The URL can be used to link to this page

1-28-13 Agenda PacketAGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Manager's Room, Monday, January 28, 2013 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Joint and Regular Meeting Minutes – December 10, 2012 3. Section 10.32 Study A. Review Draft Report and Ordinance 4. U of M Student Project Summary 5. Wood As Heating Source (Anderson) A. Discuss wood as a primary heating source and the pollutant PM2.5 B. Outdoor Wood boilers—(OWB)—what are they and should GV allow them C. Permit requirements for a new wood burning stove or fireplace 6. Program/Project Updates (Staff) a) TMDL b) 1/1 c) Private Development Update d) Decola Ponds e) Recycling Update f) Wetland Management g) Bottineau Transitway 7. Commission Member Council Reports (Commissioners) 8. Other Business 9. Adjourn This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72 -hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Environmental Commission, and Open Space and Recreation Commission December 10, 2012 A joint meeting of the Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, December 10, 2012. Chairs Rich Baker and Jerry Sandier called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Those present were, Environmental Commissioners Baker, Gitelis, Hill, Stremel and Struyk; Open Space and Recreation Commissioners Bergman, Cornelius, Kadue, Sandler and Steinberg; City Council Members Clausen, Pentel and Scanlon. Also present was Director of Parks & Recreation Rick Jacobson, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman, Park Maintenance Supervisor Al Lundstrom, GIS Technician Heather Hegi, Assistant Forester Tim Teynor and Administrative Assistant Lisa Nesbitt U of M Student Project — Natural Resource Management Students from the University of Minnesota, Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management capstone course presented their final project to both commissions, council members and city staff. Seven groups made recommendations concerning: • Vegetation management in parks, open spaces and right-of-ways, and Brookview golf course • Stormwater management in neighborhood ponds, regional ponds and wetlands • Public outreach and education regarding natural resource management • Policies, partnerships and funding opportunities A copy of their report is on -file 2. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm. Lisa Nesbitt Administrative Assistant GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes December 10, 2012 Present: Commissioners Rich Baker, Dawn Hill, Jim Stremel, Damon Struyk; Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant Absent: Commissioners Tracy Anderson and Debra Yahle 1. Joint Meetin 2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes — November 26, 2012 MOVED by Hill, seconded by Stremel, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the November 26, 2012 meeting. 3. Program/Project Updates No updates 4. Commission Member Council Reports None 5. Other Business None 7. Adjourn MOVED by Stremel, seconded by Struyk, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be January 28, 2013 at 7 pm. Lisa Nesbitt Administrative Assistant Nesbitt, Lisa From: City of Golden Valley <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:28 PM To: Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric Subject: Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley [#61] Name * Ted Koshiol Address * 1 507 Kaltern Ln City * Golden Valley Comments * There is no good reason to prohibit backyard chickens. Impose a rule like Minneapolis' and allow a household to have a limited number of chickens with the consent of its neighbors. Nesbitt, Lisa From: City of Golden Valley <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 3:39 PM To: Nesbitt, Lisa; Seaburg, Eric Subject: Feedback Form: Raising Chickens In Golden Valley [#62] Name* Christine Rietsch Address 1 500 Rhode Island Ave N * City * Golden Valley Comments * I have been looking forward to raising egg layers for my own personal use for some time now. I have an expansive garden. The hens would help in turning soil, controlling insects, and providing compost as well as fresh eggs. Inside a fenced yard they will be a good addition. There are several housing options for hens that are not unsightly and will protect the birds from wildlife. Many companies can be found in magazines such as "Mother Earth News" that provide housing such as chicken tractors that look VERY nice. Fresh chicken eggs that are raised properly are good for the environment and for the dietary health of individuals. 6 hens do not require a lot of space and can still be kept very bug free and healthy. Compared to other birds such as guinea fowl- -chickens are not overly noisy. People should not have more than one rooster per property however. This is due to the territorial nature of roosters protecting their flocks, and the noise a rooster makes. I hope you guys say yes. I want some nice laying hens. Thank you! 1 city 0 golden valley Date: January 14, 2013 EFILE COPY MEMORANDUM Public Works Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) To: Golden Valley Environmental Commission From: Eric Seaburg, Graduate Engineer S,/ Subject: Notes on Draft Report Please find enclosed the "Draft Report" for the Section 10.32 Study. Please feel free to read and write on the material enclosed. Any comments, notes, or desired edits will be incorporated into the Final Report. The draft ordinance within the report includes all but one of the desired provisions that the Commission identified during its November meeting. Per request from the City Attorney, the provision regarding advertisement of sale was removed in an effort to reduce redundancy, as such advertisement is already covered under Section 4.20 of the City Code. Also included in the ordinance is a provision that protects impaired water bodies by creating a 500 -ft buffer in which coops and runs may not be located. This provision was included by staff for consideration by the Commission. The two maps enclosed illustrate how such a provision would impact the eligibility of properties. Feel free to call with any questions or concerns regarding the enclosed materials. I look forward to discussing the report further at our meeting this month. Attachments G:\Environmental Commission\Chicken Study\Draft Report Memo.docx Rich Tracy A Lynn Gitelis Debra Yahle SECTION 10.32 STUDY Issues Analysis and Recommended Action Section 10.32 of City Code , For the City of Golden Valley,, Golden Valley Environmental Commission: Jim Stremel Damon Struyk Dawn Hill Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Methodology................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Significance of Study....................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Community Feedback............................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Article in Golden Valley's Publication, CityNews..........................................................................................2 2.2 Article in Local Publication, SunPost Newspaper.........................................................................................2 2.3 Article in Local Publication, KSTP News........................................................................................................2 2.4 Online Forum via City Website.....................................................................................................................2 3.0 Work Program.......................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Those Opposed to Chicken -Keeping (May) ..................... .............................................................................. 3 3.1.1 Mary Britton Clouse — Chicken Run Rescue............................................................................................3 3.1.2 Speaker Summary...................................................................................................................3 3.2 Those in Favor of Chicken -Keeping (June) .... .4:............................................................................................4 3.2.1 Les Larson — City of Oakdale..............................................................................................................4 3.2.2 Bob Lies— Eggplant Urban Farm Supply.. ,., ......... ..,............... ............................. 4 3.2.3 Speaker Summaries ........... .............. .............................4 3.3 Those Who Manage and Enforce Animal Ordinances (lul�r)........................................................................ 5 3.3.1 Keith Streff —Animal Humane w......................... «....................................................................5 3.3.2 Todd Carey—St. Paul Animal Co........ ..................:...............................................................5 3.3.3 Speaker Summaries ........................ ............ ....................................................................5 3.4 Local Ordinance.ReviewfJuiy)................. ..............................................................6 3.5 Those Who ape Knowledgeable about Rea ust).<........................................................... 6 3.5.1 Jacqueline gay -Edina Reams :................. Y... .............................................................................6 3.5.2 Karla Rose — Edina Realty ...............................................................................................6 3.5.3 Speaker Summaries................................................................... 3.6 6ela►en Vary City Staff ( ptimber) . .................................................................................. 7 ��" 3.6.1. Stacy Carlson Chief of Pte...........................................................................................7 3.6.2 -,'Josh Kunde — Firefperty enance Specialist.............................................................................7 ., 3.6.3 Allark Grimes — Direc i of Plann d Development..........................................................................7 3.6.4 Spiker Summaries ....................................................................................................... 7 3.7 Those Whip Manage Wildli . 4pctober)........................................................................................................ 8 3.7.1 Rich Baker -. Minnesota "Department of Natural Resources....................................................................8 3.7.2 Speaker Summary.,,,, ..........................................................................................................................8 4.0 Important Meeting Minutes..................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 City Council Minutes.....................................................................................................................................8 4.2 Environmental Commission Minutes........................................................................................................... 9 5.0 Recommendation....................................................................................................................................11 Appendix A — Golden Valley CityNews Publication...............................................................................................13 AppendixB — SunPost Newspaper Publication.....................................................................................................14 AppendixC — KSTP News Publication...................................................................................................................15 AppendixD — Local Ordinances Matrix.................................................................................................................16 Appendix E — Golden Valley Website Feedback Matrix.........................................................................................17 Appendix F — Recommended Ordinance Revision to Section 10.32......................................................................18 1.0 Introduction The chicken (Gallus gallus comesticus) is the most common bird in the entire world, with a population of approximately 24 billion in 2003. Unlike their close relative the turkey, chickens are domesticated fowl and are not normally found in the wild. They have traditionally been associated with rural villages, farms and townships as a means of supplying the local people with fresh meat and eggs. This is still common in the United States, but was more widespread until the middle of the 20th century. As part of the suburban housing boom that proceeded WWII, millions of Americans left the rural agricultural life to live a life of city convenience. To many, suburban living included a life free of farms and farm animals. As such, several cities accommodated this desire and structured brdinances to forbid the keeping of farm animals within city limits. This gave way to the supermarket era, "ere city dwellers could travel to their local grocery store and purchase the groceries they desired. Presently, there has been a strong push by individual! Backyard gardens are already a common practice irt_i backyard chickens is quite new. Currently, Section 10. keeping of any of the following farm a4Mais cattle, h geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, a ee! approached by a group of residents to rec de Council requested that the Environmental C issiol formed to aid the Council) perforr recommendation by the Spring of 1.1 The Environmental Commission experience, endorsement, monthly meetings, a differents present to discuss the topic. Topi advocates of chicken keeping, lo( estate values, wildlife impacts, ar had an online forum set up on !h regarding the issue. 1.2 Significance of Study study on and organizations to produce food locally. burban life, but the push to maintain a flock of �Of Golden Valley's City Code prohibits the )rses, mules, sheep, goats, swine; ponies, ducks, In 201`, the Golden Valley City Council was dinance tti allow the keeping of chickens. The WP of volunteer Golden Valley residents .. h its findings and a ►tO i to hear frog Y ious professionals who may have knowledge, E, he regarding the issue. At the Environmental Commission's was c " d each month with a knowledgeable representative hovered i luded the following: opposition to chicken keeping, imal ordinances, the enforcement of local animal ordinances, real I qty staff concerns. Also, to receive public opinion, the Commission City webpage where individuals were able to post their thoughts The purpose of the study and report is to inform the City Council of the information gathered by the Environmental Commission, as well to present the Commission's recommendation. - 1 - 2.0 Community Feedback As part of the study, the Commission monitored media coverage and public opinion regarding backyard chicken keeping as it relates to Golden Valley. 2.1 Article in Golden Valley's Publication Cie News To inform residents of the study and to solicit public opinion, a full page was used in the City's bi- monthly news publication, CityNews, to relay the message. As seen in Appendix A, the article indicates the timeline of the study, the topics to be covered, and how to use the online feedback forum. 2.2 Article in Local Publication SunPost Newspaper An article by Sue Webber of the Sun Newspapers discusses the City's response to the chicken keeping issue. It is an informative piece that highlights the group performing the study, how long the study is estimated to take and the reason behind that timeline, the City webpage for online feedback, and other topics to be covered by the Environmental Commission in 2012. This article can be found in Appendix B. 2.3 Article in Local PLiblication KTP New KSTP news did a segment on Golden segment, Golden Valley Mayor Shep and St. Paul already had f mctioning Mayor responded by explaining that to make these kinds of decisionst broadcast is shown in Appendix C. 2.4 Online Forum via Cii /alley's decision to study Section 10.32 of the City Code. Within the Urris was interviewed. The reporter pointed out that Minneapolis hicken ordinances that Golden Valley could inevitably use. The iolden Valley is not the same as Minneapolis or St. Paul and needs `. The cAlne page where the video is hosted and summary of the The online forum setup on the City -website attracted numerous comments from residents. In total, over 60 comments were received. There were also a number of comments received via telephone and email. All comments obtained were, relayed to the Environmental Commission and used as part of their study. A summary of the comments received can be found in Appendix D of this report. 3.0 Work Program This section provides a detailed summary of all topics covered by the Commission. When speakers are referenced, a background of the speaker is given as well as a summary of their discussion with the Commission. It should be noted that, while the summaries provided within this report attempt to touch on the main points covered by the speakers, the conversations were generally quite long and cannot fully be contained within this report. -2- 3.1 Those Opposed to Chicken -Keeping (May_) 3.1.1 Mary Britton Clouse - Chicken Run Rescue Mary Britton Clouse is the organizer of Chicken Run Rescue, a Minneapolis based non-profit organization devoted to the safety and well-being of "urban" chickens. The organization provides temporary shelter and vet care for unwanted and mistreated birds. In addition, the organization locates and screens potential adopters within 90 miles of the Twin Cities metropolitan region. 3.1.2 Speaker Summary Ms. Britton Clouse began by giving an introduction to her organization. Chicken Run Rescue is the only urban chicken rescue organization in the country and has provided temporary shelter and vet care to over 850 birds. She went on to describe the increasing interested in Minneapolis, a city where urban chickens are currently allowed. "Over 400 permits have already been issued by Minneapolis Animal Care & Control, up from 26 in 2001, with approximately 15 new applications arriving per week. As an organization, Chicken Run Rescue promotes the following regulations to municipalities: • Permit chickens as companion animals only and be prepared to enforce protections as such. • Prohibit Breeding, encourage adoption. • Ptottibt sale orbarter of eggs. • Put, aughter bah in place. A Commission mem r asked ins. Clouse if there are people using internet or community education forums in orderto'learn I ow -to rais&vhickens responsibly. Ms. Clouse responded that there are in fact a number of learning outlets, but that they almost all focused on egg 1 . duction and notut theN' 's general care. She mentioned that she holds classes at her own house and has interested people spend a few hours taking care of her birds. This way, they get hands on experience 4nd can see the proper way to care for a chicken. According to Ms. Clouse, hens naturally have varying laying cycles. Some hens will lay once a day, while others will lay a few time�*r week; Ms. Clouse again stressed how dangerous it can be to feed hens a layer formula tht0' cially enhances egg production. She stated that the leading cause of death in hens is due to ovarian cancer and that it is common for hens to die after two years of egg laying. -3- 3.2 Those in Favor of Chicken -Keeping (June 3.2.1 Les Larson - City of Oakdale Les Larson is a Planning Commissioner and Chairman of the Ordinance Review Committee with the City of Oakdale. Les volunteered to speak with the Commission in regard to the success he has personally had in raising chickens. In addition, he has extensive experience writing and reviewing city codes, as Oakdale has just recently finished a six-year review of their codes and ordinances. 3.2.2 Bob Lies - Eggplant Urban Farm Supply ; Bob Lies is the owner of Egg I Plant Urban Farm Supply, a business out of St. Paul that caters to the growing demand of urban farming. In addition to running the busniness, Bob and his wife have been putting on information chicken -raising workshops in S. Paul on a monthly basis. Bob agreed to speak to the Commission with an emphasis on the benefits it can bring to a family or neighborhood and how to raise chickens correctly. 3.2.3 Speaker Summaries Bob Lies has owned chickens for five years and has owned an urban farming supply store for two years. He began by addressing a few items that every potential chicken owner should consider. First and most importantly, Bob asks potential owners what the purpose is for having chickens. One can get a Chicken for laying purposes, for meat, or for companionship. He recommends evaluating theft owing quettion, "Would you take a $5 bird to the vet if it gets sick or wounded," as the "answer to .this question will provide the backbone for the chicken raising operation. lnaddition t ,eownershould knowwhathe or she is going to do with the bird once it stops laying eggs. That being said, a number of Bob's personal birds have stopped laying eggs, and his family has d ed tol them live as companion pets. When done right, Bob believes that the chicken-raisi *rocesstpp be a both educating and fulfilling. Les Larson talked about h1s,personal chicken -raising operation in Oakdale. He spoke largely on the physical process of keeping the chickens. He went into great detail on his cleaning, heating, and egg gathering processes. He gets his enjoyment out of making things as easy and simple as possible, and he thinks there is a good reason everybody should do that. According to Les, if ones finds that it is a burden to go out and take care of the chickens, or one dreads going outside when it is 20 degrees below zero and windy and he or she knows that they're going to spend a half hour out there, they are not going to take care of the chickens. For Les, being creative and ingenious is half the fun. The Commission asked the men about the coop heating process works. Larson replied that, with a properly insulated coop, one can expect to pay approximately $5 per month via their electricity bill. Les, in response to Larson, stated that most coops are not as elaborate as Larson's and that the average chicken -keeper could expect to pay substantially more than $5 per month. The chickens' water also needs to heated in the winter or it will freeze. -4- The Commission pointed out that the sex of baby chicks is not known for months after hatching. Bob was asked what people would need to do after finding out they have a baby rooster when roosters are generally not allowed in most cities. According to Bob, his company has an arrangement with a local farm store that has agreed to take the roosters, as roosters are still a commodity to some. 3.3 Those Who Manage and Enforce Animal Ordinances (July) 3.3.1 Keith Streff — Animal Humane Society Officer Keith Streff is with the Humane Investigations Department of the Animal Humane Society. He has more than 25 years of experience in the investigation and enforcement of animal welfare laws. He also has extensive knowledge in the language and structure of animal - related ordinances. Keith agreed to speak with the Commission about information pertaining to animal welfare and to field questions relating to ordinances and ordinance development. 3.3.2 Todd Carey — St. Paul Animal Control Todd Carey is an officer with the St. Paul Animal Control. As a field officer, Todd responds to many of the complaints and concerns that St. Paul residents have about different animal -related situations. He has seen both good and bad examples of chicken -keeping in St. Paul. 3.3.3 Speaker Summaries .;_ - . Officer Streff began by speaking about the issue of amending the code for the keeping of non - contemporary animals within city limits. Speaking about how other cities address non - contemporary animals; Streff described that each city will have its own unique way of structuring their municipal language. Much of this will depend on the demographics, gevgraphics, and practkality within their zoning. The Commission asked about the subjectivity of permitting and whether it creates too much animosity between neighbors when one person may be allowed whereasanother cannot. Streff said he likes to think of it as realistic arbitration. The City should be allowed to use some common sense within the permit process to create stipulations based on specific conditions within the property under consideration. Officer Carey noted that, similar to what Streff had said, chickens in St. Paul are considered non - contemporary exotic animals that require a permit and inspection through the St. Paul Animal Control. Carey indicated that the inspections are a way to make sure that all requirements that were stipulated within the permit are being met. He also explained that there are occasions when residents keep Tai Roosters for fighting purposes. In addition, Carey mentioned that there are instances when different ethnic groups use male roosters for cultural purposes. The Commission asked Officer Carey about the number of permits and the time spent by the Animal Control in regulating the permits. To that end, Carey stated that there are over 100 permitted addresses in the City that keep chickens. There is an officer dedicated to chickens who spends approximately half of his time performing chicken related tasks. Officer Streff -5- pointed out that although St. Paul spends a great deal of time regulating chickens, St. Paul is much larger than Golden Valley with a vastly different demographic, and that Golden Valley staff can expect a case load that would be scaled down dramatically. In summary, the officers recommended that Golden Valley create an ordinance that best fits the city, regardless of what other communities are doing. Should the city pass an ordinance allowing chickens, the city should make sure that it has the resources necessary to enforce the stipulations outlined in the ordinance. Officer Streff recommended that the City's ordinance cover all non -contemporary animals within the same permit, so that the City isn't having to hold a similar procedure in the future to handle honey bee9.5, goats, pigeons, and others. 3.4 Local Ordinance Review (July City staff provided the environmental Commission with a number of documents that reviewed ordinances from other local municipalities. By analyzing other city, ordinances, it became apparent that ordinances on fowl and other non -contemporary animals varied"wi,dely from city to'jty. A few examples: • Edina - Chickens classified as livestock and livestock is ~p` ` ill ted • Minneapolis - Permit required with neighborconsent, ann ections • Shoreview- Perm ire aired, number -of birds d. ti epepft--o,n lot • Robbinsdale - ore than Zhens requir4 City touncil I • New Hope -14 re than S ens requires�C ty Council app val • St. Louis Park - Nbfe shllharbor fowlitvithout written approval from City A detailede or ~" and trtanyother#inances can be found in Appendix D. 3.5 e Who are "ie 3.5 about Real Estate (Aulqw� V117- gust) 3.5.1 ueline Day Edina Realty Jacquelin is areal a agent in the community and does a lot of work in Golden Valley. She has been:`1 tensed r t#or/hmker fnr nvar 7n vaarc cha hac a v2cr 1enn%A11MAo of +tie a +;. metropolitan ares #4unding counties. 3.5.2 Karla Rose - Edina Realty Karla Rose is also a real estate agent in the community. Like Jacqueline, she sells many homes in Golden Valley and also has extensive knowledge of the metropolitan area as a whole. 3.5.3 Speaker Summaries Both Jacqueline and Karla agreed that property values would not be affected if the City decides to allow residents to keep chickens. However, they explained that even though the property values are unaffected, the potential buyers that the City attracts might shift. According to Day, a new ordinance for allowing chickens, for good or bad, would present a new perception to the I M. new ordinance for allowing chickens, for good or bad, would present a new perception to the west metro about what Golden Valley represents; "I think it is all about Golden Valley deciding who it wants to be. Every city has its own personality. The thing I like about Golden Valley is that we kind of do our own thing. It is certainly probably the most urban of all of western suburbs." The real estate agents compared the issue to times they have tried to sell homes next to a residence with a loud dog or unkept yard. Some buyers may be turned off, whereas others may not. As long as the coops are tidy and maintained, they do not foresee many real estate driven problems. 3.6 Golden Valley City Staff (September) 3.6.1 Stacy Carlson - Chief of Police Stacy Carlson has been the Chief of Police for the City of Golden Valley for over five years. In those five years, she has seen first-hand how often the Police Department responds to animal related calls. These calls include neighbor disputes, barking dogs, stray animals, and others. 3.6.2 Josh Kunde - Fire / Property Maintenance Specialist Josh Kunde's role as the Fire / Property Maintenance Specialist involves a wide range of property inspections to make sure compliance with the City Code is achieved. He performs these inspections on a routine and complaint basis. 3.6.3 Mark Grimes - Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, the Director of Planning and Development, has extensive knowledge of the City's zoningpolildes. Accessory structures and fences that would potentially be required for a resident to keep chickens would be subject to these zoning ordinances. 3.6.4, Speaker Summaries Police Chief Carlson began by describing the Police Department's role in animal related calls. They currently respond toioose or lost animal calls, barking dog complaints, and any other animal related issue. Carlson went on to explain that the Police Department, as a whole, was not in favor of an ordinance change to allow chicken keeping. Her stance was due to the additional workload that would inevitably fall to the police department. Beyond the permitting process, she foresees neighbor complaints being one of the most time consuming issues her department would face with respect to an ordinance change. When the police respond to situations that lead to taking animals from a home, there is a city -owned storage facility that the police department uses to house animals until they can be transported to a shelter. For bigger cases, such as hoarding cases, the police department contracts with a third party that has additional resources. She made the argument that the city -owned animal impound facility is really geared towards harboring dogs and cats and that it would need to be modified to handle chickens. -7- Josh Kunde discussed the growing number of licenses that the City issues each year. Currently, licenses are issued for all single family rental homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartments, group homes, and town homes. He estimated that approximately 700 licenses are issued per year. Kunde fears that additional animal licenses/permits and the prospect of noncompliance could potentially create an even larger work load for staff, when resources are already being stretched fairly thin. Mark Grimes mentioned that the City already receives numerous complaints from residents who take issue with the appearance of their neighbors' sheds. He fears that coops would draw even more scrutiny from neighbors and doesn't see it as a benefit to the community as a whole. Mark suggested having a very rigid set of rules for those who would like to keep chickens. 3.7 Those Who Manage Wildlife (Octoberl 3.7.1 Rich Baker - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Rich Baker works with the Department of Natural resources and spoke with many of his colleagues regarding potential wildlife impacts. Most importantly, he spoke on the issue of predators and predator attraction. 3.7.2 Speaker Summary Mr. Baker reported that backyard chickens, generally, would not increase the number of predators in a neighborhood. Any problems -.With predators that may arise would be a function of how the City decides to set standards, such as coup design, fencing, food management, and waste management. He also explained that animal populations do not move in response to the Presence of prey in great distances. If the predator is close, and can hear or see the prey, then they will obviously move that short distance. In essence, predators come and go. Chickens will naturally gather interest from predators already in the area, as opposed to pulling additional predators into the area. 4.0 Important Meeting Minutes 4.1 City Council Minutes June 8, 2010 Council/Manager Meeting Minutes "Council Member Pentel spoke in favor of allowing chickens to be kept in the City. After discussion Council Member Freiberg stated that he is not opposed to considering a chicken ordinance, but as a majority of the Council does not support proceeding, he did not think staff time should be committed to the issue." March 10, 2012 Council Manager Meeting Minutes "Tom Burt stated that a number of residents have requested the City Council amend the City Code to allow residents to keep chickens. He said that staff has some concern about enforcement, but if the direction from City Council is to go forward with allowing residents to keep chickens staff would come back to the Council with a draft ordinance. Council Member Scanlon said she has spoken at length with the Humane Society and Mary Britton Clouse from Chicken Run Rescue about her concerns including: how regulations would be enforced, disposing of waste, requiring building permits for coops, heating and cooling the coops, people not taking care of their chickens, odors and noise. She suggested the issue be tabled until the Council has had time to do more research about the pros and cons of allowing chickens. After discussion, the Council consensus was to have the Environmental Commission study the issue further before a decision was made." May 08, 2012 Council/Manager Meeting Minutes "Environmental Commission Chair Rich Baker reviewed the Commission's proposed work plan and timeline regarding the study of whether the City Code should be amended in order to allow the keeping of chickens. He noted that the six month deadline given by the Council might not be realistic and that the Commission homes to have the study complete by March 2013." 4.2 Environmental Commission Minutes April 23, 2012 Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes "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 discussgcl.lrt.addition to the recommendations from Council, the commission made the following requests of staff to assist the 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 part of their study • Provide ordinances from othefcities 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). • Backgro rid, 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." May 21, 2012 Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes "Baker reported that he presented the work plan at a Council/Manager meeting on May 8th. He asked that in an effort to insure the timeline for the study is met, that commissioners check their calendars and report any meeting conflicts to staff. Mary Britton Clouse and Albert Clouse from Chicken Run Rescue presented information on their organization to the commission. Their presentation is on -file and Q&A's are listed separately. Staff researched ordinances which manage chickens, in comparable cities and the results were given to the commission. This will be discussed at a future meeting". June 25, 2012 Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes "Bob Lies, owner of Egg Plant Urban Farm Supply, spoke to the commission about his experiences in urban farming. Les Larson, a Planning Commissioner and Chairman of the Ordinance Review Committee with the City of Oakdale, also spoke to the commission about his experience raising chickens. Additionally he shared his experience in reviewing codes and ordinances for the City of Oakdale. Both presentations are on -file and the Q&A's are listed separately. Staff handed out 3 -ring binders to each Commissioner, which will assist in keeping the study material organized." July 30, 2012 Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes "Guests Officer Keith Streff from the Animal Humane Society and Todd Carey of the St. Paul Animal Control, shared their experiences in animal control and enforcement. Mr. Carey said that a permit is required for any St. Paul resident wishing to raise chickens. To obtain the permit the applicant is required to get permission from 75% of the neighbors within 150' of their property but that does not include properties across the street. He recommended that if the City adopts a similar permitting process that they require the permission of the property owners on either side of the petitioner. St. Paul currently has active 100 permits for harboring chickens: Officer Keith Streff spoke of the importance of having an ordinance that is enforceable. Q&A's from the discussion are listed separately." August 27, 2012 Environmental Commissipn Meeting_ Minutes "Guests Karla Rose and Jacqueline Day, realtors with Edina Realty, answered questions from the commission regarding the potential impact to property sales if the ordinance is changed to allow chickens. Both realtors stated they did not believe property values would be affected by the change. Mr. Rose has sold many homes in cities Afire chicken"safe allowed and has seen no impact. Ms. Day believes the City needs to answer the question of who do they want to be; how does the City want to paint itself? Struyk asked if having chickens would need=to be disclosed and the answer was no." September 20, 2012 Environmental Commission "Guests police Chief Stacy Carlson, fire/p(pperty maintenance inspector Josh Kunde and planning director Mark Grimes discussed how changing the ordinance will impact each of their departments. Carlson said the police department currently serves as animal control for the city and they are not in favor of amending the ordinance. Most of the calls received by the department are livability issues and she believes the addition of chickens in the city will add to the workload. In addition she expressed concern regarding a higher call volume (due to noise, smell, etc.), the logistics of having to transport chickens to the Humane Society due to the lack of impound facilities for chickens and the potential for attracting predators. Kunde echoed some of the same concerns but also added the concern for fire hazards caused in heating coops and the additional time staff time required for licensing and inspecting. Each license may require multiple visits to the property. The initial inspection may only be one visit but if there are complaints then multiple inspections may be necessary as a follow up. -10- Grimes said harboring animals is outside of the zoning code but Planning may be involved due to the fact that coops would be considered an accessory building and property owners are limited to a total of 1,000 square feet for all accessory buildings. Q&As are listed separately. Commissioners reviewed the study timeline. An open house will not be done as a public hearing is part of the process if Council decides to move forward with a change in the ordinance. Seaburg will add to the timeline, the date for the presentation to Council (March). He will also draft an outline for the final report for the next meeting. Baker will serve the role of wild life expert at the next meeting." October 22, 2012 Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes "Baker spoke to the commission, in his role as a DNR official, about wild life implications if Sec. 10.32 is amended. He does not believe the predator population will increase as a result of chickens. What could attract predators is food that is not properly stored or waste that is not cleaned up. He confers with other speakers that proper coop design and fencing will help to keep predators away. Seaburg presented a draft of the final report. The commission will ireview it at the next meeting and discuss the recommendation to the Council. Gitelis asked if staff could research what the penalties are for ordinance violations in other cities that allow chickens. She also asked for an estimate of additional staff time devoted to this ordinance if changed'' November 26, 2012 Environmental Commission Meeti butes "The commissioners each shared their thoughts on the.fisul'tiof the sti dy. An initial poll was taken followed by further d%tsion. Seaburg reported that he asked the Police Chief and,Oie Chief of Fire/Inspections what the time implications would be to their staff if ordinance was c� 'ed to allow chickens. Based on an estimate of 15 applications/ complaints/inspections, they belevedr there could be an additional 96 hours per year of staff time if the ordinance Was amended to allow chickens. A motion to recommend to Council to not allow chickens in the city was MOVED by Anderson and seconded by Baker. All in favor were Anderson, Baker and Gitelis; opposed were Hill, Stremel, Struyk and Yahle therefore the motion failed.Following the vote, a list of pros and cons was developed as well as a list of potential elements for theordinance. Seaburg will revise the final report and create a draft ordinance. Both will be reviewed at the January meeting. Staff will check with the city attorney to see if the ordinance can be restricted to single family homes only. Seaburg will review other city ordinances to see which ones require neighbor consent." 5.0 Recommendation It is the Environmental Commission's recommendation that Section 10.32 of the Golden Valley City Code be modified to allow the keeping of hen chickens on residential property. The Commission came to this conclusion after hearing from many professionals and residents. While the Commission has decided to recommend a modification to Section 10.32, it does so with a cautionary approach. Through its - 11 - research, the Commission has heard of situations in which raising chickens has been successful, such as a family with small children raising a flock in a well-maintained coop for the purpose of education. In contrast, the Commission has heard stories of animal hoarding, cockfighting, and unkept coops that endanger the well-being of the birds. In order for this to be a successful ordinance, the City will need to allocate appropriate staff time to facilitate the fair and safe harboring of these animals. As estimated by City staff, the time necessary to process permits, provide property inspections, and follow up on complaints is approximately 96 hours annually. This is based on the assumption that the City might see approximately 15 permits per year. This estimation is based on what other cities of Golden Valley's size have seen as well as from feedback the Commission has received from residents. Appendix F of this report is the proposed revision to Section 10.32. The table below outlines many of the discussion points that the Commission felt important to their decision making. Pros Minimal number of requests No impact on property values Respect for private property rights Educational value Local f Cons Staff time - Little anticipated interest Impact on neighbors Difficulty of enforcement Cruelty "livestock in -the City" ;©isposing of old chickens Slippery slope Uneven treatment of lot size -12- Appendix A - Golden Valley CityNews Publication -13- Chickens In Golden Valley? 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 look- ing into over the next six to 12 months. Currently, Section 1.0.32 of the Golden Valle 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 a 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 ora private property in urban environrnent.s 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 neigh- bors' 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 proper- ty; 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 ams of allowing chickens on private property in Golden Val- ley and a recommendation to the City Council. Public Input An online feedback form is available on the City website for Golden Valley residents who wish to provide input: about the issue of raising chickens in Golder) Valley. Go to www.g;oldenvalleymn.goy/,`homeyard/. When studying the issue, the Environmental Commission will consider comments from completed feedback forms as well as from a yet -to -be -scheduled open house (watch CityNews and the City website for details). All feedback will become part of the public record and final report ` �s, Finance Documents Available online Several City finance documents are available online for public review. 'The City Budget is the financial plan for the City for the upcoming two years. 'The Capital Im- provement Program (CIP) outlines scheduled expen- ditures for the upcoming five years for major purchases and/or construction projects that cannot be financed in one year because of their cost. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is an audited financial statement of the previous year. All of these documents are reviewed by Moody:s Inves- tor Services for Golden Valley's A.aa bond rating, which is the highest available. Check them o ut: at www.golde n. Valle, ymn.gov/budget/. For more information, contact Finance Director Sue Virnig at 763-593-8010. ' Appendix B - SunPost Newspaper Publication -14- Chickens study will take 10 months in Golden Valley I Sun Post Page 1 of 3 Online Study Globe Univ /MN School of Business Successful Futures Start Here' wtiaw. tlSB(:oIleztc.edu.%OnIin(!-Proararns ACIChaices (A " r) O 0S , Brooklyn Center - Brooklyn Park - Crystal - Robbinsdale - New Hope - Goldcn Valley Home News Sports Schools Opinion Community Police & Fire Classifieds Public Notices Chickens study will take 10 months in Golden Valley By Sun Post Editor on May 16, 2012 at 12:00 am Search.. 'stn ii Print Email BY Sue Webber — Sun Newspapers A decision on whether people in Golden Valley can keep chickens won't come quickly Rich Baker, chair of the city's Environmental Commission, outlined a draft work plan for that group's study of the issue at a City Council work session May 8. The commission has been charged with studying whether Golden Valley city code should be amended to allow people to keep chickens. The City Council originally stipulated a six-month study; but Baker said last week the work cannot be completed within six months. "You gave us eight points to cover, and we felt obligated to cover them," Baker said. "if we hadn't gotten eight points, we would have tried to do this faster." The group's motivation will be to resolve the issue before spring 2013, Baker said. Baker said the group will hear presentations from the following groups: - Professionals opposed to keeping chickens in urban environments (Animal Humane Society, Chicken Run Rescue) Professionals supportive of keeping chickens in urban environments Representatives of cities similar to Golden Valley that allow chickens (Robbinsdale. New Hope, St. Anthony, and Shoreview) - Wildlife professionals regarding environmental and wildlife impacts (Department of Natural Resources) - A realtor regarding the effect of chickens on real estate values Submit Quel yvi 3 Yt; Chickens study will take 10 months in Golden Valley I Sun Post Page 2 of 3 - Golden Valley code enforcement staff, police and city attorney - Planning staff and Planning Commission review of land use issues "We want to hear a diversity of views," Baker said. A city Web page will be created to accept comments from the public, Baker said He also anticipates a public open house in late summer to provide an opportunity for citizens to address the commission on the issue. Baker last week also reviewed the Environmental Commission's priorities for 2012, but said there won't be much time to consider them until the chicken issue is resolved. "This [the chicken study] will be in place of other things we might be doing," Baker said. "This will consume us for the next year. We intend to do a good job. It will not be a wasted effort. There's a lot of interest in this." The commission's other priorities for 2012 include: Transportation alternatives Composting Natural area management plans Pilot project of solar panels on city buildings Promotion of student and school projects Development of a green fair section for the home remodeling fair. Issues the city would have to decide before allowing chickens, council members said earlier, include what would constitute humane living conditions for chickens, how the regulations would be enforced, disposal of waste products, odors, noise, building permits for coops, and whether the fowl are to be considered pets, egg -producers or companions. Two years ago, a 19 -year resident of Golden Valley, spurred by community interest across the country in raising chickens, told the council many cities are changing their ordinances to allow chickens in backyards, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, San Franciso, Portland, Dallas and Miami. In the Twin Cities metro area, chickens are allowed in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Burnsville and New Hope. But the Golden Valley City Council decided at that time not to carry the discussion any further. Related posts: Chicken study will take 10 months in Golden Valley Golden Valley Library Golden Valley Seniors ArtsySmartsy in Golden Valley Not an ordinary day in Golden Valley Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked " http://post.mnsun.com/2012/05/chickens-study-will-take-l0-months-in-golden-valley/ 9/17/2012 Appendix C - KSTP News Publication Nn - -15- Uolden'Valley Takes 10 Months to Study Chickens I KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul Page I of 3 L. aSEASON JERSEY SHORE TOMORROW 10 9C NEWS WHEN YOU WANT IT 5t. Paul/ Minneapolis Got news, weather, traffic, and CurrentlyQpN . ., iNdl1f.bYS sports Or your TIO.le pttenP Y5OF 5orthego.c" Forecast x Radar ONLINE Home I News I Weather I Sports I Traffic I Only on 5 I Things To Do I Marketplace I Contact Us I Twin Cities Live I Links I Search KSTP.com ► ISearch s.aRn Keyword ► Ke ward Dr down u - Updated: 05/16/2012 10:59 PM Created: 05/16/2012 7:44 PM KSTP.com 1 8 Print 1 0 Email By: lay Kolls Golden Valley Takes 10 Months to Study Chickens If you think government moves slow, consider this: Golden Valley is taking ten months to study a chicken coop ordinance. The city's Environmental Commission told the City Council it will need that much time to do an exhaustive study of the chicken coop code. Minneapolis and St. Paul already have chicken coop ordinances. But, Golden Valley Mayor, Shep Harris, tells 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS they do not want to pattern their ordinance after those cities, because Golden Valley is unique and they want to get input from citizens. Harris says it won't cost taxpayers any extra money, because it Is part of the existing budget of the Environmental Commission. Harris says the City will look at what other communities have done with their chicken coop ordinances, Local farm supply stores tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS sales of chickens in the metro area are at an all-time high. Eagan is also considering a chicken coop ordinance and Burnsville recently adopted one. Most Read Stories • Plane Crashes, Lands on Road in Eden Prairie • Mother of Boy Killed by Car Wants Changes to Mpls. Street • Wildfire Destroys Homes in NW Minnesota Town • Truth Test: Is Bachmann Right about Muslim Brotherhood? • Wildfire Destroys Homes, Prompts Evacuations in NW Minn. Video Anchorwoman Fires Back aP ' .After Weight .n.• • Regional Radar • 7 -Day Forecast hq:Hkstp.com/news/stories/S2621276. shtml?cat=1 10/3/2012 You Might Be Interested In From Around the Web • Mother of Boy Killed by Car • Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why Wants Changes to Mpls. Street Moneynews Oct 02 • Conn. Teacher Kills Masked • Eye -Opening Documentary on Alien Contact May Sway Even Teen, Learns It Was Son Sep the Most Hardened Sceptics 28 (Full) SnagFilms • Vikings May Not See QB Locker , Six Minutes Left On Parking Next Sunday Oct 01 Meter, This Guy Got A Ticket • UPS Driver Killed in Mpls. Anyway AOL Autos Shooting Remembered Fondly , Why You Have to Pee in the by Customers Sep 28 Middle of the Night You Beauty .Lw11131::�SI!1di More News • Wildfire Destroys Homes in NW Minnesota Town • First Debate Sets Up Moment of High -Risk Theater • Plane Crashes, Lands on Road in Eden Prairie • Properties with 'Vote No' Signs Vandalized in Blaine Most Read Stories • Plane Crashes, Lands on Road in Eden Prairie • Mother of Boy Killed by Car Wants Changes to Mpls. Street • Wildfire Destroys Homes in NW Minnesota Town • Truth Test: Is Bachmann Right about Muslim Brotherhood? • Wildfire Destroys Homes, Prompts Evacuations in NW Minn. Video Anchorwoman Fires Back aP ' .After Weight .n.• • Regional Radar • 7 -Day Forecast hq:Hkstp.com/news/stories/S2621276. shtml?cat=1 10/3/2012 Appendix D - Local Ordinances Matrix -16- 0 !'� I f i j; � l I � I f es{ �! i f� j 0- 0 U- E i Ico o) 0 ;ol 1:2 1 101 cn W I I 0)CD ic; cys V) CD C: CD 0 _0 co =3 (D i OL iod, 0 0 cp E '0 15 C: 0. 0 E E cu E F- cz -0. 0 0 i " E N CD > 0. 10. a) CL a- (n v5 b 0) 76 iV5 CL :3 LO — -0 01— M -V5 E co i . ic w a- 2. -0 1 > 'n cr (n of 0) ! Wrt5 cn Eti, Icr cn (ni 0 0 r 0) cz I of :3 CD w a) .0 AL >, 0 C, 0 A_ E• CO i c 0 CD cn (D 0 0 w co i. -C CL co = 0 i - ci- — a - (D 0— 0 co LL i CD cZ a) I 'n 0 — CO (D 0 0 c = — _I 0 U) cc CO Co. =3 u 0 10— 0 a) it - E W 0 - 'o !:F E ca z i CL 0 E CO Y)l CD E cD 0 -0 a) - < V) C: -C Co. 0 Co. c 0) '5 !:t-- E -0 �ol -r- ;-- Ln (n -0 i E 1 Q) (D 0 CO 1 a) 10 CD il�j El 0.--5 0 Z C: Elo 6c* 0 ca CD =10 a) E CD CLI 0 i -al _0 0 0 C: 115 OL E 1 Lo cD x V) 0 n i 0,CD cul0 i (D. (D 0 v5 (D 9) cn i OL �: a). of ,e (D CD CL I CL (n --j M U :3 2 a o < uj It _0 Q Co (D a) cQ -01 CD w =lb E -0 F U 0 n cu .2 col '0 0 col 3: 0 W Ce) :L- 0 C) Z < 0 (D T 0 0 a) co (n 0! z 0 m (1) a) -�6 C) > 0 r- co 0 -0 CQ I < 10 3: ci> _0 co ca J -- LL LL, Lu Q4 ! 0 (D 0- Cl t W — co 0 a) E 0 0) (n (n _0 a) 0 z . :3 . -0 — -0 --a w (A (n 0) 0) 0) _0 " CL (D Q) ';= C C 0 " - a) -2 (D :3 1-- -0 M CD 0 1 CU -ZB z C) lc� C7 1-- -0 0) Cl. a O!w a) 0 3. :t-- U.); v, 0 E cy 0 '0 0 (D Wi . =3 a c CY ro 31 C < cr i "d -C 0 0 .2.2 0 E -jai -2i w C: o Ca j co 0) ! 0 a) Co 0 U) -ia I I (zi " 1 0 C, >� U) N 04 t-- CD ci co i a) — m > olr a) a 0 > U) Oi C: i -C v A = 0 .;-- >, — _� IFE :Fl E 1 CD -i� z E o >�' ol 2i i I E3 EI :D U -j 72 u o�- I (n ol Diol 1 :Lo Eij:t-_ — 41 LLI 0 =! 0 Lo (D I a), 0) Q) I -r- a) 0 0 1-r- 1 a) :t -- U- < ol ih cu a- co 0164 < io —1cor- r',Iz:a-im ml 0 UT a. 0 < 01-i -j (011L 0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- z 0 < _0 CD Q) i5 (D 3: LLJ 0 .2 -2 !E 2 -2 -2 a. < < < < 0 Q - U) F- 0 cc Z) U)_r_ V) w � U � Z Q U Z u O O J M L Q w U F— OJ w LL � O u a ` < Q c� c� G L LL fco I f f 1 oCL Q I 1 1 c° l i ! I I i N i CD I i I f j ,> ! ! v I f l I 0 1 i cu o ! ,0 I i�f 1 1 � UI t 1 OI N; I 1 I I f co I cc of I I of �� a 1 c ( cz f n V 17f 00 i E w, vi ! O'c' IiicaI ro f fU��i o71 ca >I�! 131 0 1 (n 0f Ef N� ! �I o ! Z Ef p O 3f vOI yi �j L i , >; U) NI O; f O EW i Uicl �i i -uUj LiL ia) wz SoI 71 )l OE -CfY',0 O Z 0 CI (n sC LI C\ji N� C 'HILI —FzI�1 .0 .(n -CI V UI O 0 ; 0 N� a) SII OIN! U) t O 71 i CL `—ice t:3 Ef a) Ni Oi Oi cc E Cil C LU Y O. zl N• Of —I a 21¢; OI OI z�zj E� N O! Y Z O Q C7 E 3 3 W o O O O i Y Q Q fLS a _O cUQ) _0 C: } O O O = C Q U cn z U) Appendix E - Golden Valley Website Feedback Matrix -v- r; v- -v- u C N 'Q > I O N L ^ Y y.. QL1 �1 p 0 G C o N O -p `J^ ns cG O L> Nv N I a) o v c c rQo ;uL G C — o . 6 •c J—N • 'O aG Y Jv Jcns o o o Y L L N C �' T N E O aJ w- Q Q N Z .4; Q1 > o a v 0�0 +L-+ L L -p v aJ J J Y u N o u �c N o a, T Q. a L c c p i c N c 0 3 o c u v a1 3 J @ "o T r-+ a) 0 L aJ u O O J- Y Q V C UM m > -O H ? sL-� a! QJ aL-+ L N -6 -O 'N L E % vv v as .a L C C J c N E O E J p >. 3 J 3 v 0- Ga v° v J cG N 0 'Ll c O L a1 o u p ai 'o N a o a a 0— Y s m � .E J> L 0>1 c a v X aY •E L (:J O 0 T n7 L L O J O C Y Ccu c av o a c UP > 0 3 c Q J CM o 'E_ M -0 c Q L E `^ m 0+ „ — 3 O L '6 @ m L OA C V cG T C E Q w Cc, N m Q (O M L GO O N O d a, C ns cG i O �^ aJ E N ns > C N H .� �'' " _C N u '@ a1 +� o -p m Q U O N '^ M L Y > N +� O Y N Y U D Ga . OC L >� Y O -O C �- vYi N O Ga n3 -0 C O h 'O a +L•+ >' L a) C O C T to N U V N a) E 'O u o C T a) U a N O O C Ga Y y `�- _C .2 C- aJ > E NO o -O E— O O W aJ •0 y Cm -O J vi c T O vOi J-+ Y -0 ns C O J a) U � C f0 N 0 C ` vi CO vi N ns -C — Q O f6 ++ t' a1 a) + -6 (D ns .'^ aJ N aJ E GD C > Q � > E ` V Q = �, ,0 O I c N aJ O -O p li 'E rp N L _6 X O N a7 N l� vi E H Q ` J V C L Y }+ J CU S - p T cG U Q .a C — L Q1 L O E +, '^ O O a N m U O -0 p c yL., O O W GO L 0 co 0 t 4 3 v E ` ° a) + L a .v 3 0 0 OC fi7 @ Y C'0 L a V C C (G Q C v y0., N Y iJ E p C '� N C Y cO tG 0 p GD m J >• C C m L O N} } Ga O Q aJ U L L +, 3 -5 cm T 3 M1• -0 cu t aT+ E Y E O �L Y .4iVI Ltu0 c a v -O > L y O N L O O (6 C a7 C a) QJ � m to L N �'' 'O N E O > Y O 'O 3 a) C o ns O O *' O GO Q GCa L L >� O a O O -O •� L ++ O 'B i Y C > Y am @ O N N fG T N -p Op N a H -p N ns E ..O N 'p O E _0 m L L O Y +L+ >— c o f m> 3 p J— m c L ns p n3 > o O -C O Ln H T O +'+ C L aJ J N c d J OD N N a1 E v U - "C N r _N Y O C C O C Q N N 4- o ++ C N L cG p E Q m 0 C '6 T rG N 2 LO m >' +N+ O t C ° 0 + ,> N v ns _u Y _ co N > o u T Y O �� i Y L E> N Yo •u Y c0 U M— a7 J U a L o> V M Q v m c a' Y '0 V C L L V c J X _ L ai "� Y n3 .E L aJ V c O o tL0 a T a) O O J O u N aJ } + 0 F N O U fL U w =1 a) N a) v cu N C �J -p O O (J T o O CL Y a 3 c J C L N u a1 O o 0 o 0 c E W L L aL•+ M a) C C N -0 f0 W 3 0 o o E o O u > °' E > :° 0 3 0 co v c o a o a, + j^ L E r,. Y_ M ns N �O W v p v m° c o -0 -° m r '„ c a o -o m og E o c o 3 o> E 0 a o Ga ar Q c0 N Q F- >, p C a) ONO 'C 2 r-+ v D Y N N c N N N +L+ N Q -C m a) o -0 Ga N 'O v _N O aJ N -p t0 C L E N O GA ~ °J o ff 3 o cu v E c v c co o o° s a c c Z a—T N N v�- Yo C — 0 W L O O oc L n7 +� N u Y "O N a+ c p O w > N 0 v Y c o co - a '0 Gcn .� v p C C E > 'N p aJ W m Y a1 Y a1 'E L U m a C N •p - 3 •— U C p — L L a1 O m Y C G Y a) LVf E Q L 3 J a—\ W C L ,N i-+ N a) v C v ++ N j i 0 T fa a•+ "O O O T L c N N L L N J O a J V t c9 E 3 o N n >> O V p p : Z Y L aJ f0 N O u m Q c u, _ u w v v� a 3 3 3 w 3 Y E m v= a O J Y Y Y Y _J S c Z ca C c Z m G W Q Z C] c W Q L z � Q � or p o O 2 Z W z "' Z"LLJ z LU LL W ,U O LL O LL O LL W O O LL LL— L _0 m Z W ~ T> o v a Ln LA N z c Y -a O Q Q V 1 O C) o tV Q Z OC ^o ^ r� m a� C N J O NC m T Y Gp C a1 W C c O Y >m > a > 3 >- m m U Y m m M LL L N Lel C O I O O L C m N OD N L L Y m O L O s Y T N N C > m Q N Lbn O _ m ° 0 a) v- L a) bD Q_ Z =3° "6 v- OCD t m +L_+ U c y c a� ° CL CL Y 3 v c v° C O_ Y t6 c 'O O. O N �[ a o 3 m oD x a) a) s c L ra c N a a c c v >,cu c Y Y Y `/ L 3 > N EC O aJ L .c O N a) L '6 Y u m O u O U m Y O m O O > > m C > Ch O N ra O> v c3 O ON uO L° Y c a C O ++ C7 Y W' U aJ (6 N Y m + v° O a) U m °_ o E c m p Y m > Q. O v N ° L m O c a +' °� v _c v _� ma Y s Q O aJ -0 L N •� U U u p Y U 4T E cv a) x O O On s,m m u O U ° @ Y O C '3 a; 3 m cD U o 0 0 3 Q M h c �o �' E E> ao, 3 N u O 3 = > v.L v m c o3 ° C O T N a) LOD N L O T Y N '6 U C N 7 N Q �. N OA C .3 i L N YO E 7 N C E v m t v p Q) u m L O O. ° m +� O LL 0 yL,, O Y a1 y OCD .0 d V c U Q s N W -O Y C m X _ ~ O L on OD '� E O vvi U "6 YO ) L a) C cu m C > p a) f00 YO -6 C OC7 i i) C U L > � D_ "6 N Q) a) aJ cu Y c C: cc0 N N C �+ E c a) Ou W a) ° O "p a) m �., O> u_ C a1 m V L O > C T a) ° C c C -p N N C O N c L a) p a) 7 ~- Y U O U C Y 4L.+ _O O Y OUA N C E °- m >' ON C u Q O m 3 aJ @ > T u H ai 'c `—' +L+ 3 r v a) -e O _ = N oD ° L— a o L v a) U p O > °bo O m O u N 0) -2Y r_ _0 0 m >. -Fu(V u E -° m p m p a a) m oN 3 a) c coa um Tc c4s c OOL 0 > c i v o M Q s° o '- o Y 3 u c` s o E Cl 3 u 7 O 'O '° 'p O L m Y N c a) s a) a) L Q L v a) L . a) O ° `O N L c 7 aL_+ Y v -O t' � L"' a cY0 U a .a u N N u c ..c v 3 -C o a c a L m bo m n v Y .3 m p o� a) m c U ° m B U t N v o > ar s O Y a) v ;° oD v -° c a L 3 v" L a) a) cL c v- `) 0 oYn c a v? ra o v Y° c a) .Da c —° E 1 > > 75 _ >' ° L C E 00 L U N C E OD cl m al C vOi "O "O () a) -O O = m Q) i L N m a uw u a) m o E o E fO O 3 E m eD m a) 'v v a) u cuc m` > c° v � v m — u c a Q Q Q W Z> W W W W W Q W Q Q W Q Q z m J 0 z m J 0 z m J 0 = z m J 0 O z m J O O z m J = z m J = z m J O O Z w 0 Z w 0 LU Z W O z W 0 Z w LU 0 z w 0 z W O Z LU W O == O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL a1 u T v> co c 3 Q o O Q O J j U d N N T w T C C T L N C W C C O m _v " 3 m `° E- o O Z s o c E u V) r' o a o ° 2 Q NO N I� N Ln N 0000 O) L V O C x Y u N O U N a) 3 @ Y 0 E E 2 aj c ° WC co _ Ga`i E QU E s Z a a m v LnL a m H cm c Y V m m M LL C GJ a., LS • N UD Oq -d .N O N '� (o fO I C GD a O _ U U @ C 3 L c ° C C Y @ T O c c Q 0 v st =o 0 3 a E Y YO >' 'y y N N F+ U U S c C a a) m L L v C CA U L '3 a y "c —° �N p f6 � a +O a_0 o- 0 v � o3 � OT u o C OD O C N N T Yc v v 3 v o a Y f6 C F t10 O T C T L L Y i 3 N N i E L j C N f0 L U N L U C N -O C N !� O 00 tO N -5 UJ C OOo N 3 U L H_OU rLQ N c° m p v p E 'a- a a-+ ,0, v c O N a L ai °i n a m 3 _c N c T U p Y 2 v — m + Op Y m Y f0 N � c o c: p m ° U L L u L M1 c T 3 m 0 3 v M } c u c =3 s @ •� 3 a a w p o' E Y > vCL N ai O L C ° a N U —>_0 a o v . v— p L u on M mro O CSO v Y ro a O H C O O- C L afOi Y a -,Co O T p a O t O C t L p K y, OU o 3 c o °c° no L°_° o .CE: v -0- c E C a E C o N E 3� p L N O_ a� UJ —_ - > L p N fo co — C U N 3 a N C 2 O N O 3 N> a T wO O 4J o v a 3 a 3 a vi v y L v a Y o. O N O OM C T u u O \; > Nu I N GJ 3 J C '00'U fl N it O O c o v 2 L 6 N v 3 M E M1 U U (Q N a C N L N O C N uv C7 Y o o Y ai y O > � aL+ 3 M C p a, u N Q O\ N p Q5- �O N L Y L ++ p a N >. p L ++ i O O O C a �C > N O C �% Y L +L+ C Y 3 a N C E C E— •� ,., W O M1• O\ '� = a 0 �,2—mr-CN p L a C `�- •�' N O Y U �O C O w- N L C O W N 2 N �U' N > a N N v N Y O a U N t °o > v m° U f6 u o 3 °J Y �-+ s = UJ m Y •- - a c 3 `a `� ao Q o c° u c cu a H c p v u C C C O a L C L L c° m° .v C o 0 +� u 3 N U m N O N s °p ocn— 3 j o (LI o Y °o 3 3 m> � y E T N M1 — C c 3 m T o C o a o 3 +J c o E E Y + o `o N o L> N v ocn u �' 3 a ``° N c t o M u u L o c ai 3 �° p E °N' Y v W o v '.' Y �O L M 41 +5 L L Z w C O O O N^ m Y 3 N a Y a No C 0 o .> 00 O c+ C E `o Y ,c go ai c N — o C n fl a �_ c u v s >-0 a v° a L> E m Y °0 W a CL v LM v L a U O c 3 U 3'°° ° Ea ul = -0a aU � u o 3 3 Y - Y Y Y m m Z m� J K Z m J 0 � Z J K Z J O = LLJ LLJ LL O LL LL O LL O LL O LL LL Z Z Ln a m V) a> a a N y pLLJ T U Y m o � v O O Q M [t Ln Y 00 C 3 ° o w o LL O _ Q 7Y w > a u Z as 2 1 i C v C j Q1 r'1 w O M 0) W m CL u aJ + p L 0 3 m L Y a 0 0 0 f�6 O O "a 7 O m m I Y to E -20 L a m � = L L' = a u u �-0 o Vf H-- i H m i C '_ = L i U_ 0 L Y VI J5--7 U = Q) (p al > U = m VI E a1 = a) U a) o Q y ' 0 u 0 a -0° > 3 .� _�00u5. E -W E L N N O E i u �Lf, O C C Ur. j T O m N ° Y L O 0 Y m > L O L O Q a m C X = + C p @ I L O H O- = u Ou O a) 00 Y ._ 7 -C N aJ C C in C v1 > O a) m C U Y Y T w = = E 7 .O v -0 = OA O O T _ E L Q p� V 41 > > O aJ a1 @ 0 3 a aj s v 3 = o CM 0 u F c '� Q "o > E O o a1 '� E Q- w° E2 w c c v 7 `o_ c y a u 3= o V o L E bn O v v L m oo" 'r," c c o o i = Y N U v L m � L O C O E a) c m CO X a _ -p T O m E �O 3 E m in U aJ S C 7 O T rp . Y m L 3 0 C N O M C O CO U aL-+ L LM 0 E U a) aJ aJ u > 'p L -6 �' 7 Z 7 O- �n �n O Ua O C O O .L w 3 7 L 0- t cc M1' V O U _C U _C a1 -0 U �' p 3 N = V Y Q Y �^ N a) L O h L C a) O -O .Q u U 'y L Q1 U Y aco 0 0 3 x@ E 3 00 v m E T a=i C 0° N v 3° H 0 OJ 3 E° N s `�-° •E L N >. Q O .OLO O � E 7 C O y 0 }' N aJ u m d Q oA c 7 w m 0 0 m d 3> —0 E� m 0 v 0 i Y -O 0 O 00 L m 7— 3 3 '� O Y Y � o E N a, � 3 �^ ,., L C w w C m i OD.' m— C T L L L L = aJ a1 Ln C 0 aJ o C Yn 7 O +L+ _ }' -O — E a1 C Y Y Y 0 C Y Y L C y T Y L —° O L .x N T 3 0 7 >. c oaci '^ L O c u 7 C' = O Y Y 06 a1 m ,3 'n H ,C LO N aJ WC: u > YO r`o U N T L 3 y L m 0 U T o v 0 c* u —� u 0= 7 Y E Y L = m ° u r o O n _ `° o> m 0 3= v 0 m 3 T v Lj 07 m o u o 7 — Ln ++ N — = c 7 0 a o N Y N T 3 m m 3 E E L vNi u o L 0 = a) a� O N Y N aJ -p N v p YO +' p m L C m N_ m Y H L O O v Q '7^ .N v U m al L� m ` w m U w L L 41 C O c ,-� `p VI '^ O m E = L y c in L y 4o v !� in L c VI v of v cO u v= o m 4J * a, -, p -0 'n 7 w i 3 m C 'a, -r-cL°Da :L '� �. aJ O t = 7 M— al -5 L L Y O 0a 00 b4 O u O Y N w C -0 w >' 7 to t to a, U N L o T Y 1 o L c c r 0 3 E p �; o > 'O 3 = O >, t 2 a) .x _ u (n w m O a -0 L m -= T al O = p )? "O YL,, L 3 7 on >, pA L H L 0 v@ 0 o Y v s of a1 N 3 H H U~ m X C 0 cu0 L= N T C v = f6 n c 3 3 o c L, C U v Y N v o 3 L Y- p m Q n c= c m a o O c m ~ u m e v L L N p0 Y v U Y L `' E p v 0 m m A2 Z LLJ 7 a1 L L' U -0 Q 7 U 3 ° C U a) 0 — OJ -0 o O c + a Z 0 I= a) = W m : c ro u = -p o m" c O 'v n 7 m T a h a) L a1 �1 T> vi Z m Y i N uU H L UO U tko 7 p bD =-0 L a) E 0 Y E Lam' L aJ C c c i v ai E z 3 Q E o a0- u 0 +0 a) m 3 o a Y Y Y Y Y Z m g W a g W a g W a g W Q g J _z m J z m z CO z m J W LIJ 0 Ui W O LU Oi O O i O O LL O W T a) ?m > � Z Z Q v v = O v > v > u m c N LU m _ CL m cY Q 0 0 O I— m N O } LL 00 Ln Ln O .1 Q Q C) N O LP) C) c -I L!) N L!) Y N t � E m 4-- T LU7 m J 0 = aJ c G m a1 -C c Q Z Y O j C K m J Y U Ol e -i 4- 0 Ln v f6 d } I O N by LiJ T y v v m > Y N aL+ I v 4J O •L > v L m +L+ v C Y T E 4J m +' m m L 00 U -� O > C +-' L N N O N N O C C OT Y C •C @ d 'C N v N N— L O ro t I -= E 61 ° O a N C i N L .O N O Q C O L O O Y +Y-+ E O C 41 3 E K Y p H — r U N 3 E a ° ? L a + C m _a Q> o L Y c m o m N O m v 3 3 T N c v u a oA L 0 N K C O Y v O N 1 ° a O Y Y pN Q 3 0 J-- r o a° E c u� ° a c v u o cCo oz 0 E a D v Y ro =5 v 3 v 3 v y m Y o° 0 c-° m !n U uo L O Y s a v a s m CU U N U E O ° 7 N E O �O m N U N °' m �'' O O ° C O "' C m m C >, u Y Dl �' Y Y v 4- Y T t i C p :L V >i i �. to N N U C v L m Y UJ 'J on N a Q c° s+ .N v T ° v H ar_) E o CL Y c U m u Y .� E N c> LO O w a LO O o v r m Y w O `� Q° + m ,to O Q N a— ° v .� N O C Q m Y° v N m v C =' E �c e v „' m v O O_ E +�+ +mvi mo O N �i O a m o CL v o va ° Y v v O YO c a m m m N v N v con o aci O C -1 0 v � ? u v 2 p c` —0 c E -� �' *' m e v E 'p Y y *' � E u u —aT Y v Y c o o a U N 3 en a u y> m v v 3 At m CO m > + U _� v E N t y L v U U L T p c O O L -O -O u Y o m ,�, 7— O Z O. a v U= L 3 0 v a— V O y C Q m m ,N ° N c z m 3 a >• U m D a iJ .T °c° a a o u 0- o= u n 3 o v 4 o o Y D o l7 = a m 0 N n ,v, F— t m- L 3 CU u ? 7 o D c E 'N N bn m m OL QW/ E °� 3 h m 3 C m a C O L Q v ++ N N E H T m v p U 0 3 + a`, s 7 tip v M C aN+ U vo F. O Ql N O O L - m bD - � L y", L N: C ry 6 0 —= v v-0 c 'O t 0 y a c 3 0 o > ° 3 O U c c t t N L m v v v 3 Y aci C N u N aoi 4 c 0 m m v v is V Y — v 3— o o OL x ac aEi 7-0 H N L C v m i E L Y v E O� N m o r a O F. SO 3 p C m v o L— U o v m,o m T U o v w w E au, c 2 o a i t T E 41 oT ? m `m 30 a n E � N r 3 0 �- v m -o en v N a� s i6 Y •� v N > "� c M p 0 c o 'v p o c+> l7 s y v OL 3 v c Z C N v e L N 4J Y O .0 c> 6 •E O Q '3 v° N O 3 E Q Y >° u o- Y m(13 o 6"/ 'L"' Y L C N > C :6 ate-+ a 3 m 'C 0 O u ° 0 -C U u U v t o aco y _° i O p C a '� a +� p C Y 4'"' m m — w 4J U` c N U u vO "v v v s U C Y Y t C O_ m H +-+ L m y,, O 01 O Y N C °- b4 a on o m u c v m v N v 3 +' rn ° c 0 m p ° 3 v v 3 °N' ° c° E 8 o - v p o p o O Y u E c a L m N o Y _O - M p ro L > �' LJ >>o N O 00 C Q E N Y U r > m Y N U L a N t lJJ O ` O Y +N' C m L r v u O O +-' m v Y O i 00 '�' C O m O C ~ N �, .@ a Q a o N J v c ro +' c E o "ai m> m o W Q N Y d4 E •L- °= N 0 C v O cr C w uNi O_ L m U v 'c N _. L O.. Y Y Y >, pmp `1 C p G o Z o c v - r z m N c C ° a a v E �' a ;c 3 0° c m I a zl +,; oho °$ 0 3 T g > v c v m v N p T v a`i v; N O v aj °' V a Z O m C L v t>O m C +' y op E E L O O c v N —— Ln N } L Y C m U L — N N — L t m 3 CL C yL O c U Y Y Y y Z Qm W Q Z co W Q Z m W Q Z m W Q G Z m O LLJO LLJ O` O LL O LL O LL O LL LL in rn ti v c z c Z a > Q m 2 on n c LU.In O cc a O X to O iQQ O m b �p W 11 n 00 N L� c v O C m m � a c i Qj N J Cw � U C C C7 C i vmi N C � m lzi m wn m Ol e -i 4- 0 Ln v f6 d U 0) O N GA a aJ G c !u6 I m G1 L N 3 C E 4J t ; as L O_ v N t"' ++ Q 4 N L O aJ •Y E aJ N �S I 2 N v N v w r� �@ I z M CU aJ N aJ � aJ L a) b4 0 N L > aJ a U N L N-0 16 f6 aJ .0 ' L O v Z N C L C a+ G O N C +> > N i L M O i N a3 aJ 'B N U OU LN H L Oc L O aJ °ai O u t o ° 4 4+ N 3 3O 3 aJ oCa Nc aco+ -,o + o � O — Q U_ r.+ L `�' C �' a 0 '7 C ? w o L is -O QJ _ aJ aJ aJ O O ++ aJ :N U .ate L vOi m L c O fa O a) -c T N O aJ O — Y cu U > =D CU 0 N Y p a ? fa _N C Q Y L U C c a N N U G N O O LL r.+ C U .� aJ H L +p+ vii C N N aJ U bD Q7 '^ O O •� ?� C aJ v"- N LL i U O -O aJ (6 0 a M. C - M o N M G C U to 7 N O c c> c a f0 3 p u > t v O L o p w �+ c C aJ 3 'O N O o c aJ >, ns 7 � a, 'O G m ,• a7 L O aJ u QJ Y aJ aJ aJ U p L _ a1 N ns > E C -0 °O N v L -p a+ T a3 N N O f6 L QJ U::: O C ++ aJ > L 'B a C 3 -O G C G O C 'O C b.0 > C a1 ° O O o 3 O .� co ns > O L c@ > aJ u N c o v Y •c v .� a, aJ u T u aJ E o L' oa 3 ° v> t + a cL c io E u +� u N O a _ LL N a°J 3 v° c a �° L L, CL a) CL O m Q) tiom -5 pC E U O c G u O m> v 'N O O— —_ c m Y o 'O O H Y 7 O Q E vi m N aJ Y +.' -° O N a3 +'' U L u N c c ° a5 C N Wa+ v Y o o ca a O N M a v t Y Q L m Y ani •N a M L t C > +O+ L U sL-+ U Y L -O +-' a L ci N > L '� N L •� ++ L T Y L U C U p a1 i•+ aJ U t �+ C a+ O N -O to O C G to aJ u G i+ fa �a N _ N > U U G aJ O a > L 0 ..p 3 2° o c N ro 0 o v @ o 0 a, ° 0 3 Q a ° v u c: v f -0 p on c o a_a0i p v c 0 a)c c c N ° � r u v •O- N N > ,•. •O C a m aa) Y p o N a/ C O v C— aJ aJ 'a p N N O u c E a1 a L L m aJ O y N C! N O 0 N � U O O u @ O � O p � N N ° ] i OA y vL N CL N 4- — Y = a m .L] L aJ H —+ E C aJ C7 __ C > O y O aJ ❑. U C c p c L O 'N .2 ra aA C .3 C GO O N `° N ° >' .h N aJ L _0 L Llia a) 7 C ° G G L +' aJ +' '� '�' O +-' aJ i-+ C °ca cu moa c O 3 a cLJ > .0 E o c c c a°i w- `o v � a o E 0 3 v °1 v v c + op cu r Q. O +' u E 'O `•� N Y E CLY 3 m p c v— al aJ cu N O O _O -c O N O U U O_ t O vi pa C iJ Q aJ O +'' a+ aJ O> p .� O t y U N O C L a -r U ,C T N > N- 0 3 C CL a 3 H L c>6 O= ( N .Q L 0 L- a ° ° bD f�a Z O : �O N D O = a-� L 3 c n O f v o to pp p a : pO O- v, O toC 0C l ' > 3Op O o aO YaNJ-" a > > a+ M C > N p a. ' 'al UO U p a) > G p f2 O W tL- La U } a s Y Y Y Y Y Y 5 W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q 2 W Q Z m 0 Z ao Z a0 Z m Z ca Z ca Z a0 J J UJ J 0 � J 0 J 0 = J in W J 0 W O Z W O Z W O Z w 0 Z w 0 Z w 0 Z w 0 LU Z W O LL O LL L.L O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O L.L LL O U- LL L Z t QZ O Z m a v cu > a, a1 > Q Q N v)� O c O N W — n7 Y G @ ns m aJ to O. a) m O O N Q o0 epi .�-� ON ,N -i aJ N E y N O (7 N t O = O N C a c N O b�A [L N W = LL p aD u u p Y ,C < Z Y W= v aJ v M 0) O N GA a Y V ^^m m M Q7 LL C L N U Q_ a O C�O t 3 0 c aJ Y N > 'U v °� c ° C `� Y oa 3 s v v 3 T m a ° U aai o a—T ° ' a C 0 C Q v H o E ca a a, — c a Q m ac a m aU c C_ •c a a > > v ai � a I — -Fu c c C. ° > C L L n3 C N C Y -Y tD OD N o - o' p ° E E cu _C .0 3 N ," N .a - O �n U T O L m `C�7 E: _ a_ N N _Q > aJ V .�, al V c •� O N C � Q 'C •N N m L E L N C (a d m •� > N L C m T C U C 7 0 p n1 N 'v N N O U C w CL 0 O V U a a v .Fi N Q 1 ° H m O C L w C Y L v -O C in aJ +'Tj — a) L E �' i +' a1 O Y bl N u Oa Y O N fLD aJ a7 Q C OD (7 C W aJ N -c • V C c C1 L aJ -O 7 p O N Y �i Ou O N al ba ° a ° n1 T L a) 7 T m Y Q m C 3 0 > E CL °oU o u Y 3 Y E o°° v v 0 'c a -� � ra E Yo L c c 3 Y n3 L C a) O Q Luf C U E O �' �! a1 G N Y U c ai Y t; CLC o a E Q °C° v o a se v n3 c a a L E C O Y 0 L H O L f6 U aj. N _� ° ° Y NbD -a, T C >, +-+ .a CEJ ,o O m N Y Loa E o = 3 v 0 o E u_ a E L7 c Q v w v m u >_ c n u E m Q i L L O C -0 'O H w 7 O E n3 C a) > N v v a N ao ns > Y C E Q a Y E u Y aJ Q r0 �n U v -o m 0 _U E .� > i N C- > O a) T v V > m m a 0 O O L O L O c L M U L C) U Y L Y YC a1 � L— L _ O v c a u N p 'ai c a 03 Q op -a _C L Q > 3 ° c C C i n3 'v C_ h C _ Y �n Y i O O >i (6 a C c a H 'p L Y ' O .OU al yL, Y a O = a) CL U o- 0 E m Y c ° °� al U C L V_ L N v c E T ° c �' m o f to v Y v 3 v Q C C p , L u l7 C •c c_0CL ocn 3 m E° v mu a� a c o CL v a '3 Y 4= O°' v � Y H aci 3 ai 3 Y 00 M o 0 c cu 0 m -0 a, v o L v •� o m m r�: 3 Q ° E ai ° o a _a 0 ° c" E O m C O E c v _D Y c O a 'O „' ab c h0 -r- u i 'd U > C ° Y a (O C C 7 .3 � in c -0 C V L aJ Y E Q a1 a C YO — L 4J L h O C a) U a/ N U U �_ "O Q m a1 > O U 7 N n7 E 0 N W tYif L f0 +� •C N v c u v ,ti i O m o ° v 0 v m 3: _0 crL ar c > *o a M Ca Q Y N ,� n3 a vi C p m c C f0 O m 0 3 t U 3 0 m C ns a 3 . r v a� 4- O rL O C aJ C w Y t1a U O N L OA .O C ° O ,C LO ..0 *' f0 a3 C U �n L w'- tB f0 M a C C N ,�_' = Y C L E L �' al v1 C o o L al N_ C i aJ O fa V O -� ns U CU �+ O to Y u -p O a L' Y uc a c o c o C Q L O — Q ,� 'O -0 Y to aJ T E ,L N O a m v 4J = ++ C Y 2 m ? •C > 7 C 7FD 6 Y T p �O G O _ N N 0 3 0 v a- C 3 co v O Y Q u O L o Y 2 C c— C E U W al 3 C N O s n a Y to � Y by c0 C C O Y YO a) O T Y Y Y Y Y M ui m LLJ m m m m Z J C) cc: Z J Q Z J cc Z J Q Z J LLJO LU 0 Lu O z LU OLL z LU cc LLJ U— O-- O LL O LL LL O LL O LL Z v C Q) c v Q Z U u Y L N v > Q v C aC p R7 N U J N (/i N Y aa) 0 Q/ _Q Q E 3:a _T co aL Ul) � 00� C) oN Q c v Y ECL on c s 0 C o E E Q) — vI uLU a C O C Q C c O Z v J ar v 50 U c y -0 0vl C j m c a 0 m w m m V N +' -m, Y O 0 �iOu a O a1 C ° C L a— V d m 00 m Y N T u w O m m O m Y O m L �a f0 al m '0 'Q w c m C O1 C Ql V oa O r- - > g m o m E o 3° '^ d° m L m `_ c v C¢° o o m m C v -> o"D o 0 0 �, c°> o- a E v ac c z>omo a' o m u Om E N m i m c m ° O1 C U C !F- Y O W C ° Q Y x L a O O O a c O — $' y m L oa m u m d L L E Y V v Y E H m 3 Y L m> m¢ m a N c a > W oa� m o c E y v L 0 m °u m ` T _T '^ N °o N ao 0 3 0 .'� -c " Q= E a u o E m O c �_ E o o- E m w o a Y r o v m C f0 m U `y u d V C Y E f0 Vmf O m C N n• m V y m L Y O m c M RS o r - O 3S -0 o- v 2 c 'u _m Z ° "M 0 �- v '� 00 omo v u ani a s c C m y m 0 al O L u y Me m m O m 0 y O 0 L m Ol ow O C L ° U C _7 c �+ m Y N c d pa O O O E m a U 0 p R m mi w y 7 LL y C m 0 `�' yL` +°+ d i0 O Y v •� m C' C y C � rm ( Y O m uo V C O L' A a y V C �_ a u Y t 'O CL m° v_ L m— m h d X aL.+ 01 L QJ 0 Ql Q u 0 Q yYj `9 O O T a/ C a/ Y Y 0 N }N^ a ° m a O a m m m> a E ''a v m m E N o L S a m ° N +L u a t m m u L 3 0 L m y O > o d o u a v ti 3 y a v E m c Z a X Y Y m v m o o aui c �' L L m° a > y° O N m m j m M 0 Y y° a m_ N o o v .X u c Y fa y c w H O Q m a= m 'C LL C 4- t' z ai m W m m m v y m O In U m l7 u 'c° t Y c '° Y_ v L (cu, t Z a m oo c« t u m Y c m a` 0`- 3 i C Y m v '> > O Y t n m y c 3 N a v y s '° aci r u n 3 m r+ cmi o a v ° E u C a L al 'c Y m a+ L O` E Z a) U OJ a+ — c L > O to "o m Y OD Y.0 3 c u° Z `-' m T u n w "' L Q ° o m °° O m m 3 L�j o �[ V- N m m .L u a+ u L E w Wi m= �' w u H :3 C —o '0 C u O .0 t in O1 Y m Y w Q O O y 7 7 Q m 7 O m a, L m LL �° _ Y u O 3 y T E a Y >, m CL `-' 00 L V 7 i > m N m C n a v m m C > m m '6 _ C m ° Q 0 M c o m L m c? o m¢ d m o m> 3 3 m a m .Q M �O u a1 O y d L V 0 d a O a+ C O i 5w m u m h m v Y° -0 u is 'o n a aci ,°, ai � E w m L m :� o T m O a V E ° O1 .L+ C L m w m U Y a> > T V— Y O O C m u O m 'C y 03 4= w Ol f`0 ° GJ L O Y N 'o '> Y y y L 3 Oy Y •u 'E 0-0 m o L N :5 0 C a) '0 E a y C 0= 7 Y SrU 46 E L 3 w u y a> a1 ° 7 w C 11DO > E a T R Iw y °' G m d d R y a O G `J c T m 0 m N C m c¢° N m c m m L o m o a° a y L Y c c `L' ° u C m ami N w m ` a N >, 3 m C u 0 C a C L u v O 3 C H= m O 0 C y m Eo r o +' _ `-° o° a ;° Se w m c° c +m•' o u T E a C 0 •0 m m t+ C m 'F i/ '^ m Y 0 O C *+ E ONl u !C fca w m �7 fc0 m m c E> m m o m E o 3 fl 00 m C f0 av ym d aL-+ C C C m 'a E �` m = N o `Q •'^ 'Or C v c _ 7 o N o o '� N 3 o m c T m c U>` n u ti c a+ c= 0 a 3 N :r E c c -Q a 'O ¢ C m c m L m o _ 0 c a£ E v Y m eami m° m ai >. u oo v t ay'L.. •� 3 v E o a «: n m O O +' u al c m m O ,a_°+ v°i C N y y C 3 C w C m m m w c a1 w u N n u Y Y m '° N v N 'o u°> u m '^ . M Y 'O o L E Z E m «. Z 3 E -o s' mp E '`o p n v O c= W Y y � o a u a' p,� � cp o E N W u O L Y G — al 72 m -m ° a :o m� O "_ m CO ... = V w ` «. Q � E m v m >, m m .G 0 0 g m N m ..Q j d C N C C 3 L u L y L .a H E m t' m L E Y C N al N L VO O L N H m a/ C O Y L N= C w m 0 u a L C �+ am u Y C a) W> CO O m u¢¢ 0 N m N (V> .0 L y m a m E O m Y ° G. '° a 0~D N +-' m n m E W F' m =� ym.. C ai m Y m m m V_ H C Ol c L-' = w m C c E �° 3 u L c H '5 n 3 m c y ym m -" E `� y c m m �m 0 Y, CLm y m m n v E O O O m O' O Q E m N C N C E N N L ` �, T y m T m° `O mL✓ N O T V C C E¢ `! U C U C U Y W m O oa c m° C U N" c `� ° L N z c u ^ '�_ v c 3 v f0 c° ;, u m c a o c t m e = c -Q m a) N N l0 > Co C m C V > '� E u u> v m �° v m o o ami mc g g= 'v :� m — m m d a y S E y O c z L m aJ .0 y,, N >m. ` y N V Y N U N C Q a CL ` H Y fro y m vi a) 'mO C V m m -0 v T m a 7 u aL+ m O Z¢ m y 'O w O s •E n 0 c a a w o i2 c o m m u o 72 o o u ,� a m ,,.. z v m¢ a m L a c u a 0 ¢ u m a 3 >. -0 mm a s Y z Q m D crz O O w O w w LL LL m 0 O O 3 _N C7 n N m N N W Q Ql T ii a OJ m m CW CJ G Q Z a) O 00 a) f6 d LS Q1 0 0) Q1 tw m CL i i N N dM al U ro ++ aJ N a OA = a CL C 3 t]0 GO = _0 L a) c " aJ ! ° Ll L G �-I N �+ fa O O v N U a1 a ba u N Y °c° c G L a v O8 aJ a v a y - u W v oA i u E v° o ar — c — ° v S fo c a) O +-+ m T L N O N G G t6 �_ O 'C fa E •U fl- L .N +L+ 4+ f0 L C Y E v 'Q c a) L O N f0 O w ++ fa G X F° s n° s a E V ° y m O > v ac L m E MU Y L l7 u -r- 0 a c `z aJ ._ O w-. 'd L T O T aJ 3 b0 C O a N L O = O a! U fa :F, '�+ �_ O O L N w t'' fa C Q @ aE1 .� N O O u Q E O + a1 QJ y ° 0 = al . n 0 0° c -0 a +T N a C Cc: L 0 a ° w C) + + v 0 '° u fo fo o c E O a Y v o r6 00 ai m N a C > O O c v a1 Q O_ ra N O w fa u a= fa ate-+ �" Cc: S N .2 L L v N m E 0 C N N _ N N r6 L = O 0 o H a1 a i a1 C Q E o v O Y> E a' fco c v o v o a a oL N + O aJ 0 v 'm E 3 0 y Y N mJ v > O a) O a) a E N O u T— L v i — - u �n O `� I C 0 Q fo " -� — 3 3 o fa c v .o °o c ti v ° ai a ° Q a N 'M c .=c Oa cu a Na a a Q o — fra ' . a) N E uQ N a G Y E o c E O L O L O O E a O ao Cm ° m >' m N= N N Ql . G N Q v a1 = N aJ N ` O-0 Z a1 a a 3 � v v o 3 v n L-0 o f cco v v ° =05- E > L E N O E E a c fo c m-0 �° aU•� u ate+ b4 u u0 ? O QC U � E aJ a a 0 3 3= 3 Y v c .L r° y co O +m 0 � fa w O p � Y ? W a E 0 O L � _ c °o v° v L E .E v v c° ocu a° a G = a+ a v- O mG -.c fa v� — O�n p ° U 4Z N -0 > O w- N N L— y 00 U :� L Q O 00 a+ C a G i L fa f6 @ h0 C G .0 L =O u ++ G d = ra aj _G a1 m G fa O T +.' v O N cQj 11 > o c a t` v u 0 -0 3 c on >, v L E f`a a L a, E 3 0 v = N N E (a aJ O -0 v m C (u a o a E .� u .� L a— u aJ ? v c n C C w °7 3 3 o v c m m° oz o C C I? c aJ '74 aJ 0 0 O ° f=o u -' a c a� -0 m 3 W m Oa o c i c p c L a+ U ++ > 0> u a- 0= OE: cu O G LJ = 0 Q_ O L v a Q 3 3Q s Y U Q G �- a) = d; 0 a O 0 ai L fl- O T _, Y0 r- u N N O = N ° G u a a L G E G 0 td al �f W L ti4 _u S L @ -- N ui w- O O O L a O °- ui O C .� .- i v> m N Y T >- +' c H on u(u> c> C a °U a fL cW 0= ° O v t C (TO N c12 C 00 — U G pp N G w� a> O c u= �n as •� O co c +, fo r v c .c a=.� O ra o o E v 3 0 e E� 3 y °c° �' r v" N 0 v c a+ -p v =o 3 E Y U c _u o ami _� N u v -o do 0 c@ 2 O w Y -p _ u Q 3 O E fo — F+ L U Y v t m O Q U W N G U Y Y Y Y Lu < Z m D m ui W Of J _Z m J � C Z _ J Z 0] � [D m J O L OLL W LU �LL z ui LU a' O LL O LL O LL Ou O LLJ LL 0 L t 0 z az � m p a, G v Y O � Z > N fa Q N N d E N J >• Q> C W ro ai N a) aJ tLo cr a J v 0 l! N N Q �D --- Ol in oho fn m m N a mL a) m b0 a = m a � G �_ C i z E �° ° L La)OA �' Cw a3i L V)E N G d0 C }+ L Z - m 0 F- Y Q1 0 0) Q1 tw m CL U Y N cu 0 O Q O Y ED O O L m L Y _v m a y v T C m c y a) N cu O Q h0 U a) V C O O pa '� o N '> L C "O a) C ay) o 3 E m 3 u 'o N NO T r O N Q Y L v Q L Ua N L +O-+ C U a) O' a) T L C v N > O O c E 3 N 0 Q) L a -o CC O > C L T m Y C m bn Q) N C _O m t O -C m v > U L O a O i co IV O C O O C m m L a 'J O C O Y N O cu > c N L N L C O m y y0 > U a) -,2 U L N C L O T ;� 3 3 3 'L•, ai m N --� O c) tiA C a1 O 0 C Y m bD m O Q O aJ C u T 3 y _O fh N m N 00 T T a) N L >. Y O a) v o 3 o m > > L) _ > O Y Y a) a) m -O a) c 3 N O bo r>a m ` Q a/ U •C L O L O C E l a)N L O Y t L o ao = N `o v aJ N — m T O a) cu L C C Y > Y In L y Y Y h OD L U 3 Y O C a) W a1 v Y _� O > O m G to L O a) v a) CC c Y E U-0 O O Q C O> � a 0 O U Q o M ° bo Z y U W Q G W m G KJ 0 w z O Z LL LT WO a) Z u Q � a) V: Y O N E (V cr-W 7 Ln L U N C) Q I 0) N N E Q 2 -0 O cW C L � Q a m Z L U N u 0) r -I 0 c -i CU Op m a a a O N bD N + L T m T a ❑ v r 3 0 3@ o v v o > tin `° 3 O N bA b v c O O EL a C7 V y +� v+ O w 3 0 U L o" L O `o L T ra m L N v N a, +L+ a E v a+ aJ N v X L "- O u c 3 T L a c E co v > O L o 0 w o v N 3 L p c 7 a, '� E p N �[ N u -a c N C ° i a1 p N C C O U' L m O L m Y a, p E Y m L o 00 c O N bo Y c O > + O O bn N O u O L N > bn N `� Y O m > m N c v a).� c � .� m O 0 3 y^ L bD o `° aci bA Y L ;7- a, T c C u i p c m to _O u N c T O > C@ of N V C O Q) L a1 L ° a, G m -0 N v a, — —_ ocn c v 3 c L m Y 4 lD o a) vi. L c a, r X m n. N c 3 >_ L +T 3 3 0 N bn c a v a 0 o "- Y m v 3 a) bD o v c L c 'm N bn Y Z bD _U O i i- O N !_' ,�, 7 bn E 1i _T v y a1 3 c O� O a, Y N O -o OA c O O T Y O o Vo o y u L o i m m o n au, w v v° o v "- 0 3� tw v °cY v o c 0 a, u E m C aV N m Y N bp p c L O }' ON E E c -0 to m O D u Cm cN 4O 0m N pc 2-0=v Oma a, 3 oo _YO O � E c -0 O_ fla, E O E U N c nco c y vv v v ., v a c ai _ ° 3 N a a, m 3 v v m„ Ymi° W E n 0 L s -0 = O uC> a, T rn Oyu O O E 3 O E V " a, IWON m oW. o v u � o=omc � c° 'a) -10D c c m (, !!� 3Ebn C m Y d4 L m m O T O a, a) 0 N Y L L p Y L O N m N Y a, U U m O O_ Y C Y, a, p a, U "6 N 'O aL-+ N ` U N 3 > cl)m �, M1, N O a, m bp O O '00 O L " c N = a. O L O Y E bn O\ 'O •� X a O O ? •N Y 3 C O N -O _ Q, _ u Y U v Y L 4! N E \ c N— E N O O N N a m N c O N c O N O O a, "6 C7 Q i Y U a, O - w- Y O —0 @ 3' V m m b.0 h-0 C Y � L O N \ L O O N Y bD L Y O a+ N O 'y+ O O 3 Y Y C c m U a, N m N Y U L O O a, On "O C O N p N N O U p YO N @ p N O O .ab a, f u Y v N N y L' Y 3 u � ? '^ N c @ ? ,+_T+ L E U i v 3 O c w N `•�" � O an �, O— Y 2, a, a, a, `i O E a - lo, w0- v m� in - Z bn U p Y Y U m^> o Y 0 U— E m a a, E a, o 3 N w a, m E YO c0 o c0 > O L N c c v Y co ai aT�a) Y c c u -Op a, fo r E 3 N v m c c; Y m m GJ L. A m l"I O N G! OA CL Y c 3 O @ o@ E o@° ai 3 0 -° Y @°= 0 3 v N GE'V an bbo Q @ w N WM Y _O N @ N T ++ U @ @ a)0 @ E a) .� 0a 0 aJ N C m a1 Q L Y S L u C Y N O a1 T w @ L C .Q C C 16 C a. Q U Y = Y U U N a V O C m @ ° a ° c X C L O -r aJ u @ L O C Ql N @ a U 00 aJ vO hA > hA d _O @ +— @ O @ @ C @ 3 0 i s w ? = N L N j i O .Q U L E C ° v> .> o° L + _p .0 a v_ c a, 3 N O c @ N N @-0 3 N 3 o a v ❑_ N L i1 Qj c, .o 00 O Q Y ° " a = L h O a) N @ a N N 0 y v N d 7 L C U w L N j ocn L ° w W c c 0 3 °-L L s 3 v o- +' N L T 3 O m a/ Y 0 a) O Ga ] t ° 0 L N O C Y aN+ C a1 t L vi N T p., u p O cu @ W U cu 0 0-N u 7 O x N v ° @ 4! N N a N v Y N u to i Y O O O Q v� C O p - a Y 00 O @ a1 ,_ H N � L yN, 3 L @ H O Q p @ L > N N +' i OaJ .Y O N ° av � p°o -o Y $ _ +@ vu Oc> ° a o O N > a) O Y L O C 2 mcY Q T X @ (N6 C la x Y � m� U U -O 7 @ L� E a h a � � � '� C I V a cu C @ @ O v N >' — Y C @ = N O M o-0 N E v " v c a n 3 0 @>@ 3 L L Y C7 — a C Y C7 N U> p Y Y N N u p a1 c 3 @ s r o@@ c L" 0 t@ Y u 00 41 E U p O U i O O` 3 •_ Y U bZ @ Y aJ L a) j @ _ ..0 C -° L C a) p c u a •� O 0 o c a a' m V D T O T w @ Y i O O ai -0 r= U .3 U o L u @ aL-+ N y, C a� L C to o�, 0 @ Q/ Y O@ N c c a +' N = 3 �+ O Y N @ Y ,H ,� '63 N a O @ @ O` T LrOj 0 U eat m 3 C p N p L u ai °° L N L -O N a u u v T `—° w T= @ a1 O— u C 0 ++ v c _ c cp a1 U •� U C a T U O 'E N O_ L U O H v 0 @ T C@ Y N > U 3 a) C w@- _ •fd v N 'O -C O u Q � a1 C @ aJ -C C @ L O @ N f+ T >, Y @ O +' O Ll O w O w 3 :' @ .+@_+ C U a) y L 3 E L m y T v a V aJ L fl. C E Q aj a) N LJ O y U L a1 i p Q~ @ 3 N U Y V -a •� i U_ L v Y C u H N 'n v @ Y O Q N L O U O Q 0 T Lao @ �o T L Q T c c7 — 0 M.@ N x o 0 3 a= 0 + v a, 0 is +' c >° c W •� 3@ L 0 v o— c 0 ° 3° L@ 0 0 a N c Y @ +' Y = t ro 0 w a_ n >— N a, a 0 0 3 L 3°° E Y @ Y v 72 v v@ O @ —_ @ Y J G N @> 3 C Y N 0 N Y OO i a a1 N N N C Y Z -0 a aJ O O +' �"' OL as v@ a' v L ° ^ H T 3 N v ° 0 00 @ a T E v a, Q O _� N j bD Y s a a1 t N ° O N a Q Y n. u m U @ @ Z h E a-+ L C — i1 Y a1 U p' Y @ a) O C aJ 4 3 O N aL,+ Q a W > C Y C F aJ @ 7 N .p@p Lti. > vYi ..0 a1 V T C O p U N t fO _� L N O @ C N N a @ N T '� 'O °A i1 > C �i E @ p 7 fl- G G L c N c @� ao o O u @ V @ T o Q 0 nn c a� c E = (D aJ @ N N ° Y Y O LO @ Y -:Ll0 � a) L Y O 7 T a y 3 aJ T N p. a) a+ Y Y Q C c @ " y L @ L Yil 7 L W OA rua .0 v @ t Y O c T w r O O U _ U 3 u s u _ n H c a) @ _> Y— a@ C Y u (D +' u _@ Y Y Y Y Y Lu m ui m c L Z Z Z CD Z co = Z c0 Lu ❑w ❑W = J � LLJ❑W J ❑ LU J ❑ LLJ Z O Z O Z O Z W O Z w 0 LL O W W O O O L O Ll - .0 L t T O cu @ Z p 0 c _ > > Z a) a Ln E Y Q O o > Q to W aNi °� iu Z Y Z 0 n .--1 Lr) Ln m Q 0 M N 0 ar C 7 w C N N a E a .Lap 0 a1 C CD = Z > W N c _@ ai = O (7 Q @ E = L Y Z m @ m l"I O N G! OA CL U o E E L Y 3L N 4 v a ° o bn N r 'p tv 'O a) O N >O T U m E ui Q w C m O u Y E 3 U m C U C ° O °— U = v t L m O 0 31 _O Y bp : U°vU av) mO o 'Z, a) T m: N Na O> m c vOvi + Y u O L LO C C c +' U L C ti0 _ c m 4- C vn c O _ 7 Ou 3 C Ow u v v O O_ C a� N � c m m -° N Y N E '6 N a) N >' Q C u m Om L a) 4- u N ' O 07 a) 3 V C p N c Y to N o E N3 cv aEu a >p v c O m° E ° T m v m u aa) 6° "N a+ O o N a n a 7EL 5. C ! C @ tv O a-+ Q) -0 v C 'O a) a) c U O c ••° V () O �, a) ° o o L N Q o o p o 3 3> �-' a° N a, ° to i1 v v ° L a) > c 3 -M > u to `H v N -O C °' m u C a) O ° 7 L tv �+ aJ O � N -0 c '� L c O '� E O +� on C cv O Q O E BN a) N N ++ a) .- N a) Uo -0 a1 >, C +-+ > 3 u N N ° x +•+ ° Y 7 C CL C c a -O Y m ° 3 U C M a) a) T v -O X a) �, C O O Y Y O� c -0 L cm O c a 3 Y— N i C - u a+ C X '— U U u t6 +(v N O L c }' C tW m C _ O O p — 4+ u a) N N O N a N C U O N C -O ^ Q -p 0 0 LJ C L m 3 E vOi E E O ° L L ? T O a L C c i O E a a) Y 3 o a a 3 OL c E E +� ° a v o v N a, o v ami o �, L o o _U L -0°" u E on 3 L y0 C } N E N 0 a O U c O U) a N -0 O_ .i.., L cm:Lon i c r-+ +' T i a o -6 E O 0 M H@ 00 "O to N C O 't -i p N a1 Y E Q. H ..0 N (6 m p L u 7 T> O Y m U on O +' 'O a) m i+ Y aJ `� O O L C m ° L L O iN.. v to O a) 75 cu1N o E c a) + 3 > a, c o c v° o= v m N u0 p v v EO cv > a) Y L cw on O m -a K m L L u y. m c U @ -0 O7 c O 3 p T a) c C v al a O L O m L 7 C 7 a a3) c N a C7 3 o v c o° N 3 a-0 o 3 tco z° v O T 3 ao E L -0 y M 0 a m E w ai c u w�> � �- a ami m � : o Q E (6 O E C -O au,C fa E 07 i T .Q C N OA 3 3 ° N Q. G ,— C N v a1 7 •— 4J 7 O L t L L C U 7 i) C > T C m -° ++ O C a) to D T O L ++ C E a) a "d LD L = ° U +' OA �' t'' •B O C C O U .O N U N u t•' L L Q H ra c c 0 u C y= > 4J toLA omn E r a) Y m O m w --m °; to + to 3 n> a) _C p p O E. C m a+ H C t6 7 E Cln '^ tub L [L 7 C N 0 •'� E m p 'a O >' u 3 .F+ O_ ,F+ tv Q 7 N o v f Q. ++ = >, to" m �+ Y c C C c p C u tv O + m Q U o 0 7 a+ C >, w m O c v u -C a) `o N c O tv pn c E -a41 ,� .O v +� O O On 0 O .Q 7 O ` Y c t'' a) tv .- ''' E Z om_o N m m 7 m m +� -0 7 C Z ° 0 m m 0- .7n m +°_ W O v m +-' c N ° N 3 N '^ ,= N U ra L L H CL p >, w u O u 7 c U c c p c+ o v v c p O 5 7 O_ — O v O v O= m Y Y m o v Wg �, L u 3° N 0 a C N C m >m 3 L L~ u H E 3 L �' C N 75 -2 y Y E a T E w Y Q > tv 0 O U o L U o U Q F- v m 0 `m u `-' E E `-' c V — L E to tv a -i N 'O L m d' to lD 2 y°- U °n. .4+ -0 u a`i 5 `� Op u Y Y Y D z m wagLZI _ 0z Z LuofOLU Lij Ow u_ O w u- L t 0 z a, 7 z c a) > z a> a to > t^ LU o a a U x > 0 t N •� uh L C O E N N rev LU g x G C J m u Q Z m o ° v Lal M O Ict V-1 cu 00 M CL +-' E -o v_ N .� C O Y i Ou Y E T C (6 O O a Q O 4J m N C 'a .° 7 N a a a L '°6 Y .� N U 'C v o 3 °J — 'a .� Y +� L V N L .� a) XO o L N Q .n O i r=a m y T a o a `v O � T Q " E o y N O a Q ns o -p ro 4J Q w 3 E u z -O E L a - Y O Y c n 'U j p O T a� Y a v s O N -0 T -_ c= v im m (6 �9 ° c Y o -o N Y v o L N L O a O S' al al O- c L _° al cd 3 Y ° ° _o T 4 Y O i �C) Y v v U> u v to E— m N =_ 6 Y C o c n =N O O N s (d U 41 RS "a v v Q o v _> c4 o a a t u p ,� v �_ ° — o C t0 N Gq l7 Y > hq f0 _T �..� o Y O N OA -6 Y N i. — N 6% 'p > N 1t N = C v Y O N ° ° E v= v t L s c a c `� E V °J cz a� o O1 OJ C (0 j c N Y a m O .+ _ = V *' L s fS$ c a.+ a1 C s O L> = t d = N v = N f0 Y = N -3 .V N Y ° 3 3 U N O O o ra °� L O O o w° > N Q N O O G7 N td s T N V aN+ D Q 3 hp = O OA C N 7 V 4J Y al N UILI 4J Y c0 'O �/ (VO T +�+ -O v Y N °- v V C s c -0 E 3 O -°0 a c 0 0 0 E c c s ro "� 3 c Y 3 0 E? v _� o ao c a y U s 3 mu E v ° -0 m w o ° v v" a> m c E U afl, > a c p O ai cu > Y ° E N '� E r Y> L a L cu ° ,� s p v E C Cl Y U i = L T E Y �. Y No N o N 00 cu QJ y., L E i Cl —_ L. Q, ° N V O v o o N �.., N co Y s a b-0 ccs °�' E Y CD c U N o4 a CL ^ N N 10 m o o � u -1- ° E > a E o �_ a� y c� s a� co a, _0 c a c c= v v Y Y u s c 0 N U S p p v -a a� O p a� a c M O 4C0 > C> v .(Y6 t = O v O) Y a-, O f6 N N C MIaj . a -p i vY- C O Y t 110 s N N ~ C E -p E v Y .c a0-� u a L co Y C Y T p w C v ` u - j `o o ° ami T C �° :c L -oa .E c '� > .3 6 Q ° w cu ai c N c o° 3 o c v .a V— N a o �� E i c� O o s v aci o Y �° `o > s r p) " H ° °� v o Y o C>7 s> ^ 3 i E w +s 6 v a c a Y a 3 o 3 s ° v fO 3 0 y O '� s a`� 0 C Ol O cu L .Q as = N O L O ° aL-� f0 C O— � v "6 � rtS 7 V N O GJ N as .V i 'N M cc C L •� a b0 N i U U C L 'o s UJ C Y Y d0 U (C i i v Y a s aJ N N a W a° v c0 r t a+ c tz o �, o a-., CLJ4J p c r� E �[ }-C 4J .0 u O U L N c6 C E vi L y a Y N ). C O N 'a O N C: +J a V fd s 4J +' O OD N i N O _ tL0 p m m N O a E E V N �, O (V r.., +� Y C S N +d «5 GJ .� -0= o N a z a _ o v_ ao ° c .� •� c rd 3 a� O O �' Q 3 s ° ° _ — V N Y C 3 v s v a 'p U �C L 4 U m i GJ s° o 3 C N aT, N c6 O fd w V O M d M N U O yU.. f0 N LL+ .°B f`O Y = N s Y -, YCL C ° L 0 N C -Fa (� r N F U U O �_ ° ° ON i V 4J UJ - �- V = -a Z N 0 O" E O (0 L C a a �c E c a� c= 3 crz ,C .E p LU v= V O m -E t� a •� = ? L L °- C E tC 0 = V) ccs O Y ,�, c= ro> 3 V °' v o C = E C 3 w N a, T L V c s J c al C 4J al w 3 C L LO Y Y N N L O O c6 Y O T C F-- Y v +' v E Y ate--, OJ 3 U p U fd Q. Y .� C p > co u a`i � °q E v `1 E E v c L p�'i 0 u O O -a -p cu O .� i cn v, c T O N u FL- h C s 3 m O L° w Y ° — v7 N Y 'a - ca .0 U N s c a O G! s U E 3 L•, rtS (Si ro -a a V cis 76 O +� _Y C u Ne Y Y a Z m m Z m M QLU � z J Q J Q Z J Q � LU -- z w 0 O L LL z w 0 O LL L cr z w 0 O u LL Y N v � as > ° z z Q Q> > Q U C Y Ln N 'O 10 N = ° E c' 6 U T a M Q Ln ry) 0 m a n 00 T C O c Cc: y s a � i w v oi Y � � E u m @ Z n m` M O Ict V-1 cu 00 M CL U O a) U C a Cu 3 O V i Y n O a) Vf N h E O O m Y L L E a) CL Y C 3 0 0 >' Q) �n C o° i c a) > r Q o U o v z O _ m > T C Q) a) .L p Z . C 0a d0 > E C L(u S m Y o �° L ;° a° m u w � O m v Y ra a m t T o p c Y O co _° p O a c ca 3 l7 L L U L v a° u L p_ ca fa Y �, fu 0C T° o m c ra 3 c° L ° N O 0 O 7 a 4J N T t0 3 m ° — a o > co �a Y •� ami E Yo mc cw bl, ° mL— ° o L °1 ac, o E E L3 a m 3 t 0 v o m 0) aJ 'C '� C L N— ° p N X Oi T a) _N Wa w m a a O v� E a) Y l7 t O N p N T O' "- C1 — �a i T > a) }, h >, C p 4- C Y ° a) Q a) fa L 0 O (a a) = O a) a > fa N Y Y v c T T Y 3L ° °o a 'o T o oc 7 _ c .L a c - i m 7 L 4 aLpp V E O O 0 Q) O O0- N 6 E MiC Q p O ap E m zaYE Cvo UC aO U Ym L O bD .0 Q L +rCo' L m 0M L t O y Y >6 O C O U�O� tw i ai O °a p>0 Ua N cm c° U E o o n +- o c E u Q _a m •� Y L °V N T -cc: D Q C O N E > m T L Y C N Y m E:Ll E c° t -Se — 0 3 3 Y ° ar o `� Y L 4 N o m E a o C �, - u on v m C L.) L �a �` w Cl p_ L L a N 0 U Q U aJ O a .�- L C Ln Y u E C u da a) O p !n w O I O C L N O m E O YO O c to v > ^ bD N m u v L n'ai a m O T p 4r Cl tm tLoj T O LWD 3 N 3 N Yy �«- C @ .0 O N O +' N n• cCa _c C a+ 3 p V Y> M O O. J-_ u m p a) — Y a CLOO L o m O U Y X ` O C> O v— p C c Q a + a) aj V Q U r_ E Y m fa r T ° E o "p0 cc E 0) c m E m c 0 a +� T c m p O o c° Y L c o E° m c cn _v > c ar o L v E Y `-' E a m 0 Q O_ h a °� ° o a) ° 2 c c = 3 �' d0 on o L E a a) c o a) p - a) O vYi _U 0a m Y . C O L >, '^ L O y V Y al C C y L m C a) O O L u� T O E +L,, _O C - a) L O Y Y O 0 LL m C C 3 3 0 ° H a1 �n L v ro C E ca ° c r o Y �, -p c 3_ v u +_ 3 a) c O a 0 m O m •C U a,v a) a) o U Nd —� >- E C Lw a) Z a) a) a x O H LL C U +O+ O Y a v N m c .O C C L v Q ar w a, U c m ?� N O L ,_ V1 O L a C a) L u r- c O m y vi E .L m E >, �, L Z w u C -p 0 m C ' •� L _° >` of '� pp L C2 7 O a) a C f0 3 +' O wcu vi C u X �` O umi a) c G !� L O o VO w 7 '�' O •• j, j E E Ua La p O io C 0 ti04c, O a) 2 a) -0 a) 3 oa >> a m is o a1 c O a) L c o '^ a+ v c E Ov v E m a m c Y >_ c a) a u a) O Y m m` c i c p Y `° o c c r o y c_° o o a m a 3 o Q J ui Z Q LLJ CC O O O O cc L d' Z cc G J Z O W Z U U O W a S a OJ W Uj OLL OLL QJ Q W } F� O LL O Ll_ a U vVf O O CL W LLL W U a aJ Z i c m N U J > Q a) C C Y E Ln N Q; a) a C a) 0 LUY d0 � cli QCD 00 W �? O1 Q O ~i N Z Z s u Ln Y v i T c c O °) ° v c o v o h W= s c L v a ° o Y H m mT Q c Y Q a L C um C Z F- U �m m N m M O v m a O1 O L O ] O L C T L vYi C. C p m E � D) U i v d N n -7p E Y Oj T H Y p N •N o N c u p a I m lu r 'a N EY ? oD O L '> Cp m CA N m C �: O C Y u p C � y 3 E o a E 1/1 m t E U m p E E a 7 on L O C •C >. OD Cww N fl- pU > m t2C > — > 'N O O m L _N 7 C a 0 O CO Y C O T O N T f6 E NO 7 "O C O Y U 'a ? m �_ a C �'' +' 6 -p C w > 4m- n fO " c L L— ro 3 00 L O c o0 v U C T Oz E C C a YO U Q1 m L m C O C 7 Y L N 00 m _ E 3 70 a .N a HOJ T N p U `^ N to OD T C p a a o N "O L � ai CL " C OD m s v 3 i c l7 3 > 0 0 0 o Fa w m 7 T N E E. 1 O O 0 '06 - OJ C u O r- N O a 7 L O N Ol — L O L Y N L > C 01 Q .0 L -0 C O 'O >. E C .Y N U N ti C i O vi C U O �O t 7 N 'y O L O aNr >, p Y m m L O 3 O p 0 Y OJ U - V '� _ N a \> L aJ C N O u �c f0 v L 7 3 H N CL r3 p ar m C a — 0�0 L C 00 4J "6 2 Q N C O •'= w C L m 3 u v N Y Y°' c p m 7 W v •- a ° u 3 no L IOU u E O c a)0 EV 0N L Y O O0 Q) to UU f0 U C -p N 4! E L '^ ,U C yL, 4Q O .t �+ O N Y •'^ c v 0 C y O �+ W U O a O7 d +L,, .d L >, ^' .wC a-+ C L 3 " s 3 Y — v T v p v'E C H w m C m p 7 t V O — o Z av m d N W a o L3 O a o p c CL C T C = p u m 7 m 3 a) U W c 4! mO L> O O C= L "O }rte O� C N N N to v m-0 N O C f0 a) 7 3 O a L Y m O Y CL :ET N O a In `o_ > y T O �n U a 0 o 3 3 y $ �' � 3 n y OLn -j O W O J w cm O J s J J D Q Q Q Q J Z m Q W J Z m Q � O w w w OU W W O U U N N W Q Z Z Z Z L Y E N N C C m "O in 2 W C m Q C C L N Z 01 p I v Y m M O v m a Y V m M LL C N u rn 0 c -I v ti o m CL j C 'O C • -C N tO Y �n T -0 vl Y nL C m u C L 3 L p 'O L 2 c 0 m 3 L C C 'H o p o o` aui �c v o E u N v _N L Q Q 3 rTo 00 L.+ aJ C L O U Y— Q E a) L aJ aJ a1 Y fo y,, 3 Q Q L C w Y C 3 ra u p v o u_0 m ai a v ,z Q E - v v v c + Q — °J u a Q V a N U aJ v E hC0 3 N ' a' OO I (o oO O (o IVL L - u U OU L O a+ +-+ 3 H 3 .a C — 4J N O C o M O H a+ .0 C L aJ �o N 3 amo3�ooY°_°y= C 3 I °��T L — O l7 E1 a1 C L C _0 o fo a) fo Y (� U N O X {n m m 3 vi w N C aJ vi C C C C i oO C N O dp L w 2 O N E C y T O 3 m 3 U U L N �•- p� O w a1 L a1 i1 N w u u E vi �n T C L OU C GJ N L U U 0 0 O -0 L Y JL-+ 6 _ Q Y O "0 = O 03 C m ai m L t+ o 3 •� = L H 3 u° -o° c o 0 E c 3 u + 0 a 3 .> C Q 3 p ,� Y u C m •0 m �' to V > m m T L a+ m 3 C— p -03 aJ (p Q•1 '^ N O 2 C T Y aJ m O aJ C aJ `0 N U V- 00 — oCn C 'C (o -a E0 3 O m m oO C4 m Naj co pp o v m Q 3 @ U at+ 0 U m C E o� C v aJ i O` O ` fC0 aJ L m Ecu o 0 c m ra �' 3 0 •> w -0 L cu 0 0 Y o +� Q o Yo .? 3 c m m c c a) > o 3 o 0 3 > w is c u i O IU m N C v on C b C m m? Yv c U a O ami c v Z -0 'E v Ou > a � a`) c : w v C t r S v c ,Lv, ° 3 v n o —o>n 0 3 O Y Q v u 0 y OO C O O m '�- U N OCO !0 3 Y •h (o L N E 3 +L.+ E V L 'V O(n N a1 L -0 aJ U E h aJ �i `J+L•,, m � t _y }' +T+ E m v o a, a, 2", w i c o fO o o@ .o s E L °° o a`i E aci 3 'm0 L V fo T LO H 3 +••� T L E L w o v m a, m 3 +� 3 0 `-' H m m Y u-0 y u v U, Y �', C C (Nu ` }, vyi E 'O ''' L 3 O w oo m O Oai m `�- m C +' ++'' c c0 C v v 2 m L m o � o y E a Don 3 u '' u u. o aui -o a m '0 N X r>o Q in E L '0 "6 —_ ro o p— '0 v~ a/ T o — 3 "0 N a, m C ami v v o p c `° N c f>o s 0 E m o ai ^^ o m r 3 Z m c Y E 3 a� - 3 E 0 v cW i > L L ,� _@ m >• L-0 V U m T m H w G L 2 U u U 3 3 _LA aj m p O C O L L —r- m >.. ll .0 p a) N .0 "0 Y E O L 0 u u L al U OO> T 75 +' al O vi C'o Q a m N Q L O O N iO O O .` a7 .� m O L c Y U 3 u M" o- n 3 v o x c° 3 3 o i o 0 O J 0 W W U m cr m J Z ZE W LL 0 C W m O Z > cu N > m N U C a V) -0 -0 W 1=� 3 O O N Q O n Ln C co C O O — C = O p c to U cW C h � Q m Z L U Q rn 0 c -I v ti o m CL rn 1-44- O W a� On f6 a a uO N O Oo > N Q L a o c N .Y o> a Y o> u on Y c a a 3 T ° T t' Y N N a1 .�^ m c> Q L N°C u N° a) a X v N O C .� N � L Q •= aJ Yj a+ T > fl_ p = m aJ pa L O T Y U _N O. � m N O_ m 4J a1 N c N L Y L m L a T �'' U t c O N L c M1. O N a) a al cu 41 C` C m •E m c c -c ° c> T O ° 3 c v � O > "� a Y O ,On m •`- N u, aci s v > m 3 c v c c° `� E 0 m> v�� Y 2L u v ° aci Y > v Y m L U 7 Y -O C _ Y _ i aN+ C m > Q U C Y N >W m N Q) Y w m m N "0 E a) +' Cc) i N C ` Q 4- a) v a1 N Y w -V T m C E T c� m ('D aj Y m 120:C O a On E N v N N Q N p N -Nd +L' m- on @ Z. Ec c Cn a Y al ° L m o2{ C N L T a E ti0-. N m O W Y i- a Y ca a_Ti 3 m `-' aJ i O C> E v 0 ° aqui (� Y` 0 v v° .Q m 3 a m c° p � n `m N o @ o= N ar v� N 3° � .� N c: 3 = Q 0O a, L Y v `= c u a U �, N N c o w E>CD C M >. '�' a) Om0 , T °= a/ E a a m L = N C a) N L p Y 'Qui C N V a) Q) >. N L N a1 0 3 c N L X M :Ll C CL m Q hn -0- c O= E y ti a) p a a Y c al a 0a N O o l7 O m OD V N E T Y L C U N c O U a) E C '� lu Y a) Q `� O a=•+ L d C_ `1 a1 YO al } L aJ E m Q = m V= L a Q m L a=+ m L h N U N N Y E Y a) L U° a1 N O a=.+ a1 Q- Y C T Y` c L al L U T 3 aJ N Y N O OE L •3 Y L Z a) O 3 O O" m aJ O +_-+ m C L at+ "= v ai m 1 -o : E u m o (� �' E w �e E a) L a=+ 0- > i s w g 0 3 u c E a c r= c v o° m N o a T c c Q s t v° W° -o m CU Y M m v U W N O a) Y T � -Q m a Y a 3 a O O H a a1 = aJ C L Q a0 U '� C C= -Q Q/ L o > m Y E a a N o m > > Y U "o O T v 4J O Q Y c L C (D U a1 m — X 4T+ Y C m C N C m C N a Q On N a m oco j o n a) Fu -O N 3 Q> m N c o c v c> d E i bD V -O C E C �' vQi C `) aJ m Q) v a/ N L L a1 Q (= c vOn 0 O Y m O m Y m aJ L C a E "' L o ° E C *' V m +., m V Y Y m— " •3 = v U v v a T m v on c°� n u 3 = c a N m m 4S L. C C— O ., ai +� N a ai L O a O s `° N L—^ c +� O a -O _ m c -0 N m o° a� a 3 v fO c on o m cTo m ° Oon v > C nEi L C -" U a c YO H a) (=j O Q. m T 7 a+ ° N Q Q U V N Q U U y T Q N p_ E W uc U m C aJ +' m m 3 U aY+ m 0a _m O N it N 'i U J L a1 m N CL +_ l— 3 W aJ U= E M O w a a bo E C 'E ,n O p o w a Y aJ Q) a CL N +-' C 7 Q p L U w U Q. Q! Q) 3 p O Q. CA > aJ m C L w .Q = ++ O a) a Y m L ,� w O +r O C a L T E a CL N a) w m 1. — O O m T m -Q O 7 u w w N N J a w aNi a`i c' a) s .__ o cca ° E @ 3 "' v a fO c E> a o 'u = a' c E= N 3 Yo v " ar w Y a a m ai °J o° v ami v c u v �-` 3 ° o o w ° o s `N° a a u m- 5 m v U 3� E v m v w u c a E 0 N i Q -a r p .� O. a m c p :O T T Q> ° c v E v ai a' a c Y Q- Q a ;° O 'fl m m a v a c N ° T i_ 4J U +' O >- >' N m �-' a Z L 7 C +' L m j, Y Y m a (v a _•+ Y >' al o i� a) m C Q1 m Y 3 m C d u - O ai 0a c a N U a v rYo a s +J C c Y C N N -x N V O t umi aT+ a a c> N C w m a.. C c m ° C m W W aJ vii y O m u aJ � OD N= i_+ y m a) Q. '° t5 C c Y y O m L v (� u �, O On O a N aJ 7 v Y N 76 a a>= c> L ou m -0E a, u L c v o v m v v E T (� `- L a a1 Q T C m y Q 3 E _ dD = " ar m C= m v a 3 3 H m c -Q W u +_ Q c c a v v a +m, y N m :3 EL N U N m T WaJ m Y a - aJ �. 0 aJ a N a = >� m a) L m CLa1 >' N = U oD al G1 +-' a1 m m v E o c 3 a y u u y o= v �_ Q m T r o v fO = O p 40 a E u> M U ° O 7 O o c L > m m aJ + E c p aJ w> .Q pa ,L L a) E — m = N N u u o = 3_ Q Y L m 3 N C ° y= m Q. O L Y 0 N 3 O J O J W O J W W Z in J aW JZ m a=) W -- Z m a=) 2 LL c _ Wu L c W O C cW W O G N N W Q Z Z Q Z Q/ N N Q C c N m W m W C a W T m m Z m m m 0 rn 1-44- O W a� On f6 a Y v M M LL C N 0 a) c -I GJ 00 M CL > v ° � � ° o> �'3 v m u L u 3 EL N L 3 E N a, cu '0 E pC N ti ai Cv c 'O o m N .� O E ? N U m N .� O E ? N aeD U ? :_' N O t L0 3 t Y o 3 m s to m E= y c Y v p N C U Y v 3° p C m O Y m > O Y" m > ° 3 o '-' ECA +' N C O m E m > o= m m OA a7 N — — N •L — Y > Q) @ 'd a) N o C7 Y�2 N m c U U L -O m c U U L c O O U Q O =C -0 m > v N O m > N Q "c— v m L E O op m N L ° N i a L °— Y U o T j 3 c >> 3 c o E U V r L U C7 T L C T aJ C Q b4 Y O aJ C tla Y O m p aJ aJ Q) G Y aJ Y aJ aJ C Nw m c Q •L N Y a1 N N Y N O U .N C E aJ (LO C E al -O Q) C N L N a L N N 'L6 C H m O -d w- `n m O C m m m Cw L c s C N OD Y m m Y Y N Y U C N T v O N U a) C N T E — v E ^ N a o is 3 ai m iJ O •N Q Q) N iQ 3 v m a) p N Q Q) N o C m C n- 7 — m C d 7 Q = m O v T O O H ; L m 0 L L Y m L h Y '0" � N L Y Y m N 'a)Q N O ~ m LQ7 � ° 6 O � > N o v m E 3 a v a T E 3 -Q a, a .- T — °— c en a� m E v > m c vY m v 'o c v" m 'o v a� ° v ci 0) v a) — a U ..1C C a U Y -O O �. Oq C_ cu u .� E O N O O C Tbo O O E C T N 7 N 2c Y 3 0 i c L •3 0 c 0 Z m O m °C L Q) l7 N O w ai E m v 3 M —. ai E m 3@ p m bD co c v 0 T C c� C m m-2 a1 () LO ° m cT6 -2 v ami OL fl - m U Y U E U c mT Q ai E Q LD Q _� m x a) 2 lO Q U 2 Y L Ln m L 2 Y Ln m O O Z Z N D a. W W N W W N h0 N m p g J K a 0 W (> J U CL N N N W CL Q Z Z N � Z c N ° - - o N c W G G m i j > L O Z C C i c w 0 a) c -I GJ 00 M CL Appendix F - Recommended Ordinance Revision to Section 10.32 -18- Section 10.32: Animals and Fowl Keeping, Transporting, Treatment, and Housing Subdivision 1. Definitions As used in this Section, the following definitions shall apply. A. Farm Animals: Cattle, horses, sheep, goats, swine, ponies, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea hens, and honey bees. B. Animals: Includes farm animals and all other animals, reptiles and feathered birds or fowl except dogs, cats, gerbils, hamsters, caged household birds, and hen chickens. Subdivision 2. Keeping of Animals It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any animal, not in transit, except (1) animals kept as part of a show licensed under the City Code, or, (2) animals used in a parade for which a permit has been issued, or, (3) animals kept in a laboratory for scientific or experimental purposes, or, (4) animals kept in an animal hospital or clinic for treatment by a licensed veterinarian. Subdivision 3. Keeping of Chickens No person shall own, harbor, or keep within the City a hen chicken unless a permit for such chicken has been obtained pursuant to the provisions stated herein. A. Permit a. A permit may be issued to single-family residential properties with an area of one-half acre or larger only. b. Permits must be obtained annually and have an expiration date of April 1. c. Permit application fees are due upon submittal of the permit application. The fee will be established by City Council ordinance. d. The City retains the right to deny or revoke any permit application or permit renewal application if it deems the applicant unable or unwilling to fulfill the provisions stated herein, for failure to comply with the provisions of this section, submitting an inaccurate or incomplete permit application, if the conditions of the permit are not met, if a nuisance is created, or if the public health and safety would be unreasonably endangered by the granting or renewing of such permit. e. An initial inspection of the property, coop, and run is required prior to issuance of a permit. A similar inspection is also required for permit renewals. f. The City retains the right to inspect the permitted property to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 10.32 at any time for any reason. B. General a. The keeping of roosters is strictly prohibited. b. The keeping of chickens within 500 feet of an impaired body of water is strictly prohibited. c. No more than four (4) chickens shall be kept on any one property. d. Chickens must be confined on the permitted premise at all times, in a chicken coop or chicken run, and may not be kept in any part of the principal dwelling, garage, front yard, or side yard for any amount of time. e. The butchering of chickens is prohibited. f. All chicken grains and feed must be stored in a rodent proof container. g. The use of chickens for cockfighting is prohibited. C. Coop and Run a. All chickens must be provided access to both a coop and run. b. All fencing and electrical work associated with the chicken coop or run must be consistent with the building and zoning codes with all appropriate permits being obtained. c. Any chicken coop or run shall be set back at least fifty feet (50') feet from any principal dwelling on any adjacent lots and ten feet (10') from the property line. d. Any chicken coop or run shall be located closer to the principal dwelling of the permitted property than to any principal dwelling on adjacent properties. e. Chicken coops must have a maximum footprint area of ten (10) square feet per chicken and a minimum footprint area of five (5) square feet per chicken. f. Chicken runs must have a maximum footprint area of twenty (20) square feet per chicken and a minimum footprint area of ten (10) square feet per chicken. g. The coop must be elevated a minimum of 12" and may not exceed a height of six feet (6') as measured from the ground. h. No coop or run shall be located in any form of easement or right-of-way. L The coop or run must be completely enclosed and rodent proof. j. The coop must provide adequate protection from the elements and must be winterized. D. Private Restrictions and Covenants on Property Notwithstanding the issuance of a permit by the City, private restrictions or covenants on the use of property shall remain enforceable. Private restrictions include but are not limited to deed restrictions, condominium master deed restrictions, neighborhood association by-laws, and covenant declarations. A permit issued to a person whose premises are subject to private restrictions and/or covenants that prohibit the keeping of chickens is void. The interpretation and enforcement of the private restriction is the sole responsibility of the private parties involved. Subdivision 4. Animals in Transit It is unlawful for any person to transport animals unless they are (1) confined within a vehicle, cage or other means of conveyance, or (2) restrained by means of bridles, halters, ropes or other means of individual restraint. Subdivision S. Treatment It is unlawful for any person to treat any animal as herein defined, or any other animal, in a cruel or inhumane manner. Subdivision 6. Housing It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal as herein defined, or any other animal, in any structure infested by rodents, vermin, flies or insects, or inadequate for protection against the elements. Subdivision 7. Trespasses It is unlawful for any person to herd, drive or ride any animal over and upon any grass, turf, boulevard, City park, cemetery, garden or lot without specific permission therefor from the owner. Subdivision 8. Trapping It is unlawful for any person to, by means of any device or contrivance, catch, trap, snare, or restrain any animal. Provided, however, that the Chief of Police or Director of Public Works may waive the prohibition in this Subdivision for the purposes or abating nuisances. Subdivision 9. Enforcement Licensed peace officers, reserve officers, and community service officers, employed by the Police Department are authorized to issue administrative citations in accordance with Section 4.60 Subdivision 3.6 of the City Code for the violation of this Section. CITY OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS F1RR TYTfOUTH �. � CITY OF PLYMOUTH n 00lop► =gg �a o r , Ap_ J El El .J i e o t m O ji o y mks—* O 8 K -�AN .. o D g CITY OF CRYSTAL t , �----------- lam' It me:" MA �vn i�7 d (�, -,, ..�• —._ -__ .' CITY OF -... 1—J ROBBINSD_ LL 10 t QCd'FY OP MINNEAPOLIS — � � l � .�"' - ,3 e'en •y. fan K %��' aft• — � � � °°^ � p + o U K,` 3 H a CITY OF MINNBAPOLI CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS c_»xoo o �T o N cog � � .00 � n "' "� C. CD a1 O �i � N rn m o O Q. 0 mch 2 o O (D1< � o0 ,„a o �' H., a n tD m 0 CD -a N _ g N. � 0 � N i CITY OF C7ITY OF ST. LOUIS PORK �: I�YINOUTH G� O- x n' Cb�' ('(TY OF PLYMOUTH "2 1 Cl i c COIn0 0 ON C� b Cb 0 x� n ❑ s 41 _ O z l m � �� I i i c n� ❑ €: s. 71 LI 'J t 9 .•.1 .n. I O v � O E y ® - 7j7 1 •✓'. m X®� .I > H : D 0 1 717 77 I I I �• I i _ r: y F i.�o=r 0 PM ❑ , X .y 0 Nom OF CRY57AL lip _CITY CJ q{ a q ! j -�- v 14 8 a — - - i •_. C I � _ r I,I I / TJ J APTI 3 q 1t _L11 n i CITY OF "',...�'-•. ROBBINSDAL}i pr CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS��-� I V' cI" �' YI. � q� A; D o O Uy M CITY OF MINN F-APOLI. CITY OF MINNFAPOLI5 ��xoo 'o mo �N C or;PIL S , w j o o twc o 00 CIL �m N/w� � \Y IV O �H 0 13 o _ a y N n oa o : m 11 N (o O oR � fp 3 a m sv o �. sT N N .-. (p 00 a �. (D 0 �D /� Date: January 23, 2013 MEMORANDUM Public Warks Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) To: Golden Valley Environmental Commission From: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist eEl & Subject: U of MN Natural Resource Management Project On December 10, 2012, students from the University of Minnesota's Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management program presented their ideas and recommendations on the topic of Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Golden Valley. The students presented their findings to members of the Environmental and Open Space and Recreation Commissions, City Council members, City staff, and others in attendance. The presentation was well received and there were many questions from the audience. The students' final reports can be found at the following link: http•//gv-img ci golden-vaIley.mn.us/Public/Browse.aspx?startid=439136&dbid=2. Following is a list of recommendations made by the students which would require input from the Commissions and Council before implementation: 1. Initiate implementation of a pilot project for a community garden on City property. 2. Reduce high maintenance turf areas in parks and open space parcels and establish prairie restoration zones, starting with small pilot project near a school. 3. Develop policies from the City's current natural resource practices and procedures. 4. Establish a program to remove buckthorn or convert land use within open space parcels and unimproved rights-of-way. 5. Create an adopt -a -lot program for open space parcels and unimproved rights-of-way (also coordinate efforts with Golden Valley's Volunteer Coordinator). 6. Create an adopt -a -pond program for stormwater ponds (also coordinate efforts with Golden Valley's Volunteer Coordinator). 7. Develop a program to assess and manage stormwater ponds to reduce the risk of invasion of non-native vegetation. 8. Establish a program for invasive species management in Brookview golf course. 9. Reduce high maintenance turf areas in Brookview golf course and possibly convert to more naturalized or native areas, especially near stormwater ponds. 10. Establish a program for ash tree management in Brookview golf course. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\EC_memo_UofMN_NatResMgmt.docx 11. Develop the framework for a comprehensive Natural Resource Management Plan. 12. Review and update existing ordinances impacting natural resources (such as invasive species in Section 10.50 Shade Tree Diseases). Some of the recommendations brought forth are ready to be implemented if moved forward, while others may need further study or refinement. Overall, staff feels the students presented the City with many ideas and opportunities to consider. The Environmental Commission may wish to include some of the student -recommended actions in its work plan for 2013. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\EC_memo_UofMN_NatResMgmt.docx Links for wood smoke discussion: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-quality-and-pollutants/general-air- quality/wood-smoke/index.htmI http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.phP/air/air-quality-and-pollutants/general-air- quality/wood-smoke/health-effects-of-wood-smoke.htmI http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/HIthHaz/fs/waterstoves.htm h_ttps:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/92046.pdf http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/ALAParticulate.pdf http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=18425 http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-quality-and-pollutants/general-air- quality/wood-smoke/problems-and-complaints.htmI PROGRAM/PROJECT UPDATES — JANUARY 2013 TMDL No updates II Memo — Quarterly Report PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS MINI Cooper Dealership The City has received application from the Jim Lupient Company to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit for the 701 Louisiana Ave. site. The amendment would involve demolishing the vacant former Oldsmobile building and building a new MINI Cooper dealership and service center in its place. The new dealership would replace the existing MINI Cooper dealership in Bloomington. The former Saturn dealership building, which is also a part of this PUD, will continue to be marketed to prospective tenants. Olin Woods Subdivision The City is expected to grant approval of the Final Plat for the Olin Woods subdivision, located at the end of the Harold Ave. cul -du -sac, near Glenwood Ave. This subdivision would create three new residential lots. If approved, this subdivision will also create an easement to allow for a future sidewalk to connect the cul -du -sac to Glenwood Ave. The Arcata Apartments Plans for the Arcata Apartments will go before the Planning Commission and the City Council for final approval. "The Arcata" is a proposed 176 -unit apartment building to be located on the northwest corner of the Colonnade office building site. The City Council was receptive to preliminary plans, but requested that the developer give further thought to pedestrian amenities along Xenia Avenue as well as onsite parking. DECOLA PONDS The DeCola Pond study is currently on hold awaiting formal action by the City of Crystal. Staff anticipates that Crystal will resume discussing their participation in the study within the next several weeks. Work on the study can begin within 3-4 weeks after approval by the City of Crystal. RECYCLING UPDATE Memo — 2012 Recycling Summary Memo — Fall Leaf Drop -Off Analysis WETLAND MANAGEMENT Administrative Audit - In late 2012, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) notified the City of Golden Valley that it was among the many cities chosen to participate in the annual administrative audit regarding Wetland Conservation Act compliance. Staff believes this is the first time that Golden Valley participated in such an audit since the Wetland Conservation Act was passed in 1991. The audit was performed by BWSR staff in December 2012 as it reviewed files going back six years. BWSR staff indicated that Golden Valley did well and the full report will be available in early 2013. The Three -Nine -Four Development — The City plans to issue a Notice of Decision approving the no -loss wetland application submitted by the developer. The developer requested approval of its wetland application and report that concluded that no wetland is present on the site of the development. The Notice of Decision will be issued on February 7 when the application comment period expires. BOTTINEAU TRANSITWAY Memo from Joe Hogeboom. Copy of Alternative Analysis is on-line. cit o goldenlle N Y Date: January 15, 2013 MEMORANDUM Public Works Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) To: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Through: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer From: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction Program — Quarterly Report on Private Property Inspections C: Bert Tracy, Dave Lemke, Mitch Hoeft, Lisa Nesbitt, Kirby Van Note The purpose of this memo is to provide a quarterly update on the status of all inspections under the City's 1/1 reduction program. The inspection of private sewer laterals began in October 2006 with the inspection of service laterals in the 2007 Pavement Management Program (PMP) area. The Point of Sale (PoS) program began shortly afterwards, on January 1, 2007. The status of all inspections is provided in this memorandum and includes 2007-2013 PMP projects and the PoS Program. Following is a quick summary of all inspections through January 14, 2013: Inspected Compliant PMP 917 411(45%) Point of Sale 2,283 2,064(90%) Total 3,200 2,475(77%) 3,200 properties inspected / 8,000 properties in City = 40% inspected citywide 2,475 properties compliant / 8,000 properties in City = 31% compliant citywide The majority of sewer laterals inspected require some repair. Only 10% of all properties pass the first inspection and are compliant without needing repairs. More detailed inspection information is attached to this memorandum. G:\PROJECTS\Inflow and Infiltration\Memorandums\Inspections Status\Memo_1-15-2013.docx 2007-2013 PMP Areas The following is a summary of findings for all PMP areas as of January 14, 2013: PMP 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Total PMP properties 230 262 295 151 92 173 67 1270 properties compliant under PoS, before PMP project 0 0 0 16 13 61 20 110 eligible for participation 230 2621 295 135 79 112 47 1160 inspected 230 1931 224 100 701 84 16 917 percent participating 100% 74% 76% 74% 89% 75% 34% 79% compliant properties 56 891 129 55 37 44 1 411 properties compliant after PMP, reported as PoS 13 10 6 6 1 36 non-compliant properties 161 94 89 39 32 40 15 470 improper sump discharge 1 2 0 0 1 7 foundation drains 1 1 1 6 3 4 cracked pipe/separated oroff- setjoints 113 73 80 25 23 23 12 services which required cleaning, clearing of roots or other obstructions before televising can be completed 15 3 2 4 2 1 inspections pending further action (no shows, no access to pipe, cleanout required repair, etc.) 31 15 6 4 3 5 3 Point of Sale (PoS) Program The PoS Program was implemented January 1, 2007 with electronic online permits going live on February 6, 2007. According to the City's Permits and Inspections Management System (PIMS), a total of 1,814 PoS permits have been processed (1,777 certificate of compliance and 37 sump pump inspections) representing inspections for 2,283 properties. The following is a summary of findings for PoS properties as of January 14, 2013: Source: I & I Access Database, PIMs Database residential non-residential (single-family, (commercial, two-family condo, POS attached) townhouse) Total Inspected 1479 804 2283 compliant properties 1282 782 2064 non-compliant properties 197 22 219 non-compliant due to pipe defects, foundation drains, or cleanouts 179 18 inspections pending further action (no shows, no access to pipe, cleanout required repair, etc.) 18 4 Source: I & I Access Database, PIMs Database Properties not needing repairs (compliant on first "successful inspection") "Successful inspection" is the ability to push the camera through the lateral from the house all the way to the sewer main. The first time this is achieved is considered the first successful inspection. If the camera is blocked part way and cannot reach the main, it is not a successful inspection. The City began tracking this information in 2008; thus the information below does not include the 2007 PMP. Percent Compliant on first successful inspection: 2008 PMP 2.1% (4 of 193 participating) 2009 PMP 1.8% (4 of 224 participating) 2010 PMP 5.0% (5 of 100 participating) 2011 PMP 1.4% (1 of 70 participating) 2012 PMP 16.7% (14 of 84 participating, includes 6 -unit TH) Point of Sale 12.4% (282 of 2,283 inspected) Total 10.5% (310 of 2,954 properties) Agenda Item Bottineau Transitway Update Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Planning Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Summary The Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Report draft, which includes study work completed through December, 2012, was presented to the Metropolitan Council on January 9. The Report summarizes the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Study process and recommendations for the Bottineau Transitway. The adoption of the report will coincide with the Metropolitan Council's adoption of the B -C -D1 LRT Alignment as the Locally Preferred Alternative. This is anticipated to occur in early February. Following the endorsement of the LPA and its amendment into the Transportation Policy Plan, the Bottineau Transitway will become a Metropolitan Council project. (It is currently considered a Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority project.) Once this occurs, it is anticipated that the Metropolitan Council will immediately direct its staff to develop an application to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Bottineau Transitway's entry into the Federal New Starts Program. If accepted into the Federal New Starts Program, the Bottineau Transitway will become eligible for funding for preliminary engineering and project design. In February, the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board will sponsor a series of workshops that will focus on the design and location of potential Theodore Wirth Park transit stations. Details for these workshops have not yet been finalized, but the Board has indicated that it will include the City of Golden Valley in the process. The Planning Department will provide the City Council with more information about this initiative as it becomes available. Attachments Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report Draft (27 pages) Recommended Action Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 01.02.13 DRAFT FOR REVIEW 0 sw a a ,� Y MehoTransit Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Minnesota TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Alternatives Analysis Study .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 D2 Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 LPA Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 NEXTSTEPS...................................................23 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 This document reflects the summary of the Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis (AA) process and decisions as of January 2, 2013. This Report will therefore be updated as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) decision is finalized. BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report INTRODUCTION WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT? This report summarizes the Alternatives Analysis (AA) evaluation process and recommendations for the Bot- tineau Transitway. The report describes which transit modes, facilities, and alignments were studied and why decisions were made to discontinue study of some alternatives and recommend further study of others. It also describes the major steps in the decision process and who was involved. WHAT IS THE BOTTINEAU TRANSITWAY? The Bottineau Transitway is a proposed project that will provide for transit improvements in the highly trav- eled northwest area of the Twin Cities. The Bottineau Transitway is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, extending approximately 13 miles from downtown Min- neapolis to the northwest serving North Minneapolis and the suburbs of Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crys- tal, Brooklyn Park, and Maple Grove. The transitway investment is anticipated to serve a broader area to the northwest, including the communities of Dayton, Rogers, and Hassan Township. (Hassan Township was annexed into the City of Rogers on January 1, 2012. Future reference to Rogers in this document includes Hassan Township.) The Bottineau Transitway will connect North Minne- apolis and the region's northwest suburbs with the region's system of transitways that consist of light rail 1 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report FIGURE 1: TWIN CITIES REGIONAL TRANSITWAY SYSTEM N,nhstar Line continued s) O �N IF 99 R n n Proposed Bottineau Transitway Mie— I, 39t � Green Line st.paw <� o` l%�tpe � �G (Central) 7 `!!=' G50°estl o Cdr oto s� 0 0 v (P 35E O 't O W 3 �0m Downtown Minneapolis Inset ry M C iv r O = M Blue Line (LRT) ® ®wiiiii Green Line (LRT) x4 -x orange Line Red Line IBRTI 0 O Transit Stations Northstar Line (commuter rail) iT d Q Regional Multimodal Hub N Metropolitan Connell 0 u transit (LRT) on the Blue Line (Hiawatha) and Green Line (Central Corridor and the planned Southwest line), bus rapid transit (BRT) on the Red Line (Cedar Avenue) and Orange Line (1-35W South), the Northstar commuter rail, and express bus routes (Figure 1). The Bottineau Transitway also will maintain or enhance lo- cal and express bus service throughout the corridor. Transportation and land use studies along the Bottin- eau Corridor began in 1988 with the Hennepin Coun- ty Comprehensive LRT System Plan. The Bottineau (Northwest) Transitway has consistently been included BottineauTransitway in regional transportation system plans. In 2008, the Bottineau corridor was one of 29 corridors analyzed for their potential for commuter rail or LRT/BRT invest- ments in the Metropolitan Council's Transit Master Study. The study concluded that the Bottineau corridor should continue to be advanced toward implementa- tion. This conclusion is reflected in the region's current long-range transportation plan, the 2030 Transporta- tion Policy Plan (adopted in 2010), which identifies the Bottineau Transitway as one of the transit corridors to be developed by 2030 as LRT, Busway, Highway BRT, or Commuter Rail. WHAT IS AN ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS? An AA is a federal process for the local evaluation of the costs, benefits, and impacts of transit alternatives designed to address mobility problems and other lo- cally -identified objectives in a transportation corridor. It is used to identify the investment strategy to be ad- vanced for more focused study and development. For AA studies which may result in the local selection of a project eligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts or Small Starts funding, the AA fur- ther serves as the process for developing the technical information necessary to support a project's entry into New Starts preliminary engineering. The AA process concludes with the selection of a locally preferred al- ternative (LPA) that is amended into the regional long range plan. WHAT IS A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE? The LPA is the transitway alternative that the corridor's cities, counties, and the Metropolitan Council recom- mend for construction. The LPA specifies both the type of transit that will be used (mode) and the location (alignment). Other elements of the project, including termini and final station locations, are established formally during subsequent engineering based on ad- ditional information, including opening year travel de- mand forecasts. The selection of an LPA tells the FTA which alternative local agencies expect to be the most competitive in achieving support at the local, regional, and federal levels. Identification of an LPA is a critical step to pursue federal funding. The selection of an LPA for the Bottineau Transitway and amendment of it into the region's long-range transportation plan marks the end of the AA process. Concluding the AA process al- lows the project to pursue federal funding under the federal SAFETEA-LU transportation program. It is ex- pected that the region will pursue federal funding for the Bottineau Transitway through the FTA New Starts program. WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE LPA SELECTION PROCESS? The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA), in consultation with the Metropolitan Council and the FTA, is serving as the local lead agency for the Bottineau Transitway AA. Throughout the AA process, there has been active engagement with the public and project advisory committees. Some of the most active local agency partners participate on the project com- mittees described below (Figure 2). FIGURE 2: AA STUDY PARTNERS ■ Advise, Review, and Communicate Committee (ARCC): ARCC members are technical staff from agencies convened to advise on project develop- ment. The ARCC provides advice regarding local governmental perspectives, issues of concern, technical methodologies, and study process de- tails. The ARCC is comprised of staff from Hennepin County, the cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, Os- seo, and Robbinsdale; Maple Grove Transit; the BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 2 3 Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, MnDOT; the FIGURE 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR BOTTINEAU Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; and proj- TRANSITWAY PROJECT ect consultants. ■ Community Advisory Committee (CAC): Members represent communities, businesses, and institu- tions in the Bottineau Transitway study area. CAC members provide a conduit for integrating the val- ues and perspectives of citizens, communities, businesses and institutions into the study process. ■ Policy Advisory Committee (PAC): PAC members are elected officials, key policy leaders for partici- pating agencies, business leaders, and institutional leaders, convened to review project development progress and advise progress toward identifying an LPA. Members of the public participated through attendance at public meetings and hearings at several points dur- ing the process as discussed later in this report. WHAT CRITERIA WERE USED TO MAKE DECISIONS? Three sets of evaluation criteria form the frame- work for decisions leading to the selection of an LPA (Figure 3): ■ The Bottineau Transitway purpose and need, and goals and objectives (local criteria); ■ The Metropolitan Council transitway capital invest- ment criteria, discussed in the Metropolitan Coun- cil's Regional Transitway Guidelines (regional crite- ria); and ■ The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts project justification criteria (national criteria) The purpose of the Bottineau Transitway is stated as follows: 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 fac- tors contribute to the need for the project: growing travel demand, increasing traffic congestion, people who depend on transit, limited transit service to sub- urban destinations (reverse commute opportunities) and time -efficient transit options, and regional objec- tives for growth stated in the Regional Development Framework. Alternatives Analysis Summary Report Federal Transit Administration New Starts/Small Starts Project Justification Criteria Metropolitan Council Regional Transltway Guidelines Capital Investment Criteria BottineauTransitway The Bottineau Transitway project goals and objectives They serve as a framework to develop and then are shown in Table 1. These were initially developed evaluate the alternatives. Goals 1, 2, and 3 reflect the during the AA Study and used throughout the core purpose and need of the project; Goals 4 and 5 alternatives development and evaluation process. reflect broader community goals. TABLE 1: BOTTINEAU TRANSITWAY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal ■ Maximize total transit riders ■ Improve service to people who depend on transit ■ Expand reverse commute and off-peak transit opportunities ■ Increase transit system linkages, access to regional destina- tions, and multimodal transportation opportunities ■ Maximize transit access to housing, employment, schools, community services, health care facilities, and activity Goal centers the Corridor ■ Maximize new transit riders ■ Maximize passengers per hour of revenue service ■ Goal Maximize traveler time savings sit System ■ Balance project costs and benefits (minimize CEI) ■ Minimize project capital and operating cost ■ Maximize long-term investment in the regional transit system ■ Maximize flexibility to efficiently expand the transit invest- ment to accommodate transitway demand beyond 2030 weekday travel demand forecasts Goal Development ■ Promote land development and redevelopment that supports sustainable transportation policies ■ Ensure compatibility with local and regional comprehensive plans ■ Goal Support economic development and redevelopment efforts Support mental Practices ■ Minimize impacts on wetlands/water/flood plains, parks, visual resources, noise/vibration, and historic/cultural resources ■ Minimize short- and long-term impacts to property, property access, and on -street parking ■ Maximize cohesion, preservation, and enhancement of Bot- tineau Transitway communities ■ Maximize pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Bottin- eau Transitway ■ Maximize health, environmental, and economic benefits to the Bottineau Transitway communities ■ Minimize disproportionately high and adverse impacts on the region's minority and/or low-income communities ■ Minimize area traffic impacts AoffineluTransitwav U We are Interested in Your Comments COMMENT RECORDER BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 4 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: SPRING 2008 TO FALL 2012 The process of getting from an initial "universe" of alternatives to a single LPA consisted of three major steps: ■ Alternatives Analysis Study (AA Study): Spring 2008 to March 2010 ■ Alignment D2 Investigation and Definition (D2 In- vestigation): April 2010 to November 2011 ■ Locally Preferred Alternative Selection (LPA Selec- tion): April 2011 to Spring 2013 Each step and the decisions that resulted from them is described on the following pages. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the alternatives analysis schedule and pro- cess, respectively. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY: SPRING 2008 TO MARCH 2010 The HCRRA, in partnership with the Metropolitan Council and local jurisdictions, initiated an Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study for the Bottineau Transitway in 2008 (Appendix 1). Completed in 2010, the study eval- uated a wide range of transit modes and alignments. Early in the AA Study, the project team established and implemented a framework for engaging stakeholders in their critical role in the development of a success- ful project. Stakeholder engagement was based on achieving four goals: to inform, to learn, to include, and to achieve success. FIGURE 4: TIMING OFALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS KEY STEPS 2008 2009 2010 2011 AA Study Alternatives Analysis Summary Report To Inform ■ Reach affected stakeholders with information on the AA study process requirements; ensure that project information is presented to stakeholders in a manner that is timely, clear, and as comprehen- sive as practicable. ■ Ensure that transitway residents, businesses, agencies, community leaders, and other interested stakeholders are well informed about the study, ex- pected outcomes and timelines, and how they can get their issues and concerns heard. To Learn ■ Ensure that adequate opportunities are provided for stakeholder input. ■ Obtain input regarding stakeholder values and needs relative to a potential transitway investment. To Include ■ Ensure that all stakeholder groups have an oppor- tunity to provide input into the study process. ■ Provide an opportunity for stakeholders to partici- pate in an open exchange of views throughout the study. To Achieve Success ■ Gain support of stakeholders regarding the study process and outcomes. ■ Identify locally preferred outcomes working toward the best transit improvement for the study area. ■ Integrate and coordinate stakeholder involvement with technical staff. ■ Build and maintain trusting relationships with the project partners. 2012 2013 BottineauTransitway FIGURE 5: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PROCESS Evaluation Criteria • Bottineau Transitway Purpose and Need, Goals. and OL)Jectives • Metropolitan Council Capital Investment Criteria • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Criteria Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study ■ Screening • Technical evaluation • Public Input Spring 2008 - March 2010 Alignment D2 Investigation ■ Screening • Technical evaluation ■ Public Input April 2010 - November 2011 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Selection • Technical evaluation • Scoping input and decisions- • Stop study of bus rapid transit (BRT) ■ Study four LRT alternatives in Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • LPA recommendation and decision ■ Public Input April 2011- Spring 2013 BilliffineauTransitway Possible Alternatives 21 Alternatives (9 LRT, 12 BRT) 0 5 Alternatives (4 LRT, 1 BRT) Define D2 as option D2 -C (light rail transit (LRT) and two-way vehicle traffic on Penn Ave.) Resume study of 5 Alternatives 9 LPA Recommendation: LRT B -C -DI (Brooklyn Park to Minneapolis via West Broadway/BNSF Corridor/Olson Memorial Highway) Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 6 7 During its course, the AA Study successfully engaged stakeholders through public meetings, open houses, presentations, email, website visits, and phone calls (Appendix 1). Nearly 1,000 stakeholders attended meetings or submitted comments duringthis time. The three project committees (ARCC, CAC, and PAC) met throughout the study. Focused Issue Groups (FIGs) also met periodically to address specific issues. The AA Study developed and evaluated a No -Build, an Enhanced Bus/Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative, and a broad range of transit alterna- tives (Figure 6). To narrow this initial universe of alter- natives, the project team developed screening criteria in consultation with the ARCC and other stakeholders (Table 2). The purpose of screening was to identify those initial alternatives with potential to address the project needs, goals, and objectives. Alternatives that met all the screening criteria were advanced in the AA Study. The study did not advance those alternatives that did not meet all the screening criteria. FIGURE 6: UNIVERSE OFALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THEAA STUDY Alternatives Analysis Summary Report ■ Alt 1 - BNSF ROW ■ Alt 2 - West Broadway ■ Alt 3 - CP Rail ROW ■ Alt 4 - TH 100/1-394 ■ Alt 5 - Bottineau Blvd. ■ Alt 6 - Brooklyn Blvd./Osseo Road ■ Alt 7 - West Broadway (CSAH 8) in Crystal, New Hope & Brooklyn Park ■ Northern Variations A = Elm Creek Blvd. B = West Broadway C = 85th Ave. D = Bottineau Blvd. E = TH 169 F = Zane Ave. ■ Southern Variations 1 = TH 55 2 = West Broadway 3 = Lyndale Ave. a = BNSF ROW b = Plymouth Ave. c = Golden Valley Rd. d/e = Bottineau Blvd. f = Washington Ave. g = Lowry Ave. h = Emerson/Fremont i = 1-94 BottineauTransitway TABLE 2: SCREENING CRITERIA USED TO IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES WITH POTENTIAL TO ADDRESS PROJECT NEEDS AND GOALS 1. Service Area ■ Alignment must be accessible (within walking distance or by connecting feeder bus) to people who depend on transit ■ South end must serve downtown Minneapolis ■ North end must serve a major traffic or employment generator ■ 2. Alignment must serve the highest concentration of origins and destinations Service Efficiency (travel time d directness) ■ Alignment must be as physically short as possible ■ Alignment must follow right-of-way that allows for high travel speeds ■ Alignment must provide for low travel time between stations on alignment and between origins and destinations on the transit 3. system System Connectivity ■ 4. Alignment must have reasonable connections in downtown Minneapolis with the regional transitway system Compatibility ■ Alignment should use existing infrastructure wherever possible ■ Alignment should be compatible with the existing roadway system and the built environment The AA Study considered the following mode, align- ment, and facility types: ■ Modes: Commuter rail, light rail transit (LRT), and bus rapid transit (BRT) modes were considered. Neither of the commuter rail alternatives consid- ered would serve communities in north Minneapo- lis and Robbinsdale. As such, they would not meet the identified project objective of providing effective reverse commute service and did not meet the ser- vice area screening criterion. As a result, the com- muter rail mode was eliminated from further con- sideration. LRT and BRT modes were retained for technical evaluation. ■ Alignments: Many alignments were considered for BRT and LRT modes. Six LRT or BRT routes provid- ing access to Maple Grove, Osseo, or Brooklyn Park were studied. Alternatives with a northern terminus in Maple Grove or Brooklyn Park were retained, as they passed the service area screening criterion. The alternative terminating in Osseo was dropped from further study because Osseo is no longer a major activity center. On the south end of the cor- ridor, seventeen alternatives were considered for entry into Minneapolis, including 15 suitable for BRT or LRT and two BRT-only alternatives. Five al- ternatives met all four screening criteria and were retained for technical evaluation. The BRT and LRT alternatives that were dropped all provided system connectivity but failed to meet at least one of the other three screening criteria, most commonly be- BoffineauTransitway cause they were incompatible with existing infra- structure or did not meet the service area criterion. ■ Facility Types: The study sought to develop alterna- tives with dedicated transitway facilities wherever possible. The primary reasons were to minimize potential impacts on traffic operations and safety and to provide the maximum opportunity for travel time advantages, ridership, and user benefits. The study explored some mixed traffic facilities when dedicated facilities were not feasible. AA STUDY DECISION: CONTINUE STUDY OF FOUR LRT ALTERNATIVES AND ONE BRT ALTERNATIVE At the conclusion of the screening process, 21 alterna- tives (12 BRT and 9 LRT) were recommended for de- tailed technical evaluation. The 21 alternatives were then evaluated in detail against the five project goals and 22 objectives. Results for each alternative were re- ported quantitatively and ranked on a five -point scale for each objective. From this information, a summary technical score was developed for each alternative. At the same time, preliminary cost effectiveness scores were developed. These two scores were then com- bined to produce an overall ranking for each alterna- tive (Table 3). From these results, five alternatives were advanced for further study (Figure 8). The alternatives include the three most promising LRT alternatives identified in the Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 8 0 AA Study, a fourth LRT alternative considered in the study that was less promising but still of interest, and a refined BRT alternative. Each alternative is described in detail in the "LPA Selection" discussion that follows. The refined BRT alternative was developed based on additional understanding gained during the AA Study. TABLE 3: AA STUDY OVERALL SCORING SUMMARY Modifications to routing, alignment and operations were explored to maximize the potential benefits of BRT. The resulting alternative had substantially im- proved performance over those initially considered in the AA study and the decision was made to advance this refined BRT alternative for further study. 0 Best @ Good @ Fair Alternatives Analysis Summary Report G) Poor O Poorest BoffineauTransitway TECHNICALSCORE (15 .. .. Preliminary Cost Effectiveness Index: Annualized cost per hour of user benefit OVERALL RANKING points) TECH NI CAL SCORE AND PROJECT COSTS BENEFITS + OPPORTUNITIES + I M PACTS LRTA—Dl Maple Grove—BNSF/Olson • • • LRTA—D2 Maple Grove—Penn/Olson O O O LRT A—D3 Maple Grove—Lowry/Lyndale O O O LRT B—D1 Brooklyn Park—BNSF/Olson O O O LRT B—D2 Brooklyn Park—Penn/Olson O O O LRTB—D3 BrooklynPark—Lowry/Lyndale O O O LRTAB—D1 Both branches—BNSF/Olson . O O LRT AB—D2 Both branches—Penn/Olson O O O LRT AB—D3 Both branches—Lowry/Lyndale O O O BRT A—D1 Maple Grove—BNSF/Olson O O BRTA—D2 Maple Grove—Penn/Olson O O O BRTA—D3 MapleGrove—Lowry/Lyndale O O O BRTA—D4 MapleGrove—Broadway/Lyndale O O O BRT B—Di Brooklyn Park—BNSF/Olson O O O BRT B—D2 Brooklyn Park—Penn/Olson O O O BRT B—D3 Brooklyn Park—Lowry/Lyndale O O O BRT B—D4 Brooklyn Park—Broadway/Lyndale O O O BRT AB—D1 Both branches—BNSF/Olson O O O BRT AB—D2 Both branches—Penn/Olson O O O BRT AB—D3 Both bra nches—Lowry/Lyndale O O O BRT AB—D4 Both branches—Broadway/Lyndale O O O 0 Best @ Good @ Fair Alternatives Analysis Summary Report G) Poor O Poorest BoffineauTransitway AA STUDY DECISION: STOP STUDY OF OPTIONS ON WEST BROADWAY AVENUE EAST OF PENN AVENUE BRT and LRT alternatives on West Broadway Avenue east of Penn Avenue were considered as part of the AA Study because of West Broadway Avenue's role as an important regional and local transportation and ac- tivity corridor. The AA Study findings are summarized below. LRT on West Broadway Avenue east of Penn Avenue: Study Discontinued Study of an LRT alternative on West Broadway Avenue east of Penn Avenue was discontinued during the AA Study because of its less feasible connection to the regional LRT system and because of its significant and likely impacts on surrounding land uses, property own- ers, and other modes of transportation. As a result of these concerns, LRT was screened out as a practical mode alternative on West Broadway. ■ Regional LRT System Connection -- All Bottineau Transitway LRT alternatives connect to the regional LRT system at Target Field/The Interchange since any Bottineau LRT alternative would become an ex- tension of the Blue Line (formerly called Hiawatha). The LRT system connection necessary at Target Field/The Interchange for LRT alternatives on West Broadway Avenue east of Penn Avenue was higher cost, more complex, and limited future expansion potential as compared to the connection possible for other LRT alternatives. ■ Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses, Property Own- ers, and Other Modes of Transportation -- Addition- al issues with LRT on West Broadway Avenue east of Penn Avenue included significant impacts to land uses/private property, on -street parking, traffic op- erations, and right-of-way width. The development of Bottineau Transitway alternatives sought to avoid or minimize these kinds of impacts. BRT Alternatives on West Broadway Avenue East of Penn Avenue: Study Discontinued Study of BRT alternatives operating in mixed traffic lanes on West Broadway Avenue east of Penn Avenue was initiated when it became clear that a dedicated BRT or LRT transitway would have severe impacts. The BRT alternatives were assumed to operate in mixed traffic - not in the dedicated lanes assumed for all LRT and other BRT alternatives - between Penn and Lyn - dale Avenues. This approach allowed the BRT alterna- tives to minimize impacts on land uses/private proper- ty, on -street parking, traffic operations, and right-of-way width. The study considered three alternatives which included a BRT alignment running in mixed traffic on West Broadway between Penn and Lyndale Avenues. Study of the three BRT alternatives was discontinued because of their comparatively weak performances in terms of their ability to meet the Bottineau Transitway purpose and need. The three BRT alternatives with an alignment segment on West Broadway Avenue be- tween Penn and Lyndale Avenues ranked primarily in the "fair" or lower categories (using a five -point ranking - Best, Good, Fair, Poor, and Poorest) for each of the five project goals, including ability to attract new riders to the system, ability to improve regional travel time savings, and cost effectiveness. D2 INVESTIGATION: APRIL 2010- NOVEMBER 2011 The AA Study identified two alignments in Minneapolis for further study; the D1 alignment located in the BNSF right-of-way and the D2 alignment located on West Broadway and the Penn Avenue area. Three options (A, B, and C) for the D2 alignment were considered for the segment between West Broadway Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway (Figure 7). The D2 evaluation process included a technical evalu- ation of each of the options within the framework of the purpose and need for the Bottineau Transitway as well as the FTA New Starts program evaluation crite- ria. Through the evaluation process, the ARCC worked to create transitway operating conditions required for the Bottineau Corridor to become a financially viable element of the regional transitway system. The ARCC also worked to develop transitway operating conditions that are compatible with general motor vehicle, bus, bi- cycle, and pedestrian traffic and with neighboring busi- nesses and residents for the long-term. BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 10 FIGURE 7: SEGMENT D2 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS CONSIDERED � NB Traffic � SB Traffic LRT D2 Option A places LRT and southbound D2 Option B places LRT on Oliver Avenue D2 Option C widens Penn Avenue to allow traffic on Penn Avenue, moving north- removing all traffic from that street, leav- LRT as well as north- and southbound traf- bound traffic to Oliver Avenue. ing both north and southbound traffic on fic to operate on Penn Avenue. Penn Avenue. A public open house was held on October 6, 2011, to ing southbound traffic and Oliver Avenue accommo- share detailed information on the benefits and costs dating northbound traffic. D2 -W proposed centering of the D2 options and to obtain community input as to the LRT guideway on Penn Avenue while maintaining which of these options should be used to compare to two-way traffic. Both of these alignment options did not the D1 alternative. A survey was provided to attendees officially advance for detailed consideration in the LPA and also made available on line for those unable to process, as they resulted in greater right of -way and attend the open house. A total of 83 survey responses accessibility impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, were received which provided insight into area resident without resulting higher benefits as compared to align - and business owner concerns regarding the potential ments D2 A, B or C. addition of LRT on Penn or Oliver Avenues. At the November 2011 NTN meeting, a poll was taken During the 2010 through November 2011 time period, regarding the D2 options considered for comparison the Northside Transportation Network (NTN), a coali- to D1. The NTN poll identified option D2 -B as the only tion of North Minneapolis residents and businesses, option that had more people voting in favor of it than was actively involved in a process of engaging and against it. In addition to the NTN input regarding the informing Northside residents and stakeholders re- D2 options, a petition opposing LRT on Oliver and Penn garding the Bottineau Transitway. This included regu- Avenue was signed by 118 people and submitted to lar meetings, a three day workshop held in Septem- the PAC for consideration at their November 2011 ber 2011, and a November 3, 2011, NTN community meeting (Appendix 2). meeting. Through the NTN engagement process, two The ARCC prepared a technical paper as input to the additional D2 alignment options were proposed: D2 -D PAC describing the relative benefits and impacts of and D2 -W. D2 -D proposed having LRT and a bus lane each D2 option (Appendix 2). The ARCC concluded that on Penn Avenue and diverting Penn Avenue traffic to if a D2 alignment alternative is to be carried forward Queen and Oliver Avenues, with Queen accommodat- 11 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report BottineauTransitway 4��Yb jil k4P CgOmVInMVB$y Q9P v P CSakr YaAey N, P nMwu � t t..n nwx t mnw4 C m+�ionc aM. M 3 1 n_ ConsMtM � •. a+ a san y t6p. Me � J �{5 *ae N 4 C P�em[n A+eM1< Z PtynKa/n AvroxR y� y6 S€ x � •kny Po`y .fi D2 Option A places LRT and southbound D2 Option B places LRT on Oliver Avenue D2 Option C widens Penn Avenue to allow traffic on Penn Avenue, moving north- removing all traffic from that street, leav- LRT as well as north- and southbound traf- bound traffic to Oliver Avenue. ing both north and southbound traffic on fic to operate on Penn Avenue. Penn Avenue. A public open house was held on October 6, 2011, to ing southbound traffic and Oliver Avenue accommo- share detailed information on the benefits and costs dating northbound traffic. D2 -W proposed centering of the D2 options and to obtain community input as to the LRT guideway on Penn Avenue while maintaining which of these options should be used to compare to two-way traffic. Both of these alignment options did not the D1 alternative. A survey was provided to attendees officially advance for detailed consideration in the LPA and also made available on line for those unable to process, as they resulted in greater right of -way and attend the open house. A total of 83 survey responses accessibility impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, were received which provided insight into area resident without resulting higher benefits as compared to align - and business owner concerns regarding the potential ments D2 A, B or C. addition of LRT on Penn or Oliver Avenues. At the November 2011 NTN meeting, a poll was taken During the 2010 through November 2011 time period, regarding the D2 options considered for comparison the Northside Transportation Network (NTN), a coali- to D1. The NTN poll identified option D2 -B as the only tion of North Minneapolis residents and businesses, option that had more people voting in favor of it than was actively involved in a process of engaging and against it. In addition to the NTN input regarding the informing Northside residents and stakeholders re- D2 options, a petition opposing LRT on Oliver and Penn garding the Bottineau Transitway. This included regu- Avenue was signed by 118 people and submitted to lar meetings, a three day workshop held in Septem- the PAC for consideration at their November 2011 ber 2011, and a November 3, 2011, NTN community meeting (Appendix 2). meeting. Through the NTN engagement process, two The ARCC prepared a technical paper as input to the additional D2 alignment options were proposed: D2 -D PAC describing the relative benefits and impacts of and D2 -W. D2 -D proposed having LRT and a bus lane each D2 option (Appendix 2). The ARCC concluded that on Penn Avenue and diverting Penn Avenue traffic to if a D2 alignment alternative is to be carried forward Queen and Oliver Avenues, with Queen accommodat- 11 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report BottineauTransitway �3 C,Ndn Vdx-, v P CSakr YaAey N, P t mnw4 aM. M 3 1 n_ ConsMtM � •. � Srtni y tM. c.ex t6p. Me � Q C gQpq *ae N 4 C P�em[n A+eM1< y� � x � •kny �r D2 Option A places LRT and southbound D2 Option B places LRT on Oliver Avenue D2 Option C widens Penn Avenue to allow traffic on Penn Avenue, moving north- removing all traffic from that street, leav- LRT as well as north- and southbound traf- bound traffic to Oliver Avenue. ing both north and southbound traffic on fic to operate on Penn Avenue. Penn Avenue. A public open house was held on October 6, 2011, to ing southbound traffic and Oliver Avenue accommo- share detailed information on the benefits and costs dating northbound traffic. D2 -W proposed centering of the D2 options and to obtain community input as to the LRT guideway on Penn Avenue while maintaining which of these options should be used to compare to two-way traffic. Both of these alignment options did not the D1 alternative. A survey was provided to attendees officially advance for detailed consideration in the LPA and also made available on line for those unable to process, as they resulted in greater right of -way and attend the open house. A total of 83 survey responses accessibility impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, were received which provided insight into area resident without resulting higher benefits as compared to align - and business owner concerns regarding the potential ments D2 A, B or C. addition of LRT on Penn or Oliver Avenues. At the November 2011 NTN meeting, a poll was taken During the 2010 through November 2011 time period, regarding the D2 options considered for comparison the Northside Transportation Network (NTN), a coali- to D1. The NTN poll identified option D2 -B as the only tion of North Minneapolis residents and businesses, option that had more people voting in favor of it than was actively involved in a process of engaging and against it. In addition to the NTN input regarding the informing Northside residents and stakeholders re- D2 options, a petition opposing LRT on Oliver and Penn garding the Bottineau Transitway. This included regu- Avenue was signed by 118 people and submitted to lar meetings, a three day workshop held in Septem- the PAC for consideration at their November 2011 ber 2011, and a November 3, 2011, NTN community meeting (Appendix 2). meeting. Through the NTN engagement process, two The ARCC prepared a technical paper as input to the additional D2 alignment options were proposed: D2 -D PAC describing the relative benefits and impacts of and D2 -W. D2 -D proposed having LRT and a bus lane each D2 option (Appendix 2). The ARCC concluded that on Penn Avenue and diverting Penn Avenue traffic to if a D2 alignment alternative is to be carried forward Queen and Oliver Avenues, with Queen accommodat- 11 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report BottineauTransitway as a comparison to alignment D1, option D2 -C should advance for further study and study of options D2 -A and D2-15 should stop. In addition, the ARCC recommended that study con- tinue regarding transit system improvements in re- lationship to the Bottineau Transitway alternatives. Specifically, transit improvements should include the restructuring of the local bus network to integrate with the D1 and D2 alternatives as well as the consider- ation of other transit improvement initiatives, such as the Metro Transit Arterial Transitway Corridors Study (Arterial Bus Rapid Transit concept) and the City of Min- neapolis streetcar concept for West Broadway Avenue. Following consideration of public and stakeholder in- put, the PAC met on November 14, 2011, to recom- mend a preferred option for Alignment D2. The PAC agreed with the ARCC conclusion. The basis for the PAC recommendations is summarized in Table 4. TABLE 4. PAC RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALIGNMENT D2 AND BASIS Option Considered PAC Recommendation D2 -A: LRT operates on east side of PAC Recommendation: Stop Study Penn Avenue. Penn and Oliver Ave- Basis: Option D2 -A would compromise light rail and pedestrian activity by placing light rail nues become one-way pair for vehicle next to sidewalk on the east side of Penn Avenue. Vehicle access to properties adjacent to LRT traffic. would be limited to alleys only. Emergency vehicles would park on the light rail tracks when Would minimize right-of-way acquisi- responding to emergencies at properties adjacent to LRT, stopping light rail options. Noise tion by limiting Penn Avenue traffic and vibration impacts would be the highest of the D2 options studied. Economic development to southbound lane. Oliver Avenue opportunities would be less favorable than other D2 options. More challenging traffic access would be converted to a one-way and circulation patterns and less opportunity for streetscape amenities. northbound arterial street. D2 -B: LRT operates on Oliver Avenue; PAC Recommendation: Stop Study which is then closed to motor vehicle Basis: Option D2 -B would compromise light rail, bicycle, and pedestrian activity by placing light traffic. rail next to the sidewalk on the west side of Oliver Avenue and next to the bicycle/emergency Would create a transit mall on Oli- vehicle access path on the east side of Oliver Avenue. Vehicle access to all property along Oli- ver Avenue by putting light rail and ver Avenue would be limited to alleys only. All on -street parking would be removed. Emergency a bicycle/emergency vehicle access vehicles would block either the bicycle/emergency vehicle trail or the light rail tracks when path on Oliver while removing all non- responding to emergencies. Properties along both sides of Oliver Avenue would be impacted emergency traffic and parking. by light rail noise and vibration. Economic development opportunities would be low compared to the other D2 options due to the residential environment. 132-C: LRT and two-way vehicle traf- PAC Recommendation: Continue Study fic on Penn Avenue. Significant West Basis: Option D2 -C is the best D2 option for providing an appropriate environment for light side property impacts. rail and other transportation functions on Penn and Oliver Avenues. Most likely to support adequate bicycle and pedestrian movements along and across Penn Avenue, Oliver Avenue, and LRT and to allow on -street parking on Penn and Oliver Avenues. Least noise and vibration impacts of the D2 options studied. Creates Penn Avenue environment with the most potential for economic development. Acknowledgment that Option D2 -C has significant impacts because it requires relocation of nearly all properties on the west side of Penn Avenue between West Broadway Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway and has the highest capital cost of the three D2 options. Theodore Wirth Park (Golden Valley) BottineauTransitway Penn Avenue North (Minneapolis) Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 12 LPA SELECTION: APRIL 2011 TO SPRING 2013 HCRRA initiated the LPA selection process following the AA Study. The LPA selection process built on the findings and decisions from the AA Study and the D2 investigation, starting with the five most promising al- ternatives (four LRT and one BRT) identified: ■ LRT A-C-D1(Maple Grove to Minneapolis via BNSF/ Olson Memorial Highway) ■ LRT B -C -D1 (Brooklyn Park to Minneapolis via BNSF/Olson Memorial Highway) ■ LRT A -C -D2 (Maple Grove to Minneapolis via West Broadway Avenue/Penn Avenue/Olson Memorial Highway) ■ LRT B -C -D2 (Brooklyn Park to Minneapolis via West Broadway Avenue/Penn Avenue/Olson Memorial Highway) ■ BRT B -C -D1 (Brooklyn Park to Minneapolis via BNSF/Olson Memorial Highway) Each alternative would include all facilities associated with the construction and operation of a transitway. TABLE 5: ALIGNMENT OPTIONS FOR LPA ALTERNATIVES Each LRT alternative would include right-of-way, tracks, stations, support facilities, and transit service for LRT and connecting bus routes. The BRT alternative would include right-of-way, travel lanes, stations, support facilities, and transit service for BRT and connecting bus routes. The BRT alternative would be a high quality investment similar to LRT and would include a dedicated guideway, high -amenity sta- tions and the service, speed, reliability, and frequency characteristics of our region's transitways. The five alternatives are illustrated in Figure 8 and their alignment components are described in Table 5 below. Location Alignment Options North Alignment A originates in Maple Grove at Hemlock Lane/ Alignment B begins at the Target North Campus (located Arbor Lakes Parkway and follows the planned Arbor Lakes just north of Highway 610), follows West Broadway Ave - Parkway and Elm Creek Boulevard to the BNSF railroad nue, and crosses Bottineau Boulevard at 73rd Avenue to corridor located on the west side of Bottineau Boulevard. enter the BNSF railroad corridor. Central Alignment C: In the center portion of the corridor, the A and B alignments transition to the BNSF railroad corridor on the west side of Bottineau Boulevard and follow it through southern Brooklyn Park, Crystal, and into Robbinsdale. South Alignment D1 continues along the BNSF railroad corridor Alignment D2 exits the BNSF railroad corridor in Rob - to Olson Memorial Highway, through Robbinsdale, Golden binsdale near 34th Avenue, joins West Broadway Avenue, Valley, and into Minneapolis. then travels on Penn Avenue to Olson Memorial Highway and into downtown Minneapolis. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OFTHE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AS THE LPA During the LPA selection process, technical analysis was conducted on the five alternatives to identify and better understand the characteristics that differenti- ate them. Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of the alternatives considered as the LPA. The study also analyzed and compared the alternatives by alignment (A or B; D1 or D2) and mode (LRT B -C -D1 or BRT B -C - D1) in terms of the five project goals and 22 objectives (Appendix 3). 13 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report The results were used by the project advisory commit- tees, the corridor cities, and the HCRRA in their LPA recommendations and were made available to the public. SCOPING PROCESS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Initial LPA decisions were made during the process of scoping the content of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Due to anticipated federal funding for the Bottineau Transitway and the fact that the project may have significant environmental impacts, the FTA BottineauTransitway FIGURE 8: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR THE LPA A �,* 0------rc \0 M ku BottineauTransitway poo Brook"-. Center 71 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 14 TABLE 6. ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS Capital cost ($2017, in millions)' $960 $1,050 $1,000 $1,090 $560 Cost effectiveness index (CEI) 23 26 26 31 21 CEI rating2 Medium Medium -low Medium -low Medium -low Medium Ridership (total) 27,600 27,200 27,000 26,000 19,9003 Ridership (new) 8,400 7,800 7,150 6,500 5,650 Operating cost ($2011, in millions)' $22.4 $23.7 $24.1 $25.1 $20.7 Operating cost/passenger $2.46 $2.64 $2.70 $2.92 $3.15 Alternative length 12.6 miles 12.7 miles 13.3 miles 13.4 miles 12.9 miles Alternative travel time 25:37 29:36 29:04 33:03 30:03 User benefit hours 9,460 9,000 8,520 7,940 5,880 Note: The information in this table is subject to change should the HCRRA, Metropolitan Council, and FTA continue to develop the Bot- tineau Transitway. The information is the best currently available and is appropriate as the basis for the LPA decision, but it is not final for the project and may change in the future as more detailed information is developed. is required to prepare an Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The HCRRA and the Metropolitan Council will also conduct this review in compliance with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and Min- nesota Rules Chapter 4410. The EIS process begins with a stage called Scoping, which is the process of determining the content of the Draft EIS. The Scop- ing process is used to define the alternatives and to identify the transportation, community, social, physical and environmental issues that will be evaluated in the Draft EIS. For the Bottineau Transitway, an important objective of Scoping was to formally invite the participation of the public, interested groups, affected Native American tribes, and government agencies in the confirmation of the alternatives to be considered for the LPA and studied in detail in the Draft EIS. The Scoping process included multiple meetings with local agency staff, public meetings, and a formal public comment period. In early 2012, approximately 380 people attended the four public open houses during Scoping and 295 writ- ten and oral comments were received. Documentation of input received during Scoping is available in the June 2012 Scoping Decision Document (Appendix 3). As reflected in the Scoping Decision Document, no new alternatives were advanced for further consideration in the Draft EIS. Through the scoping comment pro- cess, the BNSF indicated they would not support a BRT alignment immediately adjacent to the BNSF tracks (alignments C and D1). Although the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board wrote a comment letter indicat- ing their opposition to the D1 alignment due to con- cerns about potential adverse impacts to current and potential natural resources, parkland, and recreation opportunities, the agency subsequently affirmed their commitment to work with the project team on the LPA. Scoping Decisions: Stop Study of BRT Alternative and Continue Study of Four LRT Alternatives Based on the results of the technical analysis and scoping input, the ARCC and CAC advised and the PAC resolved in April 2012 that study of the BRT alterna- tive should stop. The PAC also recommended the con - Cost estimates provided are a snapshot in time and are based on the level of design development contemplated as part of Scoping. Cost estimates will continue to be refined as the Draft EIS technical analysis is completed. 2 CEI rating breakouts (FY 2013, FTA). High: 12.49 and under. Medium-high: 12.50-16.49. Medium: 16.50-25.49. Medium -low: 25.50-31.49. Low: 31.50 and over. 3 1,200 daily BRT riders were assumed diverted to nearby local routes due to capacity limitations 4 For LRT, southern terminus is the Interchange/Target Field station. For BRT, southern terminus is Border Avenue/TH 55. 15 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report BoffineauTransitway tinued study of the four LRT alternatives in the Draft EIS, in addition to the No Build and the Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative. In their resolu- tion, the PAC affirmed the alternatives evaluation pro- cess that was conducted and acknowledged the public participation in the process. Following the PAC action, the HCRRA passed a resolution adopting the Scoping Decision recommended by the PAC. Documentation of these actions is provided in Appendix 3. Because no new alternatives were advanced as a re- sult of the scoping process and study of the BRT al- ternative was discontinued, the number of build alter- natives remaining to be studied in the Draft EIS was reduced from five to four. The local Scoping Decision actions have been reviewed by the FTA, the federal agency leading development of the Bottineau Transit - way along with the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County. The FTA has not identified any concerns with the decisions. The basis for the ARCC and CAC input and the PAC recommendation to discontinue study of BRT are sum- marized in Table 7, organized in relation to the five project goals. In their discussions, the ARCC and the PAC recognized the BRT alternative's lower capital cost and better cost-effectiveness index as compared to the LRT alternatives. The groups also recognized that while BRT is not the best performing mode choice for the Bottineau Transitway, the reasons are specific to the physical attributes, ridership characteristics, and other features of the Bottineau corridor. They acknowledged BRT's excellent potential to provide premium transit service in other corridors in the region. TABLE 7. BASIS FOR PAC SCOPING RECOMMENDATION TO STOP STUDY OF BRT Goal The LRT B -C -D1 alternative would accomplish this goal better than the BRT alternative on the same alignment. Forecast total ridership for LRT B -C -D1 is 27,000 and 19,000 for BRT B -C -D1. Ridership for the BRT alternative is limited by BRT's single -vehicle capacity; that is, multiple BRT vehicles cannot be linked together to expand capacity, in contrast to LRT which can be expanded from two cars to three. Goal do The transit service provided by LRT B -C -D1 would be more effective than that provided by the BRT alternative. BRT B -C -D1 is expected to generate approximately 1,500 fewer new daily riders than LRT B -C -D1 (5,650 riders compared to 7,150). BRT B -C -D1 also is ex- pected to generate less than half as many passengers per revenue hour than LRT on the same alignment in the year 2030 (71 for BRT vs. 181 for LRT). Also, based on travel time and average speed, the LRT B -C -D1 is forecast to provide more daily user benefits in 2030 compared to BRT (8,250 hours per day for LRT B -C -D1 compared to 5,880 for BRT B -C -D1). Goal BRT B -C -D1 had a lower (better) cost-effectiveness index than LRT B -C -D1. The better result for the BRT alternative was driven largely by its lower capital and operating costs, as shown below. CEI CEI Rating Capital Cost Operating Cost BRT B -C -D1 21 Medium $560 million $20.7 million LRT B -C -D1 26 Medium -Low $1,000 million $24.1 million Goal Development There were no significant differentiators between LRT and BRT B -C -D1. Goal Support The primary differentiator under this goal pertains to traffic operations. Specifically, the roadway system would not be able to accom- modate additional BRT vehicles beyond the assumed six -minute headways while still maintaining acceptable traffic operations. In turn, 2030 ridership forecasts show that transitway demand at the maximum load point entering downtown Minneapolis during the morn- ing peak hour would exceed the capacity of the BRT alternative. Also, because BRT B -C -D1 would travel to 2nd/Marquette Avenues in downtown Minneapolis in mixed traffic, it would add to capacity issues that would already exist on the downtown street network. BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 16 LPA RECOMMENDATION AND SELECTION The multi -step process to formally recommend and se- lect an LPA began following the technical analysis and Scoping decisions previously described. The process by which the LPA was identified is illustrated in Figure 9. The HCRRA recommended Alternative LRT B -C -D1 to the Metropolitan Council as the LPA. ARCC Technical Input: Recommend LRT Align- ment C -D1; PAC to Make Policy Recommenda- tion for Alignment A or B based on Needs At their meeting on May 24, 2012, the ARCC provided input to the PAC on the Bottineau Transitway LPA based on the technical analysis and comments received and considered during the Scoping review and comment period. The ARCC input document is available in Ap- pendix 3. ■ Input on Bottineau Transitway Mode: The ARCC af- firmed its April 2012 scoping input to the PAC advis- ing that study of the BRT alternative should stop, BRT should not be considered for the LPA, and ad- vising the PAC to select LRT as the locally preferred mode for the Bottineau Transitway. ■ Input on Bottineau Transitway Alignment: The ARCC provided its input on the locally preferred alignment in three parts: - Do not select Alternative LRT 13 -C -D2 as the LPA: The ARCC considered first whether any of the alignment alternatives should be eliminated from further consideration for the LPA given the local, regional, and national evaluation criteria. Based on consideration of updated preliminary CEI results and other impacts discussed below, the ARCC advised the PAC that Alternative LRT B -C -D2 (Brooklyn Park to Minneapolis via West Broadway Avenue/Penn Avenue/Olson Memorial Highway) should not be considered for the LPA because other alternatives meet the project pur- pose and need with a better balance between im- pacts, ridership, costs, and travel time savings. - Recommend Alignment D1 as part of the LPA: The ARCC's input was unanimous that the PAC recommend Alignment D1 (BNSF near Theodore Wirth Park) as the preferred route for the south- ern end of the Bottineau Transitway and that Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, and the City of Minneapolis work together to develop and deliver separate transit, livability, and economic development investments to north Minneapolis neighborhoods as soon as possible. The basis for the ARCC conclusions is summarized in Table 8. - Considerations for Alignments A and B: The ARCC concluded that the technical justification for the A and B alignments is different, but bal- anced. The ARCC advised the PAC to consider the Bottineau Boulevard Looking North (Robbinsdale) Bottineau Boulevard Looking North (Crystal) 17 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report BottineauTransitway FIGURE 9: LPA RECOMMENDATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Public, Stakeholder, CAC, ARCC Input O PAC Recommendation a Technical Analysis E Results 31&Q = E HCRRA Board Recommendation _ W != Public Input Metropolitan Council Consideration li Adoption into region's long-range ; r transportation plan, the ` U 2030 Transportation Policy Plan CAC= Community Advisory Committee PAC= Policy Advisory Committee LPA= Locally Preferred Alternative ARCC= Advise, Review, and HCRRA= Hennepin County Regional Communicate Committee Railroad Authority TABLE 8. BASIS FOR ARCC INPUT TO INCLUDE ALIGNMENT D1 AS PART OFTHE LPA IN RELATION TO PROJECT GOALS Goal 1: Enhance Regional Access to Activity Centers ■ People Who Depend on Transit: D1 and D2 are anticipated to provide enhanced transit service to comparable numbers of people who depend on transit. Goal 2: Enhance the Effectiveness of Transit Service within the Corridor ■ Travel Time: Alignment D1 results in a faster travel time compared to alignment D2. For comparison, LRT alternative B -C -D1 has an end to end running time of 8 minutes and 27 seconds, compared to LRT alternative B -C -D2 time of 12 minutes and 26 seconds Goal 3: Provide a Cost Effective and Financially Feasible Transit System ■ Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI): Alignment D1 is forecast to have a lower (better) CEI than Alignment D2. This is due to D1's lower capital and operating cost, faster travel time, and resulting higher user benefits. Goal 4: Promote Sustainable Development Patterns ■ No significant differentiators between Alignment D1 and D2. (continuedGoal 5: Support Healthy Communities and Sound Environmental Practices on next page) ■ Property Impacts: As noted in the documentation of ARCC input to the Draft EIS Scoping decision, in order to maintain two-way traffic movement on Penn Avenue between West Broadway Avenue and Highway 55, alignment D2 would necessitate the widening of Penn Avenue. This would require access closures, and removal of all on -street parking. Full or partial acquisition of up to 150 residences and businesses would be required through Robbinsdale and North Minneapolis. In contrast, alignment D1 would require very few access closures, few (anticipated at approximately three) partial property acquisitions, and limited changes to on -street parking. ■ Neighborhood Concerns: North Minneapolis residents, especially Penn and Oliver Avenue neighborhoods, continue to be con- cerned about the potential adverse impacts to their neighborhoods from alignment D2, as documented duringthe scoping process. BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 18 TABLE 8. (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) ■ More effective investment: In addition to minimizing impacts, it is important to constructively invest in north Minneapolis neighbor- hoods. The extent of property impacts that would result from the D2 alignment (and from the other D2 alignment options explored previously) is concerning. Other kinds of separate infrastructure investments would be more constructive and effective in this area, including other types of transit improvements (e.g., arterial BRT, streetcar), livability improvements, and economic development improvements on West Broadway, Penn, Fremont, and Emerson Avenues. ■ Traffic Impacts: Alignment D1 would impact traffic patterns and operations at fewer signalized grade crossings (two on D1 versus nine on D2 for the segment between 36th Avenue and just east of Penn Avenue). ■ Feasible Mitigation Measures and Construction Methods: Construction mitigation strategies appear feasible to address poor soil conditions and impacts to wetlands and floodways. A comparable set of construction and mitigation strategies are not feasible to address Alignment D2's impacts on property and neighborhoods. These issues will be explored further in the Draft EIS. five project needs in their recommendation on the preferred alignment. The ARCC also recom- mended Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, Maple Grove, and/or Brooklyn Park work togeth- er in the future to consider additional bus service and/or transit related capital investments which can better serve the regional transit system. These investments would be separate from the Bottineau project and would provide service to whichever alignment (A or B) was not selected as part of the LPA. In making their recommendation to the PAC, the ARCC cited the considerations listed in Table 9 associated with each alignment. Policy Recommendation: LRT B -C -D1 At their meeting on May 30, 2012, the PAC recom- mended the HCRRA identify LRT B -C -D1 as the LPA for the Bottineau Transitway. The PAC recommendation took into consideration the technical information on each of the alternatives developed to date, along with input from the ARCC, the CAC, the PAC public hearing, and other public input provided as part of the LPA pub- lic hearing and comment process. Documentation of the input of these groups is provided in Appendix 3. Prior to making their recommendation on the LPA, the PAC discussed the merits of the alignment options un- der consideration (A or B; D1 or D2). The PAC cited the following reasons for their support of Alignments B and D1: ■ Alignment B: Alignment B would serve larger ex- isting and anticipated future populations of people in households with low incomes, activities at North Hennepin Community College and the new Henne- pin County library, and more jobs than Alignment A (Goal 1). Target Corporation is expanding its north campus soon, breaking ground on 650,000 square feet of office space in 2012 (Goal 1 and Goal 5). The new jobs will include Target's corporate infor- 19 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report mation technology group, which are new jobs in high demand. ■ Alignment D1: Discussion focused on the adverse impacts of Alignment D2 and the fact that D1 bet- ter meets the project goals. The costs (impacts) of Alignment D2 for the people on Penn Avenue would outweigh the potential benefits (Goals 1-5). The group discussed past transportation projects in the region that have had adverse community impacts (destruction of the Rondo neighborhood from con- struction of 1-94; impacts on northside neighbor- hoods from construction of Highway 55) and the desire not to repeat the past. PAC members also expressed enthusiasm for the Penn Avenue Com- munity Works project and planned transit improve- ments Alternatives Analysis for West Broadway, in- dicating that streetcar or Arterial Bus Rapid Transit on West Broadway is a more appropriate transit service for the D2 neighborhood context. Alignment D1 would have faster travel times (Goal 2) and low- er cost (Goal 3) than D2; and routing on the existing the existing BNSF rail corridor (D1) is more feasible than D2. Bottineau Boulevard (Brooklyn Park) BoittineauTra ns itway TABLE 9. CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALIGNMENTS A AND B PROVIDED BY ARCC TO PAC Goal 1: Enhance Regional Access to Activity Centers Alignment A Considerations ■ Stations in Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park: Alignment A would provide stations in both Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park. The proposed 63rd Avenue, 71st Avenue, and Boone Avenue/Hennepin County Technical College stations are in Brooklyn Park. The proposed Revere Lane (previously referenced as Zachary Lane) and Hemlock Lane stations are in Maple Grove. Alignment B Considerations ■ Service to college students: Alignment B would provide direct transit service to a larger existing student body at North Hennepin Community College (three times larger than Hennepin Technical College). In addition, North Hennepin Community College enroll- ment is forecast to grow by more than 30 percent by 2030. The 2012 legislative session included almost $30 million in bonding for capital improvements to the college. Future enrollment projections are not available for Hennepin Technical College ■ Target North Campus expansion: Target North Campus in Brooklyn Park is expanding in 2012 by adding two new office buildings that will result in 650,000 square feet of space and anticipated to include 3,900 employees over the next two years. ■ Potential future Target North Campus expansion: Brooklyn Park's Transportation Plan includes socio-economic growth projections for 1,600 acres of undeveloped property in northwest Brooklyn Park for two scenarios; 1) a City of Brooklyn Park and Metropolitan Council agreed upon expected scenario, and 2) an enhanced Target North Campus scenario (with an additional 17,000 employees) that closely resembles the original Target Corporation proposal. The traffic forecasts and ridership forecasts for the transitway study are based on the Expected Scenario (1). If the actual development more closely resembles the enhanced scenario, then a notice- able increase in the traffic and ridership forecasts would be likely. Goal 2: Enhance the Effectiveness of Transit Service within the Corridor Alip-nment A Considerations ■ Relation of future LRT service to existing transit: Maple Grove Transit currently provides excellent transit service to its commuter express market. There is some uncertainty as to whether or not commuter express riders would chose to move from express bus service to LRT service. Although LRT has more intermediate stops, it also has far more frequent service, a longer service span, and comparable travel times with existing express service. The ARCC acknowledged that there is some uncertainty in any ridership model forecasting. Alignment B Considerations ■ Service to people with lower incomes: Alignment B is adjacent to large existing populations of people in households with incomes below the poverty level. Goal Alignment A Considerations ■ Lower Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI): Alignment A is forecast to have a lower/better CEI than Alignment B. This is due to a lower capital and operating cost, faster travel time and therefore higher user benefits. ARCC noted however, that the capital cost estimates assume significant cooperation from current land owners to prepare the corridor for transit service (no costs were included associ- ated with damages to the gravel mining operations or the existing bituminous plant operation). ■ Uncertainty regarding completion of gravel mining operations: Uncertainty exists regarding the completion of the gravel mining op- erations in the Alignment A area relative to proposed transitway construction. Alignment A requires construction of a new roadway, Arbor Lakes Parkway, separate from the transitway project and through the gravel mining area in a way that would accommodate LRT and provide access to the future development. Alignment A and B Considerations ■ Explore non -LRT improvements for alignment not selected: Branched LRT service is not feasible at the north end of corridor. The region needs to select one alignment for the LRT service. Brooklyn Park or Maple Grove, Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council can explore other types of transit improvements for the "non -LRT" branch, similar to what is being considered in north Min- neapolis neighborhoods if D2 is not selected as the locally preferred alignment. Goal 4: Promote Sustainable Development Patterns Alignment A Considerations ■ Opportunity to serve future development: Maple Grove views LRT as an opportunity to serve future development in the Arbor Lakes Parkway area. Alignment B Considerations ■ Other Brooklyn Park growth potential: The northern portion of Brooklyn Park has been consistently identified by City staff as having a higher growth potential than identified in the Metropolitan Council 20 -year regional plan. This trend is maintained by two recent development proposals (Gateway and Astra Village) that were approved for development followingthe completion of Brooklyn Park's Transportation Plan. Both are more intense than land uses assumed for the current regionally accepted 20 -year growth projections. Goal 5: Support ■ No significant differentiators between Alignment A and B. BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 20 CITY SUPPORT AND CONCERNS Following the PAC resolution, the five cities in the cor- ridor passed resolutions of support for the LRT Alter- ■ native following the B -C -D1 alignment as summarized below. A copy of each city's resolution is provided in Appendix 3. ■ Brooklyn Park - Resolution of support dated June 18, 2012. Identifies no issues beyond those al- ready identified during Draft EIS Scoping. ■ Crystal - Resolution of support dated June 6, 2012. Identifies no issues beyond those already identified during Draft EIS Scoping. ■ Robbinsdale - Resolution of support dated June 5, 2012. In addition to those issues identified dur- ing Draft EIS Scoping, the resolution identifies the need for further study of the following issues with respect to Alignments C and D1: noise, vibration, vehicular traffic, parking, drainage. Also identifies the City's intention to actively participate in station area planning. ■ Golden Valley - Resolution of support dated De- cember 18, 2012. In addition to those issues iden- tified during Draft EIS Scoping, the resolution states the City's intent to work with the HCRRA and Metro- politan Council on a number of issues during future stages of study, including assessing, addressing, and mitigating negative impacts on public and pri- vate properties including noise, light, vibration, and traffic; coordinating with potential improvements to Golden Valley Road, without widening the road wherever possible; identifying and coordinating with future planning and community outreach initiatives in Golden Valley; identifying transit passenger de- mand and corresponding options for access at the proposed Golden Valley station locations; and work- ing with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to minimize negative impacts to Theodore Wirth Re- gional Park and surrounding parklands, and ensure that natural areas are maintained in their current condition to the largest extent possible. The resolution of support followed several months of public discussions between Golden Valley, the HCRRA, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Robbinsdale, Minneapolis, and the Metro- politan Council after an initial resolution introduced June 19, 2012 failed by a vote of 3-2 with nega- tive impacts to property and parklands along the D1 alignment identified as key issues. The Golden Valley City Council also solicited and received exten- sive public input during this time. Minneapolis - Resolution of support dated June 15, 2012. Resolution identifies four key initiatives in the past several months that have advanced transit service and livability in North Minneapolis affecting locations on the D2 alignment that are not included in the LPA. The initiatives are: 1) City - initiated federal funding application for West Broad- way Transitway Alternatives Analysis; 2) Metropoli- tan Council agreement to study Arterial Bus Rapid Transit improvements on the Emerson/Fremont Avenue North and Penn Avenue North corridors and possible connection to South Minneapolis on Chicago Avenue South; 3) $2 million Metropolitan Council grant for mixed income/mixed use develop- ment project at Penn and West Broadway Avenues; 4) Hennepin County Community Works project for Penn Avenue to stimulate economic development, beautification, livability, and job creation in North Minneapolis. MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD In response to concerns raised in the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) scoping letter; HCRRA actively coordinated with the MPRB staff and board members to address their concerns regarding poten- tial impacts and benefits to surrounding parks in the Bottineau Transitway. As a result of the on-going co- ordination, the MPRB provided a letter affirming their commitment to work with the project team on the LPA as the project progresses (Appendix 3). HCRRA SUPPORT At their meeting on June 26, 2012, following the PAC public hearing and recommendation, the passage of the city resolutions, and the HCRRA-sponsored LPA public hearing, the HCRRA passed a resolution recom- mending LRT B -C -D1 as the LPA for the Bottineau Tran- sitway. The resolution also states that the HCRRA will continue to encourage communities in which the LPA is located to pass resolutions of support and that HCRRA will continue to work with all project stakeholders in addressing issues and concerns. Documentation of these events is in Appendix 3. The recommended LPA is illustrated in Figure 10. In their meeting, the HCRRA discussed the importance of providing effective transit service to North Minne- apolis. They also referenced the significant property acquisitions required to accommodate an alignment 21 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report BottineauTransitway FIGURE 10: LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LRT B -C -D1) ec Bottineau Trans itway IP Locally Preferred Alternative �er 3t of ' 4 Je - e� PJ Ibh ,ata Brooklyn 0 o° 0� e�Je�� PJ Q� Brooklyn � I eCenter iu �4l'i7 � 11 • t N, , as '• _� 5 � Ne w iio pe ' o� Q• rtobbi�s�af�e ca ti � a eJa ea •,o°' Proposed Station Location AQ°a�o� Proposed Station Location Jaffe OQ with Park -and -Ride of e e� o`a �ya Je t`° Q Existing Station Location kbC> Sources: ° Roadways, Municipal Boundaries. Met Council V. Water Features: MN DNR Q .. J ® 0 0.75 1.5 r a 0 Miles BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 22 along Penn Avenue (Alignment D2) in North Minneapo- lis, and the importance to select an LPA that is com- petitive in the FTA's New Starts Program. The HCRRA discussed their desire to continue to work with the City of Golden Valley to try to address their concerns with the D1 alignment. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL This section to be completed following required Met- ropolitan Council actions on the LPA. NEXT STEPS: COMPLETE THE DRAFT EIS AND APPLY FOR ENTRY INTO THE FEDERAL NEW STARTS PROGRAM The Bottineau Transitway environmental review will contribute to the Twin Cities's understanding of the project benefits, impacts, opportunities, and costs, both local and regional. Hennepin County, the Metro- politan Council, and the FTA are leading the detailed analyses of the key Bottineau Transitway issues and opportunities through the preparation of a Draft EIS. The four LRT alternatives considered for the LPA, in- cluding the recommended LPA, will be studied in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will identify significant benefits and impacts of the four LRT alternatives and strategies for avoiding or minimizing and mitigating the negative impacts identified. Results of the technical analyses are being shared with the Bottineau Transitway staff committee (ARCC) as they become available. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be published by the FTA for public review and comment in 2013. The public review of the Draft EIS will be an opportunity for all Bottineau Tran- sitway stakeholders and the general public to either af- firm or reconsider the LPA recommendation. ENTER NEW STARTS PROGRAM Following selection of the LPA and its amendment into the region's long-range transportation plan, the Trans- portation Policy Plan, the Bottineau Transitway will begin to transition to Metropolitan Council leadership. One of the Council's first actions will be directing proj- ect staff to work with Hennepin County staff to develop and submit an application seeking permission from 23 Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 71st Avenue (Brooklyn Park) BNSF Railroad Corridor BottineauTransitway the FTA for Bottineau Transitway's entry into the feder- al New Starts program. The federal transportation bill passed in June 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP -21), includes significant changes to the New Starts program. As a result, while it has taken the region five to six months to prepare a New Starts application in the past, the time required under the APPENDICES new legislation will be better understood when the new federal rules are published. Even with the uncertainty of the new rules, the region anticipates requesting FTA permission for Bottineau Transitway entry into the New Starts program shortly after the LPA is selected and amended into the Transportation Policy Plan. The supporting documents referenced in this report are available in a set of appendices following this page or available here [insert web link]. BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report 24 BottineauTransitway ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT I January 2013 Prepared for Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority by Kimley-Horn and SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Public Works Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: January 9, 2013 To: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works From: Mark Ray, PE, Recycling Coordinator t q" Subject: 2012 Fall Leaf Drop Trip Analysis Background The 2012 Fall Leaf Drop Events occurred over four days in late October and early November at Brookview Park. The total operating time of all four events combined is 24 hours. The specific dates and times were: Saturday, October 27, from 8 am —1 pm Friday, November 2, from 8 am —4 pm Saturday, November 3, from 8 am —1 pm Saturday November 10, from 7 am —1 pm Data Collection Method At the park entrance, staff counted each vehicle that entered to drop off leaves. Each vehicle was also asked what trip number they were on that day. No information was carried over from event to event. So what this analysis is not able to determine is how many of the unique vehicles came to multiple events. Overall Trip Analysis At the entrance, staff recorded a total of 2,202 vehicle trips between the four events by 1,216 unique vehicles. As previously noted, information was not carried over event to event, so while 1,216 unique vehicles were recorded, it is known that some of these vehicles came to multiple events so the true number of unique vehicles is actually lower. The 2012 attendance was up approximately 10% over 2011 data. This is likely due to the fact that the leaves dropped earlier in 2012 than 2011, when a fair number of leaves were still on the trees after the last leaf collection event. One final note, there are approximately 6,924 certified dwelling units (CDU) that are eligible to participate in the Fall Leaf Drop events. G:\EVENTS\Fall Leaf Drop-Off\2012 Fall Leaf Drop Summary.docx Trip Analysis Saturday, October 27th Hour Number of Vehicles Prior to 8 am start 23 8:00 — 9:00 130 9:00— 10:00 118 10:00 —11:00 151 11:00 —12:00 156 12:00 —1:00 174 Total 752 Number of Trips 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Unique Vehicles 149 121 48 24 1 9 5 2 4 Average number of trips per vehicle = 2.1 Friday, November 2"d Hour Number of Vehicles Prior to 8 am start 46 8:00— 9:00 70 9:00 —10:00 65 10:00 — 11:00 73 11:00 —12:00 65 12:00 —1:00 50 1:00 — 2:00 47 2:00 — 3:00 36 3:00 — 4:00 56 Total 508 Number of Trips 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of Unique Vehicles 265 26 33 10 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 Average number of trips per vehicle =1.5 Saturday. November 3rd Hour Number of Vehicles Prior to 8 am start 0 8:00 — 9:00 91 9:00 —10:00 58 10:00 —11:00 80 11:00 —12:00 90 12:00 —1:00 96 Total 415 Number of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Trips Total 527 13 6 3 Unique Vehicles Number of 44 79 24 19 0 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Unique Vehicles Average number of trips per vehicle = 2.4 Saturday, November 10th Hour Number of Vehicles Prior to 7 am start 4 7:00-8:00 57 8:00 — 9:00 77 9:00 —10:00 110 10:00 —11:00 100 11:00 —12:00 94 12:00 —1:00 85 Total 527 Number of 1 2 3 4 5 6 Trips Number of 229 60 26 13 6 3 Unique Vehicles Average number of trips per vehicle =1.6 Comparison Chart 2012 Fall Leaf Drop Hourly Totals C :so 1� 160 140 f 220 40-__- 20 6:00 7:00 8.00 3::r:: 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 1$:00 1:00 Summary Nearly 18% (1,216) of the approximately 6,924 eligible units participated in the 2012 Fall Leaf Drop events with the average vehicle making 1.8 trips per event day. city 0 __ )f go i. a �' V all: T Date: January 10, 2013 Public works Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) To: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works From: Mark Ray, PE, Recycling Coordinator''Iv Subject: 2012 Curbside Recycling Program Recap 2012 Summary On January 1, 2012, the City switched to a new recycling hauler, Allied Waste, and also started single sort recycling with carts. In addition to the switch to single sort recycling, more materials were able to be recycled. While the amount of material expected to be recycled was anticipated to increase, the amount of recycled materials collected has greatly exceeded expectations. Comparing 2011 to 2012, the amount of material collected increased 20% (an additional 795,520 pounds of material was collected). The City received $74,514.64 in revenue sharing from the sale of the recycled materials, which covered just over two months of recycling costs for the City. In addition to the changes in the curbside program, the City also launched a recycling pilot program at Brookview Park and Lions Park, late in the summer. This pilot program will start up again in April or May, depending on the weather. With the change to single -sort recycling, the pickup service changed to every other week. Allied Waste offers service schedule reminders via text message. Early in the service week (Blue or Grey), residents can get a text reminder sent to their mobile phone. Texts are not sent on the day of service. The 2013 recycling calendars were mailed to curbside customers in early December 2012. Electronic copies (PDF) of the calendars are available on the City's website. 2013 Initiatives 1) Have more residents sign up for the City's recycling updates email listserve. The primary method of advertising will be reminders in the City newsletter and website. As of today, 647 emails (some being City staff) are registered to receive updates. 2) Mail a recycling informational flyer to all curbside recycling customers in early 2013. This is done as part of the requirement from Hennepin County for recycling education efforts. 3) Continue to evaluate the recycling in the Parks pilot program. 4) Provide more promotion on Hennepin County's A -to -Z Guide for Disposal, Choose to Reuse Program, Recycle Half, and Fix -It Clinics. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\2012 Recycling Summary.clocx