October 24, 2014 Tyler Pederson Landscape Architect, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN 55411 Dear Mr. Pederson, Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) is a local non-profit community-based organization that works to protect and enhance the natural and cultural assets of the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities. We have 1,700 active members, and 3,000 active volunteers who care deeply about the river’s unique public values. We are writing today to comment on the draft St. Anthony Falls Regional Park (SAFRP) Master Plan. Many important improvements have happened in the St. Anthony Falls area over the past 30 years as the MPRB and city has reclaimed the river as a vibrant public space. We are encouraged by the MPRB’s move to create a master plan for the area to continue improving the St. Anthony Falls area. As participants in the CAC and TAC, we have been impressed with the planning process. We found that the consultants and staff pushed boundaries and then listened and responded to public feedback. We appreciate the level of influence CAC, TAC, and members of the public have had in this process and we believe the outcome is a plan we can support. We do have several comments on the draft plan around components that are excellent and should be maintained, as well as several suggestions on ways to improve the document. We have organized our comments by page number below. Page 3: Please replace Bob Spaulding with Alicia Uzarek as FMR’s TAC member. Page 1-2 & 2-2: The plan should be situated in the context of the National Park from the beginning within these two sections. We do appreciate that more explanation is given on page 5-2. Page 2-11: Including “water access” as a way people access the SAFRP is appreciated. We look forward to this section’s completion. Page 2-14: Under “Issues & Opportunities #1” we believe the text could read, “Alignment of West River Parkway across Plymouth Avenue is at an awkward and difficult angle for pedestrians and vehicles to negotiate.”

Page 2-18 & 2-20: FMR is pleased to see reuse of lock and dam facilities mentioned for both lock and dam facilities in this plan. Section 4: There is great information provided in this section around park users and demand. It is presented in a very clear manner. Page 5-2 & 5-6: Thank you for explaining the park’s relationship with the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), and for including water quality data from the State of the River Report. Both add vital information to strengthen the plan. Page 5-14: We are pleased to see “Natural Resource Recommendations” included in this master plan document. Page 6-6: FMR supports the recommendations listed for both the east and west bank. We are especially pleased to see better connections, restoration of the East Falls, providing access to underground spaces, and making indigenous cultures more visible. Page 7-2, 7-3 & 7-4: It appears that there is not text for the study area called “Extend regional park boundary to Bridge #9” shown in Figure 26. We would like to see text for this study area including:

• a statement explaining the goal of the boundary change. • a recommendation that the boundary extension be vetted with the Lower Mississippi River Gorge

neighborhoods. • a recommendation to resolve the proposed boundary with the Mississippi River Gorge Regional

Park boundary so that there is no gap between the two boundaries. • a recommendation that the new land be a natural area and restored to a level suitable to symbolize

the entrance to the Mississippi River Gorge. Page 7-4 & 7-5: FMR appreciates that the portage system was included in the “Completing the Trail Systems” section. The portage system maps and explanations are very clear and user friendly. Page 8-3: This map seems to leave the land owned by private entities unmarked or transparent. FMR would like to see these parcels given a color, put in the legend as “Other Private,” and have the acreage provided. Page 8-4: Under “Proposed Park Boundary,” it would be helpful to list the current landowner for the last two bullets. This can be done just like the first bullet which identifies the land as Star Tribune owned and the second bullet which lists the land as U.S. Postal Service owned. Thank you for considering our recommendations. Please call Irene at 651-222-2193 x11 or Alicia at x29 if you have any questions. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this document as it is finalized over the next year. Sincerely, Irene Jones Alicia Uzarek River Corridor Program Director Policy Advocate SAFRP CAC Member SAFRP TAC Member

January 16, 2015 Tyler Pederson Landscape Architect, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN 55411 Dear Mr. Pederson, Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) is a local non-profit community-based organization that works to protect and enhance the natural and cultural assets of the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities. We have 1,700 active members, and 3,000 active volunteers who care deeply about the river’s unique public values. We are writing today to comment on the proposed St. Anthony Falls Regional Park (SAFRP) Master Plan. Many important improvements have happened in the St. Anthony Falls area over the past 30 years, as the MPRB and city reclaimed the river as a vibrant public space. We are encouraged by the MPRB’s move to create an updated master plan to continue improving the St. Anthony Falls area. As participants in the CAC and TAC, we have been impressed with the planning process. We found that the consultants and staff pushed boundaries, and then listened and responded to public feedback. We appreciate the level of influence that the CAC, TAC and members of the public have had in this process and the outcome is a plan that we support. We would like to highlight the many components of the plan that we consider to be strengths as well as mention a few areas for minor improvement. FMR would like to thank MPRB for their efforts to anticipate future park-use changes within the SAFRP, and tailor the information and recommendations within the plan to meet the anticipated changes. Specifically, we appreciate that the St. Anthony Falls lock closure, and the accompanying “potentially underutilized infrastructure”, was mentioned under the list of “Issues and Opportunities” for the Mill Ruins area (pg. 2-10). With the pending lock closure, the plan recognizes the need and provides guidance for the creation of a portage system around the St. Anthony Falls lock (pg. 7-6 & 7-7). The plan also acknowledges the potential for increased recreational use on the river and the need for water access points to the park (pg. 2-30). Another admirable component of the plan is that the best and most recent information and science was used to inform the plan and is also presented in the plan. FMR appreciated the technical experts, historians and area residents that informed each of the charrettes. Within the plan, the visitor demand data (Chapter 4), the natural resources data (Chapter 5), and historic and cultural resource data (Chapter 6) is very well

communicated. We especially appreciate mention of the State of the River Report when water quality is mentioned in Chapter 5. We would like to again thank the MPRB staff for their responsiveness to the public input given throughout the plan’s creation. FMR finds the resulting recommendations within the plan to be very strong. We support the many recommendations for both the east and west bank (Chapter 7) including better connections, restoration of the East Falls, access to underground spaces, and making indigenous cultures more visible. We also support the many natural resource recommendations (pg. 5-14 & 5-16), and cultural and historic recommendations (pg. 6-4 & 6-6). In addition to the many components of the proposed plan that FMR finds to be exceptional, we have identified several recommendations for improvement. First, under “Issues & Opportunities #1” we would like the text to read, “Alignment of West River parkway across Plymouth Avenue is at an awkward and difficult angle for pedestrians and vehicles to negotiate” (pg. 2-6). Despite the protected bike lanes on Plymouth Avenue, this intersection remains a dangerous place for pedestrians and bicyclists due to many blind spots where pedestrian-car conflicts can arise. Second, as industry and developers develop a stronger interest in the area between the existing southern boundary of the St. Anthony Falls Regional Park and the Mississippi River Gorge Regional Park, it is imperative that the boundaries are adjusted to meet. This is essential to ensure that the entrance to the only gorge on the Mississippi River maintains natural shorelines, public riverfront access and the MPRB maintains the ability to implement consistent public trails on both sides of the river throughout Minneapolis (pg. 7-20, 7-21, 7-30, 7-31 & 8-4). FMR would support any text changes to strengthen the recommendation to expand the SAFRP to the northern boundary of the Mississippi River Gorge Regional Park. Third, we would like to see the property ownership map also contain a category for “Other private inholdings” within the park so that all properties are categorized (pg. 8-3). Finally, we believe that the list of properties impacted by proposed park expansion should include the name of each property’s owner (8-4). Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the creation of this great master plan. We are happy to submit favorable comments at this stage and appreciate your consideration of our final recommendations. Please call Irene at 651-222-2193 x11 or Alicia at x29 if you have any questions. We look forward to supporting this master plan as it is finalized this year and implemented in the years to come. Sincerely, Irene Jones Alicia Uzarek River Corridor Program Director Policy Advocate SAFRP CAC Member SAFRP TAC Member

January 23, 2015

Tyler Pederson Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2117 West River Road N Minneapolis, MN 55411 RE: Response to MPRB Request for Comments on St. Anthony Falls Regional Park Master Plan Dear Mr. Pederson, The purpose of this letter is to provide comments from the City of Minneapolis on the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board’s (MPRB) St. Anthony Falls Regional Park Master Plan, in response to the 45-day review request for comments announced December 5, 2014. Generally, we support the regional park master plan and its implementation. We remain a committed partner with MPRB in the preservation and enhancement of our urban riverfront parks district, and are actively considering access to and activation of the riverfront in our collaboration with MPRB on the Downtown Public Realm Framework/Downtown Service Area Masterplan. The riverfront is an identifying feature and amenity for the surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole. Creating vital, urban green spaces that are connected to and provide amenity to our urban communities is extremely important, and we appreciate the MPRB’s work to do just that. We also appreciate the partnership of MPRB in extending connections from the riverfront to areas where parks and trails are still being developed, including both in Downtown and the Upper Riverfront. Ongoing work in partnership in both these areas has the potential to yield great benefit and to set the stage for the continued growth of our city. Attached below are some specific comments, organized by section and page number, on the draft document distributed for review. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the planning process for the regional park through ongoing involvement in the technical advisory committee and through commenting on the draft. We look forward to continuing partnership with you in the future in this and other areas of our city. We see great potential in the purposeful convergence of City and Park Board interests around livability and qualitative urban placemaking. Regards,

Kjersti Monson Director, Long Range Planning Community Planning and Economic Development City of Minneapolis

Minneapolis City of Lakes

Community Planning & Economic Development

Division of Long Range Planning 105 5th Avenue South, Suite 200

Minneapolis, MN 55401

City of Minneapolis Response to MPRB Request for Comments on SAFRP Master Plan Page 2

St. Anthony Falls Regional Park Master Plan – draft comments as of 1/15/15 Page 1-5 – It should be noted that a number of the visionary projects identified in River FIRST (including the three highlighted here) are subject to additional discussion, refinement, and modification as they move towards implementation. The River FIRST plan was a high-level visionary exercise to inspire change, but more work is needed to ensure the proposed projects are the right ones for the area. Page 1-5, Downtown Gateway Park – The phrase “the development of Downtown Gateway Park” implies that the park has been physically constructed. Perhaps it should instead say “the vision for Downtown Gateway Park.” Page 1-5 – Might it be possible to use a different illustration instead of the Spirit Island one? This concept originally came from the Imagining the Mississippi project, so it seems inappropriate to continue to credit it to RiverFIRST. Page 1-6 – Presumably, is the Water Works plan consistent with this overall regional park master plan? Also, will the MPRB be approving it, or the MPF – or both? It should be clear what the relationship is between these two interconnected efforts. Additionally, there should be clarification regarding the relationship between the 2012 Water Works plan and the 2014 design project. Page 1-6 – The west bank interpretive plan is not included, although that work certainly informed the SAFRP and Water Works plans. Page 1-8 – There is not yet an actual plan for the Downtown East Commons, although the upcoming design process outcome certainly merits note. Either the text can clarify that status and/or the date shown could be 2014-2015 to clarify that it will not be completed until later this year. Page 1-8 – Several small area plans that overlap with the study area address the regional park. These include: Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Master Plan (2014), Nicollet Island East Bank Neighborhood Master Plan (2014), Historic Mills District Master Plan and Update (2001), and the North Loop Small Area Plan (2010). These plans reference the regional park and have recommendations related to it. Also, this section should reference the MPRB’s own 2007-2020 comprehensive plan. Page 1-8 – In the list of other significant planning efforts, suggest that ACOE be spelled out, as many readers will not recognize that term. Was the DNR also involved in that planning effort? Page 2-3 – Suggest consistency in how the park area at Bassett Creek is referenced. Here the map label refers to it as the Bassett Creek Outlet (although “Outlet” is usually not included). In other places, it’s simply Bassett Creek and Bassett’s Creek. Page 2-7 – Could the term “desire path” be explained for readers unfamiliar with that term? Page 2-8 – The reference to the Post Office Loggia and Mezzanine could use more explanation, as to where these are located and what could be done with them. Page 2-10 – The first paragraph includes two references to “canals,’ but there is only one canal. Page 2-10 – The closure of the lock and dam will include the closure of the visitors’ center, which includes public bathrooms and a great view of the river. Finding a reuse for this strategically located visitor asset would be a plus for the park. Page 2-12 – The underutilized Bluff Street Park area may also be considered an asset, particularly with the new trail connection under I-35W. Page 2-12 (and elsewhere) – There are several references to the CenterPoint property, but nowhere is there a description of the function of the improvements on that property. Unless the technology has changed, that parcel includes a “peak shaving” plant that provides supplemental gas during periods of extreme cold. It is linked underground to an extensive network of piping that converges at this point. That parcel cannot be acquired and added to the park

City of Minneapolis Response to MPRB Request for Comments on SAFRP Master Plan Page 3

unless an alternate location is found for that plant (which would not be easy) and the network of pipes is rebuilt to converge instead at that new location (which would be expensive). Page 2-14 – Isn’t Northern States Power Company known now as Xcel Energy? Also, Water Power Park is operated by the MPRB, but I wasn’t aware that MPRB was directly involved in the development. Page 2-16 – Issues and opportunities for Father Hennepin should include the potential to complete a bicycle/pedestrian trail connection along the existing railroad corridor, linking the Stone Arch Bridge to the existing Dinkytown Greenway trail. This would be an important regional trail connection between Downtown, the University of Minnesota, and St. Paul. Another additional opportunity that isn’t noted is a possible tie-in to an underground interpretive experience related to the Pillsbury A Mill tunnel system. Page 2-18 – Main Street becomes Marshall Street NE, not Avenue; this needs to be corrected in several places in the document (e.g. page 2-26, 2-28, 7-8, 7-26, etc.) Page 2-18 – Issues and opportunities for Main Street should include the fact that there is a “missing link” between Main Street and East River Parkway, where the riverfront parkway system is not continuous. Completing that link would allow for continuous parkway connections on both banks, as is the case throughout the study area otherwise. While we recognize that there is concern about the amount of traffic that might bring to Main Street, if that continuous parkway experience will not be via Main Street connecting to East River Parkway, we recommend that a viable alternate parkway route be identified. Page 2-23, third paragraph – Shouldn’t this be “roundhouse” instead of “roadhouse”? Page 2-23 – In addition to logging and railroads, there are other previous uses on the B.F. Nelson site that merit interpretation (e.g. a paper mill and the German “Turner Hall”). Page 2-24 – The use of the directional terms “north,” “south,” etc. are confusing here where the river runs at a diagonal. It might be more informative to use “upriver,” “downriver,” etc. Page 2-24 and 2-25 – Should it be noted that the Hennepin Avenue Cultural Corridor begins at Hennepin and the River, and should the corridor (or at least the “Theater District”) be included on the map? Page 2-28, third column – The pinch point references here is on the west bank, rather than the east bank. Page 2-30, last paragraph – It would be worth noting that a portage route will become much more necessary once the USAF Lock closes. Page 4-2 – It might also be useful to note how many employees are located within those distances. There also are a large number of people staying within hotels, attending conventions, etc. who are potential visitors. The latter may be hard to estimate/quantify, but merit noting. Page 4-2, last paragraph – What is meant by the “St. Anthony Neighborhood?” Is this St. Anthony West? Page 4-4, second paragraph – Grand Rounds, not Ground Rounds Page 5-2, middle column – I think that acronym stands for Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Also, it seems more appropriate to say that this stretch of the river is part of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, rather than that it was designated as the program. Page 5-6, second paragraph – Suggest that “Old” not be capitalized, as that makes it sound like a formal name/title, which it isn’t. Page 5-6, Groundwater – Could “groundwater sensitivity” be defined/explained? Page 5-8, first paragraph, fourth line – Suggest this be re-phrased to say “…and once was known for its supposed curative qualities.”

City of Minneapolis Response to MPRB Request for Comments on SAFRP Master Plan Page 4

Page 5-8 – Is Nicollet Island truly within the 100 year floodplain? Page 5-8 – With the permanent closure of the Upper St. Anthony Falls lock and dam in mid-2015, it is unlikely that the Army Corps will continue to dredge the river and maintain the navigation channel upstream from that location. Page 6-4 – While “urban pioneers” did play a role in the recent redevelopment of the riverfront, there were also more institutional partners who invested significant time and resources in the area, including the City, Park Board, St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board, and others. Page 6-4 – The Stone Arch Bridge is a Civil Engineering National Landmark. Page 6-5 – What is the source for the proposed interpretive topics shown on the map? This map also could use a careful check, as there was never a hydroplant on the west bank just upriver from I-35W (but there was on the east bank), and the Post Office site is a curious place to interpret milling. Page 7-2 – Have the property owners impacted by the expanded regional park boundary near Bassett Creek, Hennepin Ave, and I-35W been involved in the process? Does this imply near-term plans to acquire this property, or is it longer term? Also, is land acquisition implied for the street changes suggested here? The budget in section 13 doesn’t seem to include any land acquisition costs. How will this affect property rights under our Comprehensive Plan and zoning code? Page 7-2 – It isn’t clear whether the plan is to construct an entirely new visitors center on the lock or retrofit the existing center. Page 7-4 – Expanding the boundary to Bridge No. 9 brings Bluff Street Park into the regional park boundary – but it isn’t addressed in depth in the plan. Is there a specific vision for this area? There is a similar question for the U of M property on the opposite bank. Pages 7-3 and 7-5 – These appear to be duplicate pages Page 7-8 – We support the bicycle/pedestrian connection along 8th Ave N to West River Parkway. This is an adopted policy in the North Loop Small Area Plan. Page 7-8 – An emphasized connection from the riverfront to the stadium along Chicago is a good idea. However, a bicycle facility on Chicago is not part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan because there are facilities on the nearby streets of Portland, Park, and Chicago. The City would like to work with the MPRB on enhancing this connection through protection of significant views, setting back buildings on the east side of Chicago per adopted small area plans, and creation of a linear park drawing people from the river to the stadium, LRT station, and Downtown East Commons. Page 7-11 – Does this map (Figure 30) indicate existing programming and events, or planned future ones – or both? Page 7-12 – It doesn’t seem that the plan’s intention is to acquire ALL of the Star Tribune property for expansion of Bassett Creek Park. In this case, recommendation 1A should be adjusted to read that a portion of the Star Tribune property should be acquired. If the MPRB intends to acquire the entire property, a more thorough discussion is required with the City that balances the benefits of development with the benefits of park expansion opportunities. Page 7-14, last initiative – This should be West River Parkway, not East. Page 7-14 and 15 – It will be critical that the intersection of Hennepin and the River serve as a strong destination that will pull people from downtown to the River. Programming can be part of that, but would it be possible to add something that would serve as a more ongoing destination, perhaps working with a partner? Also, it seems a shame not to interpret the previous location of the Stevens home. Page 7-15 – Creating a pedestrian path through the Federal Reserve site from the river to 1st Ave N is a great opportunity to open up much-needed access points from the North Loop neighborhood to the riverfront.

City of Minneapolis Response to MPRB Request for Comments on SAFRP Master Plan Page 5

Page 7-16 – Recommendation 3I should also emphasize modifying the parkway at 1st St and 5th Ave S to better accommodate bicycle access behind the Crown Roller Mill building. The current bicycle ramp is narrow and not functional for both bicycles and ADA accessibility. Page 7-17 – New pedestrian and bike connections are shown coming from Second Street via the woonerf, under the First Street South Bridge and then heading upstream. However, that level runs smack into a concrete bunker structure that is part of the Post Office complex, and it’s not clear how they can continue upriver and/or get down to the parkway level. Even if they could connect with the Post Office promenade, that does not seem wide enough to accommodate bikes along with pedestrians. In addition, some pedestrians and bicyclists using that entry point may want to head downriver, and it’s not clear where/how that connection would be made. Page 7-18 – The West Bank Interpretive Plan is not called out with the other plans in chapter 2. Page 7-20 – As noted, adding the CenterPoint property to the park would entail not just acquisition, but also securing of an alternate site and a very expensive reconstruction of the underground piping network to connect to an alternate site. Page 7-22 – Item B should be reworded to say that the realigned trails should NOT interfere with band shell function, and clarify if this refers to the existing band shell or the relocated one. Page 7-24 – ADA accessibility is mentioned generally for Hennepin Island. Are there any more specifics as to the types of facilities that would be included, and what existing ones would need to be upgraded? Page 7-24 – Not mentioned is the opportunity to create visitor access to the A Mill tunnels beneath this area through a new visitor center in the rehabilitated A Mill. While this originates on adjacent non-park property, the underground access could well extend under and out into parklands. Additionally, it has the potential to add greatly to the visitor experience in this area, in terms of a unique opportunity to explore the area’s history. It has a potential to draw a number of new visitors to the area, and/or to extend the visitor’s experience and time here. Ongoing commentary on that project (through the FERC licensing process of a planned hydroelectric facility in the tunnels) references the adjacency to and impact on parklands, so it seems the plan should likewise mention this project and the opportunity it presents. Page 7-26 – In this and other locations, it should be clarified that the street known as Plymouth Ave N is called 8th Ave NE on the east bank of the river. Page 7-28 – Clarify what it means to use stormwater treatment to define the separation between the roadway and trail system. Is this the “slot drain” concept shown in the sketch? Page 7-28, initiative G – It also may be appropriate to include acoustical improvements to reduce the chances that music from this location will cause conflicts with nearby uses. Page 7-30 and 7-31 – The letters on the recommendations on page 7-30 don’t seem to match those in the image in Figure 41. Also, is the assumption that this plan dismisses the Whitewater Park idea? If so, it seems unfortunate that other alternate concepts (beyond simply green space) aren’t proposed for this lower area with its more intimate relationship to the River. Page 7-32 and 7-34 – The plan recommends the eventual phasing out of the private event hosting at the Nicollet Island Pavilion, but doesn’t seem to showing the development of a similar facility at Boom Island/BF Nelson to replace it. Is the idea that hosting private events is something that will eventually be phased out entirely? Or is this still to be determined over the longer term? Page 8-2 – How soon do the long term leases expire on Nicollet Island? Is there any stated intent regarding renewal, or is it to be determined? Page 10-2 – The proposed trail connection from Main Street to East River Road is listed inconsistently – in some places it is identified as a project, in others (such as here) it is not.

City of Minneapolis Response to MPRB Request for Comments on SAFRP Master Plan Page 6

Page 12-2 – Consistent with the earlier discussion in plan of the needs of underrepresented people groups (including people of color), are there any specific outreach strategies that are used to reach these groups? Page 13-2 – These cost estimates do not seem to include any costs for land acquisition, in the areas where the plan calls for property to be purchased. While there may not be appraisal information to provide an informed estimate, there should at least be a line item for acquisition to indicate where that is proposed, perhaps with an EMV value as a placeholder to indicate potential order of magnitude. Page 13-4 – What is a “not a lot” parking area?