# General plan documents — st_paul-minnesota Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading. **Contains 4 documents.** OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: circulation, critical_area_mississippi_river_corridor, historic_preservation, housing, land_use, open_space, water_resources_management. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-26. --- ## Land Use — 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Chapter - Source: https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/LU_Chapter_FinalAdopted_110920.pdf - Pages: 36 - Covers: land_use <
> # LAND USE # Introduction The Land Use Chapter guides the overall physical layout and organization of Saint Paul. Policies set forth in this chapter promote development patterns that strengthen neighborhoods; improve walkability; increase access to housing, jobs, schools, parks and services; promote equitable access to neighborhood nodes; help to reduce carbon emissions; and accommodate growth by leveraging transit investments. As Saint Paul has developed, land uses have changed in conjunction with transportation trends, and evolving zoning regulations and market forces. The land uses that have developed over time have a close relationship to natural forms and systems in Saint Paul, including the Mississippi River. The overall composition of these natural and built characteristics influences how people live, move and do business in Saint Paul (Figure LU-1). This chapter provides guidance by land use type and is illustrated by the Future Land Use Map (Figure LU-2), which determines where the uses are to be located over the next 20 years. The land use types are described throughout the chapter, followed by policies per land use. Household and employment growth over the next two decades is focused in Downtown, Mixed-Use areas and Neighborhood Nodes, creating compact urban development in areas with a high level of services and amenities. Ongoing investment in housing choice in Urban Neighborhoods is also supported. Additional supporting materials for Land Use Chapter policies can be found in the appendices beginning of page 46. The following goals guide the Land Use Chapter: 1. Economic and population growth focused around transit. 2. Neighborhood Nodes that support daily needs within walking distance. 3. Equitably-distributed community amenities, access to employment and housing choice. 4. Strong connections to the Mississippi River, parks and trails. 5. Infrastructure for all ages and abilities. 6. Efficient, adaptable and sustainable land use and development patterns and processes. 7. Quality full-time jobs and livable wages. 8. People-centered urban design. # City-wide City-wide land use policies cover a broad range of topics. Generally, the city-wide goals are to increase density and land use diversity at Neighborhood Nodes, focus investment along transit corridors and promote high-quality urban design. Mixed-use clusters anchor neighborhoods, provide convenient access to local services and employment, and promote vibrancy, which supports walking and reduces the amount of driving needed to satisfy daily needs. The following policies apply across the City regardless of land use category: Policy LU-1. Encourage transit-supportive density and direct the majority of growth to areas with the highest existing or planned transit capacity. Policy LU-2. Pursue redevelopment of Opportunity Sites (generally sites larger than one acre identified as having potential for redevelopment) as higher-density mixed-use development or employment centers with increased full-time living wage job intensity, and the appropriate location for community services that are completely absent in the surrounding area (Map LU-3). Policy LU-3. Prioritize equitable public investments relative to areas of concentrated poverty as defined by the Metropolitan Council. Policy LU-4. Invest in measures that minimize displacement in neighborhoods where the proximity to high-frequency transit has increased redevelopment pressure and/or housing costs. Policy LU-5. Encourage flexible building design to ensure ongoing functionality and viability, and to respond to new market opportunities. # Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) does not simply mean more condos and coffeeshops. Focusing growth along quality transit means job access, security and an affordable cost of living. When transit connects to schools and job centers, more training and employment opportunities open for all residents along the route. High-frequency transit increases reliability for both employees and employers, which increases job choice and longevity. Transit-oriented development also allows people to get more from their paycheck. The overall cost of housing plus transportation is less because households can get by with fewer or no cars, and are freed from the cost of buying, maintaining and insuring vehicles. Benefits of TOD are described in the series *Promoting Opportunity through Equitable Transit-Oriented Development*, by Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., including: * Access to employment: Not only are most jobs in the United States located close to transit, but proximity to transit decreased the time lower-paid job-seekers looked for work. * Decreased cost of living: Those living in TOD areas save thousands of dollars annually, freeing up income for other necessities, such as food, healthcare and education. * Health and well-being: Living in a TOD area promotes a more active lifestyle, with people walking to transit and other neighborhood amenities. These habits can lead to reduced risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. * Efficient transportation networks: Denser TOD areas have been shown to reduce the overall distances of car trips while increasing transit trips. * Economic development: TOD supports a healthy, diverse economy by supplying employers with a reliable pool of employees. TOD is associated with “a 10-fold increase in tax revenue, one-third reduction in infrastructure cost and 10 percent reduction in service-delivery costs” over typical suburban development, all of which contribute to good municipal financial health. * Environmental protection: By reducing dependence on private automobiles and concentrating daily destinations, TOD reduces greenhouse emissions from vehicles and reduces regional sprawl. # The Urban Forest Most people know that trees provide the oxygen we need to breathe, but did you know that trees also: * Capture fine particles on leaf surfaces, reducing the circulation of airborne particulate matter * Provide shade, reducing the impacts of daytime heat and production of ozone * Reduce the urban heat island effect (the tendency for built-up urban areas to retain more heat) * Increase stormwater absorption and groundwater recharge * Reduce rates of crime and stress * Increase property values * Promote outdoor exercise * Provide natural habitat * Enhance the landscape * Offer an effective strategy for climate adaptation A comprehensive list of recommendations on how Saint Paul can maximize its tree canopy are contained in the Emerald Ash Borer Health Impact Assessment Report. Key recommendations include: 1. City of Saint Paul should identify neighborhoods with lower canopy cover and higher rates of vulnerable populations, and target these neighborhoods for new tree planting and increased assistance. 2. The City of Saint Paul Mayor's Office should declare the stability of the urban forest a City priority. 3. Saint Paul Forestry should develop and implement a five-year community forestry master plan with measurable goals. 4. Saint Paul Forestry and Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce should work together to provide incentives to businesses and property management companies to reduce heating and cooling costs. 5. Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development should incorporate urban forestry approaches into plans for climate resilience and/or disaster preparedness as a temperature buffering and flood management strategy. Policy LU-6. Foster equitable and sustainable economic growth by: 1. facilitating business creation, attraction, retention and expansion; 2. supporting family-sustaining jobs and enhancing workers’ skills to excel at those jobs; 3. growing Saint Paul’s tax base in order to maintain and expand City services, amenities and infrastructure; 4. proactively directing new development to high-priority geographies, such as Neighborhood Nodes, ACP50 Areas and Opportunity Sites; 5. encouraging cultural and arts-based businesses and business districts, such as Little Mekong, Little Africa, Rondo and the Creative Enterprise Zone; 6. supporting business, real estate and financial models that keep more money locally, such as locally-owned businesses, local-prioritized employment, employee-owned businesses and commercial land trusts; 7. building and expanding neighborhood economic and cultural assets through the development of the local micro-economies of our Neighborhood Nodes; 8. enhancing vibrant downtown neighborhoods and connecting them to the Mississippi River; 9. developing programs and funding sources for site acquisition and parcel assembly; and 10. integrating Saint Paul’s historic resources into neighborhood-based economic development strategies. Policy LU-7. Use land use and zoning flexibility to respond to social, economic, technological, market and environmental changes, conditions and opportunities. # Applying Metropolitan Council’s Areas of Racially Concentrated Poverty to Saint Paul The Metropolitan Council defines Areas of Concentrated Poverty (ACPs) as census tracts where 40% or more of the residents have family or individual incomes that are less than 185% of the federal poverty threshold. To identify areas where people of color experience the most exposure to concentrated poverty, the Met Council further differentiates Areas of Concentrated Poverty where 50% or more of the residents are people of color (ACP50s). The City of Saint Paul is using ACP50 geography as a lens to guide our approach to equitable development within the city. This approach may require investing within ACP50 areas in some cases, while investing outside them in other instances. In any case, equitable investment will require ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure success. The Metropolitan Council’s Thrive 2040 includes a “Statement on Equity” that lays out the Council’s goals and action steps to achieve those goals. The Metropolitan Council will promote equity by: * Using our influence and investments to build a more equitable region. * Creating real choices in where we live, how we travel, and where we recreate for all residents, across race, ethnicity, economic means, and ability. * Investing in a mix of housing affordability along the region’s transit corridors. * Engaging a full cross-section of the community in decision-making. Examples of actions the Metropolitan Council will take that relate to the City’s Land Use Chapter include: * Work to mitigate Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty by better connecting their residents to opportunity and catalyzing neighborhood revitalization. * Work with communities to create more income-diverse neighborhoods, including strategically targeted subsidies to develop market-rate housing in areas that lack market-rate options. * Use Livable Communities Act resources to catalyze private investment in Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty. * Conduct a regional inventory of industrial land that considers the location of industrial land relative to the potential workforce eager to access nearby higher wage job opportunities. * Encourage preserving existing housing where rehabilitation is a cost-effective strategy to maintaining housing affordability. * Invest in and encourage new affordable housing in higher-income areas of the region, particularly in areas that are well-connected to jobs, opportunity, and transit. * Prioritize transportation investments that connect lower-income areas to job opportunities. * Engage neighborhood residents in transit planning to understand how to most effectively use transit service and investments to promote access to opportunity. * Promote transit-oriented development that ensures a mix of housing affordability in transit station areas. * Collaborate and consult with members of the community, especially historically underrepresented populations. Work toward making decisions with people, not for people. Policy LU-8. Ensure that zoning and infrastructure support environmentally and economically efficient, resilient land use development. Policy LU-9. Promote high-quality urban design that supports pedestrian friendliness and a healthy environment, and enhances the public realm. Policy LU-10. Activate streetscapes with active first-floor uses, street trees, public art, outdoor commercial uses and other uses that contribute to a vibrant street life. Policy LU-11. Preserve significant publicly accessible views through the regulation of structure placement, height, bulk and scale while accounting for other priorities (Figure LU-4). Policy LU-12. Support airport safety by prioritizing compatible land uses and using FAA 7640 review to ensure that building heights do not unreasonably interfere with airspace operations close to Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. Airport Safety Zones (Figure T-17) are subject to Airport Safety Zones are subject to land use regulations defined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8800.2400, per state law. See also Policy T-18. Policy LU-13. Support strategies, as context and technology allow, to improve off-street parking efficiency, such as shared parking agreements, district ramps, car sharing, electric vehicle charging and reduced parking overall. Policy LU-14. Reduce the amount of land devoted to off-street parking in order to use land more efficiently, accommodate increases in density on valuable urban land, and promote the use of transit and other non-car mobility modes. Policy LU-15. Ensure that stand-alone parking uses are limited, and that structured parking is mixed-use and/or convertible to other uses. Policy LU-16. Encourage the equitable spatial distribution of community food assets, including urban farms, community gardens, food markets, healthy retail food options and food hubs. Policy LU-17. Promote access to sunlight for solar energy systems while accounting for the development rights of adjacent properties (Map LU-6). Policy LU-18. Support facilities outside public rights-of-way to support pedestrian and bicycling activity, such as sidewalk access to building entrances, adequate lighting, trails and bicycle parking/storage. Policy LU-19. Prioritize measures to achieve a long-term increase in canopy coverage citywide, with general goals of 40% tree canopy coverage in all neighborhoods outside of downtown and 15% downtown. Policy LU-20. Encourage private landowners to provide public access to privately-owned open spaces, and facilitate joint use of athletic fields and school playgrounds. Policy LU-21. Identify, preserve, protect and, where possible, restore natural resources and habitat throughout the city with the following ordinances: * Chapter 67. - Zoning Code—Overlay Districts * ARTICLE II. - 67.200. TP Tree Preservation Overlay District * ARTICLE V. - 67.500. HV Hillcrest Village Overlay District * Chapter 68. - Zoning Code—River Corridor Overlay Districts * ARTICLE II. - 68.200. River Corridor Overlay Districts * Chapter 69. - Zoning Code—Subdivision Regulations * ARTICLE IV. - Application for Subdivision * Sec. 69.406. - Review of divisions of land. * ARTICLE V. - General Requirements and Design Standards * Sec. 69.509. - Preservation of natural features and amenities. ## Downtown Downtown is the mixed-use core of Saint Paul, encompassing all the B4 and B5 Zoning Districts and most of Planning District 17. It is the oldest developed part of the city, and currently and historically has had the greatest employment and housing density in Saint Paul. Downtown is intended to continue growing and diversifying while building on its great neighborhood, commercial and cultural assets, especially its location on the Mississippi River. Improved infrastructure will enliven vitality, and safely connect people within downtown and to adjacent neighborhoods. For more detailed guidance on the future of downtown, see the Downtown Development Strategy. The following policies apply to the Downtown land use category: Policy LU-22. Continue to invest in Downtown and promote a broad mix of uses that attract greater numbers of people and employers to ensure Downtown's vitality as the civic, cultural and employment center of the East Metro. Policy LU-23. Strengthen neighborhood connections to and within Downtown Saint Paul through development and improvements that support and complement Downtown businesses and urban villages. Policy LU-24. Prioritize public and private investments in infrastructure that: 1. improve technology access to enhance conditions for a growing economy; 2. maintain and improve the public realm to encourage street-level pedestrian activity; and 3. support parks, green space and recreation. Policy LU-25. Continue to strengthen Downtown as a residential neighborhood that provides services and amenities for people of all ages. Policy LU-26. Support office and commercial development that takes advantage of Downtown’s position as the office Center of the East Metro, that maximizes jobs, business and tax base growth; and meets the needs of a dynamic region. ## Mixed-Use Mixed-Use areas are primarily along thoroughfares well-served by transit. The main distinguishing characteristic is a balance of jobs and housing within walking distance of one another. Historically, these areas developed in easily-accessible locations, and they will continue to be the most dynamic areas of Saint Paul. These areas are vital for the ongoing growth and economic development of the city by providing the highest densities outside of downtown. The following policies apply to the Mixed-Use land use category: Policy LU-27. Provide for land use change and rezoning of land adjacent to Mixed-Use areas to allow for commercial redevelopment and/or expansion fronting arterial and collector streets. Policy LU-28. Support pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and visual interest through commercial building design. Policy LU-29. Ensure that building massing, height, scale and design transition to those permitted in adjoining districts. # Neighborhood Nodes Policy Approach The most frequent comments received from the community for the Land Use Chapter expressed a desire to have amenities within walking distance of home, such as neighborhood businesses and grocery stores, parks, playgrounds and open space, and libraries. This goal is related to equity in that amenities and basic public infrastructure are not evenly distributed throughout the city. Increasing the number of Neighborhood Nodes from those designated in the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan is a direct policy response to this. Over time, public and private investment in new development that increases the mix of uses and pedestrian amenities in these Neighborhood Nodes will increase amenities city-wide. Having amenities within walking distance of home throughout the city is consistent with the way Saint Paul was planned and developed generations ago. The city was organized into “Communities” (precursors to the current District Council system) and “Neighborhoods” in the mid-20th century. Guiding design principles for Communities were “to have a set of facilities which are designed, primarily, for service to adults.” The primary design principle for Neighborhoods (sub-sections of Communities) was that “young children aged 5-12, generally will be safe from traffic and other hazards.” (*Plan for Public Education, Recreational and Cultural Facilities, City of Saint Paul, 1960*) There is also an increasingly rich amount of research quantifying the positive benefits of this type of development pattern. Benefits include: * improved health; * increased walking; * reduced vehicle miles traveled; and * positive equity outcomes. (*More Great Research Quantifying Smart Growth Benefits*, Todd Litman) These benefits show the close relationship between land use and transportation, and illustrate how we can grow in a way that achieves the improvements people want to see in their communities. Neighborhood Nodes are linked to the streets that host them. Jan Gehl points out in his book Cities for People: “*there is more life in urban neighborhoods when people move slowly. The goal of creating cities where more people are invited to walk and bike will bring more life to the streets and a greater wealth of experience because fast traffic will be converted into slower traffic*” (p.71). Creating a land use mix and high-quality urban design that invites pedestrians to linger at Neighborhood Nodes will make the city more walkable. # Neighborhood Node Locations The Neighborhood Node designation is based on locations planned for higher-density, mixed-use development in adopted small area, neighborhood and master plans; community feedback on locations with market potential and neighborhood support; review of current zoning designations; analysis of current and future land use; and locations of existing or planned transit. Analysis included reviewing historic land use maps for persistent commercial nodes and mixed-uses; comparing amenities proximate to potential nodes; and identifying public anchors such as schools, parks and libraries. A final analysis ensured that, generally, there would be a Neighborhood Node within 20-minute (or less) walk of any residence in Saint Paul. This is based on the urban design concept of “20-minute cities,” where many daily services and amenities are within a 20-minute walk from the vast majority of residences. Neighborhood Nodes are designated in the following general locations, as identified in the 2040 Future Land Use Map: * Arlington Hills/Maryland-Payne * Baker-Smith * Case-Arcade * Como-Front-Dale * Como-Snelling * Dale Station Area * District del Sol * E. 7th Street-Arcade * E. 7th Street-Payne * Earl Station Area * Etna Station Area * Fairview Station Area * Fitzgerald Park Urban Village * Grand-Fairview * Grand-Victoria * Grand-W. 7th/Seven Corners * Hamline Station Area * Highland Village/Ford Site * Hillcrest Golf Course * Idaho-White Bear * Larpenteur-Lexington * Larpenteur-Vento Trail * Lawson-Payne-Wells * Lawson-Rice-Front * Lexington Station Area * Lexington-Front * Lower Afton-McKnight * Lowertown Urban Village * Marshall-Cleveland * Maryland-Arcade * Maryland-Dale * Minnehaha-Snelling * Minnehaha-White Bear * Montreal-W. 7th-Lexington * Mounds Station Area * Mount Airy-Jackson * Payne-Phalen * Payne-Tedesco * Phalen Village * Phalen-Arcade * Phalen-Cayuga * Phalen-Cook * Phalen-Olive * Randolph-Snelling * Randolph-W. 7th/Schmidt * Raymond Station Area * Rice Park Urban Village * Rice Station Area * Selby-Dale * Selby-Milton * Selby-Snelling * Selby-Western * Shepard-Davern/Sibley Manor * Snelling Station Area * St. Anthony Park Village * St. Clair-Cleveland * St. Clair-Snelling * St. Clair-W. 7th * Stillwater-Iroquois * Stryker-George * Suburban-White Bear * Sun Ray Station Area * Victoria Park * Victoria Station Area * Wacouta Commons Urban Village * West Side Flats * Western Station Area * Westgate Station Area * Wheelock-Arcade * Wheelock-Rice-Larpenteur * White Bear Station Area * White Bear-Maryland # Neighborhood Nodes Neighborhood Nodes are compact, mixed-use areas that provide shops, services, neighborhood-scale civic and institutional uses, recreational facilities and employment close to residences. They may be neighborhood centers, transit station areas or urban villages, and have often developed adjacent to major intersections or at former street car stops. Neighborhood Nodes serve a neighborhood’s daily needs, including access to food; reduce public infrastructure disparities; improve livability; and accommodate growth. Neighborhood Nodes are denser concentrations of development relative to the adjacent future land use categories. Neighborhood Nodes foster an equitable system of compact, mixed-use and commercial centers across the city to increase access to community services (such as health care) and businesses, and support pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. Investment in Neighborhood Nodes will tap the economic, cultural and human assets of Saint Paul’s diverse neighborhoods, and can foster micro-economies that celebrate those assets. The following policies apply to a range of land uses within the Neighborhood Nodes land use category: **Policy LU-30.** Focus growth at Neighborhood Nodes using the following principles: 1. Increase density toward the center of the node and transition in scale to surrounding land uses. 2. Prioritize pedestrian-friendly urban design and infrastructure that emphasizes pedestrian safety. 3. Cluster neighborhood amenities to create a vibrant critical mass. 4. Improve access to jobs by prioritizing development with high job density. **Policy LU-31.** Invest in Neighborhood Nodes to achieve development that enables people to meet their daily needs within walking distance and improves equitable access to amenities, retail and services. **Policy LU-32.** Establish or enhance open space close to Neighborhood Nodes, such as public parks, publicly-accessible private open spaces, and school playgrounds. **Policy LU-33.** Promote amenities that support those who live and work in Neighborhood Nodes, including frequent transit service, vibrant business districts, a range of housing choices, and neighborhood-scale civic and institutional uses such as schools, libraries and recreation facilities. # Urban Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhoods are primarily residential areas with a range of housing types. Single-family homes and duplexes are most common, although multi-family housing predominates along arterial and collector streets, particularly those with transit. Multi-family housing, schools, neighborhood parks, religious institutions and cemeteries may also be scattered throughout Urban Neighborhoods. Limited neighborhood-serving commercial may also be present, typically at intersections of arterial and/or collector streets. Urban Neighborhood is the largest land use area in Saint Paul. The following policies apply to the Urban Neighborhoods land use category: **Policy LU-34.** Provide for medium-density housing that diversifies housing options, such as townhouses, courtyard apartments and smaller multi-family developments, compatible with the general scale of Urban Neighborhoods. **Policy LU-35.** Provide for multi-family housing along arterial and collector streets, and in employment centers to facilitate walking and leverage the use of public transportation. **Policy LU-36.** Promote neighborhood-serving commercial businesses within Urban Neighborhoods that are compatible with the character and scale of the existing residential development. **Policy LU-37.** Facilitate partnerships between public and private institutions for joint use of recreational fields, playgrounds and other community facilities and hubs to economically provide equitable access to services and leverage other public investment. **Policy LU-38.** Direct the location of new secondary schools and post-secondary educational institutions along transit routes and bicycle and pedestrian networks to provide options for students and staff, and decrease traffic congestion in adjacent neighborhoods. **Policy LU-39.** Direct the location of new elementary schools to locations with safe pedestrian and bicycling networks. ### Semi-Rural Semi-Rural land is primarily large-lot, low-density residential, with more limited public infrastructure than elsewhere in the city. Development is limited by the river bluffs; preservation of green space, including the tree canopy, is emphasized. The Semi-Rural land use category is limited by geography, and is expected to remain static or even shrink over the next 20 years as properties are connected to public utilities and infrastructure. The following policies apply to the Semi-Rural land use category: Policy LU-40. Maintain large-lot residential development with private utilities that preserves the natural ecosystem along the river bluffs. Policy LU-41. Promote cluster development with public utilities to add density in a way that preserves the natural ecosystem along the river bluffs. Policy LU-42. Promote context-sensitive infill development along arterial and collector streets, at densities similar to Urban Neighborhoods, while preserving the natural features of the area. Policy LU-43. Expand the availability of public utilities, where feasible, to provide for voluntary connections to abutting properties. ### Industrial Industrial land uses are a major source for employment in Saint Paul and are are a significant net positive payer of property taxes, relative to the City services consumed. They have traditionally been defined as manufacturing, processing, warehousing, transportation of goods and utilities. More contemporary uses, driven by technological advances, include medical tech and limited production and processing. The intent is for this land use type to remain adaptable, relevant and supportive of well-paying jobs with low barriers to entry and a growing tax base. The following policies apply to the Industrial land use category: Policy LU-44. Identify and assemble industrial sites within close proximity to logistics networks, including interstate freeways, river terminals, rail and other cargo/commodity shipping facilities. Policy LU-45. Support and encourage development that maximizes tax base, job creation and/or job retention. Policy LU-46. Retain and protect current industrial land from conversions to residential or institutional uses unless guided otherwise in a City of Saint Paul adopted plan. Policy LU-47. Preserve the long-term tax base by evaluating the impact of tax-generating industrial land, as well as compatibility with adjacent land uses and infrastructure. Policy LU-48. Minimize the amount of surface parking in industrial districts through a more efficient use of existing parking and development of shared parking. Policy LU-49. Pursue partnerships to improve public open space access along the Mississippi River. Policy LU-50. Support efforts to convert former industrial buildings to complementary production uses. Policy LU-51. Support efforts to combine small parcels in industrial zones in order to allow for uses requiring larger building footprints. Policy LU-52. Encourage investment in new employment uses, such as medical technology, maker space, and small-scale or custom production. ### Major Parks and Open Spaces Major Parks and Open Space land use includes regional parks, City parks larger than 200 acres, City parks adjacent to the river and parkways. This land use designation helps to connect the city's neighborhoods and acts as its "lungs," contributing to environmental quality, and providing space for recreation and respite. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Chapter guides the City's park system. ## Civic and Institutional Civic and Institutional land use includes buildings and open space for major institutional campuses. As the host of the State Capitol and many high-quality educational institutions, Saint Paul has rich resources in this land use category. It is important to cultivate conditions that allow these uses to thrive, connect to neighborhoods and feed into the local economy. The following policies apply to the Civic and Institutional land use category: Policy LU-53. Pursue partnerships with area colleges and universities that strengthen connections to the community and adjacent neighborhoods; and support workforce development, business creation and innovation, and retention of youth and young professionals. Policy LU-54. Ensure institutional campuses are compatible with their surrounding neighborhoods by managing parking demand and supply, maintaining institution-owned housing stock, minimizing traffic congestion, and providing for safe pedestrian and bicycle access. Policy LU-55. Encourage the redevelopment of surface parking lots within the Capitol Area into projects that contribute to the tax base and public realm. ## Transportation Saint Paul is a city with a rich infrastructure of multi-modal transportation systems, such as streets, walking and biking pathways, transit networks and the Mississippi River. The Transportation land use category, however, includes only highways, railroads and the Saint Paul Downtown Airport. These uses are essential for interstate commerce and contribute to the local and regional and global economies. As such, it is important to provide for these uses while ensuring minimum negative external impacts to adjacent land uses. The following policies apply to the Transportation land use category: Policy LU-56. Provide for transportation uses while ensuring minimum negative external impacts to adjacent land uses. Policy LU-57. Protect intermodal operations and freight railways from encroachment of other land uses that conflict with their safe operation. Policy LU-58. Ensure that industrial development needing access to freight infrastructure is appropriately located to serve its freight and other intermodal needs. Policy LU-59. Protect and expand river shipping terminals to strengthen the role of Saint Paul as a logistics hub of the Upper Mississippi. Policy LU-60. Use the least amount of land practicable for transportation and utilities uses in order to maximize land for urban development and environmental protection. Policy LU-61. Lessen the negative impacts of interstate highways by supporting design interventions, such as “land bridges” and landscaping and liner buildings on new bridges, that improve connectivity, hide the road and/or reduce pollution. # Appendix A Map LU-1: Current Land Use (2016) ........................... 47 Map LU-2: 2040 Land Use ........................................... 49 Map LU-3: Opportunity Sites........................................51 Map LU-4: Significant Public Views ............................52 Map LU-5: Thive MSP 2040 Community Designation. 64 Map LU-6: Gross Solar Potential.................................65 # Appendix B Figure LU-1: Current Land Use Table (2016) ............. 67 Figure LU-2: 2040 Land Use Table ............................. 67 Figure LU-3: Figure LU-3: 2040 Employment Density and General Land Use Mix ........................................ 68 Figure LU-4: 2040 Residential Land Use Density Ranges.........................................................................68 Figure LU-5: Transit Density Goals.............................69 Figure LU-6: General Housing Unit Development Estimates and Timeline Based on Opportunity Sites...69 # Appendix C Figure LU-7: Summary of Policies Organized by Goal 70 **Current Land Use** Farmstead Seasonal/Vacation Single Family Detached Manufactured Housing Park Single Family Attached Multifamily Retail and Other Commercial Office Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Industrial Mixed Use Commercial and Other Industrial and Utility Extractive Institutional Park, Recreational or Preserve Golf Course Major Highway Railway Airport Agricultural Undeveloped Water Interstate/Highway Note: These appendices provide supporting content for land use-related policies and satisfy associated Metropolitan Council requirements.. Map LU-1: Current Land Use <
> Source: Metropolitan Council (2016) # Abbreviated Land Use Descriptions from Chapter General densities and land use mixes associated with each future land use can be found in Figure LU-3 and Figure LU-4. Neighborhood Nodes Neighborhood Nodes are compact, mixed-use areas that provide shops, services, neighborhood-scale civic and institutional uses, recreational facilities and employment close to residences. They may be neighborhood centers, transit station areas or urban villages, and have often developed adjacent to major intersections or at former street car stops. Neighborhood Nodes serve a neighborhood’s daily needs, including access to food; reduce public infrastructure disparities; improve livability; and accommodate growth. Downtown Downtown is the highest-density mixed-use area of Saint Paul and a regional transportation hub, encompassing all the B4 and B5 Zoning Districts and most of Planning District 17. Mixed-Use Mixed-Use areas are primarily along thoroughfares well-served by transit. The main distinguishing characteristic is a balance of jobs and housing within walking distance of one another. Urban Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhoods are primarily residential areas with a range of housing types. Single-family homes and duplexes are most common, although multi-family housing predominates along arterial and collector streets, particularly those with transit. Multi-family housing, schools, neighborhood parks, religious institutions and cemeteries may also be scattered throughout Urban Neighborhoods. Limited neighborhood-serving commercial may also be present, typically at intersections of arterial and/or collector streets. Semi-Rural Semi-Rural land is primarily large-lot, low-density residential, with more limited public infrastructure than elsewhere in the city. Development is limited by the river bluffs; preservation of green space, including the tree canopy, is emphasized. Industrial Industrial land uses are a major source for employment in Saint Paul and are a significant net positive payer of property taxes, relative to the City services consumed. They have traditionally been defined as manufacturing, processing, warehousing, transportation of goods and utilities. More contemporary uses, driven by technological advances, include medical tech and limited production and processing. Major Parks and Open Spaces Major Parks and Open Space land use includes regional parks, City parks larger than 200 acres, City parks adjacent to the river and parkways. Civic and Institutional Civic and Institutional land use includes buildings and open space for major institutional campuses. Transportation Saint Paul is a city with a rich infrastructure of multi-modal transportation systems. The Transportation land use category includes streets, walking and biking pathways, light rail and bus rapid transit routes, highways, railroads, the Mississippi River and the Saint Paul Downtown Airport. Map LU-2: 2040 Land Use <
> Land Use Categories and Neighborhood Node Locations * Downtown * Mixed-Use * Urban Neighborhood * Semi-Rural * Industrial * Major Parks and Open Spaces * Civic and Institutional * Transportation * Neighborhood Nodes (Size of circle does not indicate extent of Node.) 1, Rice-Larpenteur Site 2, 35E-Wheelock 3, Hillcrest Center - White Bear-Hoyt 4, Hillcrest Golf Course 5, State Fair Parking 6, Rice-Maryland 7, Como-Front-Dale 8, Minnehaha Mall 9, Payne-Phalen 10 - Payne-Arcade Strip Mall 11 - Hamms Brewery 12 - Beacon Bluff Site 7th-Minnehaha 13 - Wayerhaueser Site 14 - Amtrak Site 15 - Goodwill Parking University-Fairview 16 - Snelling-University Redevelopment 17 - Target Outlot 18 - Unidale Mall 19 - Sears Site 20 - 7th Street East 21 - Prince Street 22 - Suburban 23 - Sunray Center 24 - McNally Smith School Site 25 - Gateway Site 26 - Wabasha Court 27 - Central Station 28 - Ramsey-West Site 29 - West Side Flats 1 30 - West Side Flats 2 31 - West Side Flats 3 32 - Island Station 33 - Boys Totem Town 34 - Ford Site 35 - Johnson Brothers - Riverbend Map LU-3: Opportunity Sites <
> **Opportunity Sites Land Use Designation** * Downtown * Mixed-Use * Urban Neighborhood * Industrial * Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Adopted - November 18, 2020 Appendix A | LAND USE 51 Map LU-4: Significant Public Views <
> Significant Public View * *The preservation and enhancement of Significant Public Views is not intended to limit the allowed height or density of a parcel more than the underlying zoning. Views may influence setbacks and building form to frame, enhance or preserve views. Source: City of Saint Paul (2018); Minnesota DNR (2016) View 1: Hendon Avenue West <
> From Hendon Avenue, one of the highest points in St. Anthony Park, are views of the downtown Minneapolis skyline. View 2: Como Avenue West <
> Looking west on Como Avenue west of Como Park provides a view of the downtown Minneapolis skyline. View 3: Nagasaki Road at Lake Como <
> From Nagasaki Road there are several vistas of Lake Como and its far shore. ### View 4: Wheelock Parkway Ridge <
> This section of Wheelock is on a ridge providing views of the city to the south. However, the wooded area is overgrown blocking views. It could use some selective trimming and removal of invasive species to open the landscape to people using the Grand Round. ### View 5: Horseshoe Bend <
> Horseshoe Bend along Wheelock Parkway is a remnant of a landform marking the southern terminus of glaciers from the last ice age. This high point provides outstanding views to the east and south from Wheelock and the park at the top of the hill. ### View 6: 35E South to Downtown <
> Coming into downtown from the north on 35E there is a prolonged view of the downtown skyline. View 7: Maryland Avenue West <
> There is a wonderful long westward view of the Minneapolis skyline rising over the neighborhood west of the intersection of Payne Avenue and Maryland Avenue. View 8: Payne Avenue South to River Valley <
> South of the intersection of Payne Avenue and Maryland Avenue there is a broad southward sweeping view of the Mississippi River Valley and the bluffs of the West Side. This view is very dramatic, particularly at certain times of the day and year. This change in topography and the view that comes with it really enhances the very special sense of place along a several-block stretch of Payne Avenue. This is a dramatic view for a city where so many places are characterized by their flatness in topography. View 9: Wheelock Parkway at Lake Phalen <
> On Johnson Parkway, facing north between Phalen Boulevard and Wheelock Parkway East/East Lakeshore Drive there is a very wide and wonderful view of Lake Phalen. This view along this stretch of parkway is one of the more dramatic ones in the city. View 10: Beaver Lake Park <
> This location from Edgewater Boulevard provides views overlooking Beaver Lake Park and the lake behind it. View 11: Victoria Street Station <
> The Saint Paul Fellowship Church is a handsome local landmark, immediately visible from the proposed station location. It was identified in the Victoria Station Area Plan as a key vista from the LRT station. New development at the NW corner of Victoria and University should be set back to protect and enhance views of the church steeple. View 12: North Capitol Street <
> A rarer Minnesota Capitol view from the north can be seen from North Capitol Street. Views from this street have been diminished over time from right of way vacations. This view is with the Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board area. View 13: Rivoli Street <
> The southern end of Rivoli Street provides one of the absolute best, yet least known, picture postcard views of the Saint Paul skyline. Ongoing work to define an overlook and/or green space here could ensure that this remarkably breathtaking view is preserved and available to the public for generations into the future. View 14: East 7th Street <
> Longer views southeast to the downtown Saint Paul skyline are seen from the top of the hill on East 7th Street west of Margaret Street. View 15: East 6th Street <
> Looking east on East 6th Street there is a great view of the façade of Sacred Heart Church where the street bends. View 16: I-94 West to Downtown <
> Coming into downtown from the west on I-94 there is a view of the downtown skyline. View 17: South from Capitol <
> This view was planned in 1903 by Cass Gilbert to be one of the main axial views from the Capitol (along with John Ireland Boulevard and Cedar Street). It is part of the longer view from Smith Avenue (across the High Bridge) to the Capitol, and was initially planned to terminate at Cleveland Circle. Unfortunately, in the 1950s, the Veterans Service Building was built north of what is now I-94, essentially obliterating the view beyond it. View 18: John Ireland Boulevard to Cathedral <
> This view was planned in 1903 by Cass Gilbert to be one of the main axial views from the Capitol (along with the corridor noted in View 17 and Cedar Street). This view is intact today and unobstructed, now framed by the Transportation Building. View 19: I-94 West to Downtown <
> Coming westward on I-94 around the bend between Dayton’s Bluff and Mounds Park there is a view of Lafayette Bridge, the ballpark in Lowertown and the downtown skyline. This is the first view of a major skyline in Minnesota for those travelling west along that interstate. View 20: Mounds Boulevard to Downtown <
> Mounds Boulevard provides beautiful day and night views of the downtown skyline as it sits in the Mississippi River Valley year-round. The Mounds Station Area Plan calls for wider pedestrian and bike facilities to allow people to properly enjoy this unparalleled view of the city. View 21: Selby Avenue to Downtown <
> Eastward views from Selby Avenue east of Chatsworth Street frame the tops of some downtown buildings, particularly the First Bank Building and its iconic illuminated, flashing “1.” For this reason, night views can be more impressive than the daytime as well as those during the winter months when the trees are bare. ### View 22: John Ireland to Capitol <
> This view was planned in 1903 by Cass Gilbert to be one of the main axial views from the Capitol (along with the corridor noted in View 17 and Cedar Street). This view is intact today and unobstructed, now framed by the Transportation Building and Minnesota Historical Society. ### View 23: Cathedral to Downtown <
> From the Cathedral steps, the skyline is visible over open space on top of the historic Selby streetcar tunnel. Retaining this area as open space is critical to maintaining the view, and understanding the relationship between downtown and the Selby terrace. ### View 24: West 6th to Cathedral <
> This view up 6th Street is also identified in the Seven Corners Gateway Development Evaluation Tool as an important view to be preserved when the Cleveland Circle (Seven Corners Gateway) site is developed. The Seven Corners Gateway Development Evaluation Tool view corridor starts on the other side of the skyway, closer to W. 7th Street, but the impact of any development would essentially be the same. The skyway that originally connected the two St. Paul Companies office buildings was designed specifically to allow for views through it to the Cathedral. Because of the stature and lighting of the Cathedral, preservation of this view at night is also important. View 25: West Exchange Street <
> This view looking east from Wabasha to Cedar along Exchange Street terminates at Central Presbyterian Church, listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated as a local heritage preservation site. Also contributing to the importance of the view are the scale of Exchange Street, the framing of the view by buildings in the block between Wabasha and Cedar streets, and the character of the street as defined by the lush tree canopy on both sides of Exchange Street. View 26: Cedar Avenue to Capitol <
> This view is the primary axial view established by Cass Gilbert in the 1880s in his plans for the State Capitol and Capitol Mall. Skyways should not be allowed to obstruct this view, and any new development along Cedar Street should be designed to frame the view. Land use, and building type, height and setback between Exchange Street and the Capitol are regulated by the Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board. Because of the stature and lighting of the Capitol, preservation of this view at night is also important. View 27: Chestnut Avenue to Cathedral <
> Chestnut Avenue is a major gateway into downtown and W. 7th Street neighborhood from Shepard Road and the Mississippi River. Future development on the United/Children's Hospital campus at the base of the bluff at Smith Avenue should be designed to frame and/or enhance this view. Because of the stature and lighting of the Cathedral, preservation of this view at night is also important. ### View 28: Wabasha Avenue <
> The view as one comes over the Wabasha Street bridge is of the downtown skyline and Mississippi River. The west side of Wabasha Street north of Fillmore Street is very likely to be developed in the next 20 years, so framing this view with the proper scale and height of buildings will be critical to maintaining and framing the view. ### View 29: Robert Street <
> The view as one comes over the Robert Street bridge is of the downtown skyline and Mississippi River. The east side of Robert Street north of Fillmore Street is very likely to be developed in the next 20 years, so framing this view with the proper scale and height of buildings will be critical to maintain and framing the view. ### View 30: Ford Parkway to Water Tower <
> As one climbs the hill moving westward on Ford Parkway the Water Tower comes into view. This is an important community landmark in one of the high points of the city. A historic building, it was designed by Cap Wigington, the first African-American municipal architect in the country. ### View 31: Montreal Avenue to River Valley <
> Eastward views from Montreal Avenue provide glimpses of the river valley below in the long view. ### View 32: Smith Avenue to Capitol <
> This is the long view identified by Cass Gilbert in his 1880s plans for the Capitol building. It is also noted for preservation in the Seven Corners Gateway Development Evaluation Tool. With so much distance between the view point and the Capitol, it is unlikely that anything built along the corridor would obstruct this critical Capitol view. Because of the stature and lighting of the Capitol, preservation of this view at night is also important. ### View 33: Robert Street to River Valley <
> Northward views from north of Annapolis Street along Robert Street glimpses of the river valley below in the long view. Map LU-5: Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designation <
> *Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designation* | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | City of Saint Paul Boundary | Rural Residential | Suburban Edge | Urban | | | Diversified Rural | Suburban | Urban Center | Map LU-6: Gross Solar Collection Potential <
> **Gross Solar Potential** **(Watt-hours per Year)** High : 1278950 Low : 900001 Solar Potential under 900,000 watt-hours per year County Boundaries City and Township Boundaries Wetlands and Open Water Features # Gross and Rooftop Solar Resource Calculations | Gross Potential (Mwh/yr) | Rooftop Potential (Mwh/yr) | Gross Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)** | Rooftop Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)** | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 66,151,161 | 10,968,464 | 6,615,116 | 1,096,846 | *The gross solar potential and gross solar rooftop potential are expressed in megawatt hours per year (Mwh/yr), and these estimates are based on the solar map for your community. These values represent gross totals; in other words, they are not intended to demonstrate the amount of solar likely to develop within your community. Instead, the calculations estimate the total potential resource before removing areas unsuitable for solar development or factors related to solar energy efficiency. The gross solar generation potential and the gross solar rooftop generation potential for your community are estimates of how much electricity could be generated using existing technology and assumptions on the efficiency of conversion. The conversion efficiency of 10% is based on benchmarking analyses for converting the Solar Suitability Map data to actual production, and solar industry standards used for site-level solar assessment. **In general, a conservative assumption for panel generation is to use 10% efficiency for conversion of total insolation into electric generation. These solar resource calculations provide an approximation of each community’s solar resource. This baseline information can provide the opportunity for a more extensive, community-specific analysis of solar development potential for both solar gardens and rooftop or accessory use installations. For most communities, the rooftop generation potential is equivalent to between 30% and 60% of the community’s total electric energy consumption. The rooftop generation potential does not consider ownership, financial barriers, or building-specific structural limitations. Source: Metropolitan Council Local Planning Handbook - Solar Resource Calculation # Appendix B: Tables Required by Metropolitan Council ### Figure LU-1: Current Land Use Table (2016) | Land Use | Acres | Percent of Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Agricultural | 14 | 0.0% | | Airport | 531 | 1.5% | | Golf Course | 654 | 1.8% | | Industrial and Utility | 2,397 | 6.7% | | Institutional | 2,646 | 7.4% | | Major Highway | 1,322 | 3.7% | | Major Railway | 892 | 2.5% | | Mixed Use Commercial | 165 | 0.5% | | Mixed Use Industrial | 178 | 0.5% | | Mixed Use Residential | 222 | 0.6% | | Multifamily | 1,611 | 4.5% | | Office | 478 | 1.3% | | Open Water | 2,384 | 6.6% | | Park, Recreational, or Preserve | 4,588 | 12.8% | | Retail and Other Commercial | 1,383 | 3.9% | | Single Family Attached | 1,795 | 5.0% | | Single Family Detached | 13,067 | 36.4% | | Undeveloped | 1,555 | 4.3% | | Total | 35,882 | | ### Figure LU-2: 2040 Land Use Table | Land Use | Acres | Percent of Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Civic and Institutional | 850 | 2.4% | | Downtown | 412 | 1.1% | | Industrial | 3,359 | 9.3% | | Major Parks and Open Spaces | 4,161 | 11.6% | | Mixed-Use | 2,746 | 7.6% | | Semi-Rural | 222 | 0.6% | | Transportation | 2,838 | 7.9% | | Urban Neighborhood | 18,773 | 52.2% | | Water | 2,577 | 7.2% | | Total | 35,962 | | Figure LU-3: 2040 Employment Density and General Land Use Mix* | Land Use Type | Employment Densisty (FAR)** | Commercial/Office/ Residential | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Downtown | 3.0-8.0 | 20%/50%/30% | | Mixed-Use | 0.3-6.0 | 30%/30%/40% | | Urban Neighborhood | 0.3-2.0 | 5%/5%/90% | | Industrial | 0.0-6.0 | 80%/15%/5% | * Land use mix represents a generalized average for new development within the future land use type citywide. It is not a mandate or requirement for any individual development project. **FAR applies to only employment generating land uses. Minimum FAR includes existing employment uses, such as commercial parking and outdoor storage. Figure LU-4: 2040 Residential Land Use Density Ranges* | Land Use Type | Base Range | At Neighborhood Node | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Downtown | 50-300 units/acre | | | Mixed-Use | 20-75 units/acre | 50-200 units/acre | | Urban Neighborhood | 7-30 units/acre | 20-60 units/acre | | Semi-Rural | 2-15 units/acre | n/a | | Citywide** | 20 units/acre | | *Density ranges represent a target for new development averaged across the generalized future land use type. Individual projects may be less than or exceed targeted goals. **Metropolitan Council’s requirement for communities with the urban core designation. All of Saint Paul falls within this category. Note: Saint Paul does not regulate maximum density by dwelling units per acre in most zoning districts today and intends to continue that practice. Density is most often regulated with floor-area-ratios. Figure LU-5: Metropolitan Council’s Regional Transit Density Targets* | Distance from transit | Transit type | Min (units/acre)** | Target (units/acre)*** | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1/2 Mile | Fixed rail transitway | 50 | 75-150 | | | Bus rapid transitway | 25 | 40-75 | | 1/4 Mile | Arterial bus rapid transit | 15 | 20-60 | | | High-frequency transit | 10 | 15-60 | *Average for new development in areas identified in a station area plan as appropriate for redevelopment. **Minimum represents an average goal for new development. ***Individual projects may be less than or exceed targets. Figure LU-6: General Housing Unit Development Estimates and Timeline Based on Opportunity Sites* | 2040 Land Use | Density Range | Percent Housing** | 2019-2020 | | 2021-2030 | | 2031-2040 | | TOTAL | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | Acres | Development Estimates | Acres | Development Estimates | Acres | Development Estimates | Acres | Development Estimates | | Downtown | 50-300 units/acre | 30% | 1.9 | 29-171 | 6.1 | 92-549 | 0.0 | 0 | 8.0 | 120-720 | | Mixed-Use | 50-200 units/acre | 40% | 37.4 | 749-2,992 | 193.6 | 3,872-15,488 | 194.5 | 3,890-15,560 | 425.5 | 8,510-34,040 | | Urban Neighborhood | 20-60 units/acre | 90% | 0.7 | 13-38 | 75.1 | 1,352-4,055 | 134.2 | 2,416-7,247 | 209.9 | 3,780-11,340 | | TOTAL | | | 40.1 | 789-3,201 | 274.8 | 5,315-20,092 | 328.7 | 6,306-22,807 | 643.5 | 12,410-46,100 | * The purpose of this table is to satisfy Metropolitan Council’s requirements to illustrate development capacity for population growth estimates. The figures in this table are estimated based on many broad assumptions. Timing of redevelopment is a best guess based on current market dynamics and planning activities. Redevelopment sites included in the analysis were generally larger than one acre. Given the location and size of Opportunity Sites, density ranges are assumed to be in the “At Neighborhood Node” range identified in Figure LU-4. This information is likely to be less accurate over time as market conditions and redevelopment sites change. Some sites may have an approved master plan which guides development and will provides a more accurate development estimate. Industrial land use is not included in the table because it is not a location for substantial housing production. **From Figure LU-3 # Appendix C ### Figure LU-7: Summary of Policies Organized by Goal | Goal | Policies | | :--- | :--- | | 1. Economic and population growth focused around transit. | LU-1; LU-22; LU-35; LU-55 | | 2. Neighborhood Nodes that support daily needs within walking distance. | LU-23; LU-30; LU-31; LU-32; LU-33 | | 3. Equitably-distributed community amenities, access to employment and housing choice. | LU-3; LU-16; LU-19; LU-20; LU-34; LU-36; LU-37; LU-42 | | 4. Strong connections to the Mississippi River, parks and trails. | LU-21; LU-40; LU-41; LU-49 | | 5. Infrastructure for all ages and abilities. | LU-38; LU-39; LU-54 | | 6. Equitable, adaptable and sustainable land use and development patterns and processes. | LU-5; LU-7; LU-8; LU-12; LU-13; LU-14; LU-15; LU-17; LU-27; LU-29; LU-43; LU-47; LU-48; LU-50; LU-51; LU-52; LU-56; LU-60; LU-61 | | 7. Quality full-time jobs and livable wages. | LU-2; LU-6; LU-24; LU-26; LU-44; LU-45; LU-46; LU-53; LU-57; LU-58; LU-59 | | 8. People-centered urban design. | LU-4; LU-9; LU-10; LU-11; LU-18; LU-25; LU-28 | --- ## Circulation — 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Chapter (Update, 2022) - Source: https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/CSP_2040_CompPlan_FinalAdopted_Transportation%20Chapter%20Update_091322.pdf - Pages: 40 - Covers: circulation # TRANSPORTATION # Introduction The Transportation Chapter guides the creation of a safe, equitable and well-maintained multi-modal transportation system in Saint Paul that supports the needs of all users, enhances vitality, and sets the stage for infill development to accommodate the city’s projected growth. The transportation system relies primarily on streets, which connect people to jobs, homes, shopping, education and recreation, but also includes water (the Mississippi River), trail and rail. It is important to have a consistent long-term vision that will gradually, strategically and consistently remake the city’s transportation system so that it works better for all users. Since opportunities to remake streets are infrequent due to limited funds and a high volume of needs (the life expectancy of Saint Paul streets is approximately 40 years, and many go 90 years or more before being reconstructed), the chapter establishes clear priorities for project selection. Projects will prioritize the safety of people walking and biking, equity, and improved access to economic opportunity. Maintenance is also established as a “first cut” for project selection, because regular maintenance is much more cost-effective in the long run and allows for a greater number of projects to be accomplished over time. Further, the ability to obtain outside funding will be considered. Priorities are also established for the design of our rights-of-way, with the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists placed at the top. This includes aggressively evaluating and pursuing “road diets” that improve pedestrian safety while having a minimal impact on traffic flow. Considering pedestrians first will ensure a safe transportation system that works well for everyone. Additional supporting materials for Transportation Chapter policies can be found in the appendices beginning of page 79. The following goals guide the Transportation chapter: 1. Investment that reflects the City’s priorities. 2. Safety and accessibility for all users. 3. A transportation system that supports access to employment and economic opportunity. 4. True transportation choice throughout the city, with a shift from single-occupant vehicles toward other modes. 5. Sustainable and equitable maintenance models. 6. Environmentally-sustainable design. 7. Functional and attractive Parkways. 8. A system that responds to technology and shapes its implementation. Goal 1: Investment that reflects the City’s priorities. Policy T-1. Prioritize safety and racial and social equity benefits in project selection, followed by support of quality full-time, living wage jobs – both through business support and connection of residents to job centers. Priorities will also be informed by specific modal plans, such as the Bicycle Plan or the forthcoming Pedestrian Plan (See Sidebar and Maps T-1, T-3, T-5, and T-6). Policy T-2. Use surface condition and mulitmodal usage rates to prioritize transportation projects and ensure well-maintained infrastructure that benefits the most people (See Maps T-10 and T-12). Policy T-3. Design rights-of-way per the following modal hierarchy: 1. Pedestrians, with a focus on safety 2. Bicyclists, with a focus on safety 3. Transit 4. Other vehicles Policy T-4. Significantly reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles by developing infrastructure that supports vehicle electrification. Goal 2: Safety and accessibility for all users. Policy T-5. Adopt and implement a “Vision Zero” program with the long-term goal of achieving zero traffic fatalities and severe injuries. Components of the program should include street design improvements and behavioral safety improvements, such as reducing driver impairment, inattentiveness and speed through education and enforcement. Policy T-6. Implement “road diets” for undivided four-lane roads to convert them to two or three lanes, where feasible, in order to prioritize pedestrian safety (See Map T-2). Policy T-7. Implement intersection safety improvements such as traffic signal confirmation lights, pedestrian countdown timers, and leading pedestrian signal intervals. Reduce pedestrian roadway exposure via median refuge islands, curb extensions, narrowed travel lanes and other elements designed to lower motor vehicle speeds. Policy T-8. Reduce speed limits where it will improve safety, and work with State and Ramsey County governments to overcome obstacles to implementing this policy. Policy T-9. Design the rights-of-way for all users, including older people, children and those with mobility constraints, as guided by the Street Design Manual and Safe Routes to School Plans, and by thoughtfully addressing streetscape issues such as curb cut design, level sidewalks, lighting, accessibility to/from bus stops, and the presence of benches and buffers between sidewalks and streets. Policy T-10. Design sidewalks, trails and transit stops for personal safety (real and perceived), including by providing lighting and boulevards. Policy T-11. Support driver, bicyclist and pedestrian education to improve mutual awareness and safety. Policy T-12. Minimize and consolidate driveway curb cuts as redevelopment opportunities arise for redevelopment sites that have sufficient existing access or can reasonably be accessed via side streets, alleys or shared driveways, especially in areas with anticipated high pedestrian activity or with adjacent planned bikeways. Policy T-13. When street design changes involve the potential loss of on-street parking spaces, prioritize safety for all transportation modes. Explore mitigation of lost spaces where feasible and practical. ### Economic and Social Impacts of Motor Vehicle Crashes Transportation safety is worth the investment. According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study, in 2010 there were 32,999 people killed, 3.9 million people injured, and 24 million vehicles damaged in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. The economic costs of these crashes totaled $242 billion, which represents the equivalent of nearly $784 for each person living in the United States, and 1.6 percent of the $14.96 trillion real U.S. Gross Domestic Product for 2010. These costs represent the tangible losses that result from motor vehicle crashes. However, in cases of serious injury or death, such costs fail to capture the rather intangible value of lost quality-of-life that results from these injuries. When quality of life valuations are considered, the total value of societal harm from motor vehicle crashes in 2010 was $836 billion. In 2015, the number of traffic fatalities was 35,091, a 6% increase over 2010. In Saint Paul in 2018, there were 265 vehicular crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists alone, including 4 fatalities and 208 injuries (140 requiring hospital attention). ## Roadway Safety Plan In January 2016, MnDOT released its Roadway Safety Plan for Saint Paul, a consultant-produced document with City of Saint Paul staff participation that identified the greatest opportunities to reduce the number of severe crashes based on the City’s crash data, street contexts and strategies with demonstrated effectiveness in mitigating the types of severe crashes experienced here. The study recommended focusing on certain arterial streets, employing the following types of safety projects: * improving pedestrian safety (primarily at intersections); * reducing the frequency of red light violations at traffic signals; and * improving the safety characteristics of undivided streets. The specific safety improvement strategies could include: * road diet (convert to three lanes); * access management; * traffic signal confirmation lights; * pedestrian/bicycle countdown timers; * pedestrian/bicycle leading pedestrian intervals * pedestrian/bicycle curb extensions; and * pedestrian/bicycle median refuge islands. ## Goal 3: A transportation system that supports access to employment and to economic opportunity. Policy T-14. Work with agency partners and the Saint Paul Port Authority to implement and support freight transportation improvements in and near industrial areas of regional economic importance, particularly West Midway, the Great Northern corridor, river industrial areas, and the portion of West Side Flats east of Robert Street, to improve safety and connections to the regional transportation network (See Map T-15). Policy T-15. Explore freight delivery solutions that resolve loading/unloading conflicts in congested areas to support businesses and provide safety to pedestrians, bicyclists and other road users. Solutions could include delivery coordination and timing, and use of smaller freight delivery vehicles. Policy T-16. Support financing for above-standard streetscapes in business areas. Policy T-17. Use pricing to manage parking demand and improve parking efficiency in areas with high demand and short supply. Policy T-18. Work with agency partners, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Airports Commission to maintain a regional aviation system that balances commercial demand and capacity while being compatible with the community, particularly in terms of safety and noise. See also Policy LU-12. (Figure T-17). Policy T-19. Work with the Saint Paul Port Authority to maintain the Mississippi River as a working river through land use policy and support for jobs in river-related industries. Policy T-20. Prioritize investments in infrastructure that improve river commerce and conditions necessary to maintain and grow regional logistics and commodities hubs connecting, river, rail, truck modes. # Goal 4: True transportation choice throughout the city. **Policy T-21.** Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 40% by 2040 by improving transportation options beyond single-occupant vehicles. **Policy T-22.** Shift mode share towards walking, biking, public transit, carpooling, ridesharing and carsharing in order to reduce the need for car ownership. **Policy T-23.** Formulate responses to traffic issues identified through traffic studies based on desired, rather than current, mode share. **Policy T-24.** Implement the Bicycle Plan to make bicycling safe and comfortable throughout the city, and to increase bicycling mode share. **Policy T-25.** Implement the Pedestrian Plan to make walking safe and comfortable throughout the city, increase pedestrian mode sharefor short trips, and increase physical activity in people’s daily routines. Until the Pedestrian Plan is adopted, focus pedestrian infrastructure improvements in areas with acute pedestrian safety hazards, with existing or anticipated high pedestrian activity, and/or in racially concentrated areas of poverty. **Policy T-26.** Provide sidewalks throughout the city, generally on both sides of the street, except potentially in portions of Highwood as directed via other officially-adopted City plans (See Map T-1). **Policy T-27.** Improve public transit mode share and support quality public transit in all parts of the city through strategic establishment of transit-supportive land use intensity and design, increased traffic signal optimization for transit, working with transit providers to improve their service offerings and supporting transit facilities (See Maps T-5, T-6 and T-8). **Policy T-28.** Facilitate intermodal trips at mobility hubs (where walking, biking, public transit, ridesharing and carsharing are intentionally designed to connect) by providing enhanced security, lighting, information, shelter, placemaking, comfort and convenience. **Policy T-29.** Expand commuter options with Travel Demand Management (TDM) and support of carpooling facilities. 1. Require a TDM Plan for all large developments and large employers. 2. Create incentives, employer programs and parking policies, especially in downtown but throughout the city, that encourage and accelerate use of walking, biking, transit and carshare. 3. Support the work of other agencies, organizations and the private sector to market and support transit, carshare, rideshare, carpooling, biking, walking, flexible work hours and telecommuting. 4. Consider options to enforce and improve implementation of TDM Plans. **Policy T-30.** Design holistically for all modes, especially pedestrians and bicycles, in any bridge reconstruction or maintenance project such as for bridges (or lids) over interstate highways or the Mississippi River. Ensure that the project scope incorporates adjacent intersections as necessary. **Policy T-31.** Outside of areas being developed for industrial uses, establish (or re-establish) the right-of-way grid with block lengths of 300 to 600 feet as redevelopment occurs on large sites in order to increase neighborhood connectivity and accommodate pedestrian-oriented, higher-density development. **Policy T-32.** Accommodate access to community events and around construction projects by all mode users, including by working with Metro Transit to provide additional transit service, providing sufficient bicycle parking, generally avoiding the closure of bicycle lanes and sidewalks and providing detours for all modes. **Policy T-33.** Improve pedestrian and recreational connections to the Mississippi River. **Policy T-34.** Promote safe walking and bicycling to school by supporting Safe Routes to School efforts and investing in sidewalk connectivity and crossing enhancements near schools. ### Working River Barges move millions of tons of raw materials on the Mississippi River every year in one of the most efficient and environmentally responsible ways possible. Saint Paul’s four river terminals are important economic generators, hosting 34 companies that employ over 1,000 people. (St. Paul Port Authority 2017) <
> ### Goal 5: Sustainable and equitable maintenance models. **Policy T-35.** Pursue fiscally- and environmentally-sustainable models for equitably maintaining transportation infrastructure in Saint Paul, including for right-of-way maintenance, bridges, sidewalks, trails and alley snowplowing. **Policy T-36.** Consider the full long-term infrastructure costs when allocating maintenance funding compared to reconstruction funding. **Policy T-37.** Maintain roadway pavements in pursuit of achieving a Pavment Condition Index (PCI) of 70 on all City-owned streets. (See Map T-10). **Policy T-38.** Reduce the number of heavy vehicle trips on local streets through measures such as consolidation, coordination and route designation/planning, in order to reduce maintenance costs. ### Goal 6: Environmentally-sustainable design. **Policy T-39.** Seek opportunities to improve the environmental sustainability of rights-of-way in the city, such as through shared, stacked-function green infrastructure (SSGI) planting trees to reduce the urban heat island effect and reducing the amount of land devoted to parking. **Policy T-40.** Lessen the negative impacts of interstate highways by supporting design interventions, such as “land bridges” and landscaping and liner buildings on new bridges, that improve connectivity, hide the road and/or reduce pollution. ### Goal 7: Functional and attractive Parkways. **Policy T-41.** Maximize space for recreation and landscaping uses within Parkway rights-of-way, and prioritize recreation and landscaping in Parkway design in order to maintain a park-like feel, particularly on the Grand Round. ### Goal 8: A system that responds to technology and shapes its implementation. **Policy T-42.** Ensure that new technologies, such as automated vehicles, further the City’s transportation and land use priorities. **Policy T-43.** Ensure that right-of-way design and management accounts for changing vehicle technologies and forms of use, such as automated vehicles, car-sharing, curbside pickup and delivery, ride-hailing and ride-sharing. This page intentionally left blank. # Appendix A Map T-1: Missing Sidewalks ..................................................................... 80 Map T-2: Number of Lanes on Arterials ................................................. 81 Map T-3: Bikeways..................................................................................... 82 Map T-4: Regional Bicycle Transportation Network ............................... 83 Map T-5: Job Concentrations and Transit ............................................... 84 Map T-6: Households without Vehicles and Transit................................ 85 Map T-7: Existing Transitways .................................................................. 86 Map T-8: Planned/Potential Transitways .................................................. 87 Map T-9: Boardings and Alightings on Transit System............................ 88 Map T-10: Pavement Condition Index ..................................................... 89 Map T-11: Functional Road Classification ............................................... 90 Map T-12: Annual Average Daily Traffic ................................................. 91 Map T-13: Forcasted 2040 Average Daily Traffic.................................... 92 Map T-14: Future Right of Way Needs ................................................... 93 Map T-15: Freight Corridors and Facilities.............................................. 94 Map T-16: Planned Improvements to Metro Highways........................... 95 Map T-17: Airport Safety Zones and Noise Contours ............................. 96 Map T-18: Transit Market Areas............................................................... 97 Notes: These appendices provide supporting content for transportation-related policies and satisfy associated Metropolitan Council requirements.. ACP50 data for all from Metropolitan Council via MN Geospatial Commons, from annual release (2/5/2018). Other data as noted. # Appendix B List of Potential Projects.........................................................................98 # Appendix C Other Required Transportation Information ...........................................100 # Appendix D Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates............................102 # Map T-1: Missing Sidewalks <
> **Missing Sidewalks** | | | |---|---| | — | Sidewalk Gaps | | 🛈 | Library | | ⚑ | School | | | Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) | Sources: City of Saint Paul (2017); Minnesota Department of Education (2017); Metropolitan Council (2018) Map T-2: Number of Traffic Lanes on Arterials <
> **Total Number of Traffic Lanes** | | | | :--- | :--- | | 1 lane | 6 lanes | | 2 lanes | 7 lanes | | 3 lanes | 8 lanes | | 4 lanes | 9 lanes | | 5 lanes | 10 lanes | No additional lanes are planned for these arterials, except MnPASS lanes as shown on Map T-16. Lanes may be reduced from existing, as warranted on a project-by-project basis, especially on undivided roads with 4 or more lanes. Sources: City of Saint Paul (2018); Metropolitan Council (2018) Map T-3: Bikeways <
> **Existing and Future Bikeways** — Existing On-Road Bikeways as of August 31st, 2017 — Existing Off-Road Bikeways as of August 31st, 2017 — Future Bikeways [---] Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Boundary [ ] Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Map T-4: Regional Bicycle Transportation Network <
> **Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) Elements** * RBTN Tier 1 Alignments * RBTN Tier 2 Alignments * RBTN Tier 1 Corridors * RBTN Tier 2 Corridors * Proposed RBTN Search Corridor * Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: City of Saint Paul (2018); Metropolitan Council (2016) Map T-5: Job Concentrations and Transit <
> Job Concentration (Jobs per square mile) 0 jobs 1,000 jobs 5,000 jobs 10,000 jobs 20,000 jobs 36,800 jobs * Transit Stops ○ METRO Green Line Stations —— METRO Green Line —— High Frequency Service Network —— Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Sources: State of Minnesota (2015), Metropolitan Council (2018) Map T-6: Households without Vehicles and Transit Network <
> **Households Without Vehicles** | | | | :--- | :--- | | | Less than 10% | | | 10% - 20% | ● Transit Stops | | | 20% - 30% | ○ METRO Green Line Stations | | | 30% - 40% | — METRO Green Line | | | More than 40% | — High Frequency Service Network | | | No data | □ Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2012-2016), Metropolitan Council (2017-2018) Map T-7: Existing Transit and Transitways <
> Existing Transit and Transitways | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ---- | Existing Transit Advantages | | Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Boundary | | ---- | Existing Transitways | | Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) | | ---- | Existing High-Frequency Routes | | ● | Existing Stations & Transit Centers | | ---- | Existing Express Routes | | ● | Existing Park & Ride | | ---- | Existing Local Transit Routes | | ● | Existing Support Facilities | Source: City of Saint Paul (2016); Metropolitan Council (2017-2018) Map T-8: Planned/Potential Transitways and High-Frequency Transit <
> **Planned/Potential Transitways** ● ● ● Gold Line / Rush Line Stations ● Gold Line Park & Ride ······ Planned Transitways (2040 TPP Current Revenue Scenario) —— Potential High-Frequency Transit (2040 TPP Current Revenue Scenario) —— City-Proposed Transitways (not in 2040 TPP Current Revenue Scenario) —— Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) -- Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Boundary * Lake St - Marshall Ave Corridor is a Potential Current Revenue Project Adopted - November 18, 2020; Amended - June 3, 2022 Source: City of Saint Paul (2018); Metropolitan Council (2017-2018) Appendix A | TRANSPORTATION 87 Map T-9: Boardings and Alightings on Transit System <
> Boardings and Alightings (average people per weekday) • • less than 100 • • 101 - 149 • • 150 - 249 • • 250 - 499 • • more than 500 — METRO Green Line — High Frequency Service Network Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: City of Saint Paul (2016); Metropolitan Council (2017-2018) Map T-10: Pavement Condition Index <
> **Pavement Condition Index** — 0 - 20 — 21 - 40 — 41 - 60 — 61 - 80 — 81 - 100 Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: Saint Paul Public Works (2012) Map T-11: Functional Road Classification* <
> **Functional Road Classification** *See Appendix C for descriptions.* * Principal Arterial * A Minor Augmentor * A Minor Reliever * Other Arterial * Major Collector Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: Metropolitan Council (2019) Map T-12: Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) <
> Annual Average Daily Traffic (number of cars) * Less than 10,000 * 10,000 - 20,000 * 20,000 - 50,000 * 50,000 - 100,000 * More than 100,000 * 6300 Heavy Commercial Annual Average Daily Traffic Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation (2017) Map T-13: Forecasted 2040 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) <
> **Forecasted Annual Average Daily Traffic** **(number of cars)** | | | | :--- | :--- | | Less than 10,000 | 10,000 - 20,000 | | 20,000 - 50,000 | 50,000 - 100,000 | | More than 100,000 | 6300 Heavy Commercial
Annual Average Daily Traffic | Source: Minnesota Deparment of Transportation (2017); City of Saint Paul (2019) Map T-14: Potential Major Future Right-of-Way Connections <
> **Future Right of Way Needs** * **Ayd Mill Corridor** * **Kittson Corridor** * **Pierce Butler Corridor** * **Prior/Transfer Connection** * **Ford Spur** * **Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Boundary** * **Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50)** Source: City of Saint Paul (2018) Adopted - November 18, 2020; Amended - June 3, 2022 Appendix A | TRANSPORTATION 93 Map T-15: Commercial Truck Routes <
> **Key Freight Facilities** * **Intermodal Facilities** * **Barge Terminals** ↓ **Low Clearance Bridges** ⊗ **Weight Restrictions** ↱ **Potentially Inadequate Turning Radii** [ ] **Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50)** **Commercial Truck Routes** — Designated 9-Ton Truck Routes ······ Designated 10-Ton Truck Routes --- Designated Double Bottom Truck Routes (Twin Trailers) ······ Designated Double Bottom and 10-Ton Truck Routes ■ **Industrial Zoning (All vehicles [9 tons] permitted)** ■ **Railway** Source: City of Saint Paul (2015-2018); Metropolitan Council (2016) Map T-16: Planned Improvements to Metro Highways <
> **Metro Highway Improvement Locations** - - - - Tier 1 MnPASS Expansion - - - - Tier 3 MnPASS Expansion - - - - Strategic Capacity 2019 - 2024 Pavement Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Boundary Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Source: City of Saint Paul (2017-2018); Metropolitan Council (2018) Map T-17: Airport Safety Zones and Noise Contours <
> Note: Airport Safety Zones are subject to land use regulations defined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8800.2400. Map T-18: Transit Market Areas* <
> **Market Areas** * Market Area I * Market Area II * Market Area III * Market Area IV * Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) *See Appendix C for Transit Market Areas Source: Metropolitan Council (2015) # Appendix B ## List of Potential Projects The following projects are representative of those that could be considered for implementation of this chapter: | Projects | Description | Transportation Chapter Policy | Source | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Conversions of four-lane roadways to three-lane roadways** | | | | | Conversions of four-lane roadways to three-lane roadways | Reallocate rights-of-way to improve safety. | Policy T-6 | 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2020) | | Intersection improvements for safety | Improve intersections to reduce crashes overall and enhance pedestrian safety. | Policy T-7 | 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2020) | | Pedestrian facilities | Implement pedestrian infrastructure improvements. | Policies T-25 & T-26 | Saint Paul Pedestrian Plan (2020) | | Bicycle facilities | Implement bicyclist infrastructure improvements. | Policy T-24 | Saint Paul Bicycle Plan (2015) | | Bridge improvements to safely accommodate all users, over interstates, rivers, railways, and other obstacles to connectivity | Accommodate all modes on bridge projects. | Policy T-30 | 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2020) | | New transitways and high-frequency bus routes, such as:
  • Gold Line
  • Riverview
  • Rush Line
  • Robert Street
| Develop regional transitways and high-frequency bus routes. | Policies T-22 & T-27 | Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan (2018, amended) | List of Potential Projects - Continued The following projects are representative of those that could be considered for implementation of this chapter: | Projects | Description | Transportation Chapter Policy | Source | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Location-Specific Projects** | | | | | Kellogg Boulevard/3rd Street Bridge reconstruction | Replace structurally deficient Kellogg/3rd St Bridge. | Policy T-37 | Structural Evaluation (2014) | | West Midway (Vandalia/Ellis/280/I-94/ University) trucking improvements | Connect Prior Avenue to Energy Park Drive across the BNSF railroad tracks, and improve Ellis Avenue connection from Vandalia Street to Pierce Butler Road. | Policy T-14 | West Midway Industrial Area Plan (2014) | | Kittson extension | Connect I-94 to Pennsylvania Avenue/ University Avenue. | Policy T-14 | Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass EIS (1988), with consideration of more recent US52/I94 connection | | Pierce Butler Route extension | Connect eastern end of Pierce Butler Route to 35E. | Policy T-14 | Pierce Butler Draft EAW (2009) | | Ayd Mill redevelopment, subject to a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process involving a community task force | Study connections to Ayd Mill Road. | Policies T-22, T-23 & T-35 | Ayd Mill EIS (2005) | | Shepard, TH 5, and I-35E connection improvements | Realign traffic from Highway 5 to Shepard and improve connections from Shepard to 35E. | Policy T-33 | Highway 5 / Shepard Road Study (2015) | | Midtown Greenway extension into Saint Paul | Connect the Minneapolis Midtown Greenway across the Mississippi River into Saint Paul. | Policy T-24 | District 12 Neighborhood Plan (2013) | | Grand Round completion | Construct remaining Grand Round segments. | Policy T-24 | Saint Paul Bicycle Plan (2015) | | Capital City Bikeway completion | Construct remaining Capital City Bikeway segments. | Policy T-24 | Saint Paul Bicycle Plan (2015) | | Connect pedestrians to the river by opening new points of river access | Provide safer access to river through traffic calming, intersection improvements, new connections, etc. | Policy T-33 | Great River Passage Plan (2013) | | Canadian Pacific Rail Spur (Ford Spur) conversion to other transportation uses | Build a trail along the Ford Spur to connect the Ford Site to West 7th Street corridor. | Policy T-24 | Re-Imagine the Railway: Studying New Uses for the Ford Spur (2018) | Appendix C Other Required Transportation Information 1. Roles and responsibilities in transitway development Transitway planning and development is generally led by county governments or Metro Transit. The City of Saint Paul participates in both the policy and technical aspects of that planning and development. It is possible that in the future the City of Saint Paul might choose to lead development of a transitway, such as a streetcar. The City of Saint Paul is currently participating in the planning for the Riverview/Ford, Rush Line and Gold Line transitway corridors. 2. Seaplanes Seaplanes may be used on the Mississippi River as regulated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3. Existing and future functional and operational characteristics of the St. Paul Downtown Airport The St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) is designated by the FAA as a Reliever Airport for the metropolitan area. It serves an important role to reduce congestion at Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) by accommodating general aviation traffic that might otherwise use MSP. STP is classified as a Primary Reliever Airport by MAC; a Key Airport by the Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aviation System Plan; and an Intermediate Airport by the Metropolitan Council Regional Aviation System Plan. Further, the FAA has classified STP as a National category general aviation airport. It accommodated approximately 40,500 aircraft takeoffs and landings in 2017. By 2040, approximately 50,000 to 70,000 annual flight operations are predicted. 4. Protecting Regional Airspace The City protects regional airspace by prioritizing compatible land uses and using FAA 7640 review to ensure that building heights do not unreasonably interfere with airspace operations close to Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. It will participate in the Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) to pursue compatible land uses near the aiports, as guided by the Metropolitan Council’s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise, which could restrict develoment/redevelopment and construction within the noise contours of 60 or greater. See map T-17 for airport safety zones and noise contours. 5. Transit Services Most transit service in Saint Paul is provided by Metro Transit, including Green Line Light Rail Transit, Arterial Bus Rapid Transit, regular route buses and express transit service to/from downtown. Express transit service to downtown is also provided by the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. Transit Link, provided by the Metropolitan Council, is shared-ride public transportation where regular route transit service is infrequent or unavailable. Transit Link is only available where regular fixed-route transit service is more than 1/2 mile away (1/4 mile in winter). Metro Mobility, also provided by the Metropolitan Council, provides shared rides for people who are unable to use regular fixed-route buses due to a disability or health condition. Private/nonprofit transit services also operate in Saint Paul. Other Required Transportation Information - Continued 6. Functional Class Descriptions Roads in our region are categorized into functional classes, including Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors and Local Streets. Principal Arterials provide the highest vehicle speeds and least access, and are designed for longer trips. Minor Arterials in Saint Paul can either augment (add to) Principal Arterials' function or relieve traffic from them, and are intended for multimodal medium-length trips and to support our businesses. A-Minor Arterials, in particular, support principal arterials and access to regional job concentrations, community amenities, manufacturing and distribution areas, and freight terminals. Other Arterials serve a similar role to A-Minor Arterials, but do not carry the same designation. Collectors provide finer-grained multimodal linkages to larger developments and community amenities, and generally do not link communities to one another. Local Streets provide direct multimodal access to other individual parcels throughout the city. 7. Transit Market Areas Transit Market Areas are Metropolitan Council designations that indicate the likely cost effectiveness of transit service investments. Transit Market Area I has the potential transit ridership necessary to support the most intensive fixed-route transit service, typically providing higher frequencies, longer hours, and more options available outside of peak periods. Market Area II can support many of the same types of fixed-route transit as Market Area I, although usually at lower frequencies or shorter service spans. Market Area III primarily supports commuter express bus service with some fixed-route local service providing basic coverage. Market Area IV can support peak-period express bus services if a sufficient concentration of commuters likely to use transit service is located along a corridor. 8. Access Management Access management guidelines are provided by the City’s Street Design Manual. Appendix D <
> Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Source: Metropolitan Council (2016, 2018) ### Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 1897 | 2 | 1 | 608 | 0 | 0 | 583 | 0 | 0 | 654 | 0 | 0 | 722 | | 1898 | 1616 | 671 | 838 | 1683 | 722 | 933 | 1680 | 720 | 913 | 1702 | 718 | 909 | | 1899 | 1848 | 654 | 729 | 2081 | 825 | 729 | 2622 | 1066 | 752 | 3383 | 1353 | 773 | | 1900 | 269 | 133 | 0 | 546 | 228 | 0 | 1229 | 514 | 0 | 2134 | 899 | 0 | | 1901 | 868 | 422 | 1267 | 1086 | 477 | 2151 | 1187 | 505 | 2479 | 1285 | 526 | 2785 | | 1902 | 1435 | 607 | 302 | 1546 | 622 | 266 | 1482 | 596 | 251 | 1444 | 577 | 240 | | 1903 | 1286 | 554 | 92 | 1382 | 569 | 68 | 1326 | 547 | 63 | 1295 | 532 | 60 | | 1904 | 872 | 481 | 4337 | 1211 | 499 | 4432 | 1152 | 477 | 4259 | 1102 | 454 | 4140 | | 1905 | 719 | 304 | 3281 | 783 | 323 | 4192 | 754 | 311 | 3892 | 720 | 295 | 3640 | | 1906 | 890 | 505 | 3186 | 1190 | 534 | 4068 | 1188 | 505 | 4734 | 1194 | 478 | 5400 | | 1907 | 582 | 276 | 436 | 584 | 293 | 590 | 582 | 278 | 689 | 589 | 264 | 789 | | 1908 | 601 | 171 | 2415 | 409 | 203 | 3246 | 495 | 233 | 3525 | 585 | 261 | 3797 | | 1909 | 976 | 543 | 1369 | 1142 | 567 | 1682 | 1137 | 539 | 1829 | 1144 | 514 | 1973 | | 1910 | 43 | 32 | 2106 | 264 | 149 | 3487 | 561 | 317 | 4094 | 815 | 452 | 4656 | | 1911 | 975 | 475 | 3212 | 1428 | 633 | 3182 | 1373 | 642 | 3754 | 1345 | 653 | 4316 | | 1912 | 876 | 388 | 1368 | 1025 | 485 | 1563 | 979 | 452 | 1825 | 951 | 422 | 2076 | | 1913 | 0 | 0 | 1551 | 108 | 48 | 2158 | 521 | 246 | 3138 | 1235 | 604 | 4258 | | 1914 | 1197 | 506 | 457 | 1511 | 553 | 573 | 1542 | 581 | 651 | 1596 | 611 | 722 | | 1915 | 1100 | 437 | 77 | 1269 | 470 | 112 | 1254 | 478 | 135 | 1241 | 480 | 158 | | 1916 | 1668 | 457 | 1238 | 2111 | 488 | 1229 | 2224 | 492 | 1194 | 2342 | 495 | 1190 | | 1917 | 1225 | 730 | 4745 | 1526 | 773 | 4454 | 1613 | 768 | 4293 | 1720 | 764 | 4200 | | 1918 | 1241 | 600 | 652 | 1453 | 642 | 551 | 1442 | 640 | 613 | 1451 | 638 | 672 | Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates - Continued | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 1919 | 3232 | 1204 | 1100 | 3442 | 1291 | 1207 | 3491 | 1299 | 1334 | 3573 | 1313 | 1453 | | 1921 | 1175 | 617 | 60 | 1491 | 660 | 109 | 1480 | 658 | 128 | 1492 | 656 | 148 | | 1922 | 334 | 145 | 241 | 354 | 155 | 122 | 342 | 150 | 141 | 332 | 143 | 158 | | 1923 | 642 | 272 | 18 | 777 | 292 | 46 | 758 | 283 | 38 | 742 | 273 | 30 | | 1924 | 2215 | 1030 | 138 | 2959 | 1114 | 148 | 2953 | 1114 | 128 | 2974 | 1116 | 110 | | 1925 | 1196 | 529 | 484 | 1789 | 634 | 789 | 1730 | 669 | 827 | 1669 | 701 | 865 | | 1926 | 1071 | 453 | 205 | 1199 | 482 | 265 | 1234 | 482 | 259 | 1292 | 480 | 260 | | 1927 | 1106 | 444 | 174 | 1300 | 475 | 88 | 1264 | 474 | 118 | 1220 | 464 | 147 | | 1928 | 1042 | 413 | 91 | 1214 | 450 | 212 | 1229 | 469 | 245 | 1259 | 487 | 277 | | 1929 | 1064 | 573 | 1777 | 1534 | 691 | 2348 | 1484 | 706 | 2750 | 1168 | 574 | 3118 | | 1930 | 954 | 325 | 357 | 1165 | 367 | 413 | 1105 | 388 | 488 | 1047 | 407 | 562 | | 1931 | 1320 | 435 | 260 | 1478 | 511 | 292 | 1419 | 513 | 310 | 1368 | 515 | 328 | | 1932 | 1044 | 367 | 124 | 1227 | 424 | 123 | 1150 | 415 | 135 | 1079 | 405 | 149 | | 1933 | 1487 | 453 | 20 | 1561 | 539 | 37 | 1548 | 559 | 47 | 1534 | 578 | 59 | | 1934 | 1871 | 478 | 732 | 1744 | 603 | 673 | 1874 | 678 | 710 | 2007 | 758 | 745 | | 1935 | 1472 | 472 | 638 | 1695 | 535 | 624 | 1607 | 568 | 729 | 1510 | 591 | 828 | | 1936 | 964 | 397 | 351 | 1188 | 497 | 303 | 1386 | 596 | 354 | 1547 | 678 | 405 | | 1937 | 1572 | 408 | 533 | 1527 | 502 | 492 | 1655 | 580 | 470 | 1800 | 667 | 450 | | 1938 | 1663 | 451 | 501 | 1597 | 543 | 533 | 1673 | 604 | 510 | 1706 | 654 | 490 | | 1939 | 331 | 120 | 741 | 416 | 141 | 630 | 446 | 150 | 594 | 489 | 161 | 560 | | 1940 | 1502 | 516 | 630 | 1678 | 568 | 614 | 1666 | 568 | 581 | 1660 | 563 | 550 | | 1941 | 2584 | 761 | 2068 | 2638 | 887 | 2126 | 2646 | 947 | 2042 | 2650 | 1005 | 1970 | | 1942 | 1599 | 612 | 704 | 1770 | 694 | 1555 | 1823 | 726 | 1694 | 1719 | 701 | 1824 | | 1943 | 484 | 194 | 3762 | 572 | 232 | 3370 | 623 | 253 | 3264 | 658 | 268 | 3240 | | 1944 | 1820 | 604 | 77 | 1607 | 696 | 376 | 1727 | 786 | 372 | 1836 | 877 | 370 | | 1945 | 1307 | 399 | 334 | 1339 | 445 | 382 | 1361 | 459 | 394 | 1388 | 471 | 408 | | 1946 | 2709 | 847 | 623 | 2681 | 947 | 437 | 2746 | 990 | 455 | 2821 | 1029 | 476 | | 1947 | 2254 | 699 | 302 | 2305 | 775 | 434 | 2322 | 785 | 411 | 2351 | 793 | 390 | ### Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates - Continued | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 1948 | 1696 | 590 | 653 | 1922 | 651 | 912 | 1921 | 655 | 870 | 1928 | 655 | 830 | | 1949 | 931 | 468 | 180 | 1144 | 487 | 161 | 1081 | 470 | 176 | 1042 | 455 | 188 | | 1950 | 1554 | 644 | 58 | 1605 | 683 | 99 | 1570 | 684 | 119 | 1569 | 687 | 138 | | 1951 | 1801 | 760 | 18 | 1889 | 800 | 48 | 1830 | 793 | 71 | 1813 | 790 | 98 | | 1952 | 1322 | 558 | 157 | 1383 | 588 | 124 | 1339 | 583 | 142 | 1326 | 580 | 158 | | 1953 | 4129 | 1578 | 126 | 4276 | 1689 | 281 | 4303 | 1675 | 238 | 4386 | 1667 | 200 | | 1954 | 3004 | 1305 | 1527 | 3552 | 1392 | 921 | 3563 | 1375 | 772 | 3615 | 1361 | 639 | | 1955 | 1376 | 509 | 137 | 1322 | 556 | 185 | 1392 | 560 | 181 | 1467 | 563 | 180 | | 1956 | 867 | 334 | 575 | 867 | 371 | 558 | 932 | 380 | 538 | 1007 | 390 | 530 | | 1957 | 2 | 1 | 806 | 8 | 4 | 863 | 6 | 1 | 838 | 6 | 0 | 830 | | 1958 | 2482 | 602 | 83 | 1690 | 724 | 67 | 2095 | 856 | 62 | 2509 | 980 | 60 | | 1959 | 3970 | 1288 | 275 | 3813 | 1442 | 210 | 3980 | 1503 | 195 | 4169 | 1562 | 180 | | 1960 | 2560 | 889 | 542 | 2581 | 986 | 655 | 2713 | 1030 | 630 | 2858 | 1068 | 610 | | 1961 | 3737 | 1088 | 389 | 3316 | 1251 | 499 | 3604 | 1357 | 474 | 3925 | 1466 | 450 | | 1962 | 4225 | 1266 | 548 | 4252 | 1448 | 587 | 4363 | 1526 | 563 | 4503 | 1605 | 550 | | 1963 | 1975 | 536 | 1059 | 1844 | 626 | 970 | 1969 | 676 | 961 | 2088 | 722 | 959 | | 1964 | 679 | 201 | 230 | 678 | 230 | 396 | 693 | 237 | 391 | 704 | 241 | 390 | | 1965 | 1061 | 278 | 358 | 997 | 328 | 362 | 1067 | 354 | 340 | 1132 | 379 | 320 | | 1966 | 2707 | 825 | 428 | 2845 | 932 | 494 | 2874 | 956 | 466 | 2900 | 978 | 440 | | 1967 | 2512 | 805 | 15 | 2739 | 908 | 290 | 2831 | 946 | 507 | 2910 | 978 | 700 | | 1968 | 1952 | 800 | 319 | 2091 | 889 | 356 | 2191 | 933 | 327 | 2314 | 971 | 300 | | 1969 | 815 | 277 | 13 | 800 | 303 | 20 | 826 | 309 | 20 | 850 | 310 | 20 | | 1970 | 2057 | 601 | 114 | 1767 | 678 | 90 | 1922 | 731 | 90 | 2084 | 778 | 90 | | 1971 | 1759 | 728 | 298 | 2046 | 795 | 252 | 2100 | 814 | 255 | 2165 | 827 | 259 | | 1972 | 2895 | 1050 | 42 | 2933 | 1150 | 40 | 3034 | 1186 | 48 | 3159 | 1218 | 59 | | 1973 | 1368 | 414 | 55 | 1210 | 463 | 83 | 1303 | 493 | 81 | 1416 | 525 | 80 | | 1974 | 4555 | 1520 | 735 | 4634 | 1650 | 760 | 4678 | 1693 | 728 | 4709 | 1732 | 710 | | 1975 | 1755 | 496 | 155 | 1479 | 567 | 319 | 1631 | 617 | 339 | 1831 | 675 | 358 | Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates - Continued | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 1976 | 2450 | 696 | 29 | 2289 | 784 | 72 | 2415 | 842 | 108 | 2561 | 904 | 147 | | 1977 | 1924 | 574 | 105 | 1715 | 648 | 120 | 1846 | 691 | 133 | 1994 | 728 | 148 | | 1978 | 2066 | 897 | 310 | 2587 | 979 | 393 | 2657 | 994 | 416 | 2741 | 1000 | 437 | | 1979 | 1577 | 509 | 358 | 1504 | 566 | 580 | 1595 | 598 | 562 | 1725 | 633 | 550 | | 1980 | 2641 | 810 | 310 | 2411 | 906 | 301 | 2572 | 961 | 288 | 2756 | 1009 | 280 | | 1981 | 1740 | 578 | 122 | 1676 | 631 | 138 | 1718 | 644 | 133 | 1774 | 651 | 130 | | 1982 | 2394 | 849 | 366 | 2578 | 918 | 711 | 2585 | 934 | 691 | 2585 | 948 | 680 | | 1983 | 4959 | 1764 | 317 | 5080 | 1935 | 388 | 6235 | 2506 | 382 | 7389 | 3076 | 1380 | | 1984 | 2527 | 893 | 415 | 2586 | 988 | 394 | 2771 | 1043 | 381 | 2999 | 1099 | 370 | | 1987 | 3088 | 1218 | 78 | 3554 | 1359 | 86 | 3863 | 1453 | 77 | 4225 | 1547 | 70 | | 1989 | 2585 | 1017 | 653 | 2717 | 1125 | 577 | 2902 | 1195 | 604 | 3116 | 1257 | 636 | | 1990 | 2965 | 1189 | 355 | 3315 | 1320 | 688 | 3492 | 1370 | 556 | 3687 | 1411 | 430 | | 1991 | 2482 | 746 | 123 | 2419 | 826 | 182 | 2475 | 860 | 226 | 2520 | 886 | 266 | | 1992 | 1187 | 465 | 185 | 1146 | 510 | 35 | 1253 | 555 | 37 | 1404 | 614 | 40 | | 1993 | 1715 | 606 | 1028 | 1906 | 670 | 1183 | 1968 | 693 | 1259 | 2015 | 704 | 1331 | | 1994 | 35 | 11 | 116 | 36 | 11 | 322 | 25 | 5 | 502 | 9 | 0 | 663 | | 1995 | 511 | 127 | 661 | 526 | 152 | 539 | 618 | 171 | 565 | 717 | 190 | 596 | | 1996 | 1863 | 598 | 293 | 1843 | 684 | 439 | 1904 | 733 | 509 | 1938 | 775 | 573 | | 1997 | 1696 | 530 | 1837 | 1700 | 607 | 1751 | 1741 | 638 | 1688 | 1784 | 668 | 1650 | | 1998 | 353 | 3 | 526 | 366 | 4 | 481 | 385 | 4 | 455 | 353 | 0 | 430 | | 1999 | 0 | 0 | 3892 | 0 | 0 | 3923 | 0 | 0 | 3735 | 0 | 0 | 3560 | | 2000 | 504 | 28 | 765 | 524 | 28 | 678 | 552 | 19 | 638 | 514 | 8 | 600 | | 2001 | 3 | 1 | 5258 | 30 | 9 | 5455 | 129 | 35 | 5267 | 256 | 70 | 5180 | | 2002 | 198 | 143 | 110 | 465 | 228 | 188 | 656 | 300 | 245 | 860 | 368 | 295 | | 2003 | 373 | 186 | 52 | 577 | 282 | 127 | 750 | 342 | 164 | 892 | 380 | 197 | | 2004 | 484 | 298 | 560 | 848 | 380 | 975 | 921 | 372 | 1137 | 957 | 357 | 1293 | | 2005 | 819 | 585 | 1332 | 1451 | 750 | 1591 | 1341 | 762 | 1878 | 1127 | 773 | 2150 | | 2006 | 538 | 360 | 322 | 1042 | 488 | 236 | 1169 | 513 | 289 | 1186 | 489 | 345 | Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates - Continued | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 2007 | 8 | 0 | 3536 | 61 | 14 | 4112 | 97 | 25 | 4220 | 150 | 40 | 3802 | | 2008 | 522 | 364 | 4394 | 1287 | 512 | 4628 | 1221 | 561 | 4660 | 784 | 527 | 4830 | | 2009 | 251 | 174 | 3743 | 607 | 241 | 3775 | 560 | 254 | 3720 | 337 | 226 | 3415 | | 2010 | 0 | 0 | 3302 | 72 | 23 | 2795 | 302 | 83 | 2813 | 650 | 172 | 2852 | | 2011 | 586 | 411 | 1868 | 1188 | 615 | 2683 | 1315 | 777 | 3156 | 1405 | 950 | 3601 | | 2012 | 366 | 257 | 2373 | 775 | 347 | 1903 | 905 | 365 | 2350 | 1024 | 381 | 2775 | | 2013 | 0 | 0 | 4878 | 67 | 21 | 5116 | 276 | 76 | 5143 | 588 | 155 | 5206 | | 2014 | 126 | 111 | 1980 | 374 | 158 | 2304 | 360 | 180 | 2316 | 199 | 176 | 2344 | | 2015 | 893 | 740 | 934 | 1389 | 818 | 984 | 1257 | 829 | 1160 | 994 | 789 | 1321 | | 2016 | 918 | 641 | 1137 | 1748 | 1003 | 2276 | 1407 | 901 | 2459 | 1159 | 959 | 2280 | | 2017 | 45 | 1 | 3275 | 53 | 0 | 3488 | 41 | 0 | 3532 | 28 | 1 | 3597 | | 2018 | 0 | 0 | 2023 | 0 | 0 | 2201 | 0 | 0 | 2240 | 0 | 0 | 2292 | | 2019 | 0 | 0 | 407 | 0 | 0 | 319 | 0 | 0 | 283 | 0 | 0 | 250 | | 2020 | 500 | 144 | 2285 | 728 | 185 | 3062 | 898 | 247 | 3555 | 1094 | 320 | 4018 | | 2021 | 22 | 15 | 5797 | 29 | 19 | 6662 | 28 | 19 | 6906 | 24 | 15 | 7183 | | 2022 | 1 | 1 | 2509 | 119 | 42 | 2537 | 168 | 55 | 2765 | 57 | 12 | 2994 | | 2023 | 1037 | 608 | 18 | 1451 | 651 | 43 | 1509 | 631 | 41 | 1572 | 612 | 40 | | 2024 | 866 | 377 | 1595 | 1239 | 455 | 1302 | 1426 | 496 | 1419 | 1600 | 529 | 1543 | | 2025 | 763 | 352 | 412 | 984 | 384 | 600 | 1037 | 376 | 956 | 1089 | 369 | 1315 | | 2026 | 206 | 161 | 6035 | 405 | 205 | 6030 | 492 | 244 | 5838 | 567 | 273 | 5780 | | 2027 | 861 | 464 | 655 | 1024 | 489 | 728 | 1038 | 478 | 720 | 1063 | 468 | 719 | | 2028 | 1654 | 701 | 951 | 1574 | 742 | 769 | 1611 | 733 | 761 | 1669 | 725 | 759 | | 2029 | 1991 | 817 | 91 | 2278 | 856 | 228 | 2235 | 838 | 222 | 2212 | 823 | 220 | | 2030 | 1568 | 572 | 49 | 1618 | 602 | 33 | 1589 | 588 | 31 | 1573 | 576 | 30 | | 2031 | 1447 | 565 | 406 | 1661 | 594 | 385 | 1631 | 581 | 373 | 1614 | 569 | 370 | | 2032 | 1727 | 797 | 401 | 2219 | 835 | 285 | 2177 | 817 | 274 | 2153 | 801 | 270 | | 2033 | 3170 | 1873 | 1149 | 3777 | 1958 | 1237 | 3563 | 1911 | 1222 | 3343 | 1581 | 1218 | | 2034 | 3107 | 1604 | 1269 | 3532 | 1679 | 1271 | 3457 | 1629 | 1204 | 3440 | 1592 | 1140 | Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates - Continued | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 2035 | 1543 | 635 | 496 | 1822 | 706 | 449 | 1871 | 721 | 468 | 1927 | 732 | 488 | | 2036 | 2371 | 1056 | 477 | 2696 | 1122 | 706 | 2699 | 1108 | 710 | 2755 | 1095 | 718 | | 2037 | 2586 | 1240 | 972 | 2696 | 1306 | 1235 | 2652 | 1277 | 1176 | 2657 | 1257 | 1120 | | 2038 | 881 | 484 | 1225 | 1147 | 514 | 1674 | 1127 | 506 | 1584 | 1121 | 499 | 1500 | | 2039 | 1310 | 502 | 45 | 1229 | 550 | 40 | 1271 | 569 | 35 | 1328 | 589 | 30 | | 2040 | 1021 | 272 | 700 | 1106 | 289 | 669 | 1091 | 282 | 623 | 1092 | 274 | 580 | | 2041 | 363 | 172 | 647 | 411 | 184 | 580 | 399 | 178 | 544 | 392 | 172 | 510 | | 2042 | 1405 | 662 | 141 | 1506 | 694 | 175 | 1452 | 679 | 191 | 1420 | 666 | 208 | | 2043 | 1942 | 842 | 478 | 1960 | 901 | 542 | 1947 | 909 | 574 | 1965 | 920 | 606 | | 2044 | 989 | 473 | 283 | 1070 | 497 | 321 | 1031 | 485 | 340 | 1007 | 475 | 358 | | 2045 | 2008 | 996 | 182 | 2268 | 1043 | 167 | 2147 | 1014 | 188 | 2079 | 991 | 208 | | 2046 | 2192 | 980 | 202 | 2290 | 1055 | 240 | 2247 | 1065 | 264 | 2253 | 1080 | 287 | | 2047 | 2192 | 953 | 474 | 2407 | 1010 | 458 | 2350 | 1007 | 449 | 2358 | 1005 | 450 | | 2048 | 2192 | 912 | 209 | 2273 | 973 | 182 | 2221 | 980 | 190 | 2234 | 987 | 199 | | 2049 | 2337 | 512 | 1376 | 2499 | 548 | 1428 | 2624 | 560 | 1377 | 2709 | 569 | 1350 | | 2050 | 1642 | 701 | 194 | 1592 | 755 | 165 | 1619 | 767 | 176 | 1664 | 779 | 188 | | 2051 | 1381 | 591 | 520 | 1348 | 635 | 743 | 1366 | 642 | 769 | 1397 | 649 | 796 | | 2052 | 1239 | 537 | 97 | 1233 | 571 | 149 | 1232 | 569 | 143 | 1245 | 567 | 140 | | 2053 | 697 | 256 | 63 | 631 | 281 | 85 | 653 | 290 | 81 | 689 | 299 | 80 | | 2054 | 908 | 392 | 209 | 948 | 435 | 210 | 976 | 455 | 203 | 1009 | 469 | 200 | | 2055 | 3514 | 644 | 2162 | 3940 | 714 | 2360 | 4015 | 708 | 2247 | 4118 | 701 | 2170 | | 2056 | 2069 | 838 | 228 | 1953 | 908 | 219 | 2010 | 935 | 207 | 2095 | 963 | 200 | | 2057 | 2090 | 962 | 191 | 2135 | 1020 | 169 | 2103 | 1016 | 159 | 2105 | 1014 | 150 | | 2058 | 1759 | 543 | 89 | 1695 | 586 | 131 | 1709 | 581 | 125 | 1730 | 577 | 120 | | 2059 | 1728 | 677 | 100 | 1701 | 721 | 94 | 1709 | 737 | 91 | 1741 | 754 | 90 | | 2060 | 2258 | 940 | 259 | 2377 | 977 | 266 | 2304 | 970 | 261 | 2248 | 964 | 260 | | 2061 | 2043 | 458 | 1578 | 2120 | 481 | 1546 | 2177 | 477 | 1488 | 2221 | 472 | 1450 | | 2062 | 2643 | 1322 | 969 | 3122 | 1384 | 1042 | 3074 | 1372 | 939 | 3097 | 1361 | 850 | ### Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates - Continued | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 2063 | 636 | 464 | 1312 | 2068 | 1031 | 2271 | 5317 | 2850 | 3254 | 8763 | 4770 | 3019 | | 2064 | 380 | 166 | 2 | 635 | 316 | 91 | 811 | 397 | 162 | 790 | 377 | 243 | | 2065 | 842 | 360 | 1952 | 973 | 382 | 952 | 940 | 367 | 981 | 923 | 352 | 1010 | | 2066 | 736 | 337 | 26 | 831 | 356 | 113 | 793 | 341 | 133 | 773 | 326 | 156 | | 2067 | 993 | 534 | 42 | 1305 | 564 | 120 | 1249 | 543 | 137 | 1223 | 525 | 156 | | 2068 | 562 | 223 | 3 | 560 | 242 | 55 | 547 | 237 | 70 | 544 | 231 | 88 | | 2069 | 1042 | 466 | 256 | 1143 | 494 | 693 | 1096 | 476 | 709 | 1073 | 460 | 728 | | 2070 | 1187 | 474 | 115 | 1313 | 508 | 145 | 1330 | 512 | 157 | 1349 | 510 | 169 | | 2071 | 1234 | 466 | 332 | 1364 | 505 | 289 | 1421 | 522 | 312 | 1497 | 540 | 337 | | 2072 | 789 | 352 | 359 | 974 | 379 | 420 | 998 | 386 | 440 | 1030 | 391 | 458 | | 2073 | 2835 | 1336 | 306 | 2874 | 1510 | 502 | 3238 | 1619 | 872 | 3662 | 1732 | 1230 | | 2074 | 1561 | 1033 | 796 | 2070 | 1169 | 934 | 2092 | 1262 | 1272 | 2145 | 1360 | 1609 | | 2075 | 116 | 45 | 40 | 110 | 51 | 47 | 101 | 47 | 43 | 92 | 42 | 40 | | 2076 | 1612 | 759 | 474 | 1780 | 808 | 454 | 1702 | 800 | 426 | 1665 | 795 | 400 | | 2077 | 2675 | 1146 | 615 | 2696 | 1254 | 592 | 2695 | 1300 | 555 | 2747 | 1351 | 520 | | 2078 | 797 | 512 | 966 | 1161 | 557 | 1352 | 1255 | 570 | 1733 | 1359 | 581 | 2102 | | 2079 | 253 | 136 | 752 | 1005 | 383 | 1173 | 1203 | 484 | 1561 | 1451 | 557 | 1937 | | 2080 | 2372 | 1002 | 319 | 2389 | 1073 | 342 | 2412 | 1086 | 339 | 2465 | 1096 | 339 | | 2081 | 874 | 360 | 273 | 1480 | 623 | 559 | 1304 | 544 | 975 | 1167 | 481 | 1377 | | 2082 | 1155 | 464 | 92 | 1309 | 500 | 104 | 1334 | 512 | 97 | 1379 | 521 | 90 | | 2083 | 82 | 50 | 1120 | 139 | 72 | 1108 | 176 | 94 | 980 | 200 | 108 | 860 | | 2084 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 772 | 242 | 2177 | 874 | 273 | 2238 | 633 | 191 | 2309 | | 2085 | 0 | 0 | 2942 | 0 | 0 | 3287 | 0 | 0 | 3485 | 0 | 0 | 3685 | | 2086 | 1517 | 459 | 1848 | 1490 | 524 | 1871 | 1537 | 574 | 1915 | 1582 | 615 | 1962 | | 2087 | 626 | 172 | 560 | 566 | 203 | 629 | 657 | 228 | 651 | 766 | 247 | 677 | | 2088 | 1731 | 683 | 615 | 2222 | 726 | 609 | 2276 | 729 | 650 | 2349 | 732 | 685 | | 2089 | 1072 | 409 | 8 | 1128 | 435 | 14 | 1141 | 434 | 21 | 1171 | 433 | 29 | | 2090 | 2328 | 833 | 129 | 2288 | 881 | 146 | 2307 | 877 | 171 | 2350 | 871 | 198 | Figure T-1: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Estimates - Continued | TAZ # | 2010 | | | 2020 | | | 2030 | | | 2040 | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | POP | HH | EMP | | 2093 | 2589 | 957 | 215 | 2635 | 1016 | 161 | 2675 | 1020 | 188 | 2755 | 1024 | 217 | | 2097 | 3121 | 1010 | 142 | 3322 | 1105 | 163 | 3425 | 1135 | 222 | 3549 | 1160 | 284 | | 2098 | 738 | 239 | 1299 | 815 | 282 | 873 | 897 | 313 | 575 | 978 | 335 | 290 | | 2099 | 1348 | 529 | 404 | 1354 | 569 | 480 | 1395 | 574 | 444 | 1451 | 578 | 410 | | 2100 | 1687 | 649 | 259 | 1742 | 701 | 260 | 1786 | 710 | 250 | 1847 | 716 | 240 | | 2101 | 1148 | 417 | 728 | 1240 | 502 | 628 | 1496 | 585 | 655 | 1737 | 654 | 685 | | 2102 | 1996 | 1053 | 206 | 2260 | 1118 | 210 | 2220 | 1105 | 224 | 2149 | 1079 | 238 | | 2105 | 2722 | 946 | 129 | 2744 | 1008 | 39 | 2786 | 1015 | 24 | 2807 | 1005 | 10 | | 2106 | 485 | 183 | 2 | 493 | 213 | 15 | 557 | 234 | 13 | 618 | 250 | 10 | | 2107 | 0 | 0 | 134 | 0 | 0 | 297 | 0 | 0 | 186 | 0 | 0 | 80 | | 2108 | 0 | 0 | 500 | 0 | 0 | 600 | 0 | 0 | 230 | 0 | 0 | 130 | | 2109 | 2938 | 1005 | 289 | 2965 | 1080 | 153 | 2999 | 1094 | 100 | 3035 | 1103 | 50 | | 2113 | 625 | 213 | 132 | 1189 | 384 | 94 | 1848 | 596 | 97 | 2349 | 754 | 99 | --- ## Housing — 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Housing Chapter - Source: https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/archive/hchapterfinaladopted110920.pdf - Pages: 68 - Covers: housing <
> # HOUSING # Introduction Housing meets a fundamental human need and, as such, is a critical infrastructure system of a city. Unlike other infrastructure systems, such as roads or water, a City does not have full control of housing development, maintenance, replacement or cost, as housing is generally provided through the private market. What cities can do is administer planning, zoning and building codes to guide the location of residential development, and ensure that housing is healthy and safe. Saint Paul has responsibilities to manage a complex set of issues around housing fairness, supply, choice, health, stability and affordability, all of which are tied to a Saint Paul’s core values. The Housing chapter continues to embrace Saint Paul’s decades-old commitment to an all-incomes housing strategy by addressing the broad continuum of housing needs and challenges faced by Saint Paul residents—from those experiencing homelessness to those in need of affordable housing to those wishing to buy a home or rent an apartment. The chapter begins to challenge some deeply-rooted beliefs around neighborhood housing and household types to help provide additional housing choice for Saint Paul’s growing, aging and increasingly diverse population over the next 20 years. Finally, housing policy cannot be considered in a vacuum. It needs to be thought of in terms of economic development (to build household income and net worth), transportation (to connect people from home to work) and land use (to locate parks, employment, education and other uses in close proximity to housing). Additional supporting materials for Housing Chapter policies can be found in the appendices beginning of page 140. The following goals guide the Housing chapter: 1. Decent, safe and healthy housing for all Saint Paul residents. 2. Well-designed, energy-efficient buildings and sites constructed with quality materials. 3. Fair and equitable access to housing for all city residents. 4. A supportive environment for homeownership. 5. Stable rental housing. 6. Improved access to affordable housing. 7. Strong neighborhoods that support lifelong housing needs. # Goal 1: Decent, safe and healthy housing for all Saint Paul residents. Policy H-1. Ensure upkeep and maintenance of the aging housing stock through enforcement of property maintenance codes. Policy H-2. Address housing deficiencies and encourage reinvestment in residential properties by supporting maintenance and rehabilitation programs for property owners. Policy H-3. Consider the expected lifecycle, market viability and ongoing maintenance needs of residential structures prior to providing public rehabilitation funds to ensure responsible investment of public funds and not overburden future owners with future maintenance costs. Policy H-4. Ensure safe housing through the continuation and refinement, as needed, of the rental Certificate of Occupancy and the Truth in Sale of Housing programs. Policy H-5. Work to reduce lead exposure in homes built prior to 1978 through the support of lead identification and mitigation programs offered by the City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul-Ramsey County Public Health, and other partner agencies and organizations. Policy H-6. Improve indoor air quality to reduce asthma and address other air quality-associated health issues by reducing exposure to mold, indoor tobacco smoke, radon and soil vapors in homes; supporting City requirements and partner agency programs; and seeking state and regional cleanup funding. Mitigation of these issues should be prioritized for existing structures. Policy H-7. Reduce overcrowding within housing units, caused by doubling up of households and inadequate space for large families, through the production of small and family-sized affordable housing options. ## Metropolitan Affordable Housing Allocation As part of the 2040 Housing Policy Plan, the Metropolitan Council identified the number of all households expected to need affordable housing (rental and ownership) in the region, and allocated a share of the projected regional affordable housing need to each municipality in the seven-county metropolitan area. The region is projected to need an additional 37,400 housing units affordable to households at 80% of AMI or lower between 2020 and 2030, with 51% of those units affordable at 30% of AMI, 25% of those units affordable to households at 31- 50% of AMI, and 24% of those units affordable to households at 51- 80% of AMI. Saint Paul’s affordable housing allocation is summarized in the following table. ### Figure H-1: Affordable Housing Allocation for the City of Saint Paul | Affordable Level | Number of Units | | :--- | :--- | | At or below 30% of AMI | 832 | | 31 to 50% of AMI | 128 | | 51 to 80% of AMI | 1,013 | | Total | 1,973 | ### Passive House Principles While passive building principles have been used widely throughout Europe, interest in these ultra-energy efficient buildings is starting to grow in the Unites States. A passive building is designed and built in accordance with these five building-science principles: * The building employs continuous insulation throughout its entire envelope without any thermal bridging. * The building envelope is extremely airtight, preventing infiltration of outside air and loss of conditioned air. * The building employs high-performance windows (typically triple-paned) and doors. * The building uses some form of balanced heat- and moisture-recovery ventilation, and a minimal space conditioning system. * Solar gain is managed to exploit the sun’s energy in the heating season and minimize overheating during the cooling season. Passive building principles can be applied to all building types – from single-family homes to multi-family apartment buildings, offices and skyscrapers. ## Goal 2: Well-designed, energy-efficient buildings and sites constructed with quality materials. Policy H-8. Encourage creativity in building design and site layout. Policy H-9. Encourage the use of universal design elements to make housing accessible for all residents. Policy H-10. Encourage the use of energy efficient mechanical systems and building products in rehabilitation and new construction to decrease building operation costs and impacts on the environment. Policy H-11. Partner with utility companies, nonprofits and other agencies to reduce the number of energy-burdened households by encouraging building owners to undertake energy audits of their properties and make improvements, such as new metering technologies that allow sub-metering. Policy H-12. Demonstrate the effectiveness of new construction technologies or techniques, such as passive building standards, that push the boundaries of energy efficiency in housing. Policy H-13. Encourage the use of long-lasting, high-quality building materials for residential buildings to decrease long-term housing maintenance and energy costs. Policy H-14. Encourage the use of low-impact landscaping, such as no-mow yards, native landscaping and rain gardens, to reduce the consumption of natural resources in yard maintenance and encourage the use of yards as carbon sinks. ## Goal 3: Fair and equitable access to housing for all city residents. Policy H-15. Accommodate a wide variety of culturally-appropriate housing types throughout the city to support residents at all stages of life and levels of ability. Policy H-16. Increase housing choice across the city to support economically diverse neighborhoods by pursuing policies and practices that maximize housing and locational choices for residents of all income levels. Policy H-17. Ensure that the regulatory definitions of family and allowable dwelling types meet the needs of residents and reflect how people want to live, while meeting fair housing requirements. Policy H-18. Foster the preservation and production of deeply affordable rental housing (housing affordable to those at 30% or less of AMI), supportive housing and housing for people experiencing homelessness. Policy H-19. Continue interdepartmental coordination and implementation of the recommendations in the Analysis of Impediments report and other fair housing issues. # Area Median Income (AMI), Family Median Income and Household Median Income Median income is an important factor in housing affordability, and is used by the federal government to establish affordability limits on income-restricted housing. Annually, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates the area median income (AMI) for metropolitan areas throughout the country. HUD focuses on the region instead of the individual city, because families searching for housing are likely to look beyond a city itself to find a place to live. These calculations are used to determine eligibility in income-restricted housing and to establish rent limits for these units. AMI is used as the standard annual income for a family of four - the number is adjusted up or down for larger and smaller families. The 2017 AMI for the region is $90,400. AMI for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul-Bloomington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) increased by approximately 6% between 2009 and 2016, from $80,900 to $85,800. Saint Paul’s AMI increased 9% during the same period, from $58,742 to $64,072. On average over this period, Saint Paul’s median family income was 28% lower than the region. Looking beyond family households, the median income is lower for both the region and the city. In 2016, the median household income for the region was $70,922 and $50,820 for the city. <
> # Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and the Analysis of Impediments Federal fair housing laws protect all individuals seeking housing, including renters, homebuyers, persons obtaining a mortgage or homeowners insurance, and others. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing due to being affiliated with a “protected class,” including race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability or familial status (presence of children under the age of 18 and pregnancy). The Minnesota Human Rights Act law adds creed, sexual orientation, marital status, receipt of public assistance, age and local human rights commission activity to the federal list of protected classes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that its grantees work to affirmatively further fair housing, by: 1. conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction; 2. taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis; and 3. maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions taken in this regard. HUD interprets those broad objectives to mean: * analyze and eliminate housing discrimination in the jurisdiction; * promote fair housing choice for all persons; * provide opportunities for inclusive patterns of housing occupancy regardless of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability and/or national origin; * promote housing that is structurally accessible to, and usable by, all persons, particularly persons with disabilities; and * foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The Analysis of Impediments (AI) is a process by which HUD grantees examine what issues may impede fair housing requirements within their jurisdiction, and identify ways in which those issues may be mitigated. Saint Paul is a member of the ad hoc Fair Housing Implementation Council (FHIC), which was established in 2002 to coordinate efforts of its participating members to comply with their obligations to affirmatively further fair housing throughout the Twin Cities metro housing market area. This includes the development of the AI. # Goal 4: A supportive environment for homeownership. Policy H-20. Collaborate with partner agencies, lenders and the real estate industry to reduce racial disparities in homeownership that could be attributed to unequal access to fair lending, intentional steering to specific neighborhoods or historic housing discrimination. Policy H-21. Promote shared-equity ownership options, such as land trusts or cooperatives, to help make homeownership achievable for a greater number of households. Policy H-22. Consider a City- or HRA-sponsored down-payment assistance program and support partner organizations’ down-payment assistance and first-time homebuyer mortgage programs to help homebuyers invest in Saint Paul. Policy H-23. Collaborate with the lending community on development of culturally-appropriate mortgage products and other lending instruments that create an avenue to access financial capital for all of Saint Paul’s cultural communities. Policy H-24. Encourage homeowner education through continued support of organizations that provide services, such as financial counseling and pre-and post-purchase training, to help potential and new homeowners make well-informed financial and maintenance decisions. Policy H-25. Continue foreclosure prevention counseling to help residents understand available options, and provide guidance throughout the process. Figure H-2: Overview of Rent Subsidized Housing Programs | | Public Housing | Project-Based Section 8 (PBV) | Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) | Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **What it is** | • Publicly-owned and -managed rental units for low-income households.
• Some units are reserved for seniors or people with disabilities.
• This is a project-based subsidy- i.e. the subsidy stays with the unit. | • Privately-owned and -managed rental units for low-income households.
• Property owners commit to have Section 8 units for a fixed term, e.g. 15 or 20 years, which may be extended.
• Some units are reserved for seniors, people with disabilities or other populations.
• This is a project-based subsidy – i.e. the subsidy stays with the unit. In some cases, a renter who moves out may receive a subsidy to use at a different apartment. | • Government-funded program that helps low-income households pay the rent on private, market-rate rental units.
• A renter finds a unit (within certain requirements); a housing authority pays a portion of the rent directly to the property owner.
• This is a tenant-based subsidy – i.e. the subsidy goes with the tenant. | • Government-funded program that provides the private market tax credits to develop income-restricted rental units.
• Property owners commit to a minimum term of at least 15 years (often longer) for income restrictions, which may be extended.
• Rent limits are set by HUD, based on area median income.
• This is a project-based subsidy that stays with the project. | | **What it costs** | • Most units rent for 30% of the household’s adjusted gross income.
• The renter must pay at least a minimum amount toward the rent and utilities (as required by Federal law). | • Most units rent for 30% of the household’s adjusted gross income.
• The renter must pay at least a minimum amount toward the rent and utilities (as required by Federal law). | • 30% to 40% of a household’s adjusted gross income.
• The renter must pay at least a minimum amount toward the rent and utilities (as required by Federal law). | • Rents are set to be equal to 30% of income at specific income levels (e.g. 50% and 60% of AMI) based on unit size.
• Renter may be responsible for utility payments. | | **What is available in Saint Paul** | • 4,274 dwelling units
• 16 high-rise buildings; 4 family townhouse developments; and 402 two- to six-bedroom units in scattered site single-family houses and duplexes.
• Managed by Saint Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA).
• Go to www.stpha.org/ publichousing for more information. | • Approximately 3,100 units in 37 projects are subsidized under direct contracts with HUD and administered by Minnesota Housing.
• Approximately 500 units in 24 projects are subsidized under contracts with PHA and administered by PHA.
• Go to www.housinglink.org to find Project-Based Section 8 units. | • Approximately 4,700 HCV are administered by PHA.
• PHA’s Section 8 waiting list is closed and was most recently opened for one week in 2015 after being closed for eight years.
• Go to www.stpha.org/ section-8 for more information. | • Approximately 15,337 income-restricted units are available in Saint Paul.
• Go to www.housinglink.org to find income-restricted units. | | | **Source: Adapted from HousingLink, 2006 (https://www.housinglink.org/Files/Big%203%20-%20Subsidized%20Housing.pdf)** | | | | # Examples of Affordable Housing in Saint Paul Income-restricted affordable housing is designed and built to blend into its surroundings. That is, if a passerby does not know the rental requirements of these buildings, they would not know they are affordable housing. The accompanying pictures are all recent affordable or mixed-income housing developments built in Saint Paul. <
> <
> <
> <
> # Goal 5: Stable rental housing. Policy H-26. Increase awareness around tenant and landlord rights, responsibilities, best practices and resources to increase access to rental units and decrease conflicts that could lead to evictions. Policy H-27. Collaborate with HUD, Minnesota Housing Finance and affordable housing providers to preserve project-based Section 8 units within the city that are at risk of being withdrawn from a building or transferred to another building outside of Saint Paul. Policy H-28. Advocate for research on and best practices for tenant screening criteria, such as credit, criminal and rental history reviews, to reduce housing insecurity for those with low credit scores, past evictions or criminal convictions. Policy H-29. Support efforts and/or legislation to discourage renter displacement due to a change in ownership that increases rents and/or eliminates acceptance of Section 8 vouchers. Policy H-30. Support efforts to reduce non-just-cause evictions filings. # Goal 6: Improved access to affordable housing. Policy H-31. Support the development of new affordable housing units throughout the city. Policy H-32. Continue to use City/HRA resources to support affordable rental housing citywide with at least 30 percent of the total rental units (both market-rate and affordable) financially assisted by the City/HRA being affordable to households earning 60 percent or less of AMI with at least: * 10 percent of all units being affordable to households earning 30 percent of AMI; * 10 percent of all units being affordable to households earning 50 percent of AMI; and * 10 percent of all units being affordable to households earning 60 percent of AMI. Policy H-33. Further affordable ownership housing goals in HRA/City-financially-assisted projects by working toward 10 percent of all ownership units being affordable to residents earning 60 percent of AMI and 20 percent of all ownership units being affordable to residents earning 80 percent of AMI. Policy H-34. Support the development of new affordable ownership opportunities through the Inspiring Communities program, including selling vacant HRA-owned single-family lots and identifying sites appropriate for new ownership housing. Policy H-35. Work with partners to develop and implement mechanisms to ensure that affordable ownership units developed with City/HRA assistance remain affordable beyond the first generation of owners. Policy H-36. Encourage the development of family-sized affordable housing in strong market areas. Policy H-37. Encourage the development of affordable housing in areas well-served by transit and/or in proximity to employment centers. Policy H-38. Encourage acquisition, if put up for sale, of naturally-occurring affordable housing by nonprofit organizations, community development corporations, religious institutions, tenants and/or private-sector actors committed to preserving and investing in affordable housing, as well as the long-term upkeep and maintenance of these properties. Policy H-39. Promote preservation of existing income-restricted affordable housing units to ensure continued affordability of those units. Policy H-40. Prioritize preservation of income-restricted and naturally-occurring affordable housing in areas with improved/improving transit and/or planned reinvestment to reduce resident displacement. Policy H-41. Consider use of official controls to require affordable housing to achieve mixed-income neighborhoods. Policy H-42. Pursue public and private funding sources, including local sources, for affordable housing preservation and production. Policy H-43. Encourage and support state and federal legislation that preserves existing programs and provides new funding, including a dedicated funding source, for affordable ownership and rental housing. Policy H-44. Make achieving the Metropolitan Council’s affordable housing goals a top priority both in planning and legislative efforts. Policy H-45. Support the preservation and maintenance of historic housing stock as an affordable housing option. # Benefits of Missing Middle Housing The “missing middle” is a segment of the housing market that contains small-scale multifamily or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family neighborhoods. It is a land use, economic development and urban design strategy that allows cities to support walkable, transit-supportive neighborhoods without significantly increasing densities in predominantly single-family neighborhoods. Missing Middle housing provides more housing choice and therefore allows the city to better adapt to housing trends and market cycles. It is more sensitive to neighborhood context, allowing for gradual transition from Urban Neighborhoods to Mixed-Use areas and/or Neighborhood Nodes. Missing Middle housing types include accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard apartments, bungalow courts, mansion-style multi-family and multiplexes. Excellent examples of these housing types can be found throughout Saint Paul. <
> MissingMiddleHousing.com is powered by Opticos Design. Illustration © 2015 Opticos Design, Inc. Goal 7: Strong neighborhoods that support lifelong housing needs. Policy H-46. Support the development of new housing, particularly in areas identified as Mixed Use, Urban Neighborhoods, and/or in areas with the highest existing or planned transit service, to meet market demand for living in walkable, transit-accessible, urban neighborhoods. Policy H-47. Encourage high-quality urban design for residential development that is sensitive to context, but also allows for innovation and consideration of market needs. Policy H-48. Expand permitted housing types in Urban Neighborhoods (as defined in the Land Use Chapter) to include duplexes, triplexes, town homes, small-scale multi-family and accessory dwelling units to allow for neighborhood-scale density increases, broadened housing choices and intergenerational living. Policy H-49. Consider amendments to the zoning code to permit smaller single-family houses and duplexes to facilitate the creation of small-home development types, such as pocket neighborhoods and cottage communities. Policy H-50. Balance the market demand for larger homes in strong market areas with the need to maintain a mix of single-family housing types that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood context. Policy H-51. Analyze the neighborhood context of residential structures, in addition to general safety, prior to moving forward with City-sponsored demolition to ensure neighborhood housing assets are not prematurely removed. Policy H-52. Collaborate with Saint Paul Public Schools and other educational partners to ensure that school choice and location further housing investment and neighborhood stability. Policy H-53. Continue to work with neighbors, neighborhood organizations and colleges/universities to reduce conflicts between students and longer-term neighborhood residents. Policy H-54. Support alternative household types, such as co-housing, intergenerational housing, intentional communities or other shared-living models, that allow residents to “age in community.” Policy H-55. Support housing for older people that is proximate to transit. Policy H-56. Improve the stability and health of communities of concentrated disadvantage by implementing placed-based investments, such as public infrastructure, improvements and maintenance. # Appendix A Housing Conditions and Trends Inventory .................... 141 # Appendix B Housing Need Implementation Strategy.................... 184 # Appendix C Housing Implementation Toolkit........................................ 192 Note: These appendices provide supporting content for housing-related policies and satisfy associated Metropolitan Council requirements. # Appendix A ## Housing Conditions and Trends Inventory Striving for safe, dignified and affordable housing for all residents is a core value for the City of Saint Paul. To develop meaningful policy towards this, the City needs to understand existing conditions and identify key trends that affect housing today and impact the provision of housing in the future. This housing assessment examines four key components to the City’s housing infrastructure—housing units, affordability of existing housing units, cost-burdened households and homelessness. Each section analyzes current conditions using a variety of data sources, and identifies key trends to monitor over the course of this Plan’s implementation. 1. Housing Units * General housing information, including total number of units, vacancy rates, tenure breakdown and overall unit composition * Age and condition of units * Vacant structures * New construction trends 2. Affordability of Housing * Affordability of housing broken down by owner and renter units * Naturally-occurring affordable housing * Inventory of obligated affordable housing, including public housing, project-based Section 8, and income-restricted affordable housing units 3. Cost-burdened households * Race * Age * Household type 4. Homelessness # 1. Housing Units The City of Saint Paul has approximately 119,625 housing units as reported in the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 2012-2016[^p14-1]. Over the last 25 years, housing vacancy rates in Saint Paul have been relatively low. Vacancy rates in owner-occupied housing have been stable, ranging from a low of 0.7% to a high of 2.7% (during the recession of the mid-2000s). The rental market has shown some variability, and in 1990 and 2010, rental vacancy rates peaked at 7.7% and 7.2% respectively. Currently, vacancy rates are trending downward, with 1.5% for owner-occupied units and 3.7% for rental units. Rental markets are typically considered stable at 5% vacancy. With low available housing supply and increased housing demand, there is upward pressure on rents. Tenure of units is nearly equally divided between owner- and renter-occupied units, with a slightly higher percentage of renter-occupied units—1.0% or 1,081 units. This is the first time in modern city history that the number of renter-occupied units has surpassed the number of owner-occupied units. From 1990 to present, there has been a 2% increase in the number of total households, a 9% decrease in the number of owner-occupied households and a 14% increase in the number of renter households. This change can be attributed, in part, to an increased number of single-family homes that have become rentals[^p14-2], as well as the construction of more multifamily rental housing within Saint Paul. Figure H-3: Housing Units, Occupancy and Tenure | | Units | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Percent | | Total Units | 119,625 | 100% | | | | | | Occupied/Vacant* | | | | Occupied | 112,571 | 94.1% | | Vacant | 7,054 | 5.9% | | | | | | Tenure of Occupied Units | | | | Owner-Occupied | 55,745 | 49.5% | | Renter-Occupied | 56,826 | 50.5% | *Vacancy rates: Owner-occupied: 1.5%; Renter-occupied: 3.7% Source: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2012-2016 <
> [^p14-1]: The 2010 Census reported that the City had 120,795 housing units, while the most recent ACS 5-year estimate report 119,625 +/- 869 units. After reviewing demolition and building permits records, the City does not believe there was a decrease in the number of units from 2010 Census to the estimate period. [^p14-2]: Over the last eight years, the percentage of renters living in single-family homes rose from 10.6% to 14.7% (2009 - 2011 and 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates). The number of housing units is nearly evenly divided between single-family homes and all other housing types; however, according to Ramsey County Property Tax Records (January 2018), the amount of land dedicated to single-family homes (9,200 acres) exceeds that of all other housing types (2,500 acres) by approximately 350%. In comparison, larger multi-family buildings (20 or more units) contain nearly 25% of all units while occupying only 3% of the platted land area. Map 1 shows the distribution of housing unit types throughout the city. <
> Chart 2: Housing Units, Occupancy and Tenure <
> Chart 3: Type of Housing Units <
> * Single-family * Townhomes * Duplex * Triplex/quads * 5-9 units * 10-19 units * 20 or more units * Mobile home * Boat, RV, van, etc Map H-1: Housing Types <
> **Number of Housing Units on Parcel** | | | | :--- | :--- | | 1 unit | 25 to 50 units | | 2 units | 50 to 100 units | | 3 units | 100 to 200 units | | 4 units | 200 to 300 units | | 5 to 25 units | 300 to 505 units | Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Data source: Ramsey County Parcel Dataset, 1/29/2018 144 HOUSING | Appendix A SAINT PAUL FOR ALL # Age and Condition of Housing Units Saint Paul is a fully developed city with an aging housing stock. The median age of residential units is 69 years old. Fifty-seven percent of single-family, duplex and triplex structures were built before 1930; development of those structure types peaked in the 1920s with one-fifth of them built during that decade. Small-scale, multi-family buildings, those with between 4 - 19 units, have a median age of 96 years old (median year built is 1922). Larger apartment complexes (20 or more units) were generally developed later with a median year built of 1965 (median age 53 years old) (Ramsey County Property Tax Records). Map 2 shows the age distribution of residential structures throughout the city. The oldest of these structures form a ring around downtown and the Capitol area, and are found near other important commercial and industrial nodes. The early 1900s brought rapid expansion of single-family and small-scale multi-family development, particularly in areas that were well-served by the streetcar lines. The end of World War II brought the third wave of housing expansion that resulted in the city being “built out” to its northern and eastern borders, as well as in Highland Park. Since the 1990s, new housing has been “infill development” on scattered undeveloped land and redevelopment of previously developed properties. As will be discussed later in this assessment, age of structure is one indicator of unit affordability. ### Chart 4: Age of Housing Units <
> Map H-2: Decade Built <
> **Year principal residential structure** **on parcel was built** | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1850 - 1859 | 1910 - 1919 | 1970 - 1979 | | 1860 - 1869 | 1920 - 1929 | 1980 - 1989 | | 1870 - 1879 | 1930 - 1939 | 1990 - 1999 | | 1880 - 1889 | 1940 - 1949 | 2000 - 2009 | | 1890 - 1899 | 1950 - 1959 | 2010 - 2019 | | 1900 - 1909 | 1960 - 1969 | | Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: City of Saint Paul (2016); Ramsey County (2018) With a housing stock predominated by structures nearing a century in age, working with property owners to ensure they are safe and well-maintained is critical to the health and safety of city neighborhoods and residents. The City and HRA have several programs to work with property owners to maintain structures and housing units. Two existing City programs help to identify housing conditions issue, the Truth-in-Sale-of-Housing Program and Fire Certificate of Occupancy program. Four programs help property owners finance improvements. ## Truth-in-Sale-of-Housing The Saint Paul Truth-in-Sale of Housing disclosure report is a visual overview of the building components and fixtures. This required report is to inform prospective buyers of the observed condition of a dwelling at the time of the evaluation. The disclosure report is intended to provide basic information to the home buyer and the seller prior to the time of sale. ## Fire Certificate of Occupancy Program To ensure that residential rental buildings comply with applicable fire, building, housing and other relevant codes, non-owner-occupied one- and two-unit buildings, and all buildings with three or more units, must receive a fire Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). If violations are found during an inspection, orders will be issued to correct the violations. The C of O can be revoked for severe violations that are not corrected. A building cannot be occupied or used if the C of O has been revoked. The properties are graded A through D, based on the number and severity of code compliance issues identified at the time of the inspection. See Map 3 to see the location and grades of rental units throughout the city. Property owners are incented to keep their properties code compliant and to receive and maintain a high score as the frequency of inspection is based on the score. Inspection frequency based on rating is: A, every six years; B, every four years; C, every two years and D, annually. ### Figure H-4: Building C of O Ratings | Rating | Number of Buildings | | :--- | :--- | | A | 8,335 | | B | 4,063 | | C | 2,781 | | D | 72 | <
> Map H-3: Certificate of Occupancy Rental Ratings <
> **Rental Class** * ● A * ● B * ● C * ● D Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: City of Saint Paul (2018); Metropolitan Council (2018) Citywide Deferred Rehabilitation Loan A 0% interest loan up to a maximum of $25,000 is available to homesteaded and owner-occupied dwellings (4-unit maximum) with incomes at or below 60% of area median income (AMI) and adjusted for household size. The loan is forgiven after 30 years unless the owner moves from or sells the property, at which point the loan must be repaid. Citywide Low Interest Rehabilitation Loan Three percent and 4% interest loans up to a maximum of $50,000 are available to homesteaded and owner-occupied dwellings (4-unit maximum) with incomes at or below 115% of AMI. The loan provides financial assistance to homeowners who have home repair issues or want to remodel their homes or make their home energy-efficient. Citywide Deferred Emergency Loan A 0% interest loan up to a maximum of $25,000 is available to homesteaded and owner-occupied single-family dwellings for households earning at or below 80% of AMI and adjusted for household size. The loan provides financial assistance to homeowners who have serious home repair issues including, furnace/heating systems, sewer lines, electrical, and health and safety issues. The loan is forgiven after 30 years unless the owner moves from or sells the property, at which point the loan must be repaid. Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program A 10-year, 0% interest loan up to a maximum of $30,000 is available to owners of one- to four-unit rental buildings. Eligible properties must have a valid C of O and be classified as C or D through the C of O program anywhere in the city or be in an ACP50 area. Participating landlords cannot increase rents of assisted units by more than 3% per year while remaining at or below the HUD Fair Market Rent during the rent loan term. Vacant Residential Structures The City requires property owners register properties as vacant structures if the building is unoccupied and they meet any of the following conditions: • unsecured; • secured by other than normal means; • a dangerous structure; • condemned; • has multiple housing or Building Code violations; • is condemned and illegally occupied; or • is unoccupied for a period longer than one year during which time the Enforcement Officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions. The City has three categories of vacant building based on the level of deficiencies or safety hazards. Sale of registered vacant buildings must be reviewed by the City. As of January 2018, there are 602 registered single-family, duplex, multi-family and mixed-use buildings in the city. Nearly three-quarters of those are single-family structures. As Map 4 shows, registered vacant buildings are located throughout the city, but there is a higher occurrence of vacant buildings within the ACP 50 areas. Figure H-5: Definitions of Categories of Vacant Buildings | Category 1 | Category 2 | Category 3 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Unoccupied and unsecured, or
• Unoccupied and boarded, or
• Unoccupied for one year with history of nuisance orders (not necessarily boarded) | Unoccupied and boarded and one of the below: | Unoccupied and declared nuisance building for one of the below: | | **FIRE EXEMPT Category 1** | • Condemned as uninhabitable
• Condemned or vacated by Fire Certificate of Occupancy
• Unoccupied with multiple violations of housing and building code (based on inspection by Vacant Building or Housing Code Enforcement staff) | • Dangerous structure
• Condemned with conditions constituting material endangerment
• Has multiple violations with conditions constituting material endangerment | | • Unoccupied (vacated or condemned) due to fire damage | | | <
> Figure H-6: Requirements for the Sale of Registered Vacant Buildings | Category 1 | Category 2 | Category 3 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | The seller must: | The buyer (and/or seller) must: | The seller (or prospective buyer) must: | May not be sold unless one of the following are obtained: | | Obtain a Truth-in-Sale of Housing report to market the property.* | 1. Register or re-register ownership
2. Pay outstanding fees
3. Comply with existing or outstanding orders for legal occupancy | 1. Register or re-register ownership
2. Pay outstanding fees
3. Obtain a code compliance report**
4. Submit for approval: a cost estimate by a licensed contractor for completing the code compliance, AND a schedule for completion of all code compliance work
5. Submit proof of financial capability: e.g. performance bond, escrow account, or other proof accepted and approved by the City | 1. Certificate of Occupancy
2. Certificate of Code Compliance
3. Fire Certificate of Occupancy | * A TISH report is required to market a category 1 vacant building. ** A TISH report is required for marketing purposes if the property is offered for sale prior to obtaining the code compliance. Map H-4: Registered Vacant Buildings by Building Type <
> **Vacant Buildings by Type** * Single-Family Residential * Duplex * Multi-Family Residential * Mixed-Use Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: City of Saint Paul (2018); Metropolitan Council (2018) ## New Residential Construction While new unit development has not reached pre-recession levels, construction of new units in Saint Paul began to pick up in 2012 and steadily increased through 2015. Building permits were down in 2016, and in 2017, City data shows 834 new units built. As in the 1970s, 1980s and early 2000s, multi-family development is the dominate type of housing being developed. Much of the new multi-family development is being built in area with strong transit connections, including downtown and near the Green Line stations, which opened in June 2014. 3,850 new units are completed or under construction within one-half mile of the Green Line. There has also been an uptick in new single-family residential and large-scale additions. As the following map shows, this activity has been occurring throughout Saint Paul. The City considers a significant remodel a new home when exterior walls are removed and/or the structure is removed to the first-floor joist system. ### Chart 5: Residential Building Permits by Housing Type (1970 - 2016) <
> —Duplex —Duplex, triplex and quad —Multifamily (3 units or more) —Multifamily (5 units or more) —Single-Family Detached —Townhomes (single-family attached) --- Grand Total Map H-5: New Residential Structures, 2010-2017 <
> **New Residential Structures** * Single-Family * 2 to 4 units * 5 to 25 units * 26 to 100 units * 101 to 350 units Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) ## 2. Affordability of Existing Housing Housing is considered affordable to a household when 30% or less of its gross household income is spent on monthly housing costs. Monthly costs for ownership units are mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities; for renters, monthly costs include rent and utilities paid by the tenant. The following provides an analysis of supply of units—both ownership and rental--that are affordable to households at different income levels. ### Ownership Housing The Metropolitan Council developed a formula to determine the value of a house that is affordable to a household of four earning 80% of AMI. The formula takes into consideration the cost of a fixed-interest, 30-year mortgage; down payment; property taxes; and mortgage and homeowners insurance. In 2017, the value of an ownership unit affordable to a household of four earning 80% of AMI ($68,000) was $236,000. Saint Paul has a significant supply of ownership housing units affordable to four-person households earning up to 80% of AMI. According to Ramsey County’s assessment records (January 2018), Saint Paul had 38,536 homesteaded properties affordable to these households (69% of homesteaded properties). Of those, 6% are affordable to households earning 30% of AMI or less, 40% are affordable to those earning between 30% to 50% of AMI, and 54% are affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of AMI. It should be noted that while this estimate captures affordability of monthly costs often associated with escrowed loan payments based on the current value of the property, it does not take into consideration any deferred maintenance costs, condominium association fees or utility costs, all of which contribute to a household’s ability to afford a unit. As Map 6 shows, ownership unit values are not uniformly distributed across the city. Units with the highest values are found on the southwestern quadrant of the city generally bound by Interstate 94, Interstate 35E, and West Seventh and the Mississippi River as well as in the northern portion of Saint Anthony Park, around Como Park and Highwood. The ownership units with the greatest affordability are found east and west of Interstate 35E in the north-central and east part of the city, as well as on the city’s West Side <
> Chart 6: Affordability of Units (Owner) * ≤30% of AMI * >30% and ≤50% of AMI * >50% and ≤80% Map H-6: Affordability of Owner-Occupied Housing <
> **Owner-Occupied Housing** **Estimated Market Value** * ● ≤$151,500 * ● >$151,500 and ≤$236,000 * ● >$236,000 and ≤$500,000 * ● >$500,000 Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: Ramsey County Parcel Database 2017. ACP50 data from Metropolitan Council via MN Geospatial Commons, from annual release on 2/5/2018. # Rental Housing Affordablity of rental housing is more difficult to track than that of ownership housing, as no governmental unit collects rent data by unit and relies on renters to report their rental costs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of the American Community Survey(ACS) 5-year estimate data to demonstrate the extent of housing problems and needs, particularly for low-income households. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides information on the number of rental units affordable to households at various income levels. However, CHAS data should be looked at as a general reflection of patterns and trends, since the data lags the market by at least three years. For example, at the drafting of this document, the most recent CHAS data set is based on the 2010-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. According to CHAS, 2010-2014, approximately 94% of all rental units are affordable to households earning 80% of AMI or less. Of those units, 21% are affordable to households earning 30% of AMI or less, 48% are affordable to households earning more than 30% and less than 50% of AMI, and 31% are affordable to households earning more than 50% and less than 80% of AMI. These counts include public housing and income-restricted and naturally-occurring affordable housing units (NOAH). As there are no income restrictions on NOAH units, households that could potentially spend more on housing often choose to spend less, with one-third of units affordable in the income bands being lived in by households with higher incomes. Map H-7 shows the median gross rents by census tract. The most affordable rental housing is located between University Avenue and Interstate 94, along Rice Street, south of the Mississippi River, and scattered on the city's East Side. The table below shows rents that can be charged for income-restricted affordable housing based on number of bedrooms. Comparing those rent limits with median rents show the very limited locational choice for households with extremely low incomes. In addition, it also reflects why low-income households within areas of currently low rent cannot afford income-restricted housing. The rents the market is charging in those areas are less than that which is allowed under the affordable housing programs. ### Figure H-7: Housing Tax Credit & Tax-Exempt Bond Income and Rent Limits (2017) | Income - % of AMI | Maximum Gross Rents by Bedroom Size (post 1989) | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | 30% | $474 | $508 | $610 | $705 | $786 | $868 | $949 | | 35% | $553 | $593 | $712 | $822 | $917 | $1,012 | $1,107 | | 40% | $633 | $678 | $814 | $940 | $1,049 | $1,157 | $1,265 | | 45% | $712 | $763 | $915 | $1,058 | $1,180 | $1,302 | $1,423 | | 50% | $791 | $848 | $1,017 | $1,175 | $1,311 | $1,446 | $1,582 | | 55% | $870 | $932 | $1,119 | $1,293 | $1,442 | $1,591 | $1,740 | | 60% | $949 | $1,017 | $1,221 | $1,410 | $1,573 | $1,736 | $1,898 | <
> **Chart 7: Number of Units Affordable by Income (Renter)** ■ ≤30% of AMI ■ >30% and ≤50% of AMI ■ >50% and ≤80% of AMI <
> **Chart 8: Number of Unit by Gross Rent** <
> **Chart 9: Affordablity of Unit by Income of Tenant (percent)** Rents Affordable to Households Earning (% of AMI) ■ < 30% of AMI ■ < 30% - ≤50% of AMI ■ < 50% - ≤80% of AMI ■ < 80% - ≤100% of AMI ■ >100% of AMI # Chart 10: Units by Size by Monthly Rent Paid <
> | | No Bedroom | 1 bedroom | 2 bedrooms | 3+ bedrooms | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **$1,500 or more** | 103 | 605 | 1,699 | 2,554 | | **$1,000 to $1,499** | 429 | 2,710 | 6,557 | 4,626 | | **$750 to $999** | 792 | 7,536 | 7,227 | 1,130 | | **$500 to $749** | 1,831 | 6,767 | 1,543 | 1,207 | | **$300 to $499** | 569 | 1,558 | 922 | 728 | | **Less than $300** | 486 | 2,880 | 778 | 324 | # Map H-7: Median Gross Rent by Census Tract <
> **Median Rent** * <= $500 * $501- $650 * $651 - $800 * $801 - $950 * $951 - $1,100 * $1,101 - $1,250 **Areas of Concentrated Poverty** with over 50% people of color (ACP50s) 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 Miles Source: City of Saint Paul (2016); American Community Survey (2012-2016) Adopted - November 18, 2020 | Appendix A | HOUSING 159 # Affordable Housing Preservation and Production The City of Saint Paul and Saint Paul HRA continue to work to preserve existing and produce new affordable housing units. ## Preservation Available City data show that between 2004 and 2016, the City/HRA refinanced approximately 2,700 units of affordable housing, which preserved affordability by extending the term of the income restriction. Approximately 34% are affordable to households earning 30% or less of AMI, 14% are affordable to households earning 50% or less of AMI and 52% are affordable to households earning 60% or less of AMI. ## Production According to Metropolitan Council data, between 2003 and 2016, one out of four housing units produced in Saint Paul were units affordable to households at or below 60% AMI. There were approximately 10,585 units built, of which 2,730 were affordable units—785 ownership units and 1,945 rental units. ### Chart 11: Total Housing Production - Market Rate and Affordable (2003-2016) <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | Affordable Ownership Units | Market-rate Ownership Units | | Affordable Rental Units | Market-rate Rental Units | Source: Metropolitan Council # Income-to-Housing Cost The following charts show the income to housing cost trends for owner and renter households over the last 25 years. ## Owner Households Owner housing costs and income have risen over the 25-year period. Between 2000 and 2010, the rate of increase of housing costs accelerated, while increases to income stayed at approximately the same rate of increase. Between 2010 and 2016, there was a decrease or “correction” in housing costs, which can be attributed to the housing crisis, an overall decrease in unit values and changes in lending practices. Adjusting both housing cost and income to 2016 values shows that household income has gone up for owner households by about 16% while monthly housing costs have gone up by 10%. ## Renter Households Median gross rents have increased at a faster rate than median renter household incomes over the last 25 years, with rent increasing by 104% and income by 82%. Adjusting for inflation, gross rent has increased by 9%, while renter household income has declined by 3%. <
> Source: U.S. Census 1990, 2000, and ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010 and 2012-2016 ### Chart 13: Median Gross Rent & Median Household Income (Renters) ### Annual Values & Adusted for Inflation 2016$ <
> Source: U.S. Census 1990, 2000, and ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010 and 2012-2016 # Naturally-Occurring Affordable Housing While more in-depth research is being conducted as part of the City’s Fair Housing Working Group, the following is a basic analysis of the existing supply of naturally-occurring affordable rental housing in Saint Paul. Data from the 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates show that units built between the 1950s and 1990s are the most affordable units in the city. Median gross rent for units produced in the 1970s is approximately half of new market-rate apartments ($791/month to $1,543/month). In addition, examining cost burden by age of unit shows that very low-income households are able to find housing affordable to them most often in buildings built in 1939 or earlier and between 1960 and 1979. These households are less severely cost burden in housing built in between 1940 and 1959 and 1980 and 1999. Map 8 shows the distribution of rental units throughout the city coded by age. ### Chart 14: Rental Units and Median Gross Rent by Year Built (American Community Survey, 2012-2016 5-year Estimates) <
> ### Chart 15: Cost Burden by Age of Structure Income ≤ 50% AMI <
> ### Chart 16: Cost Burden by Age of Structure Income >50 - ≤ 80% AMI <
> ### Chart 17: Cost Burden by Age of Structure Income >80 - ≤ 120% AMI <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | | Not Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | | | Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | | | Severely Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | | **Source: CHAS, 2005-2009 and CHAS, 2010-2014 (Table 9)** | | Map H-8: Rental Property by Decade Built <
> **Rental Properties** | Decade Built | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • 1850s | • 1900s | • 1960s | | • 1860s | • 1910s | • 1970s | | • 1870s | • 1920s | • 1980s | | • 1880s | • 1930s | • 1990s | | • 1890s | • 1940s | • 2000s | | | • 1950s | • 2010s | Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50s) # Inventory of Income-Restricted Affordable Housing There are 15,337income-restricted units in Saint Paul, including those units owned by the Saint Paul Public Housing Authority (SPPHA), those that are contractually obligated as project-based Section 8 units, and those that are income-restricted through development agreements between developers and the Saint Paul HRA or Minnesota Housing. Of these units, 1,918 are senior units and 420 are suitable for those with disabilities. (Data provided through HousingLink STREAMS data as of August 30, 2018). # Public Housing SPPHA is an important provider of affordable housing for thousands of Saint Paul households with the greatest need. The SPPHA owns and operates 4,274 units of HUD-subsidized public housing in Saint Paul, which provides housing to approximately 10,000 residents. SPPHA units are found in several building types, including: * 2,554 efficiencies and one- and two-bedroom units in 16 high-rise apartment buildings; * 1,318 one- to five-bedroom units in townhouse developments; and * 402 one- to six-bedroom units in scattered-site single-family and duplex structures. Eligibility for public housing is set by Congress (annual income based on a percentage of AMI adjusted for family size). For high-rise applicants, admission preference points are given to elderly (62+ years), near-elderly (50-61 years) and disabled applicants (18+ years), and to veterans, residents of Saint Paul, students and those enrolled in special SPPHA programs. For family units, preference points are given to applicants who are veterans or residents of Saint Paul. The residency preference applies to persons who live, work or attend school in Saint Paul, or who have been accepted for work or school in Saint Paul. At the end of January 2018, there were 6,367 households on the SPPHA’s public housing waiting list. The length of the wait to be housed varies based on the type of housing needed and the type of applicant. An elderly or disabled person or veteran seeking an efficiency or one-bedroom unit has a typical wait of six months, while a family seeking a larger unit (2+ bedrooms) may wait three to four years to be housed. Waiting lists for public housing open periodically. # Project-Based Section 8 Voucher Rental Assistance Project-based Section 8 Voucher Rental Assistance (PBV) is another critical program to provide housing to Saint Paul’s very low-income households. This is one form of project-based rental subsidy that provides long-term affordability with a deep subsidy for specific housing units owned by a private entity. (Another form of project-based Section 8 rent subsidy to private property owners is administered by Minnesota Housing.) PBVs are vouchers from the PHA’s regular tenant-based Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, which the PHA awards to specific projects through a competitive process. These are privately-owned units where the owners have entered into a Housing Assistance Payment contract with the PHA that obligates a unit(s) as PBV for an agreed upon period of time, up to 15 years. Eligible families receive rental assistance by agreeing to live in the PBV-assisted unit, and they continue to receive assistance as long as they reside in the specific project-based unit. In some cases, the renter who moves out may take a subsidy with them. Almost any type of structure may be used for PBV. Up to 25% of the units in a building (4+ units) can be assisted under the PBV program, except for buildings for elderly or disabled households or those households receiving supportive services, which can be up to 100% PBV assisted. There are currently 24 projects with 516 PBV units in Saint Paul under contract with the SPPHA. Another 37 projects with 3,048 units are assisted by project-based subsidies under contract administered by Minnesota Housing. # Other Income-Restricted Projects The City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul HRA and other project partners, including Minnesota Housing and Metropolitan Council, help finance income-restricted affordable housing projects. To meet conditions set forward through programmatic requirements and/or contractual obligations, these projects may only charge rents that are affordable to a set percent of AMI, typically 30%, 50%, 60% or 80% of AMI, for a specified term. Requirements for various programs are discussed in the Housing Toolkit section. # 3. Cost-burdened Households Housing cost burden has grown in Saint Paul over the last thirty years, peaking during the housing crisis of the mid-2000s when 42% of all households were considered cost-burdened. As the effects of the housing crisis have subsided, cost burden has decreased slightly, but remains 8% higher than the pre-crisis numbers. Renter households have typically experienced cost burden at least twice the rate of owner households; the 2012-2016 ACS 5-yr estimates, show that 37% of all households are cost-burdened with 23% of owners and 51% renters being cost-burdened. As Table 4 shows, housing cost burden is not evenly distributed between the identified income ranges, but is much more acutely experienced at the lowest incomes levels. The percent of cost-burdened households by income levels are: * 78% of households earning 30% of AMI or less (81% of owners and 77% of renters) * 63% of households earning between 30% and 50% of AMI (58% of owners and 66% of renters) * 32% of households earning between 50% and 80% of AMI (40% of owners and 25% of renters) * 16% of households earning between 80% and 100% of AMI (22% of owners and 7% of renters) * 6% of households earning more than 100% of AMI (7% of owners and 2% of renters) The following analysis begins to identity what groups are more likely to be cost-burdened in Saint Paul, and includes information on cost burden by race, age and household type differentiated between owners and renters. # Levels of Cost Burden * A *cost-burdened household* is one that pays more than 30% of its gross income towards housing costs. * A *severely cost-burdened household* is one that pays more than 50% of its gross income toward housing costs. * Housing costs for *owners* include mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities, and for *renters*, they include rent and utilities paid by the tenant. <
> Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000; ACS, 5-yr Estimates 2006-2010 and 2012-2016 # Area Median Income Area Median Income is calculated for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region annually by HUD. This calculation lays the foundation for all other housing analysis, and is used to determine income and rent limits for income-restricted or -qualifying housing. The 2017, AMI for the region was $90,400 for a household with a family of four. The CHAS, 2010-2014 data uses the 2014 AMI, which was $82,900. It is important to understand how incomes are distributed within the broad income bands—for example, there is a substantive difference between a household earning just over 30% of AMI and one earning 50% of AMI or those earning 50% of AMI compared to those earning 80% of AMI. The following charts show the distribution of AMI within the standard HUD income bands for owner households and renter households. <
> <
> Figure H-8: Number of Cost-burdened, Severely Cost-burdened, and Total Cost-burdened Households at Various Levels of | Level of Cost Burden by Percent of Income at Area Median Income (AMI) | Number of Households | | | Percent by Household Type | | | Percent at Income Level | | | Percent of Total Households | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Owner | Renter | Total | Owner | Renter | Total | Owner | Renter | Total | Owner | Renter | Total | | ≤30% of AMI | 4,185 | 22,335 | 26,520 | | | | 16% | 84% | 100% | 4% | 20% | 24% | | Cost-burdened (>30% and ≤50%) | 690 | 4,295 | 4,985 | 16% | 19% | 19% | 3% | 16% | 19% | 1% | 4% | 4% | | Severely cost-burdened (>50%) | 2,700 | 12,925 | 15,625 | 65% | 58% | 59% | 10% | 49% | 59% | 2% | 11% | 14% | | Total cost-burdened (>30%) | 3,390 | 17,220 | 20,610 | 81% | 77% | 78% | 13% | 65% | 78% | 3% | 15% | 18% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | >30% and ≤50% of AMI | 5,655 | 11,940 | 17,595 | | | | 32% | 68% | 100% | 5% | 11% | 16% | | Cost-burdened (>30% and ≤50%) | 1,825 | 6,065 | 7,890 | 32% | 51% | 45% | 10% | 34% | 45% | 2% | 5% | 7% | | Severely cost-burdened (>50%) | 1,435 | 1,815 | 3,250 | 25% | 15% | 18% | 8% | 10% | 18% | 1% | 2% | 3% | | Total cost-burdened (>30%) | 3,260 | 7,880 | 11,140 | 58% | 66% | 63% | 19% | 45% | 63% | 3% | 7% | 10% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | >50% and ≤80% of AMI | 8,185 | 9,194 | 17,379 | | | | 47% | 53% | 100% | 7% | 8% | 15% | | Cost-burdened (>30% and ≤50%) | 2,545 | 2020 | 4,565 | 31% | 22% | 26% | 15% | 12% | 26% | 2% | 2% | 4% | | Severely cost-burdened (>50%) | 690 | 245 | 935 | 8% | 3% | 5% | 4% | 1% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 1% | | Total cost-burdened (>30%) | 3,235 | 2,265 | 5,500 | 40% | 25% | 32% | 19% | 13% | 32% | 3% | 2% | 5% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | >80% and ≤100% of AMI | 7,030 | 5,090 | 12,120 | | | | 58% | 42% | 100% | 6% | 5% | 11% | | Cost-burdened (>30% and ≤50%) | 1,285 | 365 | 1,650 | 18% | 7% | 14% | 11% | 3% | 14% | 1% | 0% | 1% | | Severely cost-burdened (>50%) | 235 | 10 | 245 | 3% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Total cost-burdened (>30%) | 1,520 | 375 | 1,895 | 22% | 7% | 16% | 13% | 3% | 16% | 1% | 0% | 2% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | >100% of AMI | 30,520 | 8,270 | 38,790 | | | | 79% | 21% | 100% | 27% | 7% | 35% | | Cost-burdened (>30% and ≤50%) | 1,890 | 160 | 2,050 | 6% | 2% | 5% | 5% | 0% | 5% | 2% | 0% | 2% | | Severely cost-burdened (>50%) | 205 | 0 | 205 | 1% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | | Total cost-burdened (>30%) | 2,095 | 160 | 2,255 | 7% | 2% | 6% | 5% | 0% | 6% | 2% | 0% | 2% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Total Households | 55,575 | 56,823 | 112,398 | 100% | 100% | 100% | | | | 49% | 51% | 100% | | Cost-burdened (>30% and ≤50%) | 8,235 | 12,905 | 21,140 | 15% | 23% | 19% | | | | 8% | 11% | 19% | | Severely cost-burdened (>50%) | 5,265 | 14,995 | 20,260 | 9% | 26% | 18% | | | | 5% | 13% | 18% | | Total cost-burdened (>30%) | 13,500 | 27,900 | 41,400 | 24% | 49% | 37% | | | | 12% | 25% | 37% | Source: CHAS, 2010-2014 # Cost Burden by Race, Age and Household Type In Saint Paul, there is a racial disparity in homeownership and cost burdened households. Over the last 30 years, homeowners have been less likely to be cost-burdened, typically at about half the rate of renters, and experience it at a lesser degree (cost-burdened versus extremely cost-burdened). White households are more likely than households of color in Saint Paul to own their housing unit. While white households represent 67% of all households in the city, they are 83% of homeowners (CHAS, 2010-2014). The overall rate of cost burden for homeowners is aligned with that being experienced by white homeowners as they own 85% of these units. Fifteen percent of owners are cost-burdened and 9% percent are severely cost-burdened. Owner households of color are more likely to be either cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened, compared to that experienced by white households. As Table 4 shows, 23% of renters were cost-burdened and 26% were severely cost-burdened, according to CHAS, 2010-2014. There was a disparity in the rate in which white renter households experienced burden compared to households of color. White households were less likely to be cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened compared to all households, while all other races, except Asian households, had higher rates of overall cost burden. The “other” category, which is households with multiple races, experiences the highest rates of total cost burden. This is perhaps more attributable to the age of the householder than racial composition of the household as these households may be younger than the typical household. Those that are younger experience higher rates of cost burden. The following charts compare cost burden by race between the 2005-2009 and 2010-2014 CHAS data sets. Both sets of data reflect the conditions that were taking place during the housing crisis and recession of the late-2000s and early 2010s. <
> <
> Key trends identified include: * The percent of cost-burdened owner households decreased across all races between the two reporting periods except for Native American households.[^p43-1] * The number of renter households increased across all races except for Native American households. * The percent of African American and Hispanic renter households experiencing cost burden decreased slightly while the percent of White, Asian and Other households increased slightly. * The percent of cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened Native American renter households increased. ### Chart 23: Cost Burden by Race <
> [^p43-1]: There were only 300 Native American ownership households in 2005 to 2009, which decreased to 145 households in the 2010-2014 data set. With so few data points, this likely falls within the range of error of this data. *** ### Chart 24: Cost Burden By Race (Owner) <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | Not Cost-burdened (2005-2009) | Not Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | | Cost-burdened (2005-2009) | Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | | Severely Cost-burdened (2005-2009) | Severely Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | Source: CHAS, 2005-2009 and CHAS, 2010-2014 (Table 9) Definitions: | | | | :--- | :--- | | White: White alone, non-Hispanic | Hispanic: Hispanic, any race | | African-American: Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic | American Indian: American Indian alone, non-Hispanic | | Asian: Asian alone, non-Hispanic | Other: Includes multiple races, non-Hispanic | # Cost Burden by Age The following charts illustrate housing cost by age from 2000 to 2014. The impact of the housing crisis on affordability of housing shows up in an approximate 10% increase in total cost burden across tenure type and age. Since then, cost burden has declined, except for young renter households. Key points from this data include: * There has been a steady increase in the number of households renting in the 35 to 64 age cohort, while homeownership has declined for that that group between 2008 and 2014. * Cost burden for home owners is decreasing for all age categories, and has recovered to near pre-recession levels for households in the 25 to 34 and 35 to 64 age cohorts. Cost burden decreased in the 65 and over cohort, but at a slower rate than in the younger age categories. * Cost burden for renter households is not recovering at the same pace as owner households in any age cohort. * From 2000 to 2014, cost burden increased for the youngest age cohort (15-24) going from approximately half of these households in 2000 to two-thirds in 2014. It is important to note that this group does include students who live in off-campus housing; however, this increase is not solely attributable to an increased rate in off-campus living. <
> Chart 25: Householder 25-34 (Owner) <
> Chart 26: Householder 35-64 (Owner) Chart 27: Householder 65 and over (Owner) <
> <20% | ≥20% to < 25% | ≥25 to <30% | ≥30% to <35% --- | --- | --- | --- ≥35% | ≥30% | # of Households | Chart 28: Householder 15 to 24 (Renter) <
> # Chart 29: Householder 25 to 34 (Renter) <
> # Chart 30: Householder 35 to 64 (Renter) <
> ### Chart 31: Householder 65+ (Renter) <
> Source Charts 25-31: Census 2000 and ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006 – 20010 and 2012 - 2016 # Cost Burden: Household Type by Income The following charts compare the number of owner and renter households by type of household—elderly family, elderly non-family, large family, small family, and nonelderly/nonfamily—broken out by income, and identifies if the unit household is not cost-burdened, cost-burdened, or severely cost-burdened. Key points from this data include: * Elderly nonfamily owners are 1.8 times more likely than elderly family owners to be cost-burdened; elderly nonfamilies renters experience cost burden at a rate of nearly four times that of elderly families. As Baby Boomers age and elderly families transition into elderly nonfamilies, the number of cost-burdened elderly nonfamilies is expected to increase. * The non-elderly/nonfamily renters earning 30% of AMI or less represent the most cost-burdened households type (in number) across owners and renters with 7,265 total cost-burdened households and 5,570 severely cost-burdened. It is unknown what percent of these households are college students living in off-campus apartments. * There has been a significant decrease between the reporting periods of small family and nonelderly, nonfamily household types owning their housing unit particularly at the 50% – 80% of AMI income level, a 46% and 33% decrease respectively. The percent of cost-burdened households at those income levels has decreased from 56% to 47% for small families and from 64% to 51% for nonelderly, nonfamily households, increasing the total cost-burdened households at that income level. * Large families, small families, and nonelderly/nonfamilies renter households have increased at the extremely low-income categories. The number of total cost-burdened households in these cohorts have increased by 4,786 households (20%). * The number of large families in rental housing is increasing as is the number of cost-burdened households within that household type. <
> Chart 32: Cost Burden by Household Type (Renter) Income ≤ 30% AMI <
> Chart 33: Cost Burden by Household Type (Renter) Income >30% - ≤50% AMI Chart 34: Cost Burden by Household Type (Renter) Income >50% -≤80% AMI <
> Chart 36: Cost Burden by Household Type (Owner) Income <30% - ≤50% AMI <
> Chart 35: Cost Burden by Household Type (Owner) Income ≤30% AMI <
> Chart 37: Cost Burden by Household Type (Owner) Income <50% - ≤80% AMI <
> ### Chart 38: Cost Burden by Household Type (Owner) Income >80% AMI <
> ### Chart 39: Cost Burden by Household Type (Owner) All <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | Not Cost-burdened (2005-2009) | Not Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | | Cost-burdened (2005-2009) | Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | | Severely Cost-burdened (2005-2009) | Severely Cost-burdened (2010-2014) | Source: CHAS, 2005-2009 and CHAS, 2010-2014 (Table 7) Definitions: | | | | :--- | :--- | | Elderly family: Two persons, with either or both age 62 or over | Small family: Two persons, neither person 62 years or over, or 3 or 4 persons | | Elderly nonfamily: Single householder or unrelated householders | Nonelderly, nonfamily: Single householder or unrelated householders | | Large family: Five or more persons | | # 4. Homelessness The City/HRA, in conjunction with Ramsey County and nonprofit partners, works to provide emergency shelter, temporary housing and permanent housing for those experiencing homelessness. Information on homelessness is maintained by Ramsey County. Each January, as a Federal Continuum of Care (COC), the County completes a HUD-mandated survey to quantify the number of people experiencing homelessness. This count is intended to capture the total number of persons experiencing homelessness on a single night, and is conducted during the last 10 days of every January. Ramsey County, with assistance from the Institute for Community Alliances, completed surveys for every emergency shelter and transitional housing program, regardless of funding source, for the night of January 26, 2017. At the same time, community and government partners surveyed as many unsheltered persons as feasible over a several-day period. The surveys of emergency shelters and transitional housing primarily reflect capacity for serving homeless, not necessarily the demand. Many shelters regularly meet or even exceed capacity, which can be short of the total need. ## Total Count * Not including doubled-up population (those without permanent housing staying with a series of friends or family), the total number of homeless persons increased 6.8% from January 2016 to January 2017 (1,346 to 1,438). * Since 2013 the total number of homeless persons counted has remained nearly the same, however, there has been an increase in the number of total homeless households since 2014. This indicates an increase in the proportion of smaller households or singles experiencing homelessness over that time. ### Chart 40: Persons in Point-in-Time Count, 2014-2017 <
> ■ Transitional Housing ■ Emergency Housing ■ Unsheltered # Age * Of the 784 in emergency shelters in 2017, 69% were age 25 and older and one-fifth (22%) were children under 18 years of age. * The number of homeless persons over age 24 increased from 2016-2017. In emergency shelters, the number went from 500 to 538; those unsheltered from 112 to 139, and those in transitional housing from 169 to 209. # Unsheltered/Doubled Up * The unsheltered count increased by 22% from 2016 to 2017 (136 to 166 persons), due to more participation, training, and identification of locations where homeless frequently congregate, such as food shelves, public transit, and skyways. Of the unsheltered, 4% were children and 84% were over age 24. * Ramsey County’s first survey of doubled-up populations reached 525 persons. Of those, 239 (46%) were under age 18 and 87 (17%) were from the ages 18 – 24; however, the full-extent of doubled-up homeless is likely larger, given the limitations of surveying the entire county over a few days of the year. <
> Chart 41: Ramsey County Homeless Person by Age Total Homeless Persons: 1,963 ■Under 18 ■18 to 24 ■Over 24 Race * African Americans were 48% of total emergency shelter population, 64% of transitional housing population, and 37% of the unsheltered population. Whites were about 35% of emergency shelter population and 24% of transitional housing population. * In contrast, government projections estimate that, in 2016, African Americans were 12% of the county's total population and whites 69%. In other words, African Americans are four times as predominant in emergency shelters compared to the general population. Sheltered Count (emergency shelter/transitional housing) * Unlike the time-limited emergency shelter facilities, transitional housing programs provide housing and support services for homeless persons for up to two years. From 2014 to 2016 the county experienced a decline from 700 to 449 persons in temporary programs, with a slight increase to 488 in 2017. * Similar to emergency shelter, the counts primarily measure capacity and reflect policy changes in how many can be sheltered. The counts also rise or fall due to some projects changing their service type year-to-year, such as from emergency shelter into transitional housing or converting from transitional housing to more permanent housing like rapid re-housing. Chart 42: Homeless Persons by Race and Ethnicity <
> # Identification of Housing Need The City of Saint Paul has identified the following housing needs. They are not presented in any order of priority. * maintenance and upkeep of aging housing infrastructure; * homeownership opportunities; * affordable rental housing; * decrease homelessness; * market-rate housing development; and * affirmatively further fair housing. # On-going Maintenance and Upkeep of Aging Housing Infrastructure As described in the previous housing inventory, Saint Paul has an aging housing stock, with nearly 50% of the units being built prior to 1940 and 90% built prior to 1980. Maintaining this housing infrastructure is critical to the long-term health and stability of Saint Paul’s neighborhoods. The City/HRA will need to continue its four-pronged approach to maintenance and upkeep, which includes: * monitoring and tracking housing conditions for both owner and rental housing through the Truth in Sale in Housing and Certificate of Occupancy Program.; * directing its loan programs to property owners; * referring property owners to other potential resources; and * enforcing property maintenance and other health and safety codes. # Homeownership Opportunities Homeownership in Saint Paul has been declining since 2000. This trend accelerated during the housing crisis, when many single-family homes converted to rental properties due to the inability to sell them; many of these properties remain rentals today. In addition, younger potential buyers are living in rental units longer than previous generations due to a combination of factors, such as lower real wages, existing debt burden and lifestyle choice. The production of new multi-family ownership housing has been constrained, in part, because of changes to construction liability requirements in State law. While development of multi-family rental rebounds, new development of multi-family ownership continues to lag. Beyond the overall decrease in homeownership, a significant disparity exists in who owns homes in Saint Paul. While white households constitute 67% of all households in the city, they comprise 82% of home-owning households. The City/ HRA will need to expand its efforts to foster homeownership in historically underserved communities. These efforts will need to include addressing challenges in access to capital for the City’s cultural communities. Support of homeownership is one way in which the City and HRA can contribute to building community wealth within Saint Paul. Through strategic efforts, the City wants to create a supportive environment for homeownership for those who would like to invest where they live. # Affordable Rental Housing Renter cost burden is expanding in the city, and preservation and development of affordable rental housing continues to be a critical housing need. In 2000, approximately 40% of renter households (Census 2000) experienced cost burden, which has grown to 51% by the most recent estimates (ACS 5-year Estimates, 2012-2016) of which just over half are severely cost burdened. This is an increase of over 7,500 households over the 16-year period. Cost burden is not equally distributed within the renter household population with those households at the lowest income levels experiencing it most acutely. ### Figure H-9: Cost-burdened Households | Household Income | >30% | >50% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ≤30% AMI | 77% | 58% | | >30%-≤50% AMI | 66% | 15% | | >50%-≤80% AMI | 25% | 3% | | >80%-≤100% AMI | 7% | 0% | | >100% | 2% | 0% | ACS 5-year estimates, 2011-2014 Contributing to this excessive cost burden for the City’s extremely low-income households is the significant gap between the number of units affordable to these households, with 22,329 renter households and only 11,560 units affordable to households earning 30% of AMI or less. This gap is compounded by the fact that approximately 25% of those units affordable to these households are rented by households earning more than 30% of AMI (CHAS, 2010-2014). The City of Saint Paul and Saint Paul HRA have a long history of preservation and production of affordable housing throughout the city. The City/HRA will continue this work, but their ability to do so is limited by the monetary resources available. Without additional resources available for this important work, the preservation and production of affordable units will continue to lag behind the need. The greatest need for affordable housing is for renter households earning 30% or less of AMI. However, the largest program that supports affordable housing, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, (LIHTC) leaves deep financial gaps for these projects, as this tool is targeted to units affordable to households at 50% and 60% of AMI. To make real progress towards reducing this need, the City, Saint Paul HRA, other governmental entities and the housing advocacy community must come together to provide additional resources, lobby the State and Federal governments for additional resources to help offset housing costs for extremely low-income households, and find innovative solutions to providing affordable housing for the working poor. ## Decrease Homelessness Reducing the number of people and families experiencing homelessness, and linking them to transitional and permanent housing resources is a critical issue for the City/HRA. The City/HRA cannot do this work on its own, but can partner with Ramsey County and social service and affordable housing providers to: * reduce housing insecurity for those households that may have difficulty in renting apartments due to credit history, past evictions, and criminal convictions; * provide overnight sheltering for those experiencing homelessness; * build projects with ongoing services, such as path out of homelessness; * support projects for underserved populations; and * explore additional funding options. ## New Market-Rate Housing Development The Metropolitan Council projects over 26,000 new households in Saint Paul by 2040. Vacancy rates are already exceptionally low due to population dynamics and renewed interest in city living. Through this planning process, the City has identified areas where increased density is appropriate and set policy to expand housing choice within existing neighborhoods. Work to advance this issue is not focused on funding market-rate projects (beyond support of pass-through grants), but rather creating a planning and regulatory framework that supports the private market constructing new units to meet existing and future housing demand. ## Affirmatively Further Fair Housing The City has an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. As discussed in the 2017 Addendum to the 2014 Analysis of Impediments, this means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities (i.e. free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics). Specifically, this means actions that: * address disparities in housing need and access to opportunity; * replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns; * improve access to opportunity in areas of concentrated poverty where a majority of residents are people of color; and * foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. Many actions the City/HRA take impact elements of fair housing both indirectly, such as determining where City/HRA dollars are invested in infrastructure and parks, or directly, such as those that are housing related. As such, in 2017, the HRA initiated an interdepartmental Fair Housing Working Group to develop a multi-faceted strategic plan that identifies short- and long-term steps to reduce impediments to fair housing in Saint Paul. # Appendix B ## Housing Need Implementation Strategy The following tables identify City and HRA actions to address the City’s housing need, including (not in priority order): * ongoing maintenance and upkeep of aging housing stock; * homeownership opportunities; * affordable rental housing; * decrease homelessness; * new market-rate housing development; and * affirmatively furthering fair housing. City actions are broken out into the following categories by direct City/HRA actions. **Financial Resources/Strategy:** Actions the City/HRA may undertake that bring financial capital to an individual, project, or program. **Regulations/Agreements/Plans:** Regulations, agreements, or plans that support or could better support the identified need. **Strategic Partnerships:** Work done in collaboration with external entities. **Education/Information:** Educational activities or information dissemination. The strategy provides further guidance on the programs, tools, existing and potential partnerships and educational materials; and identifies City/HRA funding and potential outside funding resources. Need: Ongoing Maintenance and Upkeep of Aging Housing Stock * Provide financial programs for and refer residents to other resources to assist low-to-moderate income households with maintenance and upkeep. * Monitor housing conditions. * Ensure health and safety in ownership and rental housing. * Connect residents to city resources and information on resources. | Financial Resources/Strategy | Regulations/Agreements/Plans | Strategic Partnerships | Education/Information | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Provide City loans to finance housing improvements, upkeep, and emergency maintenance of owner-occupied structures. | • Continue to ensure minimum health and safety in rental housing under the Fire Certificate of Occupancy Program. | • Continue to work with Ramsey County Public Health on lead paint abatement. | • Maintain up-to-date information on the City's website on City loan resources. | | • Provide City loans to finance improvements to non-owner-occupied small-scale rental properties. | • Continue to require code inspections for-sale properties under the Truth-in-Sale of Housing program. | • Refer homeowners to Minnesota Homeownership Center. | • Supply information to non-code compliant properties on City loan programs with a violation letter. | | • Investigate ways to develop culturally-appropriate lending products for City housing improvement loans. | • Continue to enforce property maintenance codes | • Refer owners of historic resources to organizations that can help them with potential State and Federal resources | • Continue to make Truth-in-Sale of Housing reports available on the City's website. | | • Encourage nonprofits and neighborhood organizations to apply for housing fix up grants through Neighborhood STAR and the CIP process. | | | • Continue to maintain access to Fire Certificate of Occupancy information on the City's website. | | **City Funding Programs** | **Plans/Official Controls/Programs** | **Existing and Potential Partners** | **Materials** | | • Citywide Deferred Rehabilitation Loan | • Fire Certificate of Occupancy | • Minnesota Housing | • Provide information in consistent format. | | • Citywide Low-Interest Rehabilitation Loan | • Truth-in-Sale of Housing | • Ramsey County | • Develop handout/brochure with information and contact numbers. | | • Emergency Loan Fund | | • Historic Saint Paul | | | • Rental Rehab Program | | • Preserve Frogtown | | | Potential City Funding Sources: | Potential Outside Funding Sources | | :--- | :--- | | CDBG
HRA resources
Loan Returns
Sales Tax Revitalization Fund (STAR) | Neighborhood loan programs
Bank financing | Need: Homeownership Opportunities * Increase neighborhood stability and community wealth through homeownership. * Foster home ownership in historically underserved communities. * Improve access to affordable homeownership for low- to moderate-income households (target income levels: ≤80% of AMI). | Financial Resources/Strategy | Regulations/Agreements/Plans | Strategic Partnerships | Education/Information | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Facilitate access to capital for all residents by working with the lender community and advocating for culturally appropriate mortgage products. | • Decrease land costs for new ownership development by considering the following changes to the Zoning Code: | • Refer potential buyers to the Minnesota Homeownership Center and local nonprofit resources. | • Support homebuyer pre- and post-purchase counseling. | | • Continue to sell existing HRA-owned properties and provide gap financing for affordable ownership housing. | • Reduction of minimum lot size and per unit area requirements. | • Encourage developers to build a range of ownership housing types, including single-family, townhomes, and condominiums. | • Continue to provide foreclosure counseling to homeowners. | | • Support grant applications to offset extraordinary costs (e.g. environmental cleanup, enhanced design) for ownership housing. | • Increase ability to build small units or cluster developments. | | • Raise awareness within buyer community and developers of shared-equity models (land trusts and housing cooperatives) that can help to make ownership more affordable. | | | • Minimum lot area requirements for one-family dwellings in residential districts. | | • Support translation of homeownership education materials for non-English speakers. | | | | | • Raise awareness that existing small “lots of record” are buildable lots. | | **City Funding Programs** | **Plans/Official Controls/Programs** | **Existing and Potential Partners** | **Materials** | | • Inspiring Communities | • Zoning Code | • Minnesota Housing | • Provide links to translated homeownership materials on City website. | | | | • Minnesota Home Ownership Center | • Develop a small lot development information sheet. | | | | • Daytons’ Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services | | | | | • Neighborhood Development Alliance | | | | | • NeighborWorks Home Partners | | | | | • Fair Housing Implementation Council | | | | | • Habitat for Humanity | | | | | • Rondo Community Land Trust | | | | | • Twin Cities Land Trust | | | Potential City Funding Sources: | Potential Outside Funding Sources | | :--- | :--- | | CDBG | Minnesota Housing Consolidated RFP | | HRA resources | DEED, Metropolitan Council, and Ramsey County Brownfields Grants | | HOME | Metropolitan Council LCDA/LCDA-TOD grants | | Land write down | | | Sales Tax Revitalization fund | | # Need: Affordable Rental Housing (1 of 2) * Preserve project-based Section 8, income-restricted and naturally occurring affordable housing (target incomes: ≤60% of AMI). * Develop new affordable housing units (target incomes: ≤60% of AMI). * Advocate for increased Federal, State and local funding for affordable housing (target incomes: ≤60% of AMI, with focus on ≤30% of AMI). | Financial Resources/Strategy | Regulations/Agreements/Plans | Strategic Partnerships | Education/Information | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Modify, as needed, the Qualified Allocation Plan to respond to changing affordability needs within Saint Paul. | • Guide land at sufficient densities to accommodate the City’s allocation of the regional affordable housing need. (See Future Land Use Map in this document.) | • Work with Saint Paul Public Housing and affordable housing providers to maintain affordability in scattered site housing if sold. | • Provide information on Housing Choice Vouchers in the City’s Landlord 101 program. | | • Explore ways to preserve naturally-occurring affordable housing. | • Require all neighborhood, station area and small area plans to include goals, policies and/or recommendations as to how affordable housing will be accommodated in the study area. | • Work with HUD, Minnesota Housing and affordable housing providers to preserve project-based Section 8 units at risk of non-renewal or being transferred out of Saint Paul. | • Provide clear expectations to district councils and planning committees on affordable housing planning requirement; update Area Plan Guidelines. | | • Finance building improvements to maintain affordable real estate assets. | • Proactively work with affordable housing owners to extend affordability terms when nearing end of obligation. | • Continue participation in Interagency Stabilization Group. | • Raise awareness in the affordable housing development community about the City’s affordable housing production policy (10-10-10). | | • Continue to support LIHTC project development throughout the city. | • Encourage extensions of project-based Section 8 terms. | • Participate in the Fair Housing Implementation Council. | • Track affordability term expiration of project-based Section 8 and income-restricted units. | | • Support grant applications to offset extraordinary costs (e.g. environmental cleanup, enhanced design) for affordable housing. | • Consider requiring acceptance of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers in all projects with City/HRA assistance, including market-rate projects. | | • Report annual affordable rental housing preservation and production, including progress on the 10-10-10 policy, using the Livable Communities Program goal period as the policy’s time period. | | • Support increased Federal funding for the Section 8 program and development programs. | • Negotiate provision of units affordable at lower income levels through the funding request to meet the City’s/HRA’s 10-10-10 affordability policy. | | | | • Seek State funding for supportive and extremely-low income housing. | | | | | • Explore ways to get deeper affordability for extremely low-income households that may not need support services. | | | | Need: Affordable Rental Housing (2 of 2) | Financial Resources/Strategy | Regulations/Agreements/Plans | Strategic Partnerships | Education/Information | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | • Analyze market conditions to determine if regulatory tools can support the development of affordable housing.
• Reduce land costs for development of affordable rental housing by considering Zoning Code amendments that reduce or eliminate minimum lot area per unit requirements in residential districts. | | | | **City Funding Programs** | **Plans/Official Controls/Programs** | **Existing and Potential Partners** | **Materials** | | • 9% Tax Credit RFP
• Rental Rehab Loan Program | • Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
• Neighborhood, station area, and small area plans
• Zoning code
• Development agreements | • Saint Paul Public Housing
• Minnesota Housing
• Other public housing providers
• Affordable housing providers
• Affordable housing advocates
• HUD
• MN Department of Employment and Economic Development
• Metropolitan Council
• District Councils
• Land Trusts
• LISC
• Family Housing Fund | • Updated Area Plan Guidelines
• Yearly affordable housing production report | | Potential City Funding Sources: | Potential Outside Funding Sources | | :--- | :--- | | 9% LIHTC
4% LIHTC and bonds
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
HOME
CDBG
HRA resources
Neighborhood STAR
Tax Increment Financing
Land write down | Super RFP – Minnesota Housing and Metropolitan Council
DEED and Metropolitan Council Brownfields Grants
Metropolitan Council LCDA/LCDA-TOD grants | # Need: Decrease Homelessness * Reduce housing insecurity for households vulnerable to homelessness. * Provide overnight sheltering for those experiencing homelessness. * Construct projects with ongoing services (e.g. path out of homelessness). * Support projects for underserved populations. * Explore additional funding options. | Financial Resources/Strategy | Regulations/Agreements/Plans | Strategic Partnerships | Education/Information | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Lobby for additional State and Federal resources directed towards reducing homelessness. | • Develop and implement an Emergency Housing Plan to support tenants who are displaced due to non-code compliance. | • Support Saint Paul Public Housing Agency’s commitment to provide more project-based vouchers to supportive housing projects, if matched City/HRA, County and/or State resources. | • Advocate for use of best practices for tenant screening to reduce housing insecurity for those with low credit scores, past evictions or criminal convictions. | | • Encourage non-City funding sources to continue to provide resources for supportive and homeless housing. | • Study and complete legal analysis around tenant protections, such as advance notice of sale, right to counsel, just-cause evictions and condemnation assessment. | • Continue City/HRA involvement in the Saint Paul/Ramsey County Funders Council and the Heading Home Advisory Board. | • Work with Ramsey County Continuum of Care Governing Board to continually raise community awareness about issues around homelessness. | | • Create and capitalize an emergency repair fund to remedy rental property life-safety defects to prevent tenant displacement. | | • Participate with Ramsey County Committee regarding State-funded Family Homelessness Prevention Assistance Program. | | | | | • Participate on Minnesota Housing Stewardship Committee. | | | City Funding Programs | Plans/Official Controls/Programs | Existing and Potential Partners | Materials | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • HUD Emergency Solutions Grant | | • Saint Paul Public Housing Agency | • To be determined | | • 9% Tax Credit RFP | | • Minnesota Housing | | | • Emergency Repair Fund | | • Ramsey County | | | Potential City Funding Sources: | Potential Outside Funding Sources | | :--- | :--- | | 9% LIHTC | Ramsey County – Group Home/Supportive Services | | 4% LIHTC and bonds | State Infrastructure Bonds | | HOME | Philanthropic community | | CDBG | Metropolitan Council LCA program | | Tax Increment Financing | | | HRA resources | | | Neighborhood STAR | | | Land write down | | | Emergency Service Grant | | | Affordable Housing Trust Fund | | Need: New Market-Rate Housing Development * Development of new housing to meet current need and future housing growth projections. * Expanded housing choice for existing and future residents. | Financial Resources/ Strategy | Regulations/Agreements/Plans | Strategic Partnerships | Education/Information | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Support grant applications to offset extraordinary costs (e.g. environmental cleanup, enhanced design) for new housing. | • Guide land at sufficient densities to accommodate the City’s allocation of regional housing growth. (See Future Land Use Map in this document.)
• Require all neighborhood, station area, and small area plans to include goals, policies and/or recommendations to accommodate new housing in the study area.
• Ease regulatory requirements that unduly burden development of smaller units by considering amendments to:
  • Lot area per unit requirement for multi-family
  • Minimum dimensional requirements for one-family dwellings
• Expand opportunities for additional units in areas guided Urban Neighborhood by considering zoning amendments to permit duplexes, small multi-family and small house clusters in zoning districts that exclusively permit one-family dwelling types. | • Work with Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Aging and other stakeholders to identify ways to expand housing choice to promote aging in community. | • Raise awareness in the housing development community around alternative housing types, such as intentional communities and co-housing.
• Review Minneapolis’ Developer 101 course outcomes and evaluate need for similar training in Saint Paul
• Continue to monitor and report housing trends. | | **City Funding Programs** | **Plans/Official Controls/Programs** | **Existing and Potential Partners** | **Materials** | | | • Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
• Neighborhood, station area, and small area plans.
• Zoning code | • Housing developers
• District Councils
• Advisory Committee on Aging | • MarketWatch | | **Potential City Funding Sources:** | | | **Potential Outside Funding Sources** | | City/HRA funds on a case-by-case basis. | | | DEED, Metropolitan Council Brownfields Grants Metropolitan Council LCDA/LCDA-TOD grants | # Need: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing * Meet Federal requirements. * Address relevant disparities identified in the Analysis of Impediments. | Financial Resources/Strategy | Regulations/Agreements/Plans | Strategic Partnerships | Education/Information | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Continue use of the Project and Program Evaluation Tool when allocating City/HRA resources for housing projects. | • Work to address demonstrated disparities identified in the Addendum to the Analysis of Impediments by implementing recommendations of that Fair Housing Working Group’s strategic plan. | • Continue to participate in the Fair Housing Implementation Council to coordinate efforts to affirmatively further fair housing throughout the metropolitan area housing market. | • Expand the Fair Housing Training program for property managers and landlords as part of the City’s Landlord 101 program. | | | | | • Maintain and update the citywide Fair Housing webpage. | | | | | • Develop a Fair Housing dashboard to track and report outcomes. | | City Funding Programs | Plans/Official Controls/Programs | Existing and Potential Partners | Materials | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | • Fair Housing Strategic Plan | • Fair Housing Implementation Council | • City’s Fair Housing web page | | | | | • Fair Housing dash board | | Potential City Funding Sources: | Potential Outside Funding Sources | | :--- | :--- | | • City levy | | | • HRA levy | | | • CDBG | | # Appendix C ## Housing Implementation Toolkit The following table provides an overview of the housing implementation tools available to the City of Saint Paul. | Type of Tool | Specific Tool | | :--- | :--- | | City Financial Resources

Supported Uses:
• Production of affordable rental housing
• Preservation of affordable rental housing, including income-restricted and NOAH
• Production and preservation of affordable ownership housing
• Housing for the homeless
• Home maintenance and improvement programs | Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Resources: HRA resources include levied funds and property sale proceeds. These resources can be used for specific development projects, rehabilitation and maintenance programs, and other housing opportunities as determined by the HRA Board in accord with City goals and polices.

Tax Increment Financing: Cities may elect to create a tax increment financing (TIF) district as a means of supporting affordable housing and redevelopment projects. Under TIF, the City allocates future property tax gains to fund current development. By legislative definition, TIF created specifically for housing projects must provide affordability to those at 60% of AMI or less for rental projects and 115% of AMI for owner-occupied housing projects, while other types of districts do not have this requirement TIF is a tool that may be considered for gap financing of housing projects that would not occur “but for” this type of assistance.

Tax Abatement: Tax abatement is a financing tool that reduces taxes or tax increases for owners of specific properties. Local governments offer the tax reduction to provide a financial incentive for a public benefit, such as creation of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. The City/HRA has not used tax abatement for affordable housing projects in the past.

9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): The LIHTC program is administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) where tax credits are granted for eligible costs over a period of ten years. Often these tax credits are syndicated to be used as equity in the project to leverage additional financial resources. Annually the IRS allocates tax credits to each of the states based on population. The states are then responsible for distributing the tax credits to eligible projects. In Minnesota, the state sub-allocates a portion of its allotment of tax credits to five other entities, one of which is the Saint Paul HRA. Under federal law, a project must either provide 20% of the units to households earning 50% of AMI or less or 40% of the units must be affordable to households earning 60% of AMI or less to be eligible for a tax credit award for a minimum term of 15 years; A tax credit allocator must develop a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) detailing selection criteria The HRA will continue to award affordable housing projects this resource based on the objectives set forward in its QAP.

4% LIHTC/Conduit Revenue Bonds: HRAs can issue tax-exempt housing revenue bonds that help to finance affordable housing development, such as new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation or refinancing. In addition to the tax credit requirements described above, bond-financed projects support affordable housing in which at least 20% of the units meet HUD’s fair market rents, which reflect Section 8 HCVs rent limits. The City/HRA considers issuing bonds for housing developments through an application process.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The City receives an annual allocation of CDGB from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Uses of the funds need to meet one of three national objectives, which include benefit to low- and moderate-income persons; aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and meet a need having a particular urgency. Housing-related eligible uses include real property acquisition, disposition of property acquired with CDBG funds, clearance, public services, relocation, loss of rental income, privately owned utilities, rehabilitation, and construction (only allowed with the participation of a community based development organization), and code enforcement. Saint Paul has not identified code enforcement and loss of rental income as uses of these funds in its most recent Consolidated Plan, which sets forth how the City intends to use funds for a five-year period. The City of Saint Paul allocates these resources through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan process, and allows for community organizations to apply for these resources. Past uses for housing have included capitalizing neighborhood housing rehab programs, City rehab and emergency loan programs, and rehab of affordable housing. | | Type of Tool | Specific Tool | | :--- | :--- | | City Financial Resources (Continued) | HOME Investment Partnership: The City receives an annual allocation of HOME funds from HUD designed exclusively to create affordable housing for very low-income households earning 50% or less of AMI. | | | Land Write Down: The HRA owns properties throughout the city, and at times the HRA will consider writing down the price of these properties to support the development of affordable housing projects. | | | Inspiring Communities: This local program is designed to address the physical after effects of the foreclosure crisis. Funds are used for rehab or new construction of single-family and small-scale rental projects. | | | Emergency Shelter Grants: The City receives an allocation of Emergency Shelter Grants from HUD, which it re-grants to sheltering service providers. | | | Neighborhood STAR: The Neighborhood STAR Program awards loans and grants for capital improvement projects in Saint Paul Neighborhoods, and is funded with 50% of the City's half-cent sales tax proceeds. Eligible uses of these funds include the capitalization of housing fix-up programs. | | | Housing Trust Fund: A housing trust fund is a local set-aside of City/HRA resources to assist with the funding of housing-related issues through three key strategies production, preservation, and protection. The City will consider creating and capitalizing a housing trust fund to address housing needs through production of new affordable housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and protection by ensuring residents have access to safe, affordable homes. | | Partner Organization Financial Resources

Supported Uses:
• Property rehabilitation
• Affordable rental and ownership housing
• Housing for the homeless
• New market-rate housing | Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits and Minnesota Historic Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credit: These Federal and State financial tax credits are available to assist costs associated with the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures. The City encourages use of these resources by private developers to construct or preserve housing units. | | | Livable Communities Program: The City participates in the Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities program, which provides several grant opportunities for development projects, including those with housing elements. The City will continue to support applications to the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Tax Base Revitalization Account, and transit-oriented development funding for various types of housing development, including market-rate and affordable ownership and rental projects. | | | DEED Contamination and Cleanup/Redevelopment Grants: The City will continue to support applications to the DEED Contamination Cleanup and Investigation and/or Redevelopment grant programs for various types of housing development, including market-rate and affordable rental and ownership projects. | | | Minnesota Housing Consolidated Request for Proposal: This annual funding request from Minnesota Housing supports affordable housing developments across the region, and is very competitive. The City will continue to work with developers in coordination with Minnesota Housing to support RFP submissions for projects that will create new affordable units. | | | Other grants as available: The City will seek opportunities for other governmental and philanthropic grants to assist with the development of affordable housing. | | Type of Tool | Specific Tool | | :--- | :--- | | Direct Assistance Programs | Citywide Homeowner Rehab Program/MHFA Fix Up Loans: Assists low- and moderate-income homeowners with code issues, repairs, and emergencies, such as a broken furnace. | | Supported Uses: | Rental Rehabilitation Program: This City program provides financial assistance to owners of small-scale rental buildings (up to four units) with resources to remedy maintenance issues with the property. Rents can only increase by 3% per year and must remain below HUD fair market rents during the duration of the loan term. | | • Home maintenance/ rehabilitation | Foreclosure Counseling: Foreclosure counseling assists homeowners with loan modifications and other referrals to community partners for services such as financial counseling, bankruptcy and legal services. | | • Homeownership and foreclosure counseling | Referrals: The City refers homeowners and potential homeowners to the Minnesota Homeownership Center to help to connect to the appropriate set of resources to meet their needs. | | • Referrals | | | Regulatory Tools and Policy | Inclusionary Zoning: This tool supports the development of affordable housing units in either a regulatory (mandatory) or incentive-based methods (e.g. density bonus). The City will complete an analysis of market conditions that could support the development of affordable housing in Saint Paul using inclusionary zoning. | | Supported Uses: | Zoning Regulation Changes: The zoning code regulates the overall use and intensity of use of land. The City will consider amendments to the Zoning Code to allow for increased housing choice and potential reduction of costs through studies examining the definition of family, housing-related uses, zoning district standards, and rezoning of property. | | • Housing choice | Truth in Sale of Housing: The City will continue to require pre-sale inspections of housing units. | | • Reduction of housing cost | Certificate of Occupancy Program: The City will continue to require all non-owner occupied housing, excluding accessory dwelling units within the principal structure and owner-occupied duplexes, to be certificated through this program to ensure the health and safety of the City’s renter community. | | • Housing safety | 4D Property Tax Classification: The 4D low income rental housing property tax classification provides an approximate 40% reduction in property taxes for qualifying affordable units within a building. To qualify, a property must include Project-based Section 8, awarded LIHTC, and/or have rental restrictions at or below 60% of AMI placed on the units by a federal, state, or local unit of government that is recorded against the property. Property owners must apply to Minnesota Housing for certification to the local assessor that the property qualifies for the reduced rate. The City/HRA will implement a 4D pilot program to analyze whether this is an effective tool for preservation of naturally-occuring affordable housing (NOAH). | | Type of Tool | Specific Tool | | :--- | :--- | | Other

Supported Uses:
• Affordable rental and ownership housing
• Fair housing
• Education
• Housing Improvement Areas | Land Trusts: Land trusts provide permanent affordability for income-eligible households. Typically, a land trust is structured where a homeowner owns the building and the land trust leases the land to the homeowner. Households that make at or below 80% of AMI typically qualify for these homes. The City/HRA is interested assisting land trusts operating within the city to increase internal capacity to expand opportunity for affordable ownership opportunities.

Publicly-Subsidized Housing and Project-Based Rental Assistance: The City/HRA will continue to partner with Saint Paul Public Housing Authority to provide decent housing for Saint Paul’s senior, disabled and extremely low-income residents.

Fair Housing Policies: Beyond existing requirements from HUD that the City must affirmatively further fair housing as a recipient of HUD funds, the Fair Housing Working Group is an interdepartmental team that works to coordinate around and address fair housing related issues.

Participation in Housing-Related Organizations, Partnerships, and Initiatives: City staff or elected officials will consider increased involvement in partnerships, collaborations or programs that support furthering fair and affordable housing. Staying proactively involved in affordable housing discussions with other jurisdictions and agencies will allow Saint Paul to stay appraised of current practices and new opportunities.

Housing Improvement Areas are city-funded loans that enable condominium and townhome (ownership) associations to complete needed improvements to common areas of their development that they are otherwise unable to finance through association fund balances, commercial loans, or individual private owner loans. The City will consider use of the tool if the evolving housing needs of the city, at any time in the future, warrant prioritization of financial resources for this type of housing. The City is planning to invest in targeted naturally occurring affordable housing and will continue to evaluate where the most pressing needs are for prioritization of NOAH preservation and the best financing tools to meet the evolving needs as they emerge. | --- ## Open Space — 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Chapter - Source: https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/PR_Chapter_FinalAdopted_110920.pdf - Pages: 17 - Covers: open_space <
> # PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE # Introduction The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Chapter sets broad policy to create an equitable, safe, connected and sustainable park system for all users. The Saint Paul Parks and Recreation system consistently ranks as one of the best in the nation, with more than 179 city-managed parks and open spaces, 25 recreation centers, more than 100 miles of trails, aquatic facilities, municipal golf courses, and the Como Park Zoo and Conservatory. It comprises a large, diverse and vibrant network of people, spaces and facilities that is recognized by Saint Paul residents as one of the city’s great shared assets. Together, the system components form a vital connective tissue, facilitating a sense of community, and fostering stewardship of nature and community spaces. Park facilities and programs improve the quality of life for all residents and visitors. Beautiful landscapes and facilities for recreation foster public health by promoting mental and social well-being, and providing opportunities for physical fitness. Community centers and parks serve an important role for the city’s youth by providing safe and healthy places and activities. Parks connect us to the Mississippi River and lakes by providing access and spaces to enjoy them. Great public spaces are an important component of sustainable economic development, drawing and retaining residents, increasing nearby property values and attracting businesses. Changes in demographics, technology and development are constant. The City will need to be vigilant to ensure that the park system responds to changing needs, challenges and opportunities, and that a person’s access to the benefits provided by our world-class parks is not pre-determined by race, ethnicity, age, income or ability. The following goals guide the Parks, Recreation and Open Space chapter: 1. Equitable allocation of programs, resources and amenities. 2. People, programming and spaces responsive to changing needs. 3. Environmental and economic sustainability. 4. A healthy network of community partnerships. 5. Strong and accessible connections. Goal 1: Equitable allocation of programs, resources and amenities. Policy PR-1. Ensure equitable access to Parks and Recreation programs, resources and amenities. Policy PR-2. Reduce barriers to Parks and Recreation facilities and programming, including those caused by financial, physical, language and perception issues. Policy PR-3. Engage diverse community groups and all potentially impacted stakeholders early in setting balanced priorities for park-related matters. Policy PR-4. Prioritize investment to ensure that residents have access to a park within a 10-minute walk. Policy PR-5. Prioritize investment in physical assets of community centers, play areas, pools, and other amenities to ensure that common minimum standards are met. Policy PR-6. Use mobile recreation to fill park or recreation service gaps, enhance events, and provide quality recreation at neighborhood and community parks. Policy PR-7. Foster opportunities for community-building and personal connections through Community Center facility use and programming. Policy PR-8. Ensure that communications are up-to-date, understandable and engaging. ## PERCEPTIONS OF “PARK” The term “park” generally conjures up the image of a manicured landscape with amenities that include lawns, picnic benches, formal trails, perennial gardens, etc. These tend to be the most heavily used places in our public lands. However, natural and naturalized areas are significant components of our system of public recreational space in the city. Such landscapes provide important opportunities to experience nature, understand the natural world around us, and promote the urgency to care for it. White people, though, are significantly more likely to explore those parts of our park system than are African Americans, African Immigrants, Asian Americans, Asian immigrants and Hispanic/Latino/Latina people (Kaplan & Talbot, 1988; Ozguner, 2011). As a city, we are obligated to ensure that everyone has access to and feels welcome within our public lands. We have chosen to add the phrase “Open Space” to the chapter title to promote an understanding that the entire spectrum of park types is open to all members of the Saint Paul community. As the stewards of our system of open spaces, we need to continually consider ways to ensure that everyone feels welcome and everyone has an opportunity to explore the greater natural environment for improved collective well-being. <
> # THE GRAND ROUND The Saint Paul Grand Round was conceived of in 1872 by landscape architect H.W.S. Cleveland. He envisioned a park system connecting all parts of Saint Paul with expansive boulevards and luxurious greenery that would serve cyclists and pedestrians. Although the Grand Round was conceived in the late 19th Century, it was only partially realized in the decades that followed. In the early 2000s, a focus on completing the system was renewed. This effort was supported by community interest and prioritized through the adoption of planning documents, including the Comprehensive Plan. More than 140 years after it was initially conceived, the Grand Round is finally close to being realized as a unifying recreation, wildlife corridor and transportation asset for the entire city. <
> *** Goal 2: People, programming and spaces responsive to changing needs. Policy PR-9. Use customer and resident feedback on needs, satisfaction and trends to improve park experience, advance equity and bring in new users. Policy PR-10. Embrace and integrate emerging cultural and recreation trends, particularly those that meet the recreational needs of youth, underserved populations and emerging resident groups. Policy PR-11. Strengthen the cultural competency of Parks and Recreation staff. Policy PR-12. Ensure Parks and Recreation staff reflect the demographic diversity of a dynamic city to better inform decisions regarding operations and facilities. Policy PR-13. Account for seasonality and climate resiliency in the design, maintenance and programming of Parks and Recreation assets to maximize activity throughout the year. Policy PR-14. Support volunteer engagement and participation to enhance stewardship, programming, social cohesion and ownership. Policy PR-15. Innovate in park design and maintenance, while making use of best practices. Policy PR-16. Improve safety in existing and future parks through design, maintenance and programming. **Policy PR-17.** Support innovative and sustainable transportation options that enhance access to and use of Parks and Recreation facilities, such as electric vehicles, bike share and ride share. **Policy PR-18.** Ensure that investment in City parks accounts for planned increases in development density through tools such as parkland dedication. ## Goal 3. Environmental and economic sustainability. **Policy PR-19.** Improve the environmental sustainability and resiliency of parks through strategies such as shared, stacked-function green infrastructure; best management practices in stormwater management; increased tree canopy; increased plant diversity and pollinator-friendly plantings. **Policy PR-20.** Closely monitor invasive species on park property and respond to threats. **Policy PR-21.** Ensure that programming and facilities support public health and personal improvement efforts, such as education, job training, and fitness and nutrition programs. **Policy PR-22.** Model sustainable practices in park construction and operations when possible. **Policy PR-23.** Perform routine and preventative maintenance on park assets to protect them and maximize the service life of structures and natural resources. **Policy PR-24.** Develop publicly-accessible shared-use facilities as a first option when contemplating new or replacement indoor recreation facilities. **Policy PR-25.** Strive to make programming financially self-sustaining. **Policy PR-26.** Use data-driven evaluation of park assets to develop a maintenance and replacement schedule, and plan for future budgetary needs. **Policy PR-27.** Rate future building investments as they are presently but with additional weight given to cost benefit analyses and return on investment principles. **Policy PR-28.** Promote the ecological function of parkland and open space, while balancing it against nature-based recreation and other public uses. ## Goal 4: A healthy network of community partnerships. **Policy PR-29.** Collaborate with other public and private entities to maximize use and create operational efficiencies of existing facilities and programming when there is a net benefit to the public. **Policy PR-30.** Seek out partnerships with private entities, such as Como Friends, to finance capital and maintenance costs of Parks and Recreation facilities without compromising good design solutions, reducing public access or over-commercializing the public realm. **Policy PR-31.** Encourage and support private landowners and developers to create and maintain privately-owned public space (POPS) and green infrastructure, especially as land use intensity and activity levels increase. **Policy PR-32.** Support community gardens and private landscape beautification efforts where physically and financially feasible. <
> ### “NO NET LOSS” POLICY Parkland in Saint Paul is protected for future park users through the City’s “no net loss” policy. The policy is a part of Saint Paul’s City Charter and reads in part, “Lands which may have been heretofore acquired by any means or which may hereafter be acquired by any means for park purposes shall not be diverted to other uses or disposed of by the city...” Any diversion or disposal is reviewed by both the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. When the City Council decides that diversion or disposal of parkland is in the public interest, additional parklands must be acquired to replace the lands that are diverted, preferably within the same District Council area and of a similar nature to the diverted parkland. (City Charter Section 13.01.1) <
> Poilcy PR-33. Encourage business partnerships that provide value-added services to park users, cover city costs, and generate revenue to enhance and expand programming. Policy PR-34. Coordinate with Saint Paul Public Schools to reduce redundancies, and become more efficient in maintaining physical plants and managing fields. ### Goal 5: Strong and accessible connections. Policy PR-35. Prioritize safety and equity when filling gaps in the trail and bikeway system to ensure seamless connections throughout the city for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Policy PR-36. Integrate parkways and trails with the city’s broader transportation network to provide convenient and safe access to the park system. Policy PR-37. Pursue strategic acquisitions to fill existing gaps and address changing needs in the parks system. Policy PR-38. Improve and encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between park facilities and other significant destinations, such as lakes and rivers, schools, transit facilities and Neighborhood Nodes. Policy PR-39. Emphasize safety, convenience and comfort when designing new trails or rebuilding those that already exist. Policy PR-40. Provide interpretive elements to educate users about unique aspects of the park system. Policy PR-41. Provide consistent wayfinding signage in each project or park so that it is recognizable as part of the broader City system. Policy PR-42. Involve staff from the Department of Parks and Recreation from the beginning of discussions regarding large-scale land redevelopment sites. Policy PR-43. Address physical park encroachments that impair use through effective parkland management and protection. Policy PR-44. Support facility improvements that better connect neighborhoods to the Mississippi River. # Great River Passage Master Plan In 2013, the City of Saint Paul adopted the Great River Passage Master Plan – a comprehensive framework for creating vibrancy in the city’s 3,500 acres of parkland along the river. The Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Department is now implementing the next phase of the Great River Passage – a bold initiative to steward and tap into the potential of the 26 miles of riverfront in Saint Paul. The recently-created Great River Passage Conservancy, an independent 501(c)3 nonprofit, advocates for projects and guides private fundraising efforts for projects that create places and activities to strengthen existing connections and create new ones along the Mississippi River. <
> <
> <
> # Appendix A Map P-1: Regional Parks and Trails ............................... 119 Map P-2: Existing and Proposed Local Parks................ 120 Map P-3: Regional Trail Search Corridors ...................... 121 # Appendix B Park and Trail Inventory................................................ 122 Notes: These appendices provide supporting content for parks and recreation-related policies and satisfy associated Metropolitan Council requirements. 1. ACP50 data for all from Metropolitan Council via MN Geospatial Commons, from annual release (2/5/2018). Other data as noted. 2. The City of Saint Paul is in the process of redesigning its Capital Improvement Budget Process. An improvement plan from Parks and Recreation will be developed once the new process is in place and will be shared with the Metropolitan Council at that time. 3. Local trails not associated with regional system are not included in these maps or descriptions. For more complete information on the trail system in Saint Paul, please see Map T-3, Bikeways or the Saint Paul Bicycle Plan. Map P-1: Regional Parks and Trails <
> **Regional Parks and Trails** — Existing Regional Trail …… Planned Regional Trail Regional Parks Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Non-Regional Parks Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) Source: Saint Paul Parks (2017), Metropolitan Council (2017) Map P-2: Existing and Proposed Local Parks <
> **Park Space by Ownership** * Saint Paul * Ramsey County * Adjacent City Governments * State of Minnesota * Regional Parks * Planned Park Space Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) and Mississippi National River Recreation Area (MNRRA) Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) **Community Facilities** * Community Center * Recreation Center * Service Partner * Rec Center * Teen Center Source: Saint Paul Parks (2017), Metropolitan Council (2017) Map P-3: Regional Trail Search Corridors <
> **Parks, Trails, and Search Corridors** | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ————— | Existing Regional Trail | | Regional Parks | | ……………… | Planned Regional Trail | | Parkways & Other Parks | | ————— | Other Existing Trail | | Regional Trail Search Corridors | | ……………… | Other Planned Trail | | Proposed Regional Trail Search Corridors | | [ ] | Areas of Concentrated Poverty with over 50% people of color (ACP50) | | | # Regional Trail Search Corridors Regional trail corridors are intended to provide for recreational travel along linear pathways throughout the metropolitan area. To achieve regional trail status and be eligible for Regional Parks System funding, corridors must be part of a Metropolitan Council-approved master plan. Regional trail search corridors are proposed general trail alignments that have not yet been through that process. ## Regional Trail Search Corridor Descriptions ### 1. Mississippi - Como, Como - Phalen, Johnson Parkway These three search corridors constitute the northern segment of the Grand Round, a city-wide loop originally conceived of in 1872 by Horace W.S. Cleveland. They would provide the connections between the Mississippi Gorge, Como, Phalen, and Indian Mounds Regional Parks. ### 2. Point Douglas The Saint Paul segment of the Point Douglas search corridor extends from Indian Mounds Regional Park to the southern boundary of the city, generally paralleling Highway 61. The corridor will contain the main trail on the east side of the Mississippi River east of downtown, with the planned terminus being the Mississippi River Regional Trail in Washington County. ### 3. Summit Avenue The Summit Avenue search corridor extends from the Mississippi Gorge Regional Park in the west to the Samuel Morgan Regional Trail near downtown in the east. The search area includes two National Historic Districts and two City of Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Districts and parallels Grand Avenue, one of the City’s major commercial streets. ### 4. Lexington Avenue The Lexington Avenue search corridor runs north and south and connects the Rice Creek North Regional trail to Hidden Falls - Crosby Farm Regional Park, and passes through Como Regional Park. Significant commercial and residential areas are present along the corridor, including Energy Park, the Green Line, Central High School, Oxford Community Center, and Grand Avenue. ### 5. Mississippi Gorge - Samuel Morgan (Proposed) The Mississippi Gorge - Samuel Morgan corridor (also known as the Midtown Greenway Extension or the Saint Paul Greenway) parallels Interstate 94 and Ayd Mill Road, and would connect the northern reach of the Mississippi Gorge to the Samuel Morgan Regional Trail near Island Station. 6. Hidden Falls - Samuel Morgan (Proposed) The Hidden Falls - Samuel Morgan corridor (also known as the Canadian Pacific or Ford Spur) would connect Hidden Falls / Crosby Farm Regional Park to the Samuel Morgan Regional Trail near Island Station and link neighborhoods within the West 7th and Highland planning districts of Saint Paul. The Ford Spur was originally used to serve the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant (Ford Site), which closed in 2011. With the railway no longer in use and considering the physical barriers to the Samuel Morgan trail, there is potential for the Ford Spur to serve as a community and regional asset, providing opportunities for transportation, recreation, and economic development for the neighborhoods along the corridor. 7. Grand Round - Lake Elmo (Proposed) The Grand Round - Lake Elmo search corridor would connect the northeastern portion of the Grand Round near Phalen-Keller Regional Park to the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. # Appendix B ## Regional Park and Trail Inventory | Regional Park Name | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | | Como Regional Park, Zoo and Conservatory | 441.29 | | Hidden Falls - Crosby Farm Regional Park | 569.49 | | Battle Creek and Indian Mounds Regional Park | 624.39 | | Lilydale-Harriet Island & Cherokee Heights Regional Park | 609.42 | | Mississippi Gorge Regional Park | 87.63 | | Phalen-Keller Regional Park | 505.28 | | Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary | 26.95 | | Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary | 39.34 | | **TOTAL** | **2903.79** | | Regional Trail Name | Mileage | | :--- | :--- | | Bruce Vento Regional Trail | 6.53 | | Samuel H. Morgan Regional Trail | 11.24 | | Trout Brook Regional Trail | 0.72 | | **TOTAL** | **18.49** | # City-Owned Non-Regional Park Inventory Notes: Totals do not represent the entirety of City-owned and maintained park and open space land, such as parkways. Sites managed by partner organizations are indicated by an asterisk (*). | Park Name | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | | Alden Square Park | 0.59 | | Aldine Park | 1.76 | | Alice Park | 0.55 | | Ames Lake Park | 8.81 | | Arlington Arkwright Park | 20.44 | | Arlington Hills Community Center | 4.82 | | Baker Field* | 5.59 | | Battle Creek Rec. Center | 12.72 | | Bay Triangle | 0.56 | | Belvidere Park | 7.89 | | Bluff Park | 6.21 | | Bluff Preservation | 7.44 | | Bohland Triangle | 0.18 | | Boyd Park | 1.53 | | Burns Avenue Park | 3.97 | | Cambridge Triangle | 0.07 | | Capital View Park | 0.28 | | Carty Park | 3.62 | | Cathedral Hill Park | 1.42 | | Cato Park | 0.29 | | Cayuga Park | 1.7 | | Central Village Park | 4.14 | | CHS Field | 10.58 | | Clayland Park | 0.88 | | Cochran Park | 0.55 | | College Park | 5.19 | | Park Name | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | | Commonwealth Park | 1.05 | | Como Ave Horseshoe Courts | 0.77 | | Concord Park Field | 2.79 | | Conway Field Rec Center* | 21.63 | | Crocus Hill Terrace Park | 1.87 | | Crocus Triangle | 0.23 | | Cromwell Square | 0.15 | | Culture Park | 0.44 | | Dawson Park | 1.99 | | Dayton's Bluff Rec. Center | 5.99 | | Depot Tot Lot | 0.17 | | Desnoyer Park* | 2.14 | | Dickerman Park | 2.42 | | Douglas Park | 1.63 | | Dousman Park | 0.47 | | Duluth and Case Rec. Center | 11.42 | | Dunning Sports Complex* | 20.53 | | Eagle Street Plaza Park | 0.39 | | Eastview Rec. Center | 6.08 | | Ecolob Plaza | 0.5 | | Edgcumbe Rec. Center | 7.08 | | El Rio Vista Rec. Center | 5.68 | | Feronia Square | 0.01 | | Forest Street Triangle | 0.03 | | Fountain Park | 0.45 | | Frogtown Park and Farm | 12.77 | City-Owned Non-Regional Park Inventory (Continued) | Park Name | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | | Front Field | 3.72 | | Frost Lake Park | 6.76 | | Furness Parkway | 23.4 | | Gordon Square | 0.06 | | Griggs Field* | 3.07 | | Groveland Rec. Center | 3.73 | | Hamline and Hauge Park | 0.58 | | Hamline Park | 2.15 | | Hamm Memorial Plaza | 0.13 | | Hamm Park | 0.41 | | Hampden Park | 3.08 | | Hayden Heights Rec. Center | 8.31 | | Hazel Park Rec. Center | 9.62 | | Hendon Triangles | 0.93 | | Henry Park | 11.15 | | High Bridge North Park | 0.85 | | Highland Park | 248.16 | | Highland Park Comm. Center | 5.92 | | Highwood Preserve | 18.08 | | Hillcrest Knoll Park | 5.93 | | Holcombe Circle | 0.18 | | Holly Park | 0.34 | | Homecroft Park | 3.24 | | Horton Park | 3.48 | | Howell Park | 0.76 | | Iris Park | 1.84 | | Park Name | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | | Irvine Park | 1.78 | | Kellogg Mall | 2.78 | | Kenwood Park | 0.19 | | Kidd Park | 0.14 | | Landmark Plaza Park | 0.64 | | Lane Place | 0.93 | | Langford Rec. Center | 9.99 | | Leroy Triangle | 0.05 | | Lewis Park | 2.89 | | Linwood Rec. Center | 19.98 | | Lockwood Park | 1.6 | | Lyton Park | 0.35 | | Margaret Field* | 3.65 | | Maria Ave. Triangle | 0.04 | | Martin Luther King Jr. Rec. Center | 2.78 | | Marydale Park | 23.95 | | Maryland Ave. Open Space | 5.04 | | Mattocks Park | 3.69 | | May Park | 0.81 | | McDonough Rec. Center | 0 | | McDonough Preserve | 7.14 | | McQuillan Park | 0.54 | | Mears Park | 2.09 | | Merriam Park Rec. Center | 10.22 | | Midway Peace Park | 5.4 | | Mounds Park Maintenance Building | 4.51 | City-Owned Non-Regional Park Inventory (Continued) | Park Name | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | | Nathan Hale Park | 0.5 | | Newell Park | 12.1 | | North Dale Rec. Center | 8.32 | | Oakland Terrace Park | 0.84 | | Oakley Square | 0.01 | | Orchard Rec. Center* | 3.97 | | Oxford Comm. Center | 10.66 | | Palace Rec. Center | 5.88 | | Parque de Castillo | 1.11 | | Pedro Park | 0.45 | | Pelham Triangle | 0.18 | | Point of View Park | 0.36 | | Prospect Park | 3.1 | | Prospect Terrace Park | 1.07 | | Prosperity Heights Park | 9.45 | | Prosperity Park | 8.25 | | Rice Arlington Complex | 23.31 | | Rice Park | 1.62 | | Rice Rec. Center | 5.98 | | Ryan Park | 1.18 | | Sackett Park | 13.28 | | Scheffer Rec. Center | 3.65 | | Skidmore Park | 0.39 | | South St. Anthony Rec. Center* | 5.98 | | St. Clair Rec. Center* | 6.43 | | Stinson Park | 0.88 | | Park Name | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | | Stonebridge Oval | 0.21 | | Summit Overlook | 0.44 | | Summit Park | 0.05 | | Swede Hollow Park | 25.56 | | Sydney Triangle | 0.12 | | Sylvan Park | 3.18 | | Tatum Park | 0.62 | | Taylor Park | 3.72 | | Terrace Park | 1.17 | | Tilden Park | 1.61 | | Valley Park | 12.78 | | Van Slyke Triangle | 0.07 | | Victoria Park | 50.19 | | Wacouta Commons | 1.08 | | Walsh Park | 0.78 | | Webster Park | 4.38 | | Weida Park | 1.54 | | West Minnehaha Rec. Center | 10.85 | | Western Park | 4.51 | | Wilder Rec. Center* | 3.56 | | Willow Reserve | 22.56 | | Xinia Triangle | 0.22 | | TOTAL | 975.67 |