Care will need to be taken when excavating near the existing building to avoid undermining the footings/foundations. It is unknown if the existing building has a basement or lower level. If the existing building does not have a lower level and the addition will include a basement level then shoring or underpinning the building will likely be required. Community Garden, Rock Garden, Green House & Play Area Soil borings SB-4, SB-5 and SB-8 were completed north of the existing building which will contain a community garden, rock garden or greenhouse and play area. Soil borings SB-4 was taken near or within the proposed play area and encountered about a foot of topsoil underlain by sandy Fill soils that extended to about 7 feet below the ground surface. The origin of the Fill is unknown but could be associated with construction or demolition of the home that formerly existed on the site. We are not aware of any documentation regarding placement or compaction of the Fill and the concern with undocumented Fill is the potential for unsuitable materials to be buried within that can settle Page 273 of 367 7 unfavorably. Some pieces of concrete debris were noted in the Fill. We typically do not recommend supporting new structures on undocumented Fill and typically recommend that it be removed and replaced or excavated, moisture conditioned and recompacted. Playground equipment generally does not exert heavy or excessive structural loads to the underlying soils and because of that we do not anticipate excessively large settlements will occur but, none the less, some settlement could occur and should be anticipated. Settlements, if any, are not anticipated to adversely affect the performance of the playground equipment and for that reason the Fill does not necessarily need to be removed. If that risk is unacceptable then the Fill should be excavated, any debris or other unsuitable material should be removed and the soil moisture conditioned and recompacted. Soil boring SB-5 was completed within the area of the community garden and encountered about a foot of topsoil at the surface that was underlain by sandy alluvial soils. We assume the vegetation and especially the topsoil will not be removed but will remain and be reused for the garden. Soil boring SB-8 was completed within the proposed rock garden or greenhouse area. The boring encountered about a foot of topsoil over sandy alluvial soils. The topsoil is not suitable for foundation support and will need to be removed with the propose greenhouse and oversize areas and replaced as needed with suitable compacted engineered fill to attain design grades. The underlying sands had a very loose relative density and will need to be compacted to increase their density and uniformity in order to provide adequate foundation support and reduce the potential for excessive total and differential settlements. Stormwater Management System Soil borings SB-6 and SB-7 were completed with the proposed stormwater management area and encountered about a foot topsoil over sandy native alluvial soil. We assume that the vegetation and topsoil at the surface will be removed regardless of which type of stormwater management system is selected. Laboratory P-200 tests of the underlying sandy soils showed P-200 contents less than 5 percent. These soils meet the ASTM classification of SP and are considered free draining soil materials. These soils are well suited for infiltration and are also well suited for pipe support. It is our opinion that the stormwater management system could consist of either a surface pond or infiltration basin or an underground system. Parking and Drive Areas Soil borings SB-9 and SB-10 were completed within the existing parking and drive lanes on the east and south side of the existing building. Below the pavement section soil boring SB-9 encountered sandy Fill and Possible Fill soils that extended to about 9 ½ feet below the ground surface. The origin of the Fill or Possible Fill is unknown but could be associated with construction of the existing building and/or underground utilities. The Fill and Possible Fill generally had a medium dense relative density which suggests the soil was compacted as it was placed and it appears to be generally suitable for pipe and pavement support. As noted in the paragraphs above we typically do not recommend supporting new structures on undocumented Fill and typically recommend that it be removed and replaced or excavated, moisture conditioned and recompacted. If new utilities will be installed, we recommend that the Fill or Possible Fill be further evaluated at that time. Any debris or other unsuitable Page 274 of 367 8 materials, if encountered, should be removed and replaced with suitable compacted engineered fill. The sandy soils encountered below the pavement section at boring SB-10, in our opinion are suitable for pipe and pavement support. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths ranging from about 10 to 12 ½ feet below the ground surface corresponding to elevations ranging from about 846 ½ to 849 ½ feet. If the addition will not have a basement level, we do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered and do not anticipate that dewatering will be required. If the addition will include a basement level, we assume the basement floor slab will bear at or near elevation 850.3 feet with the footings about 1 foot below that level corresponding to about elevation 949.3 feet. With groundwater encountered at elevations ranging from about 846 ½ to 849 ½, groundwater could be encountered and dewatering could be required. 4.3 Site Grading Recommendations Excavation One (1) home and possibly 2 homes formerly existed on the project site. We recommend that any remnants of the former structure, if encountered, be removed from within the proposed building and oversize areas and properly disposed of off-site. We recommend that all vegetation, topsoil, Fill and any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils, if encountered, be removed from below the proposed addition and oversize areas. Table 3 summarizes the anticipated excavation depths at the soil boring locations. Excavation depths may vary and could be deeper. It should be noted that the excavation depths presented in Table 3 do not account for the excavations required for foundation construction. Excavations for any foundations will likely extend deeper than shown in the table. Table 3. Anticipated Excavation Depths Boring Number Measured Surface Elevation (feet) Anticipated Excavation Depth (feet)* Anticipated Excavation Elevation (feet)* Approximate Groundwater Elevation (feet)* SB-1 860.1 1 (Addition) 859 847 ½ SB-2 861.4 1 (Addition) 860 ½ 849 SB-3 861.4 1 (Addition) 860 ½ 849 SB-4 860.1 1 (play area) 859 847 ½ SB-5 858.8 - (Garden) - 849 SB-6 859.3 1 (Pond) 858 ½ 849 ½ SB-7 858.3 1 (Pond) 857 ½ 848 ½ SB-8 858.3 1 (Greenhouse) 857 ½ 848 ½ SB-9 859.2 1 (Parking) 858 846 ½ SB-10 859.1 1 (Parking) 858 846 ½ * = Excavation and groundwater elevations were rounded to nearest ½ foot. Page 275 of 367 9 Oversizing In areas where the excavations extend below the proposed footing elevations, the excavations require oversizing. We recommend the perimeter of the excavation be extended a foot outside the proposed footprint for every foot below footing grade (1H:1V oversizing). The purpose of the oversizing is to provide lateral support of the foundation. Shoring/Underpinning and Excavations Near Existing Foundations At the anticipated foundation depths the soils will likely consist of sands meeting the ASTM classification SP or SP-SM which are an OSHA Type C soil. Foundation loads are transferred to the soil at an approximate 1:1 ratio (horizontal:vertical) down and away from the footing so that excavations for new foundations should not extend into that envelope. Since the soils are a Type C soil they could slough and you may need to increase the excavation slopes to 1 ½ : 1 or flatter. If those distances or slopes cannot be maintained then shoring or underpinning will likely be required. Options for shoring or underpinning could potentially include; helical anchors, micropiles, sheet pile, soil solidification or possibly performing the work segmentally so that only relatively small sections of the existing foundations are exposed at any given time. It must be noted that because the sandy soils will likely slough, completing the work segmentally will likely not be a practical or viable option. HGTS does not practice in underpinning or shoring system design. We assume that the project structural engineers will design a shoring or underpinning system, if required. It is our opinion that the estimated soil parameters presented in section 4.6 of this report can be used for underpinning or shoring system design as well as below grade wall design. If the soils below the existing foundations will be stabilized/solidified, soil solidification techniques could potentially include but not be linted to; chemical or cement grouting or compaction grouting. Some local contractors that can provided these services include but not be limited to Veit Companies or Carl Bolander & Sons. Fill Material Prior to placing any additional fill or foundations we recommend any loose sands or soil disturbed during excavation activities be surface compacted to increase their density and uniformity prior to placing additional fill and/or footings. We recommend the exposed soil be surface compacted with a large self-propelled vibratory compactor operating in vibratory mode. We recommend a minimum of 6 passes in each perpendicular direction Fill required to attain site grades may consist of any debris-free, non-organic mineral soil. We recommend using sand, similar to the on-site materials for ease of compaction and to provide a uniform subgrade. Except that fill or backfill placed in wet excavations or within 2 feet of the groundwater table consist of granular soil (sand) with less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve and at least 50 percent retained on the number 40 sieve. Alternately “clear rock” can be used in wet excavations. The on-site native alluvial sand soils appear to be generally suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill. If these soils will be used or reused as fill or backfill, some moisture conditioning (wetting or drying) of the soil could be required to meet the recommend compaction levels. Topsoil or soils that are black in color are not suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill. Page 276 of 367 10 Backfilling We recommend that backfill placed to attain site grades be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). Granular fill classified as SP or SP-SM should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill soils should be placed within 3 percentage points above and 1 percentage point below its optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. All fill should be placed in thin lifts and be compacted with a large self-propelled vibratory compactor operating in vibratory mode. Foundations We recommend the perimeter footings bear a minimum of 42 inches below the exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings may be placed immediately below the slab provided construction does not occur during below freezing weather conditions. Foundation elements in unheated areas should bear at least 5 feet below exterior grade for frost protection. We anticipate the foundations and floor slabs will bear on compacted engineered fill or native alluvial soils. With the building pad prepared as recommended, it is our opinion the footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Because the existing building will not likely settle along with the proposed addition, approximately 1 inch of differential settlement could occur between the existing building and the addition. To accommodate this settlement, we recommend installing expansion joints between the existing building and the addition or doweling the new footings into the existing footings. 4.4 Dewatering Groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths ranging from about 10 to 12 ½ feet below the ground surface corresponding to elevations ranging from about 846 ½ to 849 ½ feet. If the addition will include a basement level, then groundwater could be encountered and dewatering could be required. If dewatering is required, we recommend the groundwater level be temporarily lowered to a minimum of 2 feet below the lowest anticipated excavation elevation to allow for construction. In sand soils, we do not recommend attempting to dewater from within the excavation. Upward seepage will loosen and disturb the excavation, resulting in a “quick condition.” Rather, we recommend groundwater be drawn down below the anticipated excavation bottom. It may be appropriate to consult a dewatering contractor to review the soil boring logs, develop a dewatering plan and evaluate the impact of dewatering on adjacent structures. 4.5 Interior Slabs The anticipated floor subgrade will consist of compacted sandy engineered fill or sandy native alluvial soils. It is our opinion a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (psi) may be used to design the floor. Page 277 of 367 11 If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, we recommend that a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be placed immediately beneath the slab. Some contractors prefer to bury the vapor barrier or vapor retarder beneath a layer of sand to reduce curling and shrinkage, but this practice often traps water between the slab and vapor retarder or barrier. Regardless of where the vapor retarder or vapor barrier is placed, we recommend consulting the floor covering manufacturer regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or vapor barrier to preserve the warranty. We recommend following all state and local building codes with regards to a radon mitigation plan beneath interior slabs. 4.6 Below Grade Walls The addition could potentially include a basement level. We recommend either placing a drainage composite against the backs of the exterior walls or backfilling adjacent to the walls with sand having less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing the #40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. The sand backfill should be placed within 2 feet horizontally of the wall. We recommend the balance of the backfill for the walls consist of sand however the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. Soils meeting these requirements appear to be available on site. The soil encountered in the borings consisted of poorly graded sand and poorly graded sand with silt. These soils are considered free draining and that being the case, foundation drain tile may not necessarily be required. If drain tile is used, we recommend installing drain tile behind the below grade walls, adjacent to the wall footing and below the slab elevation. Preferably the drain tile should consist of perforated pipe embedded in gravel. A geotextile filter fabric should encase the pipe and gravel. The drain tile should be routed to a storm sewer, sump pump or other suitable disposal site. Below grade walls will have lateral loads from the surrounding soils transmitted to them. Active earth pressures can be used to design the below grade walls if the walls are allowed to rotate slightly. If wall rotation cannot be tolerated, then below grade wall design should be based on at-rest earth pressures. It is our opinion that the estimated soil parameters presented in Table 4 can be used for below grade wall design. These estimated soil parameters are based on the assumptions that the walls are drained, there are no surcharge loads within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall and the backfill is level. Table 4. Estimated Soil Parameters Soil Type Estimated Unit Weight (pcf) Estimated Friction Angle (degrees) At-Rest Pressure (pcf) Active Soil Pressure (pcf) Passive Soil Pressure (pcf) Sand (SP & SP-SM) 120 32 55 35 390 Other Soils (SM, SC-SM, SC, CL) 135 28 70 50 375 Page 278 of 367 12 Resistance to lateral earth pressures will be provided by passive resistance against the wall footings and by sliding resistance along the bottom of the wall footings. We recommend a sliding coefficient of 0.35. This value does not include a factor of safety. 4.7 Exterior Slabs Exterior slabs will likely be underlain by granular soils consisting of poorly graded sand with silt and poorly graded sand corresponding to the ASTM classifications SP-SM and SP, respectively. These soils are generally slightly to non-frost susceptible soils. That being the case, it is our opinion that special subgrade improvements in excess of topsoil stripping in advance of slab construction will not be required. 4.8 Site Grading and Drainage We recommend the site be graded to provide positive run-off away from the proposed addition. We recommend landscaped areas be sloped a minimum of 6 inches within 10 feet of the building and slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 inches. In addition, we recommend downspouts with long splash blocks or extensions. We recommend the lowest floor grades be constructed to meet City of Brooklyn Center requirements with respect to groundwater separation distances. In the absence of city requirements, we recommend maintaining and at least a 2-foot separation between the lowest floor slab and the 100-year flood level of nearby wetlands, storm water ponds or other surface water features. 4.9 Utilities & Stormwater Management System General If an underground stormwater management system is installed, we assume it will likely consist of a series of large diameter corrugate metal pipe such as a “Stormtech Chamber System or equivalent. With groundwater encountered in borings SB-6 and SB-7 at about 10 feet below the ground surface we’ve assumed the pipe will likely be on the order of 24 to 36 inches in diameter and the invert of the system will bear about 6 to 8 feet below the ground surface corresponding to elevations ranging from about elevation 850 ½ to 851 ½ feet. Underground stormwater systems are typically supported on a minimum 9- to 12-inch-thick layer of “stone” and typically require a minimum soil bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for adequate foundation support. We recommend that the system be installed/constructed in accordance with manufacturer requirements. We further recommend that the “stone” base and “stone” fill or backfill meet the manufacturers’ requirement. Soil borings SB-6 and SB-7 were completed within the proposed stormwater management system area and groundwater was encountered in these borings at about 10 feet below the ground surface corresponding to elevation ranging from about 848 ½ to 849 ½ feet. See section 4.5 for dewatering considerations. Page 279 of 367 13 The follow paragraphs provide general recommendations for subgrade preparation. In the event these recommendations conflict with the storm system manufacturers requirements then the manufacturers requirements shall govern. Subgrade Preparation We recommend that all pavements, vegetation, topsoil and any soft or otherwise unsuitable materials, if encountered, be removed from within the proposed stormwater system area, oversize areas and pipe invert elevations. Based on the soil borings SB-6 and SB-7 we do not anticipate that soil correction in excess of stripping the vegetation and topsoil will be required for system installation Soil Bearing Pressure At the anticipted pipe invert elevations the soil boring encountered poorly graded sand that in our opinion is suitable for chamber support and will meet the 2,000 psf soil bearing requirement. Backfilling and Compaction Prior to placing the chambers and associated piping, we recommend that any loose soils or soils disturbed during construction activities be surface compacted to increase their density and uniformity. We anticipate that new pavements will be constructed over the top of the stormwater management system. We recommend that the stormwater system be backfilled and compacted to meet the manufacturer’s requirements with respect to backfill depths, compaction and material requirements. 4.10 Infiltration Rates We understand that stormwater run-off could be controlled via an underground stormwater management system of a surface pond/infiltration basin. The soils encountered in soil borings SB-6 and SB-7, completed with the storage system or pond location, consisted of sandy soils meeting the ASTM classification SP. It is our opinion that the infiltration rates presented in Table 5 can be used for stormwater chamber system design or pond/infiltration basin design. These values were obtained from the Minnesota Storm Water Manual. Table 5. Infiltration Rates Soil Description/ASTM Classification Hydrologic Soil Group Infiltration Rate (in/hr.) Poorly Graded Sand/ Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP/SP-SM A 0.8 It should be noted that soil infiltration rates can vary due to; soil moisture content, soil compaction, the placement or introduction of fine-grained soils, topsoil or biofiltration media and changes or variations in local groundwater levels. These variations may result in additional construction costs and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. Field tests (double ring infiltrometer) can be performed within the proposed infiltration basin area to verify infiltration rates of the in-situ soils. We would be pleased to provide these services if required or requested. Page 280 of 367 14 4.11 Bituminous Pavement Recommendations Traffic New parking areas will be constructed to the north of the existing parking lot on the east side of the building. Based on the plans provided it appears the parking lot will include about 35 parking stalls. We anticipate the parking lot will be used by automobiles and light trucks so that a light duty pavement section will suffice. Based on the number of parking stalls and the anticipated vehicle distribution we estimate that the pavements will be subjected to less than 50,000 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s) over a 20-year design life. Subgrade Preparation We recommend removing all vegetation and topsoil and any other soft or otherwise unsuitable materials from within the pavement subgrade. Backfill, if needed, to attain pavement subgrade elevation can consist of any mineral soil provided it is free of organic material or other deleterious materials. Granular fill classified as SP or SP-SM should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill or backfill should be placed with moisture contents within a range of 1 percentage point below and 3 percentage points above its optimum moisture content. The upper 3 feet of fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry dentistry. Prior to placing the aggregate base, we recommend compacting the subgrade with a large self- propelled vibratory compactor and perform compaction tests or possibly proof-rolling the subgrade soils to identify soft, weak, loose or unstable areas that may require additional sub- cuts. R-Value R-Value testing was beyond the scope of this project. The soil borings encountered predominantly sandy soils corresponding to the ASTM Classifications of SP and SP-SM. It is our opinion an assumed R-Value of 50 can be used for pavement design. Pavement Section It should be noted that the pavement sections presented are not absolutes. Depending on serviceability expectations, material availability, and cost, there could be circumstances under which alternative sections will be more practicable. Based on an estimated R-value of 50 and a maximum of 50,000 ESAL’s we recommend a light duty pavement section consisting of a minimum of 3 ½ inches of bituminous underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of aggregate base. If a heavy-duty pavement section is required, we recommend a minimum of 4 inches of bituminous underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of aggregate base. Materials We recommend aggregate base meeting MN/DOT Class 5 aggregate base. We recommend the aggregate base be compacted to 100 percent of its maximum standard Proctor dry density. We recommend that the bituminous wear and base courses meet the requirements of MN/Dot specification 2360 for bituminous mixes. We recommend the bituminous pavements be compacted to at least 92% of the maximum theoretical density. We recommend specifying concrete that has a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. We recommend specifying 5 to 8 percent entrained air for exposed concrete to provide Page 281 of 367 15 resistance to freeze-thaw deterioration. We recommend slump, air content and compressive strength test of Portland cement concrete. 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Excavation The soils encountered in the borings at the anticipated excavation depths consisted of; silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt and poorly graded sand meeting the ASTM Classifications of SM, SP-SM and SP. These soils will generally be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. Temporary excavations in Type C soils should be constructed at a minimum of 1 ½ foot horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within excavations. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of slopes with these dimensions, then temporary shoring may be required. 5.2 Observations A geotechnical engineer or a qualified engineering technician should observe the excavation subgrade to evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and adequate to support the proposed construction. 5.3 Backfill and Fills We recommend moisture conditioning all soils that will be used as fill or backfill in accordance with Section 4.3 above. We recommend that fill and backfill be placed in lifts not exceeding 4 to 12 inches, depending on the size of the compactor and materials used. 5.4 Testing We recommend density tests of backfill and fills placed for the proposed foundations. Samples of the proposed materials should be submitted to our laboratory prior to placement for evaluation of their suitability and to determine their optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (Standard Proctor). 5.5 Winter Construction If site grading and construction is anticipated to proceed during cold weather, all snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading and placement of fill. No fill should be placed on frozen soil and no frozen soil should be used as fill or backfill. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM and/or ACI. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soil. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is obtained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below the footings. Page 282 of 367 16 6.0 PROCEDURES 6.1 Soil Classification The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedure).” Soil terminology notes are included in the Appendix. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review of the field classification by a soils engineer. Samples will be retained for a period of 30 days. 6.2 Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottom of the boring, the hole was checked for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after removing the augers from the borehole the hole was once again checked and the depth to water and cave-in depths were noted. 7.0 GENERAL 7.1 Subsurface Variations The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from a limited number of soil borings. Variations can occur away from the boring, the nature of which may not become apparent until additional exploration work is completed, or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program during construction to evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the designs, specifications and construction methods. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. 7.2 Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed structures as related to us for preparation of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the design and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes have affected the validity of the recommendations and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. 7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level measurements in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring log. The data was interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short and fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, Page 283 of 367 17 flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. 7.4 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of CAPI and their design team to use to design the proposed structures and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analysis and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. 7.5 Level of Care Haugo GeoTechnical Services has used the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar circumstance by members of the profession currently practicing in this locality. No warranty expressed or implied is made. Page 284 of 367 APPENDIX Page 285 of 367 Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC 2825 Cedar Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55407 Figure #: 1 Drawn By: AMH Date: 9-5-2024 Scale: None Project #: 24-0494 Soil Boring Location Sketch Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Legend Approximate Soil Boring Location Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. SB-3 SB-2 SB-1 SB-10 SB-9 SB-8 SB-4 SB-7 SB-5 SB-6 Page 286 of 367 HGTS# 24-0494 Figure 2: GPS Boring Locations Referencing US State Plane Coordinate System Boring Number Elevation (US Feet) Northing Coordinate Easting Coordinate SB-1 860.1 1080946.46207258 2799043.46709407 SB-2 861.4 1080979.51599348 2799034.77525803 SB-3 861.4 1081030.79217671 2799046.95726086 SB-4 860.1 1081079.71401189 2799080.62928028 SB-5 858.8 1081142.08860577 2799142.02103022 SB-6 859.3 1081172.83724657 2799206.51076831 SB-7 858.3 1081083.69879408 2799200.89812013 SB-8 858.3 1081049.1580371 2799136.13548664 SB-9 859.2 1080966.67516692 2799189.46597399 SB-10 859.1 1080928.28763171 2799109.50661219 Page 287 of 367 Silty Sand, tracfe Grass, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine grained, brown, moist, very loose (Alluvium) (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine grained, brown, moist, loose (Alluvium) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist to waterbearing at about 12.5 ft, loose (Alluvium) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, medium to coarse grained, trace Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium dense (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet. AU 57 SS 58 SS 59 SS 60 SS 61 SS 62 SS 63 SS 64 SS 65 SS 66 3-2-2 (4) 3-4-3 (7) 4-3-4 (7) 9-3-4 (7) 2-3-5 (8) 2-3-4 (7) 4-4-4 (8) 3-3-3 (6) 11-10-10 (20) 5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 860.1 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/22/24 COMPLETED 8/22/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 12.50 ft / Elev 847.60 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-1 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 288 of 367 Silty Sand, trace Grass, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose (Alluvium) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, medium to coarse grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium dense (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet. AU 67 SS 68 SS 69 SS 70 SS 71 SS 72 SS 73 SS 74 SS 75 SS 76 3-3-2 (5) 2-3-3 (6) 2-3-5 (8) 3-3-3 (6) 3-2-3 (5) 2-4-3 (7) 2-2-3 (5) 8-10-9 (19) 5-3-4 (7) 4.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 861.4 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/22/24 COMPLETED 8/22/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 12.50 ft / Elev 848.90 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-2 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 289 of 367 Silty Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine grained, brown, moist, very loose to loose (Alluvium) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, medium to coarse grained, brown, wet to waterbearing at about 12.5 ft, loose to medium dense (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet. AU 77 SS 78 SS 79 SS 80 SS 81 SS 82 SS 83 SS 84 SS 85 SS 86 2-2-2 (4) 2-2-4 (6) 2-3-3 (6) 2-4-5 (9) 5-5-5 (10) 4-5-6 (11) 9-8-8 (16) 6-8-10 (18) 3-4-5 (9) 7 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 861.4 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/22/24 COMPLETED 8/22/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 12.50 ft / Elev 848.90 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-3 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 290 of 367 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, brown, moist (Topsoil) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Concrete, brown, moist (Fill) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist to waterbearing at about 12.5 ft, very loose to loose (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 33 SS 34 SS 35 SS 36 SS 37 SS 38 SS 39 SS 40 2-2-3 (5) 5-5-3 (8) 3-3-1 (4) 4-4-5 (9) 1-2-3 (5) 1-2-2 (4) 3-2-3 (5) 8.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 860.1 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/21/24 COMPLETED 8/21/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 12.50 ft / Elev 847.60 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-4 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 291 of 367 Silty Sand, trace Roots, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist to waterbearing at about 10 ft, very loose to loose (Alluvium) P-200 = 3 % P-200 = 1.5 % (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, grey, wet, stiff (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7 SS 8 2-1-1 (2) 2-3-3 (6) 1-2-2 (4) 2-1-1 (2) 1-1-1 (2) 3-5-4 (9) 5-6-7 (13) 5.5 3.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 858.8 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/21/24 COMPLETED 8/21/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 10.00 ft / Elev 848.80 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-5 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 292 of 367 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist to waterbearing at about 10 ft, very loose to loose (Alluvium) P-200 = 4 % P-200 = 1.5 % Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 9 SS 10 SS 11 SS 12 SS 13 SS 14 SS 15 SS 16 3-3-2 (5) 2-2-2 (4) 1-1-2 (3) 1-2-2 (4) 1-3-2 (5) 1-1-4 (5) 2-3-5 (8) 4.5 6.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 859.3 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/21/24 COMPLETED 8/21/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 10.00 ft / Elev 849.30 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-6 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 293 of 367 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist to waterbearing at about 10 ft, loose (Alluvium) P-200 = 3.5% P-200 = 2.5 % (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, medium to coarse grained, brown, waterbearing, very loose to loose (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 17 SS 18 SS 19 SS 20 SS 21 SS 22 SS 23 SS 24 2-3-3 (6) 3-2-3 (5) 1-2-3 (5) 2-2-3 (5) 1-1-2 (3) 4-4-6 (10) 5-5-5 (10) 10.5 19.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 858.3 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/21/24 COMPLETED 8/21/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 10.00 ft / Elev 848.30 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-7 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 294 of 367 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine grained, brown, moist, very loose to loose (Alluvium) P-200 = 7.5 % P-200 = 8 % (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, medium to coarse graind, brown, moist to waterbearing at about 10 ft, very loose to medium dene (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 25 SS 26 SS 27 SS 28 SS 29 SS 30 SS 31 SS 32 2-1-2 (3) 3-3-5 (8) 1-2-2 (4) 2-2-4 (6) 1-2-3 (5) 1-1-2 (3) 9-10-7 (17) 8 14.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 858.3 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/21/24 COMPLETED 8/21/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 10.00 ft / Elev 848.30 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-8 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 295 of 367 Approximately 3 Inches of Bituminous Approximately 5.5 Inches of Aggregate Base (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine grained, brown, moist, medium dense to loose (Alluvium) P-200 = 10 % (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist to waterbearing at about 12.5 ft, very loose to loose (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 41 SS 42 SS 43 SS 44 SS 45 SS 46 SS 47 SS 48 9-12-14 (26) 14-15-11 (26) 5-5-5 (10) 2-3-3 (6) 1-1-1 (2) 1-1-1 (2) 2-1-2 (3) 8 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 859.2 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/21/24 COMPLETED 8/21/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 12.50 ft / Elev 846.70 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-9 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 296 of 367 Approximately 3 Inches of Bituminous Approximately 11 Inches of Aggregate Base Silty Sand, fine grained, with Concrete, dark brown, moist (Fill) P-200 = 13 % Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine grained, brown, moist (Possible Fill) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, bgrown, wet to waterbearing at about 12.5 ft, very loose to loose (Alluvium) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 49 SS 50 SS 51 SS 52 SS 53 SS 54 SS 55 SS 56 7-11-6 (17) 10-7-7 (14) 2-3-3 (6) 3-3-3 (6) 1-2-3 (5) 1-2-2 (4) 2-3-4 (7) 9 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 859.1 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 8/22/24 COMPLETED 8/22/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING 12.50 ft / Elev 846.60 ft AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-10 CLIENT CAPI PROJECT NUMBER 24-0494 PROJECT NAME 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard PROJECT LOCATION Brooklyn Center, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 4 9 4 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Page 297 of 367 Page 298 of 367 Exhibit B Page 299 of 367 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 7, 2025 TO: Ginny McIntosh, Planning Manager FROM: Touyia Lee, Principle Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works – Preliminary Site Plan / Plat Review 5930 Brooklyn Blvd - CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed 5930 Brooklyn Blvd development known as CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center. •2025-01-31 Land Use Resubmittal This document included the following: o Preliminary Plans o Preliminary Stormwater Report o Preliminary Plat (2025-01-31) o Geotechnical Exploration Report Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of any permits. Plan Items C400 – Grading and Drainage Plan 1.Double check ADA grades within handicapped parking spaces, maximum 2.0% slope within spaces. C500 – Utility Plan 2.Denote all utilities including underground system as private. 3.Revisit design of secondary sanitary service connection on Brooklyn Blvd. C801 – City Details 4.City standard detail plates shall be updated to latest City details. L5.0 – City Details 1.Irrigation system as-built must be provided to the city upon completion of work. E700 – Electrical Site Photometric Plan 5.Site photometric plans shall also include lighting improvements to existing parking lot Exhibit C Page 300 of 367 Platting Requirement 6. A 10’ drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on the plat around the entire perimeter of the site. 7. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing easements to be vacated. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated, and proposed easements must be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final platting process. The formal vacation document must contain an easement vacation description and depiction exhibit signed by a professional surveyor. 8. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Planner and City Attorney for review at the time of the preliminary plat application (within 30 days of preliminary plat application). Additionally, this will need to stay current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of the release of final plat. General Items 9. The total disturbed area exceeds one acre, an NPDES permit is required. The total disturbed area is less than five acres; the City of Brooklyn Center has reviewed the plans per the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission rules. From preliminary review the applicant has met watershed’s rule requirements. A final stormwater management report must be provided upon completion. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating site development plans with all private utility companies (Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications, Comcast, etc. ) Applicant shall be responsible for verifying all utilities are absent from the easement proposed to be vacated. 11. The City has submitted the plans to Hennepin County for review. Applicant must meet requirements from the review. Agreements 12. During construction of the site improvements, and until the permanent turf and plantings are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $5,000 that the City can draw upon on a monthly basis. 13. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non-compliance provisions. A $5,000 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. 14. An overall Easement Agreement is required that will provide the City perpetual accessibility to all private utilities and storm drainage areas to inspect and enforce proper utility service and maintenance for the entire site. This easement agreement also includes private inspection, maintenance, and reporting responsibilities. Easements to provide utility service to the development should be dedicated as necessary. 15. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures, and provide certified record drawings for any associated private and/or public improvements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The survey must Page 301 of 367 also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 16. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). Anticipated Permitting 17. A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 18. A Water and Sewer Permit is required. 19. A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES storm water construction permit is required. 20. If applicable, applicant will need to obtain required permits to work in County right-of-way. 21. Other permits not listed herein may be required. It is the Responsibility of the applicant to obtain such permits as warranted. Prior to Issuance of Land Alteration 22. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City. 23. Final construction plans and specification must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. The final construction plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota. 24. The Construction Management Plan and Agreement has been executed and the associated separate cash escrow has been deposited with the City. 25. A preconstruction conference is scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Subsequent approval of the final plan may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. Page 302 of 367 Member Moore introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.2025-029 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2025-001 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 8,910-SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF CAPI' S IMNIIGRANT OPPORTUNITY CENTER, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR CAPI USA ADDITION, AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES (5930 AND 5950 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, submitted by CAPI USA ("the Applicant") requests review and consideration of an application requesting site and building plan approval for an approximately 8,910-square foot expansion of the existing approximately 10,688-square foot office building for an approximately 19,598-square foot building; and WHEREAS, Section 35-7605 (Amendments) of the City Code stipulates that a major amendment to an approved site and building plan is triggered in situations where there is a 25-percent or greater change to the floor area of any one structure, and the proposal, as contemplated under the submitted application, exceeds this threshold; and WHEREAS, the proposed building expansion will exceed the maximum allowable size of an individual non-residential use in the MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed -Use) District where the Subject Property is located; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and Property Owner requested an amendment to Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances to amend the language outlined under Sections 35-2302 (MX-N2 Neighborhood Mixed -Use) and 35-5100 (Dimensional Standards Summary) to place maximum individual size restrictions on retail uses rather than all non-residential uses; and WHEREAS, following a review by City staff, and in an effort to remain consistent, the proposed language in the Ordinance would also amend the maximum size of an individual non- residential use to the maximum size of an individual retail use in the MX-NI (Neighborhood Mixed - Use) District; and WHEREAS, the proposed building expansion will encroach into the adjacent parcel to the north, addressed as 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, which is also owned by the Applicant; and WHEREAS, Section 35-8105 (Combination of Land Parcels) outlines that parcels of land shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey in instances where multiple parcels of land, which are contiguous, adjacent, and under common ownership, are proposed to serve a single development use; and WHEREAS, in accordance with this requirement, the Applicant submitted preliminary and final plat documents for CAPI USA ADDITION, which will consolidate three Page 303 of 367 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-029 parcels into one parcel, and require the vacation of certain drainage and utility easements, and dedication of certain right-of-way to meet requirements provided for under Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding maximum build -to setbacks in the MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed- Use) District; and WHEREAS, given circumstances unique to the Subject Property, including a triple frontage lot, an existing building situated at the southern extent of the Subject Property, the consolidation of land to an approximately 1.62-acre lot, and site constraints, including but not limited to existing drainage and utility easements and public sidewalk running along Brooklyn Boulevard, the Applicant requires variances from Sections 35-2302 (MX-N2 — Neighborhood Mixed Use) and 35-5100 (Dimensional Standards Summary), which require a minimum -maximum setback for secondary frontages of between 5 and 20 feet, and the Applicant requests an approximately 100-foot variance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant further requests a variance from a requirement where at least 50 percent of the first floor of the front facade of each primary building shall be located not more than 10 feet from the front lot line, and the Applicant requires an approximately 6-foot variance from this maximum setback due to existing easements and sidewalk; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota held a duly noticed and called public hearing on February 13, 2025, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001 were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota considered the major amendment to the site and building plan, preliminary and final plat, ordinance amendment, and variance requests in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating the requested major amendment to the site and building plan under Section 35-7604 (Site and Building Plan Approval Criteria), preliminary and final plat under Section 35-8000 (Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments), ordinance amendment under Section 35-71304 (Amendment Criteria), and variances contained in Section 35-7100 (Variance) of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as well as information provided by the Applicant with respect to the proposed use's operations, and the request generally satisfies the criteria as outlined within the above Sections; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota finds as follows regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2025-001, as submitted by CAPI USA: a) The proposed building expansion and site improvements fully comply with all applicable requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, with exception of the requested ordinance amendment to allow for the building expansion and maximum build -to setback variances; b) The proposed building expansion and site improvements adequately protect Page 304 of 367 RESOLUTION NO.2025-029 residential uses from the potential adverse effects of a non-residential use; c) It is consistent with the use and character of surrounding properties along Brooklyn Boulevard; d) It provides safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists and prevents the dangerous arrangement of pedestrian and vehicular ways; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6, the City Council further finds as follows: a) The requested variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Unified Development Ordinance; b) The variances are consistent with the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan; c) The Applicant proposes to use the Subject Property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the City's Unified Development Ordinance; d) The plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property and not created by the landowner; and e) The variances would not alter the essential character of the locality in which the Subject Property is located. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that it hereby approves Planning Commission Application No. 2025- 001 for the requested major amendment to the site and building plan, preliminary and final plat for CAPI USA Addition, and certain variances to the front and secondary build -to setbacks that would allow for the approximately 8,910-square foot expansion of the CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center and related site improvements at the Subject Property addressed as 5930 and 5950 Brooklyn Boulevard, conditioned on compliance with all of the following: 1. Any major changes or modifications to this site and building plan, and as outlined within the City Code, can only be made by an amendment to the approved site and building plan and approval by City Council. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any site and building plan approval and any proposed modifications. a. A fire sprinkler and monitoring system is required to be installed and shall be maintained on a consistent basis per City Code requirements. 4. A SAC determination shall be submitted by the Applicant to the Metropolitan Council and any associated fees paid at time of any building permit issuance. 5. An application to and approval from the Hennepin County Health Department or any other required agencies for the expanded food shelf and kitchen areas. 6. The Applicant shall revise the submitted photometric plan to provide a sitewide lighting plan for the existing and proposed building, parking lot, and landscaped areas, and with lighting in compliance with Section 35-5400 (Exterior Lighting). Page 305 of 367 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-029 7. The Applicant shall comply with Section 35-5600 (Landscaping, Screening, and Fences) and revise provided landscape plan as necessary to identify any preserved plantings, and ensure planting locations are not within identified utility easements or over utility lines. a. The Applicant shall ensure an irrigation system is in place or install a new system where necessary to facilitate maintenance of site landscaping and green areas, and an irrigation shop drawing shall be provided for review and approval prior to installation. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view per City Code requirements and a detail sheet provided. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Principal Engineer's review memorandum, dated February 7, 2025. 10. The Applicant shall submit a sign permit application for any proposed signage (e.g. wall, freestanding) and receive issuance of a permit prior to any installation. All signage shall conform to Section 35-6000 (Signs) of the City Code. 11. Platting: a. Approval of the preliminary and final plat for CAPI USA ADDITION are contingent upon the addressing of comments provided in a memorandum dated February 7, 2025, and the following additional revisions: i. Clearly denote area intended for right-of-way dedication and new property lines; ii. Any new or existing utility lines to be noted on preliminary plat per Section 35-8106.b.2; and iii. Updating of zoning information on preliminary plat to reflect the MX-N2 District. b. Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances. c. Addressing of final plat comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County and the City Engineer with respect to right-of-way/easement dedication on the plat. d. Addressing of final plat comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney's office, and specifically regarding an updated certified abstract of title. e. Vacation of existing drainage and utility easement. L The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County in advance of building permit issuance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the City Council's approval of the preliminary and final plat for CAPI USA ADDITION, site and building plan, and associated variances shall be conditioned upon the adoption of Ordinance No. 2025-06, An Ordinance Amending Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Maximum Size of an Individual Non -Residential Use in the Neighborhood Mixed -Use Districts to place maximum individual size restrictions on retail uses rather than all non-residential uses. Said approvals shall be effective on April 19, 2025 or 30 days of the date Page 306 of 367 RESOLUTION NO.2025-029 of publication of the adopted Ordinance, whichever occurs later. FebruarX 24, 2025 lv % , ii'-a k'1 Date Mayor Pro Tern j ATTEST: frf City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member: Lawrence -Anderson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Jerzak, Kragness, Lawrence -Anderson, Moore and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 307 of 367 ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 35-2301, 35-2302, AND 35-5100 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF AN INDIVIDUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Article I. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 35, Section 35-2301 MX-N1 – NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE is amended by adding the following double-underlined language and deleting the stricken language: Section 35-2301. MX-N1 – NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE a. PURPOSE. The purpose of the MX-N1 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) district is to accommodate low- to medium- density residential and multi-family residential development, with or without small-scale ground floor non-residential uses. In addition, MX-N1 allows for the reuse of residential structures with frontage on an arterial street for a variety of residential and non-residential uses. It is intended primarily for use along arterial corridors, at or near major intersections, and areas adjacent those zoned MX-N2 or similarly zoned areas. Allowed uses are shown in Section 35-4200 – Allowed Use Table. Page 308 of 367 b. MX-N1 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Page 309 of 367 3 Building Setbacks A Front build-to line (min-max) 5-20 feet on primary and secondary street frontage B Side building setback (minimum) 10 feet C Rear building setback (minimum) 20 feet D Minimum lot size N/A Accessory Structure setback, Interior side or rear (minimum) 5 feet Other Standards E Structure height (maximum) 48 feet Density 15-31 Units/acre Accessory Structure height (maximum) 20 feet Maximum size of individual non-residential retail use 7,500 Square Feet c. GENERAL REGULATIONS. 1) Complete detailed dimensional standards are located in Section 35-5000 – Development Standards and Incentives. 2) Every building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall be located on a lot, and in no case shall there be more than one principal building on one lot. The term "principal building" shall be given its common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt, or on any question of interpretation, the decision shall rest with the Zoning Administrator. 3) The required total minimum land area may be reduced 500 square feet for each required parking stall constructed completely underground, or otherwise provided in an integrated parking structure. 4) Permitted Encroachments into the regular setbacks are listed in Section 35-5100 of this UDO. 5) In the case of corner lots, the lot lines not abutting street right-of-way shall, for the purpose of this Unified Development Ordinance, be considered side-interior lot lines, and except as otherwise provided, the use shall adhere to the setback requirements set out for interior side yards. 6) After the effective date of this UDO, no new or additional vehicle parking spaces may be created between the front façade of an existing or new structure and the primary street frontage of the lot unless otherwise permitted by the zoning administrator. Page 310 of 367 4 d. LOTS ABUTTING R1 AND R2 DISTRICTS, OTHER THAN AT A PUBLIC STREET LINE: 1) When a building exceeds 25 feet in height the setback from the R1 or R2 property shall be no less than equal to the height of the building, unless the building steps down to no greater than 25 feet on the side abutting the R1 or R2 zone. 2) A 15-foot-wide buffer strip on the side abutting the R1 or R2 District shall be provided which meets the following provisions: A. The buffer strip shall be landscaped and not be used for parking, garages, driveways, off-street loading or storage. B. The buffer strip shall contain an opaque fence, which is at least four feet in height. A. The City Council may approve an alternative screening device design, provided it is in harmony with the residential neighborhood and provides a similar level of screening to an opaque similar level of screening to an opaque fence. e. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN. 1) At least 50 percent of the first floor of the front façade of each primary building shall be located not more than ten feet from the front lot line. 2) Each primary structure shall have at least one pedestrian entrance on each façade facing a public right- of-way. 3) Each required pedestrian entrance for a nonresidential use shall open directly to the adjacent sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to pass through a lobby area, garage, parking lot, or a non-pedestrian area located between the building entrance and the entrance to individual ground floor nonresidential establishments in the building. 4) At least 50 percent of each building façade facing a street, park, plaza, or other public space (not including areas occupied by doors or windows), shall be faced in brick, stone, cultured stone, real stucco, or other material of equivalent visual attractiveness, quality, and durability as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 5) Each ground floor façade for a nonresidential use facing a public right-of-way shall have transparent windows or other transparent glazed areas covering at least 50 percent of the ground floor façade area between three and eight feet above sidewalk grade. Required glazed areas shall have a visible light transmittance ratio of 0.6 or higher, and shall not include reflective, heavily tinted, or black glass windows. f. STREETS AND PUBLIC SPACE. 1) Should new blocks be established, blocks shall be between 300 and 500 feet in length Page 311 of 367 5 and shall have a block perimeter no greater than 2,000 feet. 2) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be constructed and connected to existing adjacent bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including the provision of bicycle parking. 3) Attractive public gathering/seating areas, quality streetscaping, and space for outdoor seating shall be integrated into the site design. 4) A six-foot minimum clear width shall be maintained on all walkways 5) Public spaces shall be designed to promote social interaction, leisure opportunities, public gathering and activities, and/or to create focal points and activity nodes within development. Article II. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 35, Section 35-2302 MX-N2 – NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE is amended by adding the following double-underlined language and deleting the stricken language: Section 35-2302. MX-N2 – NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE a. PURPOSE. The purpose of the MX-N2 (Neighborhood Mixed-Use) district is to accommodates small-scale, mixed-use neighborhood activity centers with comfortable gathering places, located and scaled to provide minor/convenience services near low density residential neighborhoods. Requirements for this zoning district avoid strip development patterns and the creation of destination retail or business uses serving areas beyond the immediate neighborhood. Allowed uses are shown in Section 35-4200 – Allowed Use Table. Page 312 of 367 6 b. MX-N2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS c. GENERAL REGULATIONS 1) Complete detailed dimensional standards are located in Section 35-5000 – Development Standards and Incentives. Building Setbacks A Front build-to line (min-max) 5-20 feet on primary and secondary street frontage B Side building setback (minimum) 10 feet C Rear building setback (minimum) 10 feet D Minimum lot size N/A Accessory Structure setback, Interior side or rear (minimum) 5 feet Other Standards E Structure height (maximum) 48 feet Density 15-31 Units/acre Accessory Structure height (maximum) 20 feet Maximum size of individual non-residential retail use 10,000 Square Feet Page 313 of 367 7 2) Every building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall be located on a lot, and in no case shall there be more than one principal building on one lot. The term "principal building" shall be given its common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt, or on any question of interpretation, the decision shall rest with the Zoning Administrator. 3) The required total minimum land area may be reduced 500 square feet for each required parking stall constructed completely underground, or otherwise provided in an integrated parking structure. 4) Permitted Encroachments into the regular setbacks are listed in Section 35-5100 of this UDO. 5) In the case of corner lots, the lot lines not abutting street right-of-way shall, for the purpose of this Unified Development Ordinance, be considered side-interior lot lines, and except as otherwise provided, the use shall adhere to the setback requirements set out for interior side yards. d. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN. 1) At least 50 percent of the first floor of the front façade of each primary building shall be located not more than ten feet from the front lot line. 2) Each primary structure shall have at least one pedestrian entrance on each façade facing a public right- of-way. 3) Each required pedestrian entrance for a nonresidential use shall open directly to the adjacent sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to pass through a lobby area, garage, parking lot, or a non-pedestrian area located between the building entrance and the entrance to individual ground floor nonresidential establishments in the building. 4) At least 50 percent of each building façade facing a street, park, plaza, or other public space (not including areas occupied by doors or windows), shall be faced in brick, stone, cultured stone, real stucco, or other material of equivalent visual attractiveness, quality, and durability as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 5) Each ground floor façade for a nonresidential use facing a public right-of-way shall have transparent windows or other transparent glazed areas covering at least 50 percent of the ground floor façade area between three and eight feet above sidewalk grade. Required glazed areas shall have a visible light transmittance ratio of 0.6 or higher, and shall not include reflective, heavily tinted, or black glass windows. 6) After the effective date of this UDO, no new or additional vehicle parking spaces may be created between the front façade of an existing or new structure and the primary street frontage of the lot unless otherwise permitted by the zoning administrator. Page 314 of 367 8 e. LOTS ABUTTING R1 AND R2 DISTRICTS, OTHER THAN AT A PUBLIC STREET LINE: 1) When a building exceeds 25 feet in height the setback from the R1 or R2 property shall be no less than equal to the height of the building, unless the building steps down to no greater than 25 feet on the side abutting the R1 or R2 zone. 2) A 15-foot-wide buffer strip on the side abutting the R1 or R2 District shall be provided which meets the following provisions: A. The buffer strip shall be landscaped and not be used for parking, garages, driveways, off-street loading or storage. B. The buffer strip shall contain an opaque fence, which is at least four feet in height. C. The City Council May approve an alternative screening device design, provided it is in harmony with the residential neighborhood and provides a similar level of screening to an opaque similar level of screening to an opaque fence. f. STREETS AND PUBLIC SPACE. 1) Should new blocks be established, blocks shall be between 300 and 500 feet in length and shall have a block perimeter no greater than 2,000 feet. 2) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be constructed and connected to existing adjacent bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including the provision of bicycle parking. 3) Attractive public gathering/seating areas, quality streetscaping, and space for outdoor seating shall be integrated into the site design. 4) A six-foot minimum clear width shall be maintained on all walkways 5) Public spaces shall be designed to promote social interaction, leisure opportunities, public gathering and activities, and/or to create focal points and activity nodes within development. Article III. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 35, Section 35-5100 Dimensional Standards Summary is amended by adding the following double-underlined language and deleting the stricken language: Page 315 of 367 9 Dimensional Standards Lot Dimensions (Minimum, only for lots created after the effective date) Zoning Districts R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 MX- N1 MX-N2 MX-C TOD C MX- B I O Lot area (Sq. ft/unit). 9,500 (Interior) 10,500 (Corner) 7,600 (One- family Interior), 8,500 (one- family corner), 5,000 (two- family) 4,000 2,200 1,400 -- -- Minimum 2 Acres Contiguous Parcel For Residential Use 2000 ft perime ter (max) -- -- -- -- Density (Units/acre) 3-5 3-10 5-15 10-25 20-31 15-31 15-31 10-60 31 – 130 -- -- -- -- Maximum size of individual non- residential retail use -- -- -- -- -- 7,500 SF 10,000 SF -- -- -- -- -- -- Primary Dwelling Width and Depth (minimum) 18 18 Lot width (Interior) 75 60 (one- family) 75 (two- family 25 100 100 -- -- 100 -- 100 100 100 -- Lot width (Corner) 90 75 (one- family) 90 (two- family) 25 100 100 -- -- 100 -- 100 100 100 -- Article IV. Severability. Should any section or part of this ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision will not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part other than the part declared invalid. Article V. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Page 316 of 367 10 Adopted this ____ day of _____________, 2025. _______________________________ April Graves, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Barb Suciu, City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double-underline indicates new matter.) Page 317 of 367 BR291\16\1010306.v1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 35-2301, 35-2302, AND 35-5100 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF AN INDIVIDUAL NON- RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center acted at its March 10, 2025 meeting to adopt Ordinance No. 2025-___ “An Ordinance Amending Sections 35-2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Maximum Size of an Individual Non- Residential Use in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning Districts” (the “Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication of adopted ordinances by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing maps or charts; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines publishing the entire text of the Ordinance is not in the best interests of the City as the Ordinance is readily available to the public on the City’s website and by contacting City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines the following summary clearly informs the public of the intent of Ordinance and where to obtain a copy of the full text. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby approves publication of the following summary language as publication of the Ordinance: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUMMARY PUBLICATION Ordinance No. 2025-___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 35-2301, 35-2302, AND 35-5100 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS The Brooklyn Center City Council adopted the above-referenced ordinance amending Sections 35- 2301, 35-2302, and 35-5100 of the City Code of Ordinances. The ordinance changes the maximum size of an individual non-residential use in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use zoning districts to the maximum allowable size of an individual retail use. The ordinance is in effect 30 days from this publication. The full text of the ordinance is available on the City’s website and can be obtained by contacting City Hall. Page 318 of 367 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 319 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: THROUGH: BY: Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT: Proclamation Recognizing March as National Women's History Month Requested Council Action: Background: Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. National Womens History Month Page 320 of 367 PROCLAMATION COMMEMORATING WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH MARCH 2025 WHEREAS, the Women’s History Month recognition began in 1978 when a Task Force of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women celebrated “Women’s History Week” in Santa Rosa, California. The week was chosen to include International Women’s Day, March 8; and WHEREAS, the movement spread to other communities, and in 1980 women’s groups and historians asked the federal government for recognition. President Jimmy Carter proclaimed the week of March 8, 1980, to be National Women’s History Week; and WHEREAS, the recognition was renewed by later presidents until 1987, when Congress designated March as “Women’s History Month:” and WHEREAS, throughout history, women have fought tirelessly to further our democracy’s reach and help with progress towards a more perfect Union. Through protest and activism, generations of women have advocated for the values and character of our nation; and WHEREAS, generations of women have fought to give meaning to the idea that we are all created equal and widen the circle of opportunity for all; and WHEREAS, women of every race, class, socioeconomic, and ethnic background have served as early leaders in the forefront of every major progressive social and legislative change movement and have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways, including as trailblazers in science, the arts, education, business, social services, nonprofits and government at all levels; and WHEREAS, women have played and continue to play critical economic, cultural, and social roles in every sphere of the life of the nation by constituting a significant portion of the workforce working inside and outside of the home; and WHEREAS, women have played a unique role throughout the history of the nation by providing the majority of the volunteer labor force of the nation; and WHEREAS, women have served our country courageously in military conflicts; and WHEREAS, women have been leaders, not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, the sustainable future movement, the peace movement, and other social movements, which create a more fair and just society for all. WHEREAS, despite all of the aforementioned contributions, the recognized and unrecognized role of women in history has been largely diminished, excluded, and erased, both in record as well as history that is taught. Page 321 of 367 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, the Brooklyn Center City Council does hereby proclaim that March 2025 is designated as “Women’s History Month” and invites all to visit www.WomensHistoryMonth.gov to learn more about the generations of women who have left an enduring legacy on our nation’s history. March 10, 2025 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 322 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Barb Suciu, City Clerk THROUGH: Daren Nyquist, Deputy City Manager BY: Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT: Proclamation Recognizing March as Irish-American Heritage Month Requested Council Action: Background: Tonight we recognize March as Irish-American History month Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 3 Irish-Ameican History Month Page 323 of 367 PROCLAMATION COMMEMORATING IRISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH MARCH 2025 WHEREAS, IrishAmerican Heritage Month was first celebrated by proclamation of the President in 1991; and WHEREAS, during Irish American Month, we celebrate the countless achievements of Irish Americans and recognize the remarkable contributions they have made to our character, culture, and prosperity; and WHEREAS, Irish Americans have proven themselves to be confident, fierce, tough, and faithful. They never give up, and they never give in, embodying the indomitable spirit that drives us as people; and WHEREAS, the Irish are inextricably linked to the growth in American in fields ranging from literature, education and science, to politics, law enforcement and military; and WHEREAS, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Irish American inventors and entrepreneurs who have helped define our country as the land of opportunity; and WHEREAS, we celebrate the sacrifices and contributions that generations of Irish Americans have made to build a better America, and we renew the bonds of friendship that will forever tie Ireland and the United States. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, the Brooklyn Center City Council does hereby recognize that March 2025 is Irish-American Heritage Month. March 10, 2025 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 324 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: THROUGH: BY: Shannon Pettit, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Finance Department Annual Report Requested Council Action: - motion to approve presentation. Background: Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: None Page 325 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works BY: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Urging the USDA to Process Reimbursements for the Cooling Minnesota Communities Program Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve the resolution urging the USDA to process reimbursements for the Cooling Minnesota Communities Program. Background: In 2023, Great River Greening was awarded a grant from the USDA Forest Service, made possible through the federal Inflation Reduction Act, to support the Cooling Minnesota Communities (CMC) program. This program aims to plant and maintain 10,000 trees across Minnesota over five years, including the removal of hazardous trees and the distribution of free trees to local communities. The program involves partnerships with multiple cities, school districts, and nonprofit organizations to enhance urban tree canopies and improve environmental sustainability. Brooklyn Center is a direct beneficiary of this initiative, which contributes to expanding tree coverage in public spaces, school campuses, and residential areas. The program was designed to remove hundreds of hazardous ash trees on City-owned property and re-plant over 700 new trees to rejuvenate the City’s tree canopy. These efforts provide essential benefits, including removing dead and dying trees that create safety issues, improved air quality, reduced urban heat, and enhanced community aesthetics. Although the federal funding pause on this program has been lifted, the USDA Forest Service has not processed reimbursements for work that has already been completed. As of February 21, 2024, Great River Greening has not received payment for services rendered under the terms of its binding contract. The organization has also been unable to obtain clarification from USDA officials regarding the status of overdue payments or the future of the program. Without reimbursement, the federally funded portion of the CMC program remains on hold, jeopardizing the continued progress of tree planting and maintenance efforts in Brooklyn Center. The Cooling Minnesota Communities program is a nonpartisan initiative with broad public support. Urban forestry projects like this one provide significant environmental, economic, and social benefits to residents. The delay in federal reimbursement creates financial uncertainty that could disrupt planned work and limit the positive impacts of this Page 326 of 367 initiative. Trees play a crucial role in: • Reducing the urban heat island effect, providing natural cooling in summer months. • Improving air quality and reducing stormwater runoff. • Enhancing public spaces and increasing property values. • Supporting biodiversity and habitat restoration. By adopting the attached resolution, the City Council will formally express its support for Great River Greening and urge the USDA and federal elected officials to take immediate action to process reimbursements and clarify the future of the CMC program. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. GRG USDA Funding Pause Res Page 327 of 367 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ A RESOLUTION URGING THE USDA TO PROCESS REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THE COOLING MINNESOTA COMMUNITIES PROGRAM WHEREAS, Great River Greening was awarded a grant by the USDA Forest Service in 2023, made possible through the federal Inflation Reduction Act, to support the Cooling Minnesota Communities (CMC) program; and WHEREAS, the CMC program is a vital initiative aimed at planting and maintaining 10,000 trees across Minnesota over five years, including the removal of hazardous trees and the distribution of free trees to communities; and WHEREAS, this program directly benefits communities, including Brooklyn Center, by expanding and enhancing tree canopies in cities, school campuses, parks, and residential areas, thereby providing environmental, economic, and social benefits; and WHEREAS, specifically, in Brooklyn Center, the program was designed to remove hundreds of dead ash trees on City property and plant over 700 new trees to enhance the City’s tree canopy, and WHEREAS, trees contribute to improved air quality, reduced urban heat, and enhanced community spaces, providing lasting positive impacts for all residents; and WHEREAS, despite the federal funding pause being rescinded, the USDA Forest Service has not processed reimbursements to Great River Greening for work already completed under the terms of a binding contract; and WHEREAS, Great River Greening and its program partners have received no clarification from the USDA on the status of overdue reimbursements or the future of the program, creating financial uncertainty and jeopardizing the continuation of this critical initiative; and WHEREAS, the delay in federal reimbursements threatens the progress and success of tree-planting efforts that benefit our communities and align with bipartisan priorities for environmental stewardship; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Brooklyn Center urges the USDA to immediately process reimbursements owed to Great River Greening and provide clear guidance on the future of the Cooling Minnesota Communities program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Brooklyn Center calls upon Senator Klobuchar, Senator Smith, Representative McCollum, Representative Omar, Representative Finstad, Representative Emmer, and other federal elected officials, to advocate for swift resolution of this issue to ensure the continued success of this essential program; Page 328 of 367 RESOLUTION NO._______________ March 10, 2025 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 329 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Barb Suciu, City Clerk THROUGH: Daren Nyquist, Deputy City Manager BY: Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23-2700 of the City of Brooklyn Center to Establish Cannabis and Hemp Businesses Regulations - First Reading Requested Council Action: - motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 23-2700 of the City of Brooklyn Center to establish cannabis and hemp businesses regulations Background: Budget Issues: This is the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 23-2700 that establishes Cannabis and Hemp Businesses Regulations. If you recall, the State of Minnesota legalized cannabis in 2023. At that time, the City implemented an ordinance (2022-02) focused on Edible Cannabinoid Products which contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). That ordinance is being repealed and replaced with this proposed ordinance, which focuses on licensing of cannabis retailers in accordance with Minnesota Statute 342. This ordinance was crafted from an example ordinance from the OCM, an example ordinance from Kennedy & Graven, and other surrounding municipalities. As you read through the ordinance, there are a few key points that will require input from the City Council. They are: 1. Cannabis retailer registration limits (23-2706). The current ordinance states a minimum of three (3) cannabis retailer registrations. 2. Registration Application review (23-2707). The current ordinance has a lottery style for issuing registrations. The other option is first come, first served for issuing a registration. 3. Hours of operation (23-2713, B.). The current ordinance has the hours of our municipal liquor stores. Monday night we will walk the entire ordinance so everyone has a good understanding. Inclusive Community Engagement: Page 330 of 367 Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. DOCSOPEN-#1012457-v3-Chapter 23-2700 Cannabis Business Registration031025 Page 331 of 367 BR291-437-1012457.v3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ____day of ____, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance repealing and replacing in its entirety Chapter 23-2700 regarding the regulation of Adult- Use Cannabis and Hemp Businesses within the City of Brooklyn Center. Auxiliary aid for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23-2700 OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO ESTABLISH CANNABIS AND HEMP BUSINESSES REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows: Article I. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 23 is amended by as follows: Section 23-2700. CANNABIS AND HEMP BUSINESS REGULATIONS Section 23-2701 PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. The City of Brooklyn Center makes the following legislative findings: A. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare in the City by implementing regulations pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 342 related to cannabis and hemp businesses within the City. B. Findings. The City finds and concludes that these regulations are appropriate and lawful, that the proposed amendments will promote the community’s interest in reasonable stability in the development and redevelopment of the City for now and in the future, and that the regulations are in the public interest and for the public good. Section 23-2702. DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise noted in this section, words and phrases contained in M.S. §342.01 and the rules promulgated pursuant to any of these acts, shall have the same meaning in this ordinance. A. Applicant means an entity with a license issued by the Office of Cannabis Management that is applying for an initial registration or for registration renewal. B. The Act means the Cannabis Act at M.S. §342, as it may be amended from time to time. C. Cannabis business has the definition in M.S. §342.01. Page 332 of 367 D. Cannabis Retailer Business means a cannabis business that is a cannabis retailer, the retail portion of a cannabis mezzobusiness with a retail operations endorsement, or the retail portion of a cannabis microbusiness with a retail operations endorsement, as those terms are defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 342.01 and applicable Minnesota administrative rules. E. Compliance Check means the system used by the City to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell products subject to licensing and the registration are following and complying with the requirements of this article and state law. Compliance checks involve the use of persons under the age of 21 who purchase or attempt to purchase such products. F. Hemp Business as defined by M.S. §342.01 G. Lower-Potency Hemp Retailer means every lower-potency hemp edible retail business that is licensed under the Act and required to register with the City under M.S. §342.22. H. Office of Cannabis Management. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management, referred to as “OCM” in this ordinance. I. Medical Cannabis Combination Business as defined by M.S. §342.01 J. Potential Licensee means an applicant that has not received a license from the OCM. Section 23-2703. PRE-LICENSE CERTIFICATION OF CANNABIS BUSINESSES A. City Zoning Certification. The City Clerk’s Office is authorized to certify whether a proposed Cannabis Business complies with the City’s zoning ordinances and if applicable, with state fire code and building code pursuant to M.S. §342.13. Pursuant to OCM Procedure and the Promulgated Rules, the OCM will submit a “Request for Certification” to the City to verify whether a Potential Licensee has complied with local zoning laws and regulations prior to issuing a Cannabis or Hemp Business License to the Potential Licensee. B. Certification Requirements. 1. Potential Licensees are responsible, prior to the City receiving a request for zoning certification, for making all necessary zoning applications and requesting and scheduling any inspections related to building and fire code. Potential licensees must contact the City to have inspections conducted prior to the City receiving the request for certification from the OCM. Building and fire code inspections will be valid for one (1) year from completion. If a potential licensee fails to obtain necessary zoning approvals or has any building or fire code inspection complete prior to the City receiving a request for certification, the City will inform the OCM that the potential Page 333 of 367 licensee does not meet zoning and land use laws. 2. If, at the time the City receives a request for zoning certification, there are no further intended alterations to the building where the business is to be conducted, the City will also certify compliance with building and fire code regulations. Section 23-2704. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS A CANNABIS RETAILER. The City of Brooklyn Center may establish, own, and operate one municipal cannabis retail business subject to the restrictions in this chapter. The municipal cannabis retail store shall not be included in any limitation of the number of registered cannabis retail businesses under Section 23-2706. The City of Brooklyn Center shall be subject to all the same license requirements and procedures applicable to all other applicants. Section 23-2705. RETAIL REGISTRATION REQUIRED No person or entity may operate a cannabis retail business or make retail sales to customers or patients within the City of Brooklyn Center without first being registered by the issuing authority pursuant to M.S. §342.22. Making retail sales to customers or patients without an active registration is prohibited. Subject to M.S. §342.22, subd. 5(e) the City may impose a civil penalty, as specified in the City’s fee schedule, for making a sale to a customer or patient without a valid registration from the City and a valid license from the OCM. Section 23-2706. CANNABIS RETAILER REGISTRATION LIMITS A. The number of cannabis registrations available will be calculated by dividing the state demographer’s estimate of the City’s population by 12,500 and rounding up to the nearest whole number. B. The City shall issue a minimum of three cannabis retailer registrations pursuant to this Chapter. C. The following businesses are not subject to the cap on registration referenced above: 1. Businesses operating under a tribal compact entered into under Minnesota Statutes, Section 3.9224 or 3.9228; 2. Tribally issued licenses and registrations; 3. Lower-Potency Hemp Retailer; and 4. Medical Cannabis Combination Businesses. Section 23-2707. REGISTRATION APPLICATION REVIEW. A. Applications for registration will be reviewed on a lottery style basis based on the City receiving a complete application and payment of all fees. B. Applications will be considered complete when all materials in Section 23-2708 are received by the City and include all required information. Page 334 of 367 C. The date a certification under Section 23-2703 is issued will have no impact on the applicant’s registration processing and is not an indication that registrations are available. Section 23-2708. APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. All applicants for initial registration or renewal registration must submit a registration application or renewal application provided by the City. The form of the application may be amended from time to time by the City Clerk’s Office but must include the following information: A. Name of the property owner. B. Name and date of birth of the applicant. C. Address and parcel ID for the property for which the registration is sought: D. Email address, and telephone number for the applicant. E. Legal name of the cannabis retail business to be registered. F. Signature of the applicant or the authorized agent of the legal entity applicant. G. If the registrant is a legal entity, the following information shall be provided for the person designated as the general or primary manager on site: 1. Full name, 2. Date of birth, 3. Mailing address, 4. Contact telephone number, email address. H. Any additional information the City deems necessary. Section 23-2709. FEE REQUIRED: At the time of initial application, and prior to the City’s consideration of any renewal application, each Cannabis Retailer must pay, as established in the City’s fee schedule, the following fees: A. Initial Registration Fee. The initial registration fee will pay for the costs of registration and the cost of the first year of operation. B. Renewal Fee. For each subsequent year of operation, a Cannabis Retailer must pay a renewal fee The second year of operation renewal fee and each subsequent year, the renewal fee must be paid before the City will issue a renewal registration. C. Additional Information: 1. Initial registration fees and renewal registration fees are nonrefundable. 2. A copy of a valid state license or written notice of OCM license preapproval are required at the time of submission; and Page 335 of 367 3. Proof of taxes, assessments, utility charges, or other financial claims of the City and state are current. Section. 23-2710. PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE CHECK. Prior to issuing any retail registrations, (Cannabis or LPHE) the City shall conduct a preliminary compliance check to ensure compliance with this Chapter and any other regulations established pursuant to M.S. §342.13. Section. 23-2711. BASIS FOR DENIAL. The City shall not issue a registration or renewal for any Cannabis Retailer or Lower-Potency Hemp Retailer if any of the following conditions are true: A. The applicant has not submitted a complete application. B. The applicant is under the age of 21. C. The applicant does not comply with the requirements of this Section. D. The applicant does not comply with applicable zoning and land use regulations. E. If applicable, the applicant is found to not comply with the requirements of the Act or this Section at the preliminary compliance check. F. If applicable, the maximum number of registrations, pursuant to Section 23-2706 have been issued by the City or within the County. G. The applicant does not have a valid license from the OCM. Section. 23-2712. ISSUANCE OF REGISTRATION OR RENEWAL. The City shall issue the registration or registration renewal if the applicant meets the requirements of this article. If an applicant meets any condition of denial in Section 23-2711, and/or, if the City has reached the registration limit pursuant to Section 23-2706, the City shall not issue a registration or registration renewal. Section 23-2713. CANNABIS RETAILER OPERATING REGULATIONS. A. Compliance Checks. The City shall complete, at a minimum, one compliance check per calendar year of every registered business to assess if the business meets age verification requirements, as required under Minn. Stat. 342.22 Subd. 4(b) and this ordinance. Any failures under this section are the basis for enforcement action and must be reported to the OCM. B. Hours of Operation. Cannabis businesses are limited to retail sale of cannabis, cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp-derived consumer products to between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Page 336 of 367 C. Display of License and Registration. All licenses and registrations must be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on the premises. D. Age verification. No cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp derived consumer products shall be sold to any person under 21 years of age. Registrants shall verify by means of government issued photographic identification, as required by M.S. §342.41, subd. 4, that purchase is at least 21 years of age. Registrants shall post signage advertising of the minimum legal age for purchases. Notice of the legal sale age and verification requirement shall be posted prominently and in plain view. E. Mobile Sales and Delivery. All retail sales of cannabis, LPHE, and hemp-derived consumer products must be conducted within a building and within the licensed and registered premises. A licensed or registered cannabis retail business must hold a cannabis delivery service license under M.S. §342.41 prior to conducting cannabis, LPHE, and hemp-derived consumer product delivery services in the City. F. Zoning Regulations. The registered business shall comply with all provisions of this chapter and with zoning regulations in Chapter 35-4500 of this City Code. The registered business shall comply with Minnesota laws and licensing conditions regulating cannabis retail businesses. G. Display and Storage. The display and storage of cannabis flower, cannabis products, LPHE and hemp-derived consumer products shall be in accordance with M.S. §342.27. H. Self-service or Automated Sales. No person shall provide any cannabis product, lower-potency hemp edibles and hemp-derived consumer products to any person by means of self-service or automated sale. All retail sales shall be done with the assistance of an employee. I. Samples are Prohibited. The provision of samples will be governed by the Office of Cannabis Management Proposed Expedited Permanent Rules Relating to Adult-Use Cannabis, Minnesota Rules Section 9810 and subsequent regulations. J. Advertising. Signage is subject to Brooklyn Center Unified Development Code Section 35- 6000, the City’s sign code. Section. 23-2714. REGISTRATION NONTRANSFERABLE. Registration is non-transferable. A retail registration issued under this section shall not be transferred to another person or to a different cannabis retail business. Section 23-2715. LOWER-POTENCY HEMP RETAILER OPERATING REGULATIONS. A. Compliance Checks. The City shall complete at least one compliance check per calendar year for every registered business to assess if the business meets age verification requirements, as Page 337 of 367 required under M.S. §342.22 Subd. 4(b) and this ordinance. Any failures under this section are the basis for enforcement action and must be reported to the OCM. B. Hours of Operation. Lower-Potency Hemp Retailers, other than businesses holding a license under M.S. §340A, may only engage in the retail sale of lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp- derived consumer products between the hours of 9:00 am – 10:00 pm Monday- Saturday, and 11:00 am – 6:00 pm on Sundays and holidays. C. Display of License and Registration. All licenses and registrations must be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on the premises. D. Age verification. No cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp derived consumer products shall be sold to any person under 21 years of age. Registrants shall verify by means of government issued photographic identification, as required by M.S. §342.41, subd. 4, that purchase is at least 21 years of age. Registrants shall post signage advertising of the minimum legal age for purchases. Notice of the legal sale age and verification requirement shall be posted prominently and in plain view. E. Mobile Sales and Delivery. All retail sales of cannabis, lower-potency hemp edibles, and hemp- derived consumer products must be conducted within a building and within the licensed and registered premises. A licensed or registered cannabis retail business must hold a cannabis delivery service license under M.S. §342.41 prior to conducting cannabis, lower-potency hemp edibles, and hemp-derived consumer product delivery services in the City. F. Zoning Regulations. The registered business shall comply with all provisions of this chapter and with zoning regulations in Chapter 35-4500 of this City Code. The registered business shall comply with Minnesota laws and licensing conditions regulating cannabis retail businesses. G. Display and Storage. The display and storage of cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower- potency hemp edibles and hemp-derived consumer products shall be in accordance with M.S. §342.27. H. Self-Service or Automated Sales. No person shall provide any cannabis product, lower-potency hemp edibles and hemp-derived consumer products to any person by means of self-service or automated sale. All retail sales shall be done with the assistance of an employee. I. Samples are prohibited. The provision of samples will be governed by the Office of Cannabis Management Proposed Expedited Permanent Rules Relating to Adult-Use Cannabis, Minnesota Rules Section 9810 and subsequent regulations Page 338 of 367 J. Advertising. Signage is subject to the City’s sign code, Brooklyn Center Unified Development Code Section 35-6000. K. On-site consumption. A retailer with an on-site consumption endorsement issued by the State may permit a customer to consume lower-potency hemp edibles on-site under the conditions listed 9810.2503; subp.3. Section 23-2716. NO SMOKING. In accordance with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act there is no smoking or vaping indoors at venues such as bars or restaurants. This includes the smoking or vaping of cannabis. Section 23- 2717. SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS. A. Suspension of Registration. A suspension of a retail registration issued under this Ordinance shall take place in accordance with M.S. §342.22. The City may suspend a retail registration if it violates this Ordinance or poses an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public. The City of Brooklyn Center shall immediately notify the cannabis retail business in writing of the grounds for the suspension. 1. Public hearing. Prior to suspension of a retail registration, the issuing authority shall provide written notice to the registrant and a public hearing before the City Council. The notice shall give at least eight calendar days' notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the registrant. 2. Reinstatement. The City shall reinstate a retail registration in the following circumstances: (a) If the OCM determines the violation(s) have been resolved; (b) If OCM revokes or suspends the state-license for a period less than the suspension issued by the City Council; (c) The City determines that any violation has been cured; (d) If the OCM orders the retail registration is reinstated. B. Notification to the OCM. The City of Brooklyn Center shall immediately notify the OCM in writing the grounds for the suspension. C. Civil Penalties. Subject to M.S. §342.22, subd. 5(e) the City may impose a civil penalty for a violation of this ordinance, not to exceed $2,000. 1. Any state-licensed cannabis retail business that sells to a customer or patient without valid retail registration shall incur a civil penalty of $2,000 for each violation. 2. For a first violation, other than sale without a retail registration, the fine as set forth in the current Fee Schedule. Page 339 of 367 3. For a second violation, other than sale without a retail registration, at the same location within five (5) years of the first violation, the fine is set forth in the current Fee Schedule; 4. For a third violation, other than sale without a retail registration, at the same location within five (5) years of the first violation, the City Council shall suspend the retail registration after a public hearing for a minimum of seven calendar days and impose a civil penalty set forth in the current Fee Schedule; and 5. For a fourth or subsequent violations at the same location within five years of the first violation, the City Council shall suspend a retail registration after a public hearing for 30 calendar days unless OCM suspends the license for a longer period, impose a civil penalty as set forth in the current Fee Schedule for each additional violation, or impose any combination of these sanctions. Section 23-2718. PENALTY FOR INDIVIDUALS. Any violation of the provisions of the ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to limit the City’s other available remedies for any violation of law, including without limitation, criminal, civil, and injunctive relief. Section 23-2719. ENFORCEMENT. A. The City Manager or his designee, is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Violation of this ordinance can occur regardless of whether a registration is required for a regulated activity listed in this ordinance. B. Age verification compliance checks. All cannabis retail businesses licensed by OCM and registered by the City shall be open to inspection by the City during the regular business hours of the business. At any time, but no less than once per calendar year, the City may conduct unannounced age verification compliance checks to ensure compliance with the provisions of M.S. §342 and this article. All age verification compliance check failures will be reported to the OCM. Section 23-2720. SEVERABILITY. If any part, term or provision of this ordinance is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, preempted by state law, or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed severable and such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this article, which remaining portions shall continue in full force and effect. Section 23-2721. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect following its passage and publication in accordance with state law. Page 340 of 367 ________________________ _______________________________ Date April Graves, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Barb Suciu, City Clerk First Reading: Page 341 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Barb Suciu, City Clerk THROUGH: BY: Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT: Amendment to January 27, 2025, Study Session Minutes Requested Council Action: motion to approve an amendment to the January 27, 2025 Study Session minutes Background: At the February 10, 2025, City Council meeting, Councilmember Kragness requested the minutes from the January 27, 2025, meeting be corrected/amended. These minutes were pulled from the agenda as requested. When they were brought back to the February 24, 2025, meeting, they had not been corrected/amended. Councilmember Kragness asked for an amendment to the Regular City Council minutes from January 27, 2025, which were again pulled from the agenda. The Study Session and Work Session minutes were approved. Staff discovered that the amendment should have been to the Study Session of January 27, rather than the Regular Session. The item was discussed with the City Attorney, who indicated the minutes could be amended under Council Consideration. The original minutes read: Councilmember Kragness suggested they maintain the 45-day freeze and allow discussion to continue into the 90-day recruitment if needed. The audio transcription from the January 27 meeting is:  Councilmember Kragness stated it makes more sense to go along with what's already been in place and considering we have the 90 days, we can do the discussion during that time frame would be my understanding, instead of postponing everything. So because as I'm understanding, it's not a matter of if we're going to do it as a matter of when. Unless that has also changed that I'm not aware of. So if that's the case, if we know for sure we have 90 days to do recruitment, why wouldn't we have, utilize that time to have more discussions? Councilmember Kragness has suggested amending the language to read: Councilmember Kragness suggested they allow discussion to continue into the 90-day recruitment if needed. Budget Issues: None Page 342 of 367 Inclusive Community Engagement: None Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: None Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: None Page 343 of 367 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/10/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Reggie Edwards, City Manager THROUGH: BY: Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT: Discussion of Resolution 2024-138; A resolution establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities Requested Council Action: he City of Brooklyn Center has six council advisory commissions. Advisory commissions serve as opportunities for residents to civically engage in their city and provide learned, developed, and lived wisdom to the city. Over the past two years, the City Council has deliberated over the establishment of the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission. On December 9, 2024, we passed resolution 2024-138 establishing the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission. On January 13, 2025, the City Council voted to freeze implementation of the commission for 45 days in order to permit additional discussion and address any unresolved concerns regarding the newly established commission. Due to delays with full council discussions, the City Council agreed to extend the 45-day implementation freeze until time for sufficient discussion may be had by the full council and unresolved concerns may be addressed. The Council seeks to extend the length of time (45 days) in order to complete its discussions of resolution 2024-138 and address any unsolved concerns. Background: This items was tabled from the February 24, 2025, Study Session for further discussion. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Page 344 of 367 Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2024-138 CVSC Commission 2. Minutes re 2024-138 Page 345 of 367 Member Butler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-138 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION COMMISSION AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WHEREAS, on May 15, 2021, the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center (“City”) passed Resolution No. 2021-73, adopting the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the Act required the City to create a permanent Community Safety and Violence Prevention Committee, which was to be tasked with reviewing and making recommendations regarding the policing response to the protests that occurred in the City in April 2021, reviewing the current collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Police Department, making recommendations prior to the renegotiation of the agreement and before its final approval, recommending the City Council create a separate and permanent civilian oversight committee for the new Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention, reviewing Chapter 19 of the City Code, making recommendations with regard to repealing or amending provisions or penalties therein, including fines and fees, and periodically making any other recommendations to the City Council related to initiating programs or policies to improve community health in the City; and WHEREAS, the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Committee was to include a majority of members that are City residents with direct experience being arrested, detained, or having other similar contact with the Brooklyn Center Police Department or had direct contact with one or more of the other services to be provided by the new Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention; and WHEREAS, the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Committee was to be chaired by the Mayor, with list of potential members created by the Director of the Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention and members from that list recommended by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Section 2.02 of the City Charter to create boards, commissions, and committees to assign to them specific duties; and WHEREAS, the City remains committed to creating a safer, healthier, more just, and more thriving community by promoting a diversity of responses to our community's safety needs that do not rely solely on our armed law enforcement officers; and WHEREAS, the City remains committed to putting in the work necessary to bring about changes as quickly as possible in how the City provides public safety while recognizing that some of these measures will take longer to implement than others and that additional work remains to be done to create a healthier and more equitable community; and Page 346 of 367 WHEREAS, due to the permancey of the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Committee referenced in the Act and the importance of the work they will be tasked to perform, the City Council desires to establish the body as a permanent advisory commission for the City of Brooklyn Center, as opposed to a committee, to be identified as the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission (“Commission”). The Act shall be amended to reflect the establishment of a commission as opposed to a committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to expand upon the Act and to expand and clarify the duties, responsibilities and structure of the Commission. The Act shall be amended to reflect the duties, responsibilities and structure of the Commission as set forth in this Resolution; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Establishment. The advisory Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission (“Commission”) is hereby established for the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. Scope. In accordance with the Act and the findings set forth above, the scope of activity of the Commission shall consist of advising the City Council and other City advisory commissions and committees regarding matters relevant to Community Safety and Violence Prevention functions. 3. Purpose. The general purpose of the Commission is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on issues related to Community Safety and Violence Prevention. 4. Duties and Responsibilities. In accordance with the Act and the findings set forth above, and in fulfilllment of its purpose, the Commission’s duties and responsibilities of the Commission include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Develop, advise, recommend, and upon adoption by the City Council, monitor the execution of a comprehensive plan and recommend amendments to the plan as warranted relevant to community safety and violence prevention matters in the City, including the Act; b. Advise and assist the City in the adoption of policies and procedures by the City Council responsive to changing diverse community needs and concerns in matters of community safety and violence prevention; c. Annually report to the City Council regarding accomplishments toward fulfillment of such comprehensive plan and recommend amendments to the plan as warranted; d. Advise and assist the City in reviewing and discussing community safety and violence prevention policies for the City, and make recommendations to the City Council concerning community safety and violence prevention in the City; Page 347 of 367 e. Work with City staff and other Commissions on matters regarding community safety and violence prevention in the City; f. Review current community safety and violence prevention initiatives, practices, and policies; g. Work with neighborhood committees to understand the community safety and violence prevention needs of each area in the City; h. Identify high-priority areas for community safety and violence prevention in the community and analyze methods of fulfilling these needs and interests and presenting alternative recommendations for actions to the City Council; i. Provide opportunities for the citizens of Brooklyn Center to voice their concerns and opinions regarding community safety and violence prevention matters; j. Recommend new and innovative concepts in community safety and violence prevention for the City; k. Advise, review and make recommendations for the City’s response to protests; l. Review the current collective bargaining agreement between the City make recommendations prior to final approval to the City Manager; m. Periodically make any other recommendations to the City Council related to initiating programs or policies to improve community health in the City. 5. Composition. The Commission shall be composed of a Chairperson and six (6) voting members and four non-voting advisors, all of whom shall be appointed and serve as set forth below. All voting members of the Commission shall be residents with direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems. Or have had direct contact or expertise with one or more of the public safety, judicial or public health systems. All non-voting advisors shall be appointed and serve as set forth below. All non- voting advisors shall have direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems or have had direct contact or expertise with one or more of the public safety, judicial or public health systems 6. Method of Selection. The Office of Community Prevention, Health and Safety will provide the Mayor with a list of commission candidates to serve on the Commission after review with Brooklyn Center Police Department, Brooklyn Center Fire Department and Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department. The Mayor will recommend candidates to the City Council for appointment. The City Council shall appoint members to the Commission by resolution. Page 348 of 367 7. Initial Appointment. The Commission under this resolution shall become effective March 30th, 2025, or soon thereafter, and shall consist of three members appointed for a term through 2027, three members appointed for a term through 2026, and one member appointed for a term through 2025. 8. Term of Office. The terms of office for Commission members shall be staggered two-year terms, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which their predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. Upon expiration of their term of office, a member shall continue to serve until their successor is appointed and shall have qualified. Terms of office for members of the Commission shall expire on December 31 of respective calendar years. In the event an appointed Commission member suffers from an extended illness, disability, or other activity preventing proper fulfillment of duties, responsibilities, rules, and regulations of the Commission, the Commission member may be temporarily replaced during the temporary leave by an interim Commission member recommended by the Mayor and appointed by the City Council. 9. Resignations-Removal from Office-Vacancies. Commission members may resign voluntarily or may be removed from office by the Mayor with consent of the City Council. Three consecutive unexcused absences from the duly called Commission meetings or unexcused absences from a majority of duly called Commission meetings within one calendar year shall constitute automatic resignation from office. The City Council liaison shall inform the Mayor and City Council of such automatic resignations. Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by appointment of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as follows: a. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City Council action is taken; b. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper; c. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory commissions; d. The City Clerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Public Safety Departments (Office of Community Prevention, Health and Safety, Brooklyn Center Police Department, Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreatioon Department and Brooklyn Center Fire Department) and the Mayor; e. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's name in the City Council agenda materials for the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented; Page 349 of 367 f. The City Council, by majority vote, may approve an appointment at the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented. 10. Chairperson. The Commission’s Chairperson shall be elected by a majority vote of the Commission membership. The election shall be conducted at the Commission’s first meeting and at the first regular meeting of each calendar year, or, in the case of a vacancy, within two regularly scheduled meetings from the time a vacancy of the Chairperson occurs. The Chairperson may be removed by a majority vote of the Commisison membership. The Chairperson shall assure fulfillment of the following responsibilities in addition to those otherwise described herein: a. Preside over meetings of the Commission; b. Appear, or appoint a representative to appear, as necessary, before City advisory commissions and the City Council to present the viewpoint of the Commission in matters pertaining to community safety and violence prevention as it relates to business under consideration by said commissions or City Council; c. Review all official minutes of the City Council and other advisory commissions to inform the Commission of matters relevant to community safety and violence prevention; d. Serve as a liaison with other governmental and voluntary organizations on matters relevant to community safety and violence prevention. 11. Vice Chairperson. A Vice Chairperson shall be appointed annually by the Chairperson from the members of the Commission. The Vice Chairperson shall perform such duties as may be assigned by the Chairperson and shall assume the responsibilities of the Chairperson in their absence. 12. Representation Requirements. Due regard shall be given by the Mayor and City Council in appointing Commission members which will take into consideration geographical distribution within the City, as described in paragraph 20 below, and the representative nature of the Commission in terms of gender, religion, ethnic, racial, age, handicapped, employee, and employer groups. 13. Conflict of Interest. No Commission member shall take part in the consideration of any matter wherein their interest might reasonably be expected to affect their impartiality. 14. Compensation. Commissioner members shall serve without compensation. 15. Bylaws, Rules and Procedures. The Commission shall adopt such bylaws, rules and procedures not inconsistent with these provisions as may be necessary for the proper execution and conduct of business. Bylaws adopted by the Commission shall become effective upon approval and consent of the City Council. Page 350 of 367 16. Meetings. The initial meeting of the Commission shall be convened by March 30th, 2025. Thereafter, regular meetings shall be held with the date and time to be determined by the Commission. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson. 17. Staff Liaison. The City Manager shall assign one member of the staff to serve as staff liaison to the Commission. The staff member liaison assigned shall perform administrative duties on behalf of the commission. In addition to the Staff Liaison, City staff from all public safety departments will attend commission meetings including the Office of Community Prevention Health and Safety, Brooklyn Center Police Department, Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department and Brooklyn Center Fire Department with the Office of Community Prevention, Health and Safety serving as the liaison for the commission. 18. Ex Officio Members. The Mayor, or the member of the City Council appointed by the Mayor, shall serve as an ex officio member of the Commission, privileged to speak on any matter but without a vote, and shall provide a liaison between the Commission and the City Council. 19. Neighborhoods: a. Neighborhood Advisory Committees: Commission members shall be assigned by the Chairperson as liaisons to neighborhood advisory committees of the Commission. It will then be the responsibility of each neighborhood advisory committee of the Commission to review safety and violence prevention matters and present the neighborhood opinions and concerns on general and specific safety and violence prevention programs directly affecting that neighborhood. b. Neighborhoods Described (See also Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). i. Southeast Neighborhood: The Southeast neighborhood shall be bordered on the south by the south city limits; on the east by the Mississippi River; on the north by FAI-94; and on the west by Shingle Creek. ii. Northeast Neighborhood: The Northeast neighborhood shall be bordered on the south by FAI-94; on the east by the Mississippi River; on the north by the north city limits; and on the west by Shingle Creek. iii. Northwest Neighborhood: The Northwest neighborhood shall be bordered on the south by FAI-94; on the east by Shingle Creek; on the north by the north city limits; and on the west by the west city limits. iv. West Central Neighborhood: The West Central neighborhood shall be bordered on the south by County Road 10; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the north by FAI-94; and on the west by the west city limits. Page 351 of 367 v. Central Neighborhood: The Central neighborhood shall be bordered on the south by County Road 10; on the east by Shingle Creek; on the north by FAI-94; and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. vi. Southwest Neighborhood: The Southwest neighborhood shall be bordered on the south by the south city limits; on the east by Shingle Creek; on the north by County Road 10; and on the west by the west city limits. 20. The Act is hereby amended as referenced in this Resolution. December 9, 2024 Date Mayor ATTEST: Assistant City Manager/City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Graves and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Butler, Graves, Kragness and the following voted against the same: Jerzak, Lawrence-Anderson whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 352 of 367 EXHIBIT A Map of Neighborhoods Page 353 of 367 Excerpt from 12.9.24 City Council Meeting 10c. RESOLUTION NO. 20244-138; ESTABLISHING THE BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION COMMISSION AND DEFINING DUTIES AN RESPONSIBILITIES City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the item and reviewed the history of the discussion. The topic was delayed until the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act could be further discussed by the Council. Since then, the Act has been discussed by the Council on several occasions. Staff has incorporated feedback from the discussions into the proposed resolution. Director of Community Prevention, Health and Safety LaToya Turk explained the Act calls for the establishment for a Community Safety and Violence Committee. The Commission is designed as an advisory to fulfill said mandate. Ms. Turk noted the proposed committee ensures all members will be Brooklyn Center residents in alignment with the Act’s focus on lived experiences, members with direct interactions with criminal justice systems, or related services will be prioritized. The proposal specifies that City Staff will serve as non-voting liaisons to the Commission, ensuring their role is supportive rather than directive. Ms. Turk stated the purpose of the Commission includes reviewing current public safety policies and practices, such as responses and the effectiveness of models. This directly corresponds to the Act’s directive to review protest responses and recommend improvements. Ms. Turk noted while the Commission does not specifically function as a civilian oversight committee, its role in developing recommendations on public safety policy and advising on structural reforms supports the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act’s intent to enhance civilian input and provide recommendations on critical issues, including labor agreements and policy amendments. Ms. Turk pointed out the Commission’s objectives encompass improving community health, addressing systemic inquiries, and advancing holistic violence prevention strategies, as envisioned in the initial Act. Its work supports the Act’s call for programs and policies aimed at improving community health in Brooklyn Center. Ms. Turk explained by promoting transparency, ongoing community forums, and reviewing public safety metrics, the proposed Commission creates a structured avenue to address community concerns, including responses to protests and other public safety incidents. The Commission’s ability to provide policy recommendations also allows for the review of City ordinances, fines, and fees, ensuring alignment with the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock- Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act’s directive to examine provisions that impact community equity. Page 354 of 367 Ms. Turk added by adopting an evidence-based approach and aligning with national best practices, the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission supports the Act’s overarching goal of creating a safer, more just community by using proven and forward-thinking public safety strategies. Ms. Turk stated the Commission would be composed of a chairperson, six voting members, and four non-voting members. All voting members must be residents with direct experience with public safety, judicial, or public health systems. All non-voting advisors must also have direct experience with public safety, judicial, or public health systems. Ms. Turk noted the City Manager would assign one Staff member to serve as liaison to perform administrative duties on behalf of the Commission. In addition, Staff from all public safety departments will attend meetings. The Office of Community Prevention, Health, and Safety would serve as the liaison for the Commission. Ms. Turk pointed out the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act initially called for a committee, but Staff is proposing a commission instead. She then reviewed the layout and headers within the resolution. Ms. Turk stated the duties and responsibilities of the Commission would include developing, advising, recommending, and upon adoption by the City Council, monitoring the execution of a comprehensive plan and recommending amendments to the plan as warranted relevant to community safety and violence prevention matters in the City, including the Act. Ms. Turk noted an additional responsibility would be advising and assisting the City in the adoption of policies and procedures by the City Council responsive to changing diverse community needs and concerns in matters of community safety and violence prevention, creating an annual report for the City Council regarding accomplishments toward fulfillment of such comprehensive plan and recommend amendments to the plan as warranted, advising and assisting the City in reviewing and discussing community safety and violence prevention policies for the City, and making recommendations to the City Council concerning community safety and violence prevention in the City. Ms. Turk continued to explain duties would be working with City Staff and other Commissions on matters regarding community safety and violence prevention in the City, reviewing current community safety and violence prevention initiatives, practices, and policies, working with neighborhood committees to understand the community safety and violence prevention needs of each area in the City, identifying high-priority areas for community safety and violence prevention in the community and analyzing methods of fulfilling these needs and interests and presenting alternative recommendations for actions to the City Council. Ms. Turk added responsibilities would include providing opportunities for the citizens of Brooklyn Center to voice their concerns and opinions regarding community safety and violence prevention matters, recommending new and innovative concepts in community safety and Page 355 of 367 violence prevention for the City, advising, reviewing, and making recommendations for the City’s response to protests, reviewing the current collective bargaining agreement between the City make recommendations prior to final approval to the City Manager, and making any other recommendations to the City Council related to the initiation of programs or policies to improve community health in Brooklyn Center. Ms. Turk reiterated the Commission would be composed of a chairperson, six voting members, and four non-voting members. All voting members must be residents with direct experience with public safety, judicial, or public health systems. All non-voting advisors must also have direct experience with public safety, judicial, or public health systems. Ms. Turk added as for the method of selection, it is proposed the Office of Community Prevention, Health and Safety would provide the Mayor with a list of Commission candidates to serve on the Commission after review with the Brooklyn Center Police Department, Brooklyn Center Fire Department, and Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department. The Mayor would then recommend candidates to the City Council for appointment. The City Council shall appoint members to the Commission by resolution. The initial appointment would be staggered but would have term lengths, resignations, vacancies, chairpersons, vice chairs, compensation, bylaws, rules, and procedures would be the same as existing commissions. Ms. Turk pointed out the goal is to have the Commission launched by the second quarter of 2025. Ms. Turk stated the City Manager shall assign one member of Staff to serve as liaison to the Commission. The liaison assigned shall perform administrative duties on behalf of the commission. In addition to the Staff Liaison, City Staff from all public safety departments will attend commission meetings including the Office of Community Prevention Health and Safety, Brooklyn Center Police Department, Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department and Brooklyn Center Fire Department with the Office of Community Prevention, Health and Safety serving as the liaison for the Commission. Also, there is a provision regarding neighborhood representation. Councilmember Butler stated the topic has been discussed to the point of exhaustion. It has been signed off on by all Department directors and legal Staff. The Project 252 Task Force didn’t receive full support, and it is mind-boggling that Council would be uninterested in input from community members with direct experience on a particular topic. Ultimately, the Police Chief remains the sole disciplinary body. Councilmember Kragness thanked Ms. Turk for the presentation and noted her support for the compromises and edits made by Staff. She noted she has a concern about the wording regarding the composition of the Commission. She suggested that portion be reworded to ensure all voting members are residents. Ms. Turk confirmed the edit would be made. Page 356 of 367 Mayor Graves pointed out there is some benefit to include business owners or school employees who may not be residents. Councilmember Kragness agreed there should be non-resident community members included in the Commission, but voting should remain a privilege for residents, similar to other commissions. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act doesn’t align with the presented composition. Mayor Graves agreed there isn’t perfect alignment precisely because the Council doesn’t agree with all components of the original Act. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson pointed out the initial Act is still an active document. Mayor Graves stated the original document can be edited to reflect the proposed composition. Councilmember Jerzak stated the presentation did address some of his concerns. However, the fact remains that the document wasn’t provided to the City Council or the public in advance of the meeting. He would like additional time to review the resolution prior to voting on approval. There are many well-intentioned Staff that don’t completely understand the implications of an ordinance. Councilmember Jerzak added the Commission may be a great opportunity, but it may be set up for failure if it believes its recommendations will automatically be approved. Mayor Graves asked why he believes that for the proposed Commission and not the existing ones. Councilmember Jerzak explained his belief is based on personal experience. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Jerzak is referring to a past group that discussed public safety concerns but isn’t the Financial Commission, Housing Commission, Planning Commission, or the Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Jerzak stated the Council has not had an opportunity to completely review the document. The proposal is monumental and needs a thorough review. Also, the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Act from which it derives has not been entirely reviewed by the Council. Councilmember Butler moved and Mayor Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 138, a Resolution for the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted her preference to table the item. Motion passed (3-2, Councilmembers Jerzak and Lawrence-Anderson). Mayor Graves pointed out she is open to continued conversation with other Councilmembers. Page 357 of 367 Excerpt from 1.13.25 Study Session DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2024-138 – COMMUNITY SAFETY COMMISSION City Manager Reggie Edwards asked if the items could be brought to a future Work Session. A new policy would be required to allow an item to be moved to a Work Session or Study Session. Councilmember Moore pointed out Work Sessions are an opportunity for Council to discuss an item, but no action can be taken. A Study Session, however, an item can be moved to the regular agenda. Dr. Edwards stated there is no written policy dictating the procedure. Councilmember Moore noted many of the topics have been extensively discussed, and she has participated as a resident. She stated she would like to vote on Resolution 2024-128. Mayor Graves stated it hadn’t been the Council’s practice to move an item from a Work Session or Study Session to the Regular Session without an overwhelming majority agreeing to do so. Anyone could bring an item to a Study Session and subsequently request the item be voted on in the Regular Session. Councilmember Moore explained the item was taken at the end of a previous meeting, which included a lame duck Councilmember. She agreed the topic had been thoroughly discussed. The two items on the current Study Session agenda were previously voted on, but she did not vote on them. There was dissent in the vote, and there was not a consensus. She should have the option to move an item to the Regular Session as well. Mayor Graves requested the existing policy be presented to the Council to ensure they abide by their own rules. Dr. Edwards stated that the present Study Session format was a pilot format requested during a past Council retreat. Therefore, there isn’t a policy in place. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated an item could be moved to the Regular Session when Mayor Wilson was on the Council. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out Mayor Graves previously expressed openness to continued conversation on the topic. He would like to seek out further consensus. The previous vote seemed like a last-minute push. Also, the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution was not fully reviewed, which was requested multiple times. It was also problematic that the Council received the documents at the last minute. Mayor Graves confirmed she would be open to continued conversation. Councilmember Kragness noted if an item has been voted on, it should not be reconsidered. This is a principle previously expressed by Councilmember Jerzak when items were presented related to the Implementation Committee. There shouldn’t be a precedent set to vote again on items that have been decided on, especially when there is a new Councilmember. Page 358 of 367 Councilmember Jerzak agreed he usually disagrees with revoting an item. The difference in this situation is the lack of transparency through the document-sharing process and the lack of thorough review of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Overall, the process was unfair and rushed. Councilmember Jerzak stated there are several concerns with the documents such as the introduction of bias by requiring members to have past interactions with law enforcement, meddling with existing processes, and overall lack of clarity. Policies should only be made by the Council. He stated he would be open to further discussion. There is already an issue with obtaining a quorum on existing Commissions. Also, the proposed group is not intended to be punitive but to build community. Councilmember Moore added the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution has been discussed for quite a while. A final vote on the future of the Resolution has not been held. Plus, the fifth item in the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution has not been discussed and refined by the Council. Mayor Graves stated staff was directed to edit the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution based on the discussions held by the Council. The Council received a presentation from staff, but the Council was not open to starting the process while the Implementation Committee was still working. Multiple departments and staff members have contributed to the proposed structure of the group. There are the same if not more details for the Community Safety Commission in comparison to other Commissions. Any policies suggested by a Commission still require approval by the City Council. All voting members are residents. Mayor Graves reviewed the details of the Community Safety Commission and read from Resolution 2024-138. “The scope of activity of the Commission shall consist of advising the City Council and other City advisory commissions and committees regarding matters relevant to Community Safety and Violence Prevention functions. “In accordance with the Act and the findings set forth above, and in fulfillment of its purpose, the Commission’s duties and responsibilities of the Commission include, but are not limited to, the following: develop, advise, recommend, and upon adoption by the City Council, monitor the execution of a comprehensive plan and recommend amendments to the plan as warranted relevant to community safety and violence prevention matters in the City, including the Act, advise and assist the City in the adoption of policies and procedures by the City Council responsive to changing diverse community needs and concerns in matters of community safety and violence prevention, annually report to the City Council regarding accomplishments toward fulfillment of such comprehensive plan and recommend amendments to the plan as warranted, Page 359 of 367 advise and assist the City in reviewing and discussing community safety and violence prevention policies for the City, and make recommendations to the City Council concerning community safety and violence prevention in the City, work with City staff and other Commissions on matters regarding community safety and violence prevention in the City, review current community safety and violence prevention initiatives, practices, and policies, work with neighborhood committees to understand the community safety and violence prevention needs of each area in the City, identify high-priority areas for community safety and violence prevention in the community and analyze methods of fulfilling these needs and interests and presenting alternative recommendations for actions to the City Council, provide opportunities for the citizens of Brooklyn Center to voice their concerns and opinions regarding community safety and violence prevention matters, recommend new and innovative concepts in community safety and violence prevention for the City, advise, review and make recommendations for the City’s response to protests, review the current collective bargaining agreement between the City make recommendations prior to final approval to the City Manager, and periodically make any other recommendations to the City Council related to initiating programs or policies to improve community health in the City. “The Commission shall be composed of a Chairperson and six voting members and four non- voting advisors, all of whom shall be appointed and serve as set forth below. All voting members of the Commission shall be residents with direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems. Or have had direct contact or expertise with one or more of the public safety, judicial or public health systems. All non-voting advisors shall be appointed and serve as set forth below. All non-voting advisors shall have direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems or have had direct contact or expertise with one or more of the public safety, judicial or public health systems.” Mayor Graves pointed out the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution and the Community Safety Commission is in response to the killing of Duante Wright by Brooklyn Center police. The Community Safety Commission also derives from the settlement with the family. The goal is to improve public safety for all residents of Brooklyn Center. The only other item that may need review is the collective bargaining agreement. However, the agreement is a public document, and any resident may provide input to Dr. Edwards. Overall, any issues with the Community Safety Commission are unclear. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted she is disappointed the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution was not rewritten prior to the initiation of the Community Safety Commission, which is why she voted against the Community Safety Commission at the previous meeting. Mayor Graves stated the Council has discussed the fifth section and Resolution 2024-138 was created by staff to encompass said discussion. Mayor Graves asked what objections Page 360 of 367 Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson previously had to the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson pointed out the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution calls for a Commission with a “majority of whose members must be City residents with direct experience being arrested, detained, or having other similar contact with Brooklyn Center Police.” Mayor Graves stated the membership was edited to say, “All voting members of the Commission shall be residents with direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems.” Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated staff made the changes. Mayor Graves agreed staff made the changes based on the discussion and concerns expressed by the Council. Councilmember Jerzak stated there wasn’t an opportunity for a complete discussion of the fifth item. He asked why there is a requirement for the membership to have interactions with law enforcement. Mayor Graves stated the document calls for a majority of membership with experience with various legal systems. It means much more than people who have been arrested. Councilmember Jerzak stated experience with various legal systems creates an implicit bias. Mayor Graves stated nearly everyone has had experiences with public safety, judicial, or public health systems. It is hardly exclusionary. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted the Council never had a work or Study Session to review the differences between the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution and Resolution 2024-138. Mayor Graves explained the purpose of the previous meeting was for comparison. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated the conversation was too rushed. Councilmember Kragness stated she is unsure why there is an issue with Resolution 2024-138. Every concern expressed by the Council was incorporated into Resolution 2024-138, and the document is a fair compromise. Councilmember Moore pointed out she was present in the audience for the meeting. At 10:00 p.m., Mayor Graves extended the meeting until 10:30 p.m. At 10:29 p.m., Councilmember Butler called the item to a vote, and the vote was split 3-2. For Councilmember Butler to call an item to a vote one minute before the end of the meeting is disconcerting. Councilmember Jerzak reiterated he has issues with the protests and the collective bargaining agreements. He asked if there is a Council consensus to set a 45-day freeze on implementing the Community Safety Commission. He wants to work something out. Alternatively, he offered to make a motion to revote the item. Page 361 of 367 Councilmember Moore noted her agreement with Councilmember Jerzak. She asked Dr. Edwards if a 45-day freeze is an option and if the timeline would work out by other scheduled topics. Dr. Edwards stated a Study Session is an opportunity for the Council to discuss whatever they would like. Therefore, it is the Council’s purview to determine the time frame for a freeze. Mayor Graves reiterated her openness to further conversation. However, the details of concern remain unclear. She requested staff draft a new version of the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution reflecting past discussions. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she wants to review the original Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution before rewriting anything. The item needs to be discussed. She voted against the Community Safety Commission because she needed more time to consider the item. Mayor Graves reiterated the remaining concerns are unclear. The process being rushed is not a sincere concern with Resolution 2024-138. She suggested Councilmembers are being bogged down by concerns with the original Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution rather than offering solutions. Councilmember Moore stated Mayor Graves shouldn’t correct the feelings of others regarding the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Mayor Graves stated she is not saying anything about the feelings of Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Councilmember Moore stated Mayor Graves is not Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson’s therapist. Mayor Graves stated Councilmember Moore doesn’t need to stand up for Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Councilmember Moore stated she would be a defender of all of her colleagues. Mayor Graves pointed out Councilmember Moore hasn’t been recognized by the presiding officer to speak. Councilmember Moore stated she raised a Point of Order, so she will be recognized. Mayor Graves asked the City Attorney if it was a proper Point of Order. Councilmember Moore stated it is a proper Point of Order in her opinion. Mayor Graves explained she meant no offense toward Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she understood. She pointed out the Council didn’t participate in rewriting the section in question. Instead, staff provided a rewritten version. Mayor Graves noted that is the usual process of the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson explained she is worried the documents will be co-mingled. She didn’t initially support the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Page 362 of 367 Violence Prevention Resolution due to the short time frame. Mayor Graves agreed she had concerns with the original document, but those have been reviewed by the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like to review each section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution and create a new document. Mayor Graves noted they had already reviewed the sections. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she didn’t remember having a discussion on the fifth section. Mayor Graves directed staff to gather minutes and dates from all previous discussions the Council has held regarding the refinement of Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Councilmember Jerzak asked if he should make a motion or seek a consensus about freezing Resolution 2024-138 pending further discussion. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated a motion would be the appropriate action. Councilmember Jerzak moved Councilmember Moore seconded to end the discussion because they are going in circles. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Kragness asked if Councilmembers Jerzak and Lawrence-Anderson need more time to review the document. She also asked if they would still need more time if Councilmember Butler were on the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated they needed more time to review the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution before forming a Commission. Councilmember Jerzak asked if Resolution 2024-138 was frozen. Ms. Tolar explained the only motion made was about ending the discussion. Councilmember Jerzak moved Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson to suspend implementation of the Community Safety Commission for up to 45 days until the Council has the time to review Resolution 2021-73. Councilmember Kragness and Mayor Graves voted against the same. Motion passed. Page 363 of 367 Excerpt from 2.10.25 Study Session DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2024-138; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION COMMISSION AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Mayor Pro Tem Kragness pointed out the item was tabled from a previous meeting because not all Councilmembers were present. She suggested the item be tabled again because the full Council was not present. Councilmember Moore stated that no other cities in Minnesota have rolled out a successful program as suggested. There is already a pilot program in place. The Council needs to focus on basic needs. Only a few of the original principles have remained at the forefront of subsequent proposals. The proposal also gives too much power to the Mayor. Councilmember Moore moved to move the item from the Study Session to the Council Consideration Items. Councilmember Jerzak noted the 45-day period has expired, the Council must fulfill its timeline commitment. He explained he has several concerns with Resolution 2024-138, and he has met with Dr. Edwards several times. The item was called for a vote at a late hour at the last meeting of 2024. He added he agrees with comments made by Councilmember Moore and Mayor Graves has previously made her perspective on the matter clear. Dr. Edwards stated the motion needs to be addressed. Councilmember Jerzak seconded to move the item from the Study Session to the Council Consideration Items. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness pointed out Councilmember Jerzak previously requested more discussion on the item. Councilmembers have also requested the item be pushed back until all members of the Council could be present. On April 8, 2024, May 13, 2024, September 23, 2024, November 25, 2024, and January 27, 2025, Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson was absent. Her absences have required the item be pushed back time and time again. It would be unfortunate for the Council to move forward with the same item despite past convictions that the full Council should be present. Councilmember Jerzak noted the seven pages of Resolution 2024-138 was provided to the Council the evening of the December 9, 2024 meeting for a vote. They also wanted to wait on Resolution 2024-138 and the proposed Code of Conduct until a new Councilmember was sworn in. He stated he doesn’t like to leave the Mayor out of the conversation, but he supports the consensus of the Council. Dr. Edwards stated any further discussions on the item could be handled during the regular session if it were to be moved to Council Consideration Items. Page 364 of 367 Mayor Pro Tem Kragness reiterated the Council must be consistent with their processes such as waiting for discussion until the full Council is present. Councilmember Jerzak stated he would like to hear from Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted her agreement with Mayor Pro Tem Kragness. Councilmember Moore added she is new to the Council. Therefore, she is not responsible for decisions of the Council prior to her appointment. She asked if Mayor Graves will be present at the next meeting. Dr. Edwards stated he doesn’t know Mayor Graves’ schedule without looking it up. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated she believes Mayor Graves will be present for the first meeting in March but not at the second March meeting. Councilmember Moore reiterated the Council doesn’t need to rely on precedents set by a group of Councilmembers that she wasn’t a part of. By waiting for discussion, they are continuing to prolong the topic. The item is low-hanging fruit. The City is hemorrhaging money. The City needs to get back to the basics such as functioning water meters. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked what the present discussion is regarding. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness explained they are discussing the motion to move the item to the Regular Session. If approved, then the Council would need to make a final decision on Resolution 2024-138 during the Regular Session. Councilmember Moore stated there is a motion on the table. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated she has not acknowledged Councilmember Moore. Councilmember Moore asked for clarification on what is on the table. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated Councilmember Moore needs to wait to speak until she is acknowledged. Councilmember Moore stated she was done talking. Dr. Edwards stated there is a motion on the table. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to ask who supports the motion once discussion has been complete. Councilmember Jerzak asked what the motion is. Councilmember Moore explained her motion was to move the item from the Study Session to the Council Consideration Items. Councilmember Jerzak stated the item could be moved to the Council Consideration Items, then be tabled. Dr. Edwards confirmed the item could be tabled after being discussed on the Regular Session. If the present motion fails, then there would need to be a motion to extend the freeze. Page 365 of 367 Councilmember Moore offered a friendly amendment to her motion. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to table the item until the next Council meeting and extend the 45-day timeline until it can be voted on by the majority of the Council. Dr. Edwards explained the item would need to be moved to Council Consideration Items before the item could be extended. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Moore asked if the motion was to move the item to Council Consideration Items which would allow for a vote on the item being tabled and extended. Page 366 of 367 Excerpt from 2.10.25 Regular Session 10b. DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2024-138; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION COMMISSION AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Councilmember Jerzak moved and Mayor Pro Tem Kragness seconded to move the consideration and vote on Resolution 2024-138 to the next meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson pointed out there was discussion of extending the freeze on Resolution 2024-138. Ms. Tolar stated they would need to reconsider the motion to extend the freeze. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to reconsider Council Consideration Item 10b. Discussion of Resolution 2024-138; Resolution Establishing the Brooklyn Center Community Safety and Violence Prevention Commission and Defining Duties and Responsibilities. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to table the discussion of Resolution 2024-138 until the next Council meeting and extend the implementation of the Commission to a future date. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Edwards asked if the item should be put on the Study Session or the Regular Session item. The Study Session would allow for discussion while a Council Consideration Item on the Regular Session would intend for the item to be voted on. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated the Council needed more time to discuss the item. Councilmember Moore stated the Council doesn’t need more time to discuss the item. Councilmember Jerzak stated there is time for discussion during Council Consideration Items. He asked if the item needs to have a new motion. Dr. Edwards stated Council Consideration Items are typically intended for voting. Page 367 of 367