The URL can be used to link to this page

5-21-12 Agenda PacketAGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Managers Room, Monday, May 21, 2012 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes — April 23, 2012 3. Section 10.32 Study A. Receive and File Work Plan B. Speaker from Chicken Run Rescue C. Star Tribune Articles and Craig's List Ad D. City Website Information and Feedback Form E. Resident Comments 4. 2012 Planning (Baker) 5. Receive and File — Letter from MPRB 6. Program/Project Updates (Staff) F. TMDL G. 1/1 H. Private Development Update I. Decola Ponds J. Recycling Update K. Wetland Management L. Bottineau Transitway 7. Commission Member Council Reports (Commissioners) MPRB CAC Meeting 8. Other Business 9. Adjourn GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes April 23, 2012 Present: Commissioners Tracy Anderson Rich Baker, Dawn Hill, Lynn Gitelis, Jim Stremel, Damon Struyk; Debra Yahle; Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director; Eric Seaburg, Graduate Engineer; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant 1. Call to Order Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes — March 26, 2012 MOVED by Hill, seconded by Gitelis, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2012 meeting. 3. Request from Council to Study Section 10.32 Council directed the commission to Ordinance 10.32 which prohibits keeping fowl in the city and make a recommendation as to whether or not the ordinance should be amended. Council asked for the recommendation to be submitted within six months. The commission expressed concern about the deadline. A work plan with a timeline was discussed. In addition to the recommendations from Council, the commission made the following requests of staff to assist Commission with the study: • Arrange a meeting with professionals who are knowledgeable on both sides of the issue • Find out who the City of Minneapolis consulted with as a part of their study • Provide ordinances from other cities that allow the raising of chickens • Arrange for a meeting with code enforcement staff from other cities, similar to Golden Valley, that allow chickens (Robbinsdale, New Hope, Shoreview and St. Anthony) • Background information on the previous study done, in Golden Valley on the same topic • Request guidance from the city attorney's office Baker will draft the work plan/timeline and a memo to Council. It will be sent to the commissioners, via staff, for review and then presented at a Council/Manager meeting in May. Clancy reported that a place on the city website will be set up for residents to submit their comments. 4. 2012 Planning A final draft of the 2012 priorities memo, to Council, was reviewed. A motion to submit the memo to Council was MOVED by Hill and seconded by Stremel. The motion carried unanimously as amended to include an acknowledgment of the Minutes of the Environmental Commission April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 2 request to study Sec. 10.32, which may shift the outlined priorities, and Council approval. The memo will be presented at a Council/Manager meeting in May. 5. Communications — Item #287 from Cathy Waldhauser The above resident requested that the code be amended to allow more than one compost bin per home. The request was received and filed. Staff will communicate to the resident that the item is on the commission's list of priorities. 6. Annual Report A motion to accept the annual report was MOVED by Gitelis and seconded by Yahle as amended to reflect the following changes: Remove "and 2012 Proposed Activities" from the second line, and change "recycling" to "recycle" in the second to the last sentence of the fifth paragraph. Baker will present the annual report at a Council meeting in May. 7. Program/Project Updates Summary on file. Additionally, Clancy reported on two Earth Day activities done through the City. Breck is doing a storm drain stenciling project near the school. Trash collection by students at Breck and Hands On Twin Cities through General Mills. 8. Commission Member Council Reports Struyk reported on the April 10 CAC meeting (on -file). 9. Other Business None 10. Adjourn MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Stremel, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be May 21, 2012 at 7 pm. city of go lden�� valley Date: April 17, 2012 To: Golden Valley City Council From: Rich Baker, Chair, Environmental Commission Subject: Draft Work Plan for Study of City Code 10.32 by Environmental Commission At the April 23, 2012 meeting of the Golden Valley Environmental Commission, the Commission received a memorandum from the City Council directing the Commission to "Study Whether Section 10.32 of the Golden Valley City Code Should be Amended to Allow a Person to Keep or Harbor Chickens." The memo directed the Commission to develop a work plan to include eight tasks, and Public Works Director Clancy communicated the desire of the Council to receive the completed study within six months. The Commission devoted much of its April meeting to discussion of this assignment, and offers the following work plan for the Council's consideration. Meeting Action May Invite presentations from professionals generally opposed to keeping of chickens in urban environments (Animal Humane Society, Chicken Run Rescue). June Invite presentations from professionals generally supportive of keeping of chickens in urban environments (TBD). July Invite presentations from representatives of cities similar to Golden Valley with a range of processes for allowing the keeping of chickens (Robbinsdale, New Hope, St. Anthony, Shoreview). Review each city's ordinance; review model ordinance from League of Cities. August Invite presentation from a wildlife professional regarding environmental and wildlife impacts (DNR). Invite presentation from realtor regarding effect on real estate values (TBD). G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\WkPlan_StudyCCode10.32.docx I September Meet with Golden Valley code enforcement staff, police staff, and city attorney to discuss issue. Meet with Planning staff and Planning Commission to review land use issues. October Discuss findings; begin to organize and summarize information; develop report outline. November Begin to draft report; review and discuss. December Revise report; review and discuss. January Revise report; product final draft. February Review and approve final report. Two additional tasks will be pursued outside of meetings: • Work with City Communications Specialist as soon as possible to create webpage for accepting comments. • Hold public open house in late summer to provide opportunity for citizens to address Commission on issue. Note that given the eight tasks assigned by the Council, the Commission does not believe the six- month October deadline is realistic. We instead recommend that the Council expect a final report in March 2013. This will still provide sufficient time for the Council to act on any report recommendations prior to the 2013 growing season. G:\Environmental Comm ission\Memos\WkPlan_StudyCCode10.32.docx city of go lden valley ey Public works Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) ON4. Date: May 15, 2012 To: Golden Valley Environmental Commission From: Eric Seaburg, Graduate Engineer Subject: Speaker for May 21, 2012 Meeting .. ,. As requested by the Commission, Mary Britton Clause from the Chicken Run Rescue organization will be present at the May meeting to discuss the Section 10.32 Study. In addition to answering questions from the Commission, she will be giving a short slideshow presentation. In her presentation, she will cover topics such as animal neglect, animal abuse, her experiences with other cities, and potential enforcement issues. She has worked with other cities including Minneapolis, Denver, and Oakland. The Commission also requested to hear from the Animal Humane Society. Keith Streff is with the Humane Investigations department within the Animal Humane Society and is an expert on the feasibility, liability, public safety, and animal welfare within legally defined parameters. He has 26 years of experience in working with law enforcement and advising City officials. Keith has made himself available to the Commission but would prefer to speak on behalf of policy development. Therefore, he will not be attending the May meeting but would instead like the Commission to choose another meeting in which his expertise may be more immediately relevant. C:\Users\eseaburg\Desktop\Chicken Study\EC_Memo_May2012.docx Z ac w D v w nc Z cc o N LLI LU V U m2 w C: p Q U x LL O U E S 3 °)(D Y o LOa) a) O +- U C 3 0 += Y o U 3 c3 ZLU 0 >+ U o Cf U S N O O U) LL ne � ++, °� -ty i✓ } +- S +- a) C O O cZ V LL 2 � H 3 0 0 0 0 0 H S O _ Y O Ell LU z max � v) N 6 �� cc — - > 4— } VCJ v O aCO cs a} @) U a � CO 0_ N DC V o) o ->p m 3- C N U) �} L. 4- 0-- CO) CL) 0) TO NH� V cY c Z w i a 3'c m co 0)-o V } C) Y LU J Z.a " N -d S-- O- O O O- in 0 V + -0 L .� = -0 U) V Q Y cz � i N .� S C3 tn C3 U Z cc o N LLI LU V U m2 w C: p Q U x LL N T c O U E () 3 °)(D Y o LOa) a) L +- U C O c3 �; >+ U o� U Q C Q a) vi o N O O U) � O a) C O O cZ a (D U-0 � -SQ O d'w+ _ VCJ Q @) U) O � ¢ C}' i Z � Q) C N LU v CO) CL) 0) TO o V cY c � i V = m co 0)-o Y V d Y Q V � .� = -0 U) V N T c O U E () 3 °)(D Y o LOa) a) +- U O N — CZ co o >+ U o� U Q C Q a) vi o N O O U) > o o LUw-a E a) C O O cZ o (D U-0 -SQ Ecuz)� o y t° C:_ O cis r, =3 Uif C}' i � Q) cz cm tis Q) co 0)-o co t =3-0— .� = -0 U) . a.: cz � i N .� +: O O a) o cis - +. U) C 0) C r 0) Cl) O a) L U C � O C > C Y U C :E cz 3 U a) Q m W o CZ ,. a a) cis o E O C Uts E �E al m O 3 ; En () Un U U Q) cu Q) O U) L N O O >0 _O c Q o_ `) E 0 Z j V) l z O � LU Z co = :D O ¢ 3 U �-- zo¢Z)oo u 0 0 Q— Z Q i Z Z w�2< aC 1L U 7-Z G ¢ =o��LLJ woo U L, U 3 LL. C� ¢ W C a) O 0 o U w U (1) U o caCL U U M Q O CO o o � - >, C o C u) O --F-- Q) (1)O O Q) O C -O O + U N� 0 C Q) -0O > UO =3 C +J a) U ctf cTj O U) N a) 'C C a) O O U) 0) U) O o C: CZ C O O Q U U U O E U) �� } U " Fn' 00 � N= CD o� CCD O a0 o,_� n �o an �o ao N O CDS ° 3 53• M, 3 i v: In cn g o CD as 0 v 2 aCr3Cn CD CD v, O 03 Sv 0 O 0- CD F.O. cn Q x O ?� o Q:m -Q -o � 3 ni CD m0 O �3Q �CDr m D IoW (nc0=r cn D �ayQ- Q�o r < 0 Q m m - CD = x �' � (D < Ej' as CO (T (D 0 a N -O CD° �, a o o o (D m Y? z. (° ::rM< A 0 m' 3 °- fa3 CD Q� 3 (D o � < � 0 a O � CD * a� � a= N CCD � _ o N 3- sv � � o � a (Z o a' N �' - (D v o �.N N a < v sv (D �-9 CD O Q N ° 3 0 p 3 cn�� aoo O 0v CDc0 3o CD sv, 0 �� (D Q <. � cn n C7 (D c 3 �_ O -0 O 0- `< CD c0 N 3 CD CD fll < N , `� cn - < CD CD n Q? - V CJ CD a O a = O -, m O CD a cr O c a CD O a n r. CD O ° O fv cn CD 3 < 0 O C W _ Sv (D Zl a tv CD w < CD CD 3 a CD CD a CD ° '� 0 ° O o� X30 --ate CD �aCCD CD 3 a C7 cL 'o ° N v D0 <_. '. = (D N N c O O- a �v sv CD 3a-" �' -00 o 0 a f a° m -°0 c0 N m _0 m 0� Zr 0 0 a CD 3 o a CD � � 0--_% . � o Cr N (D _ 0 ° m N o• C, CD -� CD 0) � , � cD W 3 N � 0 v o o. O zs CD � 0 �jCD�, 5. -O o w a ° °vv ° 0 CD CD (D cn 3 Dog W o -a � o� 4 CD � o � � o� CD N v a 3 ° CD ° n :3wvSv a c 0 o30 CD CD c*.c m a (sem m v N�3- �m(n �. aQ (D v 0 o c 0 C,) o ao c a�9. =r wc v x -,^� 0 0 0 �m CD ,�� < CD "D 0)N m � Cl) N --4 CCDD 0 -CD 2?` << 3 am CT -°a .. CD N cn • CD c - Q iv - CD CD SD CCDD O `< `OC � O � x�v�32� cCL 0 cD CD Cl) U) 0_ ., CD ? CD 0 y,m O ° N ':5 CD Q) 0_ CD -o o(O cn o a� m v CD � v CD =T CD- ��-360 O O 0 (n -1 CD 0 • �cnxOc°0-0_w0'o-ONN CDD3 0 n CD m ° � ao - n O0 ° CD (� CD n 0 0 cm�a�v��m�cD -1 Q3cn cn n �� Qac (DCD 00 ��a�Q-�::3 � O CD CD CD 3 v O w 0_ CD -0 CD CD Ccn CDD 3 �0- CD �M 3 �CD33aN�rt �m��`< 5 v = zr CD = 3 w CD 3M ��,CDMCD (Qcn -_ <c(00 �QO Icn D 2-, 'a D= cnocomm<_°cn�-o(n�.(-�' �CD pW 0 MO0- CSD 6CD hD o cn�� Q_m � cD -, ,-,. (0 (n D -� CD v (D CD v CD 0_ cn cn 00 - oanmivo �mCDmov zT(0 � �'� -% zr 0 ,< C M N o °MI cn �'�0 CCD O conn �•a�v030 3 m- * �°CD- �'��-a CD (o N O-0 c CD v C(pv(aOcrC: N cn ==r0 -M �v0 O CD O W (� Q CD O (D O: (Q O C)- .. (n O (n 3 N Z O (-i 0 3m 0T0 p C N 3 m --i CD 0 0 CD aCn a) 0 0 C�-1 0 3 c N N 00 � O CD � O OCD C) O 0 ° O CD -' O 0 (c O 'O (a m � M - - 3 � S (D 3 CCD n' Cr Q CD cn Q CD � * � Cn = L 0 M CD O O � '� � ' � � (D (O M. U) Cc 3O SON O CD � O O `< O CD � � CSD � CD O O _ CD Cv < CD --� CD O CD cn .� , C0 - N O N'aOCD.0 N ��w _ Cn `5.=!' _CD I � N 003 0C)(na-°ate � 00�m CD MC -D � -0 a -O0�C) (c) 2)=r 0 CCD Q�0 CD -=ro o�v � S "O CD C7 a (D 6-0 = (D CQ p .� =3 CD c 0 l� CD ((DD CD - 0 (s C: 0 c0i, (�D � a CD CD N 3 avo�iCD o v o cv0i ooCDCD rt- CD �co3nNc°0 o =CO CD mo Wa SCD =3cna-(Q30 O-'� �'�„� a - MM CD (DCD� 3 �CD��vOO v �' � c o (D (D CO -h N N N O cn 3 O 0 0 << - `< � O CD - Cv * 0 � 3 CD Q_ �_0 �Q_ a v, N iv.a Sv c v N c CCD O O �� cn 0.0 0 =Svc �3 an CD o m cn ==r (°n Ocpa c-? CD �° N CD CD cn 3 3 u, v _0 x• moo = - ° 0 N a?ON 3O �0 < 0 0- cn CD � c v v O C) O 0 c .�•-p(0-O c--Mft Q_= 3' r .. CD 0 (D O CD o S O O Sv � CD N 0 -O (0 = O O - Q Sv =cr a? CD x N v �3 vi Q 0 0 `n 0 m a m 0 0 0 30CD (c 3� N 0 ,OW N sv CD 0a Q. O CD CD CD v o 3' m C1 CD = CD O CD N cc M O cD cn CDN N' O X =r cn N.=r �cc �, 3 3 cD a �' N OCD o c m N 0 O CD �, a�.Q•QQ� (D �CAv, n CD 0 7 0 CD c cn 0 N CSD a0cc ami CCD CD � cn 70 =3 3N O o Q Q- m 3 0 � ° ? . a -� ° cn sv -� �' cQ ° c0 � ° (nom 0 a M =r 0 O '� N O C)T O Cr �° '. o O a N n (0 Cy N� CD N -O c 0 O O j N� a CCD CD a 3 0 v CD N N a CD a) a 77 0 3 N � �< `G CD Sv v O (D j 3 n Q v n Q 0 N (D N N 00 0- � CD � ° �(Q cc �N con CRR Presentation to Golden Valley Environmental Commission 5/21/12 1. Chicken Run Rescue is the only urban chicken rescue organization in the country. CRR has worked with Minneapolis Animal Care and Control (MACC) since 2001 and with the Animal Humane Society's 5 Metro Area shelters since 2007. After their release from impound, Chicken Run has provided close to 850 birds and a few goats, pigs and sheep with temporary shelter and vet care, located and screened adopters within 90 miles of the Twin Cities and transported the birds to their new homes. CRR currently has 767 Metro Area subscribers to our adoption newsletter whose primary interest is caring for companion chickens. CRR is a primary stakeholder in any policy affecting animals intended for agricultural purposes in the City. We have invested $80,000 since starting CRR , not including substantial wages lost from our small business. As of March 2012, over 400 permits have already been issued by MACC (up from 26 in 200 1) and approximately 15 new applications arrive per week. MACC staff is working diligently but is months behind in processing paperwork and performing inspections. The City lacks the means to regulate and enforce what is currently allowed. Permitting of an animal is a privilege not a right because it impacts the resources of tax funded municipal services such as animal control. There are provisions in city ordinances for the keeping of companion animals because they are widely viewed as family members and as long as the animals are properly cared for and they do not negatively impact other residents in densely populated neighborhoods, that practice is compatible with urban living. Many other municipalities currently revising urban farm animal policies will inevitably need to revise them again once the long-term consequences of such activities become apparent. 2. Some recent incidents indicate that proponents of urban animal farming object to government interference and regulation. -- In 2009, MACC requested an increase in permit fees to cover expenses of the increasing number of permits. The requested amount was cut in half by pressure from urban animal farming proponents. If city residents are unable or unwilling to pay the application and permit fees to cover the City's costs for regulating domestic fowl, what is the likelihood of investing in their proper care? -- This is a quote by Novella Carpenter, an urban animal farming activist in Oakland, CA: "Our particular neighborhood is called Ghost Town. It's because there are so many abandoned lots. There's drug dealers on the street, there's prostitutes, people growing weed... I take this sort of state of anarchy of our neighborhood to my advantage." I've provided a link to her 2011 video interview titled: Obsessives: Urban Farming: Novella Carpenter's backyard is a pigsty. http: //www. chow. com/videos/show/obsessives/5 5298/obsessives-urban-farming I encourage Commission members to view it. It should strike fear in the hearts of City Planners, neighborhood associations, residents and people who care about animals everywhere. - In July, 2011, CRR received a report about an urban farm located at 24th Street and Snelling Avenue alongside the Hiawatha Light Rail that introduced a flock of 49 birds that May. However, repeated vandalism by local youths and complaints about the lack of care and protection of the birds brought the egg business to a halt in July. Business owners reported that the urban farm had to be relocated 3 times due to complaints from neighbors. - In the summer of 2011, Theo Wirth Children's' Garden coop was removed after repeated theft of birds, vandalism, shoddy appearance and concern for safety and care of birds caused Bryn Mawr Neighborhood Association to complain to Minneapolis Park Board. - In February, 2012, a 311 public comment site (now removed) was full of boasts by people who posted that they have had chickens for years and Animal Control does nothing about it due to lack of staff and funds to enforce. - Prior to 2012, urban animal farming activists in Oakland, CA have used the term companion animals to open door to urban farm animals and are now pushing for slaughter. Oakland resident Ian, Elwood, Co -Founder of Neighbors Opposed to Backyard Slaughter, wrote: "The "Animals Ordinance" In El Cerrito, California a group of residents convinced the city to create an "animals ordinance," allowing people to keep pigs, goats, and chickens in the backyard. The city led the majority of people to believe that residents wanted to keep these animals as pets... By leading the general public to believe that the new animals being shepherded into the city were pets, they avoided public scrutiny on a crucial issue to their cause. Slaughter. Once the discussion around slaughter began, it created controversy, but not enough to change the course of the originally proposed ordinance. Since slaughter was not explicitly addressed by the policy, it left the door open for people to kill the animals in their yards. But the public still believed that the original ordinance — the one that referred to goats, rabbits and chickens as pets — was the same law that was passed.... In addition to ethical concerns, animal farming can be expensive, and could easily cost more money than most Oakland residents could afford. Allowing animal farming only appeases those in Oakland who have animal farms as hobbies, writing books, blogs and articles for locovore food columns about their mis-adventures in animal farming in the city." 3. Permit compliance is a challenge to enforce. For every permit there can be anywhere from 3 to 25 birds per household. These figures only include city residents actually going through the required permit process and do not include people who are unaware of or unwilling to get permits. There could be anywhere 2 from 540 to 4500 new permitted chickens in Minneapolis. Since the compliance rate for cat licenses is about 3%, its reasonable to assume the same for chickens, so there could be an additional 18,000 to 150,000 un -permitted chickens in Minneapolis alone. The same trend is occurring in St. Paul, Metro Area suburbs and nation wide. Those figures do not include the number of offspring that might be produced by accidental or intentional breeding. Animal complaints rank at the top of the demands for city services in Minneapolis. The explosion of activity has created a whole new population of animals requiring regulation, administration of permits, enforcement / inspections, sheltering costs for impounded / seized / surrendered birds, and complaint response including residents engaging in backyard slaughter which is an issue of concern for zoning and health agencies as well. Chickens attract flies, bird mites and lice, mice, yard birds, squirrels, raccoons, dogs, coyotes, fox, mink, opossum, rats, owls, bobcats, hawks, snakes, weasels and vandals. Other public hazards exist as well- I've provided a link to 2/27/12 Fox News coverage headlined as Urban Chicken Farm Fire Scare in Minneapolis http://Ioku.com/content/urban-chicken-farm-fire-scare-in-mplsg 4. Capture of strays taxes an already overburdened and understaffed agency with a whole host of new challenges, not the least of which is the time consuming task of capturing strays. CRR is routinely contacted to capture strays who local agencies have been unable to catch. 5. Abandoned, seized, surrendered birds abound. As illustrated by the chart Increased Demand for Placement of "Urban Farm" Animals, (http: //www. chickenrunrescue. org/surrender_chart. pdf) backyard chicken -keeping raises serious concerns about ordinance enforcement issues, and the burden placed on already overwhelmed local shelters and rescue organizations when birds are abandoned, seized, or surrendered- particularly for the unwanted roosters (always pitched to CRR as 'beautiful, friendly, very loved since they were chicks and don't want them to go somewhere where they will be eaten' and won't use craigslist because the people are creepy.) -birds abandoned, seized, or surrendered arrive almost always in groups, not as single animals. 6. The condition of the birds we receive are in increasingly poor condition as illustrated by the chart Veterinary Expenses for Urban Rescues as Indicator of Poor Care (http: //www. chickenrunrescue. org/vet_chart. pdf) The most common causes of health issues are associated with inexperience or indifference and require vet care: • Inadequate Shelter: frostbite, hypothermia, heat stress, infectious disease, injury, parasites, foot problems, stress • Improper Food: emaciation, dehydration, nutritional deficiencies, toxicity, feather loss, reproductive disorders W • Poor Breeding Practices: deformities, organ failure, neurological disorders, blindness, infectious disease, mutilation (de -beaking, pinioning) • Overcrowding: stress, injury from aggression, over mating, feather loss, infectious diseases, injury, parasites, lack of access to shelter, food and water, rest • Caging: feather loss, stress, injury - Inappropriate shelter is a huge concern. Chickens are Tropical Jungle Fowl and require serious protection in Minnesota climate. According to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, "Minimum Temperature 55°(f), maximum temperature 70°(F)"* is the optimal temperature range for the health and comfort of the birds. *Poultry Your Way: A Guide to Management Alternatives for the Upper Midwest", 2005 Other dark consequences of the chicken keeping fad: - killing and disposal of males who comprise 50% of the birds hatched (see "INSIDE A HATCHERY", with footage of chick sexing, rooster disposal and de -beaking.) http: //www. ny dailynews. com/news/national/video-shows-chicks-ground-alive-iowa-egg- hatchery-article-1.406395 - killing or disposal of hens whose egg production peaks at 18 months of age. Flock breeds can live to 14 years but in the wild have a life expectancy of as much as 30-35 years. - home videos of do -it -your -self backyard chicken slaughter abound on YouTube. - shipment of day old chicks by mail -a process that subjects them to temperature extremes, injury, and sustenance deprivation. (our Lowry Post Office hates handling live baby birds in boxes and complains of crying and crowing. There are no prohibitions on mailing adult birds.) - startup costs for caring for chickens average $2000- 4000, supplies and utilities $300 per year per (privacy fencing is a must) - vet care has cost us an average of $100 minimum per year per bird and there is a lack of avian specialists available to treat the birds. At the Minnesota Veterinary Medical Association Conference in February 2012, there was a presentation regarding the increased need for specialized veterinary services to identify and treat chicken diseases emerging in backyard flocks. 6. Recommendations if chickens are to be allowed: -- Do NOT prohibit roosters. For every backyard hen, there is a dead or abandoned rooster. Prohibitions on roosters have no fact based justification and discourages people from accepting responsibility for all the males winding up in the city. If chickens are to be allowed, both sexes need to be allowed equally. Roosters can make wonderful companions and they protect hens, find food and choose nesting sites. We have had multiple roosters for 11 years and have never had a single complaint. Our neighbors love the sound. If permit neighbors will not sign off on the permit regardless of the sex, then so be it and no chicken permit should be issued. Otherwise, the cities that ban them are L, complicit in the abandonment/death of 50% of the birds being brought into the city. This would never be acceptable policy for any other species. Further, the sex of the birds can't be determined until they are 4-6 months old so it's unenforceable. Here's some rooster facts to consider: cockatoo 135 decibels (often constant) dog 90 decibels (often constant) med rooster up to 90, decibels (not constant) bantam rooster (dependent on breed) about 30 decibels (not constant) hen's egg cackle about 70 decibels (incessant till she lays) -- Comprehensive and strictly enforced standards of care are essential. MN cruelty and neglect laws have a double standard for companion animals vs agricultural animals. Maximum penalty for an act of cruelty to a companion animal is a felony. The same act of cruelty to a chicken is a misdemeanor unless the owner can demonstate they kept them as a companion animal. They obviously deserve the same legal protections from cruelty, neglect and standards of care as dogs and cats. CRR will be happy to assist with drafting a policy or ordinance. We have worked closely with Mpls. City Planner on related issues in Minneapolis and she has requested our participation on a technical advisory board for future chicken related ordinance plans. Aly Pennucci, AICP, LEED Green Associate, City Planner, City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development, 612.673.5342, aly.pennucci ®,minneapolismn.gov RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF URBAN CHICKENS (http://www.chickennmrescue.org/chickencareandrequirerev23 10.pdf) was written at the request of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control in collaboration with MACC staff. It had been used as a model by neighborhood organizations in Denver, CO and Oakland, CA and has been endorsed by farm animal sanctuaries all over the country. There is no other document like it. The last page of it contains specific information that must be included in an effective policy. Housing appropriate for Minnesota climate and protection form predators is not negotiable. -- Permit chickens as companion animals only and be prepared to enforce protections as such. -- Prohibit breeding, encourage adoption -- Prohibit sale or barter of eggs -- Get a slaughter ban in place. The least we can do for animals if they do end up living in our city is to prevent them from being killed. One can achieve all of the goals of urban farming (food security, community building, etc..) much better without animals. Animals are not necessary part of farming. Once the animals are allowed it is very hard to regulate what residents will be allowed to do to them. Perhaps its better to keep animals out of harms way to begin with. 5 nannaapclsctaigsllst.org dak pet -2t,. Yi .:atm Q ' a. d X �) ® quail �.. File Edit View Favorites Took Help Suggested Sites '; Cut more Add-ons � 11, Cisco Unified CallMan 9— Q' I Google Welcome to Gmail minneapolis craigslist > dakotalscoit> community > pets email this posting to a ftiend quail (South Metro) Date: 2012-04-30, 9:58PM CDT Reply to: gz8g8-2989117660^t co .crai¢slist.orx Cotumix Quail unk gender S10 rehoming fee. • London: South Nfeko it's NOT ok to contact this poster with sercim or other commercial interests PostingID: 2989117660 please flag With care:l'_1 miscateeorized prohibited W— o. eroost best afcsaieslist Bloomington's rethinking its chicken law • Article by: MARY JANE SMETANKA , Star Tribune • Updated: May 11, 2010 - 7:08 PM With one resident pushing to keep her hens, the city said it will look at zoning rules to decide if its ordinance should be eased. Jean Mellem calls her Chickens "the ladies." She has been under pressure to get rid of them, but the city is taking a second look at its ordinance. Photo: Elizabeth Flores, Star Tribune How hard is it to legally own chickens in Bloomington? Pretty hard, it turns out. Chicken aficionados have been pushing the city to loosen its regulations on keeping hens, and this past winter a city citation ordering a west Bloomington woman to get rid of her four beloved chickens drew widespread objections from the growing community of urban chicken owners. The city agreed to take another look at its ordinance, which requires that any enclosure holding farm animals be 100 feet from any property line. So the city threw high-tech resources like computer mapping and digital analysis of property records and housing types at the issue. The finding? Hardly anyone in the city can legally keep chickens under the existing ordinance. Out of 22,512 residential lots bigger than 5,000 square feet, only 94 -- or 0.42 percent of the total -- could meet the setback requirement. That number may be even smaller if the area is covered by buildings or is on a steep slope, the analysis found. Mapping shows that most of the chicken -friendly properties are big lots along the Minnesota River, in a cluster between Normandale Boulevard and Hyland Park and near Bush Lake. Bob Hawbaker, the city's planning and economic development manager, said the city's farm animal ordinance may date back as far as the 1950s. It was aimed mostly at people who kept horses, he said. But it also affects residents who want to keep chickens and bees. Jeanie Mellem, whose backyard hens Gretchen, Grace, Carolyn and Emma started the current hubbub in March, can keep them until at least June 1. But Mellem isn't parting with "the ladies," as she calls them, without a fight. Her birds now have a Facebook page called "Help the Chickens Stay in Bloomington!" Last week, the page had 158 fans scattered from Minnesota to Montana and California. "We're hoping we can keep them, but I'm still a little pessimistic," Mellem said. Bloomington officials probably won't decide whether to change the ordinance until June. The city analysis found that if the setback requirement for a coop were changed to 50 feet, owners of about 21 percent of the largest residential properties in the city could keep chickens. Whatever happens, Mellem's ladies should be fine. Chicken rescue groups and chicken owners around the Twin Cities came forward to offer homes for the birds after a Star Tribune article appeared in March. All said they would be happy to take the hens and give Mellem visitation rights. And they promised that the only part of the hens that would end up on a dinner plate would be their eggs. Mary Jane Smetanka - 612-673-7380 Fowl moves in Burnsville: Chickens lose outlaw status Article by: JOY POWELL , Star Tribune Updated: January 14, 2009 - 9:58 PM Officials decide they will change the animal ordinance so boy can keep his fancy birds. in uctoeer, Ntetan and Wesley Remund showed off some eggs that Rachel the chicken, held by Wesley, laid in the family's back yard in Burnsville. The boys raised chickens for a science project. Photo: Brian Peterson, Star Tribune The outlaw chickens of Burnsville likely will become legal citizens in short order, thanks to I I - year-old Stefan Remund, who took on City Hall in a battle to keep his small brood. The City Council agreed during a work session Tuesday to amend an animal ordinance so people may own up to four chickens if their backyard coops meet specifications and other conditions are met. That means Stefan will be able to keep raising his Plymouth Barred Rocks named Sha Kota, Rachel, Tilly and a Buff Orpington called Miss Marilyn Monroe. "It feels great," a relieved Stefan said after the meeting as Mayor Elizabeth Kautz and others congratulated him. The council is expected to ratify its decision during an upcoming regular meeting. "I'm totally shocked," said his mother, Jen Remund. City Hall was peppered with e-mail from all over the country from people rooting for the boy after he and his family learned Burnsville did not allow the birds. A neighbor had complained about the boy's seven chickens, prompting an animal control officer to visit the Remund home in September. At a council meeting in October, Stefan pleaded with the council and soon became a chicken -owning celebrity. He gave interviews to newspapers and a radio station. And he gave three of his chickens to an Arden Hills girl whose chickens had been killed by a dog or other animal. Tuesday night, the boy perched nervously on the edge of his chair as city leaders discussed changing the city ordinance to allow chickens. They talked of lofts and coops, fences and a $50 fee. Deputy City Manager Tom Hansen advised against allowing roosters in residential areas, because, he said, "they're reputed to have too much of a sound projection." Council Member Dan Kealey said the reason for the city passing the ordinance a few years back had been fear of bird flu. But the nation has learned much about bird flu since then, he said, and he no longer sees backyard chickens as a threat. He noted that while some residents may prefer cats and dogs over chickens, "I think that's more about our culture and our fears." Council Member Dan Gustafson found himself in a pickle over the animal ordinance when he learned people in Burnsville may own no more than two dogs without having a kennel license, which costs $50, in addition to individual dog licenses. Gustafson owns a trio of teacup -sized dogs. The new ordinance also allows households to have three dogs without getting a kennel license. Joy Powell - 952-882-9017 Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: May 18, 2012 To: Golden Valley Environmental Commission From: Bryanna Vidden, Planning Intern Subject: Research on Chicken Ordinances Background As part of the process for creating an ordinance concerning the keeping and raising of chickens in Golden Valley, Planning Staff has performed research on the ordinances which manage chickens for several comparable cities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Staff examined the ordinances for the cities of New Hope, Robbinsdale, Shoreview, and St Anthony, because of their comparable age, size, and similar issues which they face throughout their continuing development. Scope To gather information on the city ordinances which manage the keeping and raising of chickens, staff looked into the number of chickens which can be kept on a single property, the zoning districts where chickens can be housed, where on a property chicken coops can be placed, and whether or not a resident is required to obtain a permit from the city to keep chickens. Findings As stated, the ordinances of New Hope, Robbinsdale, Shoreview and St Anthony have been examined and are discussed below. It should also be of note that roosters are not allowed within the city limits of any of the following Metro communities. New Hope The City of New Hope does not require residents to obtain a permit for keeping chickens, but the number of chickens which can be kept on a single property is limited to four. The City's ordinance regarding chickens is located under Animal Control, and does not specify which zoning districts do, or do not allow chickens. In addition, the location of chicken coops on a property must follow zoning regulations that mandate the placement of accessory structures. Robbinsdale Residents of Robbinsdale who wish to keep more than two chickens must obtain a permit through a hearing before the City Council, which includes notification of neighbors within two hundred feet. Once again, Robbinsdale's ordinance does not specify the zoning districts where chickens are allowed or not. Lastly, the City's accessory building ordinance must be followed in the placement of chicken coops. Shoreview Chickens are allowed within Shoreview's zoning districts of RE -Residential Estate and R1 - single family residential, along with a permit obtained from the City. On lots smaller then two acres in size, there is a limit of four chickens, while lots larger than two acres can house more than four chickens with a conditional use permit. Additionally, zoning code on accessory structures must be followed in the placement of chicken coups. St Anthony The keeping of chickens within five hundred feet of platted or habituated land is not allowed without prior City Council Approval. Also, St Anthony ordinances do not specify the number of chickens allowed on a single property or the zoning districts which do or do not allow chickens. In the same fashion, accessory building zoning code would have to be followed in the placement of a chicken coop. 2 City of Golden Valley, MN: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley? City Studies Possibilities Page 1 of 2 YOU ARE HERE: Home > News & Events > News Archive > Raising Chickens in Golden Valley? City Studies Possibilities Raising Chickens In Golden Valley? City Studies Possibilities POSTED 04-27-2012 Should Golden Valley make it possible for residents to keep chickens on their property? That's the question the City's Environmental Commission will be looking into over the next six to 12 months. Currently, Section 10.32 of the Golden Valley City Code prohibits residents from keeping, transporting, and housing animals and fowl or treating them in a cruel or inhumane manner. At its April 17, 2012 meeting, the City Council directed the Environmental Commission to study the City's current ordinance and make recommendation as to whether or not it should be amended and, if so, what amendments should be considered. As part of the study, the Commission will: consult with professionals (Animal Humane Society, Chicken Run Rescue, etc) regarding chickens on private property in urban environments review similar ordinances for adjacent and other Twin Cities' metropolitan cities discuss issues and concerns relevant to the topic with code enforcement and police staff for Golden Valley and for adjacent or metropolitan cities discuss relevant land use issues with Golden Valley's Planning staff and Planning Commission discuss potential impacts on the environment and other wildlife (coyotes, raccoons, etc) with nature and wildlife professionals talk to legal counsel about issues related to neighbors' consent on fowl keeping conduct self-directed, independent information- and fact-finding efforts as needed account for diverse views on the topic The Environmental Commission's final report will detail all considerations related to chickens on private property, including data and information collected from all the research and interviews conducted, arranged by topic. The report will also include a summary of pros and cons of allowing chickens on private property in Golden Valley and a recommendation to the City Council. Public Input On online feedback form is available for Golden Valley residents who wish to provide input about the issue of raising chickens in Golden Valley. The Environmental Commission will consider comments from completed feedback forms when studying the issue, and all feedback will become part of the public record and final report. This entry posted in I Community Send your comments using this feedback form. http://www. goldenvalleymn. gov/newsarchive/index.php/2012/04/27/raising-chickens-in-gol... 5/9/2012 City of Golden Valley, MN: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley? City Studies Possibilities Page 2 of 2 © City of Golden Valley, 2012 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8000 1 TTY: 763-593-3968 http://www.goldenvalleymn.govinewsarchivelindex.php/2012/04/27/raising-chickens-in-gol... 5/9/2012 Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley Page 1 of 1 Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley The information you supply in this feedback form will be used by City officials to study public opinion regarding the issue of raising chickens in Golden Valley. This information will become public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act when received by the City of Golden Valley. Name * First Last Address* City* Comments* https://goldenvalleyrnn.wufoo.com/forms/g7p9s9/ 5/9/2012 Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley [#1] City of Golden Valley <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sat 4/28/2012 3.18 PM Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric E Name = Marilyn Kilner Address * 1045 N Tyrol Trail City t Golden Valley Mn 55416 Comments * No, this is not appropriate in the city of Golden Valley. This is a first ring SUBURB not a rural expanse with acres between properties. The noise would be intrusive. Some form of shelter would need to be provided which would be an eyesore for neighbors. I would be concerned about disease,also_ If, there are people in the city advocating this, I would suggest they move elsewhere. Phone Call forwarded from DeDe Scanlon: Monday April 16th 9:40 am Caller — Sandy Johnson Address — 2285 Regent Ave N I absolutely do not want chickens next door. Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley [#2] City of Golden Valley <no-r-eply@wufoo.com> Sat 4/28/2012 9:00 PM Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric Name" T Khuong Address 7001 Knoll * City * Golden Valley Comments * I would like to be able to raise chickens in yard if that is what I wish. Free range chickens provide extremely nutritious eggs compared to eggs from chickens raised in overcrowded commercial farms_ bens in general are quiet, quieter than most dogs, in fact_ I can see why as a neighbor, I may not want to have roosters, but raising hens is similar to raising other pets, such as dogs; cats/birds. They are fun to have around and provide a nutritious eggs and meat. Some people may be concern about being humane to animals, cleanliness, and diseases. But I don't see how chickens are different from dogs in these aspects. Hence, I believe that raising chickens in backyards in Golden Valley should be allowed within reasons (e.g no roosters, up to 6 per resident, etc_..) and look forward to our city allowing the residents a choice to do this. Thanks. Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley [#3] City of Golden Valley <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sun 41291201210,03 AM Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric Name * Laura Kueny Address * 7303 Ridgeway Road City * Golden Valley Comments * What will the cost be to the city if chickens are allowed? We already have housing maintenance Issues , and compliance issues with sheds and animals that need addressing, do we really need to add to this by allowing chickens in our city_ It may seem far fetched, but there is the threat of Avian flu, Birds should be kept in less populated areas , as Avian flu is more common in areas where birds are kept in close proximity to people and in unsanitary conditions_ Can the city guaranty that chickens will be kept in sanitary conditions? Feedback Form: Raring Chickens In Golden Valley [#4] City of Golden Valley <no-reply@wufoo.comy Sun 4129/2012 3,21 PM Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric Name * cathy waldhauser Address 3220 orchard ave no City * golden valley Comments * I would like to'allow' a variety of domestic animals or insects in Golden Valley, provided the owner has a suitable habitat for them, they do not create a nuisance for neighbors, and that a fee or permit covers any administrative cost. I realize there are many things to be considered such as lot size and proximity to neighbors, noise, odor, proper care and health of the animals and insects themselves, and Golden Valley's ability to monitor and enforce appropriate regulations. Perhaps responsibility for education and enforcement could be handled by a citizen group with expertise in the care and siting of each type of animal or insect, and ongoing permission to have them conditioned on enough Golden Valley or other nearby residents participating to provide ongoing support_ with chickens a test case, goats, pigs, or honeybees might follow_ Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley [#5] City of Golden Valley < no-reply@wufoo.com > Wed 5/2120121;59 PM Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric Name " Peter Grant Address 2 210 Sunnyridge Circle City t Golden Valley Comments i I am glad we are studying the issue. I look forward to seeing the pros and cons on this theme. When I grew up in Tennessee, neighbors had chickens which I enjoyed feeding and which fed us back with eggs! A total win-win, from my point of view. Until I learn more, consider me a pro -chicken vote and voice. If people really don't want to hear roosters, I can live with that, if the chickens can. Peter Grant oarantCOurnmedu Feedback Farm: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley [#61 City of Golden Valley <no-reply@wufoo.com> Fri 5/11/20127;55 AM Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric Name * Carly Roth Address * 2941 Noble Ave. N_ City * Golden Valley Comments * I am very much in support of allowing chickens in Golden Valley! I would love to be part of this conversation and help with accessing the educational piece of the benefits of raising chickens. I'm very excited to see Golden Valley being progressive and open-minded with this idea. airy of golden�� valley Date: April 17, 2012 To: Golden Valley City Council From: Rich Baker, Chair, Environmental Commission Subject: Recommendations for 2012 Golden Valley Environmental Commission Priorities 3N��" i 2!.ai The Golden Valley Environmental Commission devoted portions of its February and March meetings to brainstorming, articulating, and prioritizing the following set of topics as possible foci of the Commission's efforts during 2012. As the Commission has done with topics in the past, it would be our intention to study and provide recommendations for Council action regarding one or more of these topics. The Council has recently directed the Commission to study the possible amendment of City Code Section 10.32. Because the Commission serves at the direction of the Council, we will immediately turn our attention to this assignment. Nonetheless, the Commission respectfully submits these recommendations for Council consideration, and requests that the Council respond with its guidance regarding additional 2012 Commission priorities, either from among these topics or others as the Council sees fit. First Priority: Transportation Alternatives • Identify actions to improve the transportation and recreational alternatives of commuting non-resident employees of large Golden Valley employers, and to incent employees to engage in alternative and mass transit options. • Identify actions to promote use of transportation alternatives by Golden Valley schools and students. • Identify actions to improve biking and walking opportunities in Golden Valley (e.g., bike lanes and sidewalks). • Identify improvements to bus routing and other community transportation options in Golden Valley, and begin planning access to Bottineau Line. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\2012ECPriorities.docx Identify improvements to better meet the needs of Golden Valley seniors and others in accessing shopping and mass transit connections (explore possibility of support/collaboration with Hennepin County Active Living Initiative). Identify actions to promote Golden Valley citizens' understanding and use of existing transportation alternatives (e.g., Five -Cities Transit Program). Second Priority: Composting • Institute city-wide kitchen waste collection. • Amend composting ordinance to include schools, businesses, and multiple -family residential developments. • Study City -sponsored composting, as was implemented in Hutchinson. Third Priority: Natural Area Management Plans • In collaboration with Parks and Open Space Commission, develop proposal for hiring consultant to create a City Natural Area Management Plan as a follow-up to the 2002 Natural Resource Inventory. • Convert current Natural Area Management practices into a Natural Area Management policy. • Identify opportunities for educating Golden Valley residents about the use and management of the City's natural areas. Fourth Priority: Pilot Project of Solar Panels on City Buildings • Investigate availability of financial resources and expertise to assist City with test installation. • Develop plan for a test installation. • Use Edina's recent installation as an example. Additional Priority: Promote student/school projects. Additional Priority: Develop green fair section of home remodeling fair. G:\Environmental Comm ission\Memos\2012ECPriorities.docx ucreeme !d Y 2010.2015 4�f� As we all know the May 22, 2011 tornado was devastating to parts of .�+.►. .�.... May 04, 2012 6 Recreation Board Forestry and Environmental staff determined that Minneapolis MAY 0 7 2012 Park& Recreation Board Mayor Shepard M. Harris President City of Golden Valley Administratiuet)fees 7800 Golden Valley Road 2117 west River Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Minneapolis, MN 55411-2227 in the wetlands was initiated without the involvement of the appropriate Operations Center Re: Letter of March 15, 2012 3800 Bryant Avenue South Golden Valley staff and as you state in your letter the work was stopped Minneapolis, MN 55409-1000 until those contacts were made and the appropriate permits were Phone Dear Mayor Harris: 612-230-6400Thank you for your letter of March 15th. Immediately after I received the Far 612-230-6500 letter I directed Assistant Superintendent for Operation Services Michael www.minneapoiisparks.org P. Schmidt to contact City of Golden Valley City Manager Tom Burt to Superintendent discuss the letter and to see if a meeting was needed. Assistant Jayne Miller Superintendent Schmidt assured City Manger Burt that the concerns Secretary to the Board P. Schmidt outlined in the letter are also the concerns of the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board and are taken into account in our management of Wirth Park. ucreeme !d Y 2010.2015 4�f� As we all know the May 22, 2011 tornado was devastating to parts of Wirth Park and to the vegetation in the park. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Forestry and Environmental staff determined that removal of the large amount of debris that was created from this event was the first step in restoration of the vegetation. We agree that the President current MPRB natural area management standards and policies do not John Erwin account for post disaster management and such standards and policies Vice President need to be developed. We also acknowledge that MPRB Forestry work Liz WieGnski in the wetlands was initiated without the involvement of the appropriate Commissioners Brad Boum Golden Valley staff and as you state in your letter the work was stopped Bob Fine Carol A Kummer until those contacts were made and the appropriate permits were Jon COlson obtained. You are also correct that this sequence of events does Anita Tabb highlight the need for further improvements in coordination between the Scott Vreeland M.AnnieYoung Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board and the City of Golden Valley. We Superintendent have a long history of working together, to include most recently Jayne Miller coordination of efforts on Sweeney and Twin Lake. We recognize that Secretary to the Board P. Schmidt not everyone will agree with eve ryaction, but everyone needs to beMichael aware of the actions and the rationale behind the actions. ucreeme !d Y 2010.2015 4�f� While the tornado and the devastation that occurred were tragic we were fortunate that the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board had in place a Theodore Wirth Park Citizens Advisory Committee. This committee is helping to create a new Master Plan for the Park. and establish an order of priorities to achieve the vision of the Master Plan. The Committee was able to take into account the changes that occurred within Wirth Park on May 22nd and adjust priorities accordingly. The two stormwater outlet pipes and the eroded channel in the southeast quadrant of the wetland identified in the site visit will be corrected. The Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board too looks forward to continuing to work with the City of Golden Valley on the management of Wirth Park. Respectfully yours, FFUU i ,; 10yjne S. Miler Stupe'nterient 7 f, cc: Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Commissioners Tom Burt, Golden Valley City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Golden Valley Director of Public Works Michael P. Schmidt, MPRB Assistant Superintendent for Operation Services Bruce Chamberlain, MPRB Assistant Superintendent for Planning Services PROGRAM/PROJECT UPDATES TMDL No updates 1/1 No udpates PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS No updates DECOLA PONDS The DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Study was presented to the City Councils of Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley at the May 7th joint meeting. Golden Valley staff will now develop a Cooperative Agreement for Phase 2 of the study for each City to consider. Following approval of the cooperative agreement the City of Golden Valley will enter into a contract for the second part of the study. RECYCLING UPDATE Now that the new recycling program is four months old a comparison of the tonnages for January through April (1St Quarter) are as follows: 2011 = 632.41 2012 = 737.76 Year increase = 105.35 tons (16.7%) So far the City has made $ 36,391.99 from the revenue sharing. Attached are the monthly reports from Allied Waste. Staff is still working with Allied Waste to expand the City curbside program to include recycling at City Parks and other events (Golden Valley Days and Farmers Market for example), as well expand the program to serve Multi -family and Commercial/Institution properties. WETLAND MANAGEMENT The City of Golden Valley received a wetland report for the potential development of vacant property located on the 6900 block of Glenwood Avenue, south of the Harold Avenue cul-de-sac. The property owner is requesting a no -loss determination on the basis that the wetland is incidental and exists because of various human influences on the landscape over time. The City reviewed the report and initiated a Notice of Application for the no -loss determination. The City sent the report and application on to the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for review and comment. The TEP consists of the DNR, BWSR, BCWMC, and other agencies with wetland oversight. The TEP has until May 23, 2012 to comment on the application. BOTTINEAU TRANSITWAY See memo and information from Joe Hogeboom qa bA bA 01 (� T C DD Ob 'O C Q .+ a+ .+ C cv N u ' 2 2 2 -- � N N N p T d N N 00 -: .,v N Nv— 'a � m m m yc' ,u aaii z 0) z W z 0¢ � 0 0 0 a:N ° ° W N w 2 a 3 3 3 O N L71 O 00 N C O1 n LD 01 N 'i t0 O Ln O O Lr1 1, al LD Ol V 't 0A y m 01 OO N m C `p •..• N •� ••.• M Ln N to CL W ocOl 2 _L t H V m o Lo S H v of V} - 3 bD;_ 0 0 0 0 o v 0 0 o rn o oo 0) • w Q C M O LD 7 1p lD V al W V l0 lD N V n M Vl l0 LD O lo lo = C d ._O t0 V1 41 O W O m M c-I OO .--1 O E u L m O oa r a " 3Li Lj 0 0 0 0 0 0 L p 3 N 0 p 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 O Vl O O O Lfl p0 C i </T l0 Ln V v1 N V Ol 1� W .--I LL O v). u} zk V - Il M M to W M Lo V 01 N CO W 1p N V7 to W O 1� O - m o o ti N N '•1 N Ln 00 N 01 O0 - N c m n L 00 p' `, ¢ o c a m r`o Ln v e0.2 O a O 0/ Q 3 h0 aT+ 7 C o > N o v E � u � O u* of v? yr ur v, vi. u* a u Z bb C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aJ N p N O ^ al Q1 ^ O1 ^ T n T O O1 al O1 ti Y u tlo }� 3 0 O a V a °- O L � � S al V V 00 N N 00 N V1 £ 3 N ao r ao c LO cr Ln m tO Ln 0 m m Ltl m Ol m W G7 N m M Ln n C N 0 Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O uo� 0 0-I O N .--i Co `~ O �. Li � C O 5 v own F m E l7 E Q F 0 ar O (D f0— Z O c d X a a a m 02 FX v i s cwcc H Q O O t L L p x x x C) M p? m a 7 a 7 a H d L V_ 'O C C Y Y Y N L N a > a a a _ N N t Yca i v a w v ao 2 m m m '> Z Z Z � Q O O O ai v v v C > a 3 n r-I lD lD N c-I n V O) IT n N N O y� lD O N V1 M O O N 0 Y= .Q y0 � M N d al Y V)(31 M Z Q i N 0) r, sn - - � v� v) v) v} yr to yr 1n 4n vt vt vt v>• vt crn y Y Q C M Ln W o N 0 V o a v N o W 0 m 0 m o r� r, VI O n V1 ° m O Q) Q) O) 00 O n N l0 in C O) In l0 Gl O = L n Ln OO n V M V) .-� N O n N V (U a o T O W O O o o o 0 p O p 0 o o \° yr 7- � 0 0 0 n N .1; N N O CE E 7 O in I, lD I, Vl N Ln 't N �p O N 00 0 0O LL O VT V? V? �- VT {A V} VT V [mit• N t\ N m W m�D W l0 00 N m N lD O VO W O .-+ t\ bYD O O t m 0 0 N N N In 00 0) Y U e-1 m r, V U Q C m m tla O C > t ^ m n a m N L V u a m ?o ° tv Y 0 V 3 ¢ o > a v E OV E U Z m C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) NO 0) 0) 0) 0) O) O) 0) 0) 0) 0) �y u C_ O O D. 3 GJ '° L f0 r a+m L m oa lD ID n �D n �o m m r, .--1 00 O m m N n m N N N a--I M M V) M l.f) Om .N 3 w. W 3 � l0 ^> W co Ln 0 Ln vi o o o a o 0 o 0 N O O O N r1 Z -1 O �_ LL WID N N N N M N M N M C CL \m tv C O O x O a H V Yc N ai m 4-. j c0 ' E m V E cu Q O at -° a A ++ L o av Z a a a ' E v Mo v o _ F N ox zi V v � i s ac H¢ O O Ln L L L li w b0 W v LA >, 2 2 S Z .v LD p = N N N O_ e-1 U N T N C UD b0 C ro to U = 2 2 N v > a` a a Y 3 3j 3 m mv > z z v c O Q O m O m O � v v a; v c � VI in .n N CO V> bb N N n W N t!1 O O Ol V of N r_ N Ln l0 Cl Il M c-I CO of Il O0 .a w m lfl v ill of N Ill N rl o n M_ N N N Q' w v M v Ln M zl- Ln tD LD y m ~ H m U N M r Z V, VT VT V? VT V? V} V1 V} t? V). d 3 pq O O O O O - O o o _ C O C > C Ln o V w C C w Ln Ol o m 0) « Q "O M M M Ql C N N ll1 0 > 41 -O .� O y ri cH -1 O CO C m Ln lD m m Ln cy D: EC r V C tlq O N ate+ 0 Q a tip V? V� to V> V) V1 to Vl tf) to . to tn. T o O O O o O L �O = OO O O O O p O O � 0 o O^ '-D C Li to V} l.D L} L V? -- c�-I W t/T CT) to O V} Vl v yM n m m n oo m fl a rn o « N M W O w O -o rl Ln ci Ln N l0 c-I W N o Ln I, W O CJ L of Y u 0 > i--I rl M n m v O O O v mo > L ° Ln 0 L OA C v C a 3 0 > > v E t/T Vt• V>• tl? V>• Vt v>• vz• to to V E Y to Qj a` o Z O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 _ = O O o O O O O o O O •N O Ql Q1 41 Ql Ql Q1 Q1 Ql Q1 dl Vn O O ++ o�V V V oVTV V to 3 0 GJ L � a, « L c-I Vl tol0 -j � O �-1 c-1 M O LO CC N M Ln O Ln .-i co M r-1 m -1 U Ln 0l N w� W LL rqw G O L L'C y nl M l!1 o o N N u W Ln O Ln o o o O O N O O Co O0 0 0 O (U y, a c .-I N N m c-I N M-- O 00 `m I^Lj Y N -p F 0 _X N b�A N m c� E C v o z� m a Xaa Eu Xa U v a a o o City of Golden Valley Revenue Share Outline rota( Revenue share ------------------------ $ 8,386.911 .. r i April -12 Processing Cost Finished Commodity Estimated Processing Weighted Avg Commodity Weighted Avg Net Tipping Product Mix Percent Weight Cost/ron Allocation Value Allocation Charge Market Indicator Mixed Glass 16.80% 25.30 $ 79.00 $ 13.27 $0.00 $ - $ 13.27 Reviewed Annually HDPE Natural 1.05% 1.58 $ 79.00 $ 0.83 $800.00 $ 8.400 $ (7.57) Waste News 1st Issue High HDPE Pigmented 1.05% 1.58 $ 79.00 $ 0.83 $680.00 $ 7.140 $ (6.31) Waste News 1st Issue High PET 2.10% 3.16 $ 79.00 $ 1.66 $620.00 $ 13.020 $ (11.36) Waste News 1st Issue High Residual Garbage 2.00% 3.01 $ 79.00 $ 1.58 ($47.00) $ (0.940)1 $ 2.52 Hennepin County Rate Tin 3.20% 4.82 $ 79.00 $ 2.53 $300.00 $ 9.600 $ (7.07) Avg Monthly Sales Price Aluminum 2.10% 3.16 $ 79.00 $ 1.66 $1,500.00 $ 31.504 $ 29.84) AMM Pricing OCC 3.60% 5.42 $ 79.00 $ 2.84 $115.00 $ 4.140 $ (1.30) OMB#11 High Mixed Paper 19.10% 28.76 $ 79.00 $ 15.09 $80.00 $ 15.280 $ (0.19) OBM #2 High ONP 49.00% 73.79 $ 79.00 $ 38.71 $95.00 $ 46.550 $ (7.84) OEM #8 High 100.0% $ 79.00 $ 134.69 $ (55.69) Per Ton Total Processing Cost $ (79.00) $ (11,896.61) f 150.59 Commodity Pay Back @ 100% $ 134.69 $ 20,283.56 _ Total Tons 150.59 Net Revenue Share (Charge) $ 55.69 $ 8,386.95 Date: May 11, 2012 Planning Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Environmental Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Bottineau Transitway Study Process Update The Bottineau Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is currently being produced. It is expected to be completed by the end of 2012. The study is anticipated to analyze environmental concerns at a more in-depth level this summer. Because greater resources will be needed for this analysis, Hennepin County will be selecting a "Locally Preferred Alternative" ("LPA") that will give preference to route alignment. It is anticipated that the County will designate the Golden Valley route alignment as the Locally Preferred Alternative, based on recommendation from a technical advisory committee as well as a citizen involvement committee. The Bottineau Transitway Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), which is comprised of elected officials along the proposed transit line, held a public hearing on May 10 to determine the locally preferred alternative alignment. Later in May, the PAC will vote on a recommended alignment (anticipated to be the Golden Valley alignment), which will include either the Golden Valley route or the Minneapolis route. It will also select either the Maple Grove — Arbor Lakes route or the Brooklyn Park — Target Campus route at the north end of the alignment. The City Council will vote on June 5 whether or not to endorse the PAC -recommended alignment. On July 26, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority will vote to adopt the final alignment. The conclusion of the DEIS will then focus on the selected alignment. Documents continue to be released as part of this study. Many of the documents can be accessed online at.http://bottineautransitway.org . For more information about the Bottineau Transitway DEIS process, please contact the Planning Department. cu E E =3 O ��U^^ V J W co M� W ate-+ C O Q cc a) L- m W U M 0 N A O O J J 0 f0 > 7 Q) Uami ami Q) 2! o 0 0 rn 0 � w � � U N C—) � N N N Ch N U � Y1° W O 2 J U o 0 0 0 0 (t} 0000 OO O O 0 O O m o 0 0 V LO N co rI rI cI O O O O O O O U i O O O O O O O O O O c� O U) O o o O O O N N O O M t U N 00 00 00 rn 76-H 00 v f0 D D D D D Q Q m m m m ate-+ C O Q cc a) L- m W U M 0 N A O O m N �t > N CY o 0 0 rn 0 N N C7 c -I Y1° o 2 J E E E BooffineauTrans itway DRAFT E?IVNiDMYENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARCC Input to the Policy Advisory Committee for the April 23, 2012 PAC Meeting: Scoping Decision 04/16/2012 —PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW Introduction This paper provides input from the Bottineau Transitway technical staff group, called the Advise, Review, and Communicate Committee (ARCC), to the project's policy maker and business group, called the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), regarding the alternatives to be carried forward for further evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) - referenced as `the Scoping Decision." The input provided by the ARCC on the Scoping Decision is based on the technical analysis prepared as part of the Scoping Booklet, comments received and considered during the official Scoping review and comment period, as well as further technical analyses completed on Alignments A and B in the northern end of the corridor, Alignments D1 and D2 in the southern end of the corridor; and Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit on a system -wide comparison. The findings from the technical analysis have been summarized and documented in comparative matrices, which are included as attachments to this document. Context As shown in Exhibit 1, three sets of evaluation criteria are relevant to the Bottineau Transitway project: the project purpose and need and goals and objectives (local criteria), the Metropolitan Council transitway capital investment criteria (regional criteria), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts/Small Starts project justification criteria (national criteria). The three sets of criteria all emphasize transit ridership, service and cost effectiveness, land use and economic development, and service to people who are transit dependent, among other factors. The primary decision criteria for the input relative to the alternatives carried forward for further evaluation in the Draft EIS are the Bottineau Transitway purpose and need and the associated goals and objectives. The consistency of the Bottineau Transitway project with the regional and national criteria help assure that the comparative analysis of alternatives conducted during the Scoping process will result in an locally preferred alternative (LPA) that is also consistent with the local and national criteria and will in turn position the Bottineau Transitway project to be competitive with other projects regionally and nationally. Bo#tineauTransitway DRAFT ENtlIRDrAYU00 L IMPACT STATEMENT Exhibit 1. Evaluation Criteria for Bottineau Transitway Project El 2 Federal Transit Administration New Starts/Small Starts Project Justification Criteria Metropolitan Council Regional Transitway nx Guidelines Capital t Investment Criteria Y: Bottineau Transitway Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives El 2 8' offin eau Tra n s i tway 1�— DRAFT ENVMOfJWWrAL IMPACT STATEMENT Purpose and Need The purpose of the Bottineau Transitway is to provide transit service which will satisfy the long-term regional mobility and accessibility needs for businesses and the traveling public. Five factors contribute to the need for the Bottineau Transitway project: • Growing travel demand • Increasing traffic congestion • People who depend on transit • Limited transit service to suburban destinations (reverse commute opportunities) and time - efficient transit options • Regional objectives for growth The Bottineau Transitway project goals and objectives are shown below. They were developed to serve as a framework to first develop and then evaluate the alternatives under consideration. Goals 1-3 reflect the core purpose and need of the project; Goals 4-5 reflect broader community sustainability goals Goal 1: Enhance Regional Access to Activity Centers 1 Maximize total transit riders 2 Improve service to people who depend on transit 3 Expand reverse commute and off-peak transit opportunities 4 Increase transit system linkages, access to regional destinations and multimodal transportation opportunities 5 Maximize transit access to housing, employment, schools, community services, heathcare facilities and activity centers Goal 2: Enhance the Effectiveness of Transit Service within the Corridor 6 Maximize new transit riders 7 Maximize passengers per hour of revenue service 8 Maximize traveler time savings Goal 3: Provide a Cost -Effective and Financially Feasible Transit System 9 Balance project costs and benefits (minimize CEI) 10 Minimize project capital and operating cost 11 Maximize long-term investment in the Regional Transit System 12 Maximize flexibility to efficiently expand the transit investment to accommodate transitway demand beyond 2030 weekday travel demand forecasts Goal 4: Promote Sustainable Development Patterns 13 Promote land development and redevelopment that supports sustainable transportation policies BottineauTransitway ORAFT EMMtONTAWM1. IMPACT STATEMENT 14 Ensure compatibility with local and regional comprehensive plans Support economic development and redevelopment efforts Support Healthy Communities and Sound Environmental Practices Minimize impacts on wetlands/water/floodplains; parks; visual resources; noise/vibration; historic/cultural resources 15 Goal 5: 16 17 Minimize short- and long-term impacts to property, property access, and on -street parking 18 Maximize cohesion, preservation, and enhancement of Bottineau Transitway communities 19 Maximize pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Bottineau Transitway 20 Maximize health, environmental and economic benefits to the Bottineau Transitway communities 21 Minimize disproportionately high and adverse impacts on the region's minority and/or low- income communities ................... Minimize area traffic impacts 22 Summary of Comparisons,,, During scoping, a comparative decision-making process was used. Three key comparisons were made in this process: Alignment A vs. Alignment B, Alignment D1 vs. Alignment D2, and LRT mode vs. BRT mode. Each of these comparisons is discussed below and summarized in Exhibit 2 by key differentiating criteria. Exhibit 2: Key Differentiating Criteria 4100 Goal (summarized) Objective (summarized) 1. Regional access 1. Total transit ridership _ 2. Transit -dependent service _ 3. Reverse commute, off-peak 4. Multimodal linkages 5. Access to jobs, housing, etc. 2. Service effectiveness 6. New transit riders M Key Differentiating Criteria A D1 TLR vs. vs. vs. B D2 BRT X x x x x Xi X x -- x x 7. Passengers per revenue hour 8. Travel time savings 3.Cost effectiveessn 9. Cost effectiveness 10. Capital and operating costs r 11. Long-term transit investment 12. Ability to expand in future 4. Sustainable 13. Sustainable land use development 14. Compatibility with plans 5. Healthy 15. Economic development communities, 16. Natural and built environment M Key Differentiating Criteria A D1 TLR vs. vs. vs. B D2 BRT X x x x x Xi X x -- x x Boffin'eauTransitway DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Goal (summarized) environment Objective (summarized) Key Differentiating Criteria A D.1 LRT vs. vs. vs. B D2 BRT 17. Property impacts x 18. Community cohesion 19. Ped, bike connections 20. Health, environmental benefits 21. Minority, low-income impacts 22. Traffic impacts x x Alignment A vs. Alignment B Summary Comparison • Regional access: While the two alignments would have similar transit ridership, generally speaking, Alignment B provides access to greater numbers of people, housing units, retail opportunities, college students, and parks than does Alignment A. Alignment B has greater local bus and pedestrian connectivity than A. • Service effectiveness: Alignment A would attract somewhat more new transit riders than Alignment B, would serve more passengers per revenue hour, and would have greater transportation system user benefits. This is one of the more notable performance advantages of Alignment A over Alignment B. Economic development: Alignment B would have a greater short-term economic development potential due to a greater portion of land being currently available for development. The active expansion of the Target North Office Campus near the 97th Avenue station will serve as major anchor to future office and mixed use development, consistent with planned land use. While the northern two station areas on Alignment A are also planned for mixed use development in the future, much of the area is currently in use for gravel mining. Planned construction of the transitway could create a market for rapid conversion of the gravel mining operations to urbanized uses; however, such timing is speculative. • Traffic impacts: Due to its location in a less-developed area, Alignment A would have fewer adverse impacts on the local street network and intersections than Alignment B. • Timing of Improvements through Gravel Mining Area - For Discussion • Capital Cost and Cost Effectiveness ARCC INPUT ON ALIGNMENTS A AND B Alignment D1 vs. Alignment D2 Summary Comparison • Service effectiveness: D1 serves somewhat more passengers per revenue hour and slightly greater daily hours of user benefit Bo_t#ineau Tra ns itway DRAFT EiVMiON (ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • Cost-effectiveness: • Capital Cost: • Property impacts: Construction of D2, in particular the portion that would be center -running on 11 primarily residential blocks of Penn Avenue, would have greater adverse impacts on property than D1, including access closures, full and partial acquisition of residences and businesses, and loss of on -street parking. • Traffic impacts: Because much of D1 would be in the railroad right-of-way, it has substantially fewer adverse impacts related to traffic diversion, local street network changes, and intersection closures than D2. • Alignment D2, outperforms D1 with respect to several criteria. This is generally due to its proximity to dense urban neighborhoods that are more transit -oriented than similar areas for D1, which is located in a less -dense area and in the railroad right-of-way. • D2 has somewhat greater multimodal transportation connectivity and provides greater access to housing, employment, and other destinations. D2 also would have a somewhat greater potential to promote transit -oriented development, including the opportunity to re -develop 11 blocks on the west side of Penn Avenue that would need to be acquired to construct the transitway. • Based on analysis from ridership projections, service to transit dependent populations is not a differentiator between the two alignments. Both D1 and D2 serve similar numbers of transit - dependent people (those with no car). • D1 is at a disadvantage to D2 with respect to adverse impacts on water resources. While D2 is located in upland or fully urbanized areas, D1 would impact wetlands and the floodplain/floodway in and adjacent to Wirth Park. ARCC INPUT ON D1 AND D2 ALIGNMENTS LRT Mode vs. BRT Mode The discussion below compares the BRT Alternative under consideration (to run on alignment A -C -D1) to the LRT Alternative that would run in the same alignment (LRT A -C -D1). Summary Comparison • Ridership and access: LRT is forecast to serve approximately 35% more transit trips than BRT. LRT provides greater connectivity with the regional transit system and provides better special event service. • Service effectiveness: LRT would attract more new transit riders than BRT, would provide greater daily user benefits and would serve more than twice as many passengers per revenue hour than BRT. • Long-term investment and expansion potential: With current ridership forecasts, BRT would reach 100% ridership capacity by the year 2030. The ability to accommodate additional riders could be achieved only by increasing headways, which would have severe impacts on level of service on adjacent roadways. In contrast, LRT would be at 77-85% capacity in year 2030; capacity could be expanded by 50% by adding a third car to the two -car trains. Bottineau Tra ns itwa►y Ic.. DRAFT ENVIRONMEI TALIMPACTSTATEMENT • Economic development potential: LRT is likely to have greater development benefits based on greater ridership, perceived permanence, and familiarity to developers compared to BRT. • Capital Cost • Cost Effectiveness In addition, the owner of the railroad right-of-way (BNSF Railway) where the BRT alternative would operate has indicated they will not support BRT in this location. The railway's concerns have been related to potential safety hazards of BRT vehicles operating adjacent to an active freight rail line. The performance of LRT vs. BRT on reverse commute and off-peak trips is mixed. BRT would serve greater numbers of reverse commute trips than LRT, but LRT would have greater off-peak ridership than BRT. ARCC INPUT ON BRT AND LRT 7 BottineauTransitway DRAFT ENV ROMIFNTAL IMPACT STATOMM DRAFT RESOLUTION 04.16.2012 RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING THE POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY (HCRRA) REGARDING THE ALTERNATIVES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR FURTHER STUDY IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DRAFT EIS) WHEREAS, the Bottineau Transitway is a proposed project that will provide for transit improvements in the highly traveled northwest area of the Twin Cities; and WHEREAS, the Bottineau Transitway is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, extending approximately 13 miles from downtown Minneapolis to the northwest through north Minneapolis and the suburbs of Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove and Osseo; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) and the Metropolitan Council have initiated the environmental review process for the Bottineau Transitway project; and WHEREAS, federal funding will be pursued for this project from the FTA. As a result, the FTA — designated as the lead federal agency for this project — is required to undertake environmental review in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);and WHEREAS, the Bottineau Transitway project must also comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA); and WHEREAS, the HCRRA is the project proposer and designated Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the Draft EIS under the state environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Bottineau Transitway EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2012; and WHEREAS, the HCRRA in coordination with the Metropolitan Council published a notice of availability of the Bottineau Transitway Scoping Booklet in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Monitor on December 26, 2011; and WHEREAS, the HCRRA in coordination with the Metropolitan Council distributed the Scoping Booklet to the Minnesota EQB distribution list and other project stakeholders in December 2011, and held an Interagency Scoping meeting on January 19, and four public scoping meetings on January 23, 24, 25 and 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Scoping comment period for the Bottineau Transitway ran from December 27, 2011 through February 17, 2012; and WHEREAS, approximately 380 people attended the four open house meetings held during the Scoping process; and WHEREAS, 295 comments were received during the Scoping process, both in written format and through a comment recorder at the open house meetings; and B ooffin eau Trans i twat' +I� DRAFT EWROM MAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the Scoping process is used to confirm the purpose and need for the project, identify appropriate alternatives that could address project needs, focus on potentially significant issues that should be studied in the Draft EIS, and eliminate issues that are not significant and/or have been addressed by prior studies; and WHEREAS, the HCRRA in consultation with the FTA, Metropolitan Council, the Advise Review and Communicate Committee (ARCC), and the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has reviewed and considered the technical analysis completed during the Scoping process as well as the comments received on the project during Scoping; and WHEREAS, the Scoping Decision Document will define why transit improvements should be studied and what the proposed improvements should accomplish; define which alternatives will be further studied in the Draft EIS; and define which issue areas will be addressed in the evaluation and establish the methods that will be used to analyze the potential impacts and benefits; and WHEREAS, the alternative evaluation process has judiciously used the project purpose and need statement, defined project goals and objectives and evaluating criteria as the foundation for decision making; and WHEREAS, the ARCC along with the CAC have provided both technical and community input into the Scoping Decision; and WHEREAS, the resolution from the Bottineau Transitway PAC will serve as the advisory document to the HCRRA, the designated project proposer and RGU under the state environmental review process, regarding the Scoping Decision; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that INSERT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE(S) TO BE SCREENED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION /N THE DRAFT EIS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the alternatives to be carried forward into the Draft EIS for the Bottineau Transitway include the No -Build, the Transportation System Management and the following Build Alternatives: INSERT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BUILD ALTERNAT/VE(S) TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR FURTHER EVALUATION /N THE DRAFT EIS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the LRT Alternatives will include the evaluation of station locations, connecting bus network, maintenance facility, and general traction power substation locations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if through more detailed study in the Draft EIS it is efficiently revealed that a Build Alternative(s) described herein is/are determined to no longer effectively meet the defined project purpose and need, that the project partners — FTA, HCRRA and the Metropolitan Council — in consultation with the PAC will make a determination regarding further screening of alternatives and follow the appropriate disclosure process under both the Federal and state environmental review processes, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PAC hereby officially transmits this advisory resolution to the HCRRA for action and requests inclusion of this resolution in the Bottineau Transitway Scoping Decision Document. 2 SCOPING DECISION AND LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES/DECISIONS 04.02.2012 FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ARCC ACTIVITIES April 3, 2012 - Review DRAFT Scoping Decision Document April 17, 2012 - Provide Input into Scoping Decision and LPA Decision May 1, 2012 —Continued Input into LPA Decision Supporting Documents Reviewed by ARCC — Summary of Scoping Comments, Scoping Decision Document, Comparative Matrices and Supporting Technical Memos, Locally Preferred Alternative Technical Report CAC ACTIVITIES April 19, 2012 — Input on Scoping Decision and Initiate Discussion on LPA Decision May 3, 2012 — Input on LPA Decision PAC ACTIVITIES April 23, 2012 — Input on Scoping Decision and Initial Discussion on LPA Decision May 10, 2012 — PAC Public Hearing on LPA May 30, 2012 — LPA Resolution by PACj/j/// HCRRA ACTIVITIES April 9, 2012 — HCRRA Briefing with Metropolitan Council May 8, 2012 — HCRRA Resolution on Scoping Decision June 12, 2012 — HCRRA Public Hearing June 26, 2012 — HCRRA Action on LPA Decision (includes resolutions of support from Bottineau TransitwaCities) Y CITY ACTIVITIES FOR LPA DECISION City actions follow the PAC Action scheduled for May 30, 2012. Resolution developed for the PAC will be used as the foundation for the City Resolutions of Support. Schedule assumes that the LPA item for each of the cities would require review by the city planning commission and the respective City Councils. Resolutions of support required prior to HCRRA taking action on the LPA (action scheduled for June 26, 2012). METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ACTIVITIES July 2012 — Metropolitan Council Briefing on LPA August 2012 — TAC/TAB Meetings on LPA September 2012 — Metropolitan Council Action on LPA October 2012 — Metropolitan Council Public Hearing on proposed Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) Amendment November/December 2012 — Metropolitan Council Action on TPP Amendment 1 ELEMENTS OF SCOPING DECISION • Defines why transit improvements should be studied and what the proposed project should accomplish • Defines which alternatives will be further studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) • Defines which issue areas will be addressed in the evaluation and establishes the methods that will be used to analyze the potential imp ts and benefits • The LPA will be one of, but not the only alternatitified and studied in the Draft EIS. / // • The LPA selection process does not replace or/11 requirement to fully examine alternatives through the environmental de makingess. ELEMENTS OF LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERN A DECISION • r The adoption of an LPA is a critical step toS� • Concluding the Alternatives yrsis (AA) prod ,/ , i the project to continue to pu ral fundic O/o • The LPA will be one of, but n e, , Iterr ya EIS. %/'.. • The PAC, HCRR corridor des wil of the LPA r en to to the t the final deci"kmaker oe LPA. e fe W New Starts ing. r„ , ugh the adoptio "f an LPA allows ntified and studied in the Draft pas /g/ of support as part an b J ,,il The Metropolitan Council is • The LPA defines �rans /', i0, ode and a moment for the Bottineau Transitway based on a- puf? /nd to %mple,during the AA Study and in Scoping. 2 The Wirth Park CAC meeting on May 1 involved some minor tweaking of the 'Final' Master Design Concept for the park, financial discussions, and prioritization of planned projects. The meeting materials are available here: hqp://www.minneavolisparks.orp,/default.asp?PageID=1265. I'll try to be brief, and let you sort through and digest the materials. For whatever it's worth, there will be an as of yet unscheduled open house in the near future which is meant as an opportunity for you to offer your opinions on the plan. The MAY be another CAC meeting following the open house. The plan will go before the MPRB of Commissioners for their approval / disapproval in any event. Nothing is written in stone -- yet. On the plan tweaks from the May 1 meeting: There will be no paved path bisecting the Finnish monument knoll on the east side of Wirth Lake, as well as no gazebo located there. In addition, there my be some rerouting of the event trails in north Wirth so they do not run in front of the golf chalet. On funding: These are very rough figures but the MPRB currently has available about $4 million for the $20 million total cost of the master plan's proposed improvements. Again, these are very rough figures. On prioritization: Generally, the CAC gave highest priority to the following items: - Walking trail improvements (unpaved in Twin Lk area, paved along Bassett Creek) - Natural Resource Management - Lake area picnic shelters and parking - Lake area trail improvements and features - JD Rivers Garden Enhancements - Natural Resource Management - Trail improvements - Eloise Butler improvements - Wayfinding - Off -Leash Dog Park (kind of highest priority): As discussed previously, this will be on the plan just east of the Humane Society. The Humane Society is to contribute land to the project. Regardless of its priority, I believe the most important thing is that it is on the plan. Once (if) the the MPRB of Commissioners approves the plan, I strongly believe that a Golden Valley community push (or nudge), complete with some fund raising for the facility and coordination with the Humane Society, will go a long way to making it happen sooner, rather than later. Some of you have also expressed particular desires in things such a fence height, which should be incorporated into this community effort. I have no idea who should lead, coordinate and communicate about this effort (count me out), but I do believe the effort is a good idea. According to MPRB figures, the dog park will cost about $50,000 (incidentally, the cheapest item on the entire plan) and is projected to take in about $20,000 in revenue yearly. So obviously the MPRB wants the dog park, too. Second highest priority was given to the following items, which can and likely will be dependent on joint private and public sector financing: - Chalet rehabilitation and site improvements - Welcome Center and Welcome Center Parking - Park maintenance facilities - Relocated tubing hill - Event trails - Ski trail improvements - Back 9 (of the main 18 hole golf course) modifications Third highest (or second lowest) priority was given to rehabilitating the 'Tool Shed' in north Wirth, making it 'Theo's Retreat.' There was no support for making it exclusively a corporate meeting center. If this project is ever completed, the rehabilitated building will be put to more community uses. Fourth highest (or the lowest) priority was given to Front 9 (of the main 18 hole golf course) modifications, including a golf academy and driving range. These changes may never occur, depending upon how the golf community feels about them. Removed from any consideration was the short-term golf academy which would have required changes to the Par 3 golf course. The Par 3 golf course will remain unchanged. Finally, the MOCA trails in southwest and central Wirth: As you'll see in the meeting materials, the general scope of the MOCA trails in southwest Wirth has been significantly reduced. Not so in central Wirth, in the storm -damaged woods heading north along the parkway, in the northwest corner of the intersection of Glenwood and Theodore Wirth Parkway. Honestly, I missed their scope in previous meeting materials. I did not see them clearly marked until May 1, and I had been operating under the (false) assumption that there would be one single trail, which the CAC approved over one year ago, before the tornado. I apologize. That area is in desperate need of natural resource rehabilitation and management, and I'm concerned (irritated) that the extensive scope of the trails shown on the plan (which can only show the trails' general locations) is simply taking advantage of some poor forestry decisions, and reserving a right that would not previously have been available. I'm not saying the MOCA shouldn't be in there (and they WILL be in there), but I do think there needs to be some reasonable compromise. I do believe any civil input you may have on the matter at either the open house or meeting of the MPRB of Commissioners would be helpful (remember the parking bays!). I realize this is a lot to digest, but there it all is. As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns. I'll keep you posted on important upcoming dates when I learn of them. Respectfully, Damon Struyk