Loading...
2003-10-27 Jt EC & OS&REC AgendaAGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Joint Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, October 27, 2003 7:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Individual Commission Approval of Minutes — September 22, 2003 III. General Mills Wetland and Floodplain Report (Attachment) IV. Interpretive Signs for Public Storm Water Ponds (Attachments) V. Trail Paving Policy Discussion (Attachments) VI. Other Business VII. Adjourn GAEnvironmental Commission\Agendas\102703.doc .0 Memo To: Members of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission Members of the Golden Valley Environmental Commission From: South Tyrol Hills Neighborhood Association Re: Newly Revised Trail Policy Proposal Date: October 27, 2003 We have received a copy of the newly revised Sidewalk and Trail policy proposal for the City of Golden Valley (dated October 2003), and have a number of further suggested revisions to the proposed policy that we believe should be reviewed and considered by the various bodies and groups who are asked to review a new proposal in this area, including, of course, the Golden Valley City Council. We'are submitting these comments on behalf of the South Tyrol Neighborhood Association As you may know, our Neighborhood Association originally became involved on the trail issue as a result of a City of Golden Valley proposal regarding a trail and path in our neighborhood. However, our comments and input at the present time are provided in a more general sense and with the clear understanding'that the new trail policy proposal would be applicable to and of benefit for the entire city of Golden Valley. On October 23, 2003, we received materials that we understand were distributed to you by the City staff concerning this issue. We note that a report from the outside engineering firm (Bonestroo, Rosene Anderlik and Associates) on this issue was finalized on October 15, 2003, and we presume that the newly revised policy proposal was generated either before, or at the latest, just after, that date. Although we had asked several times in September 2003 to receive a copy of the new proposed policy which the City staff prepared, we did not receive a copy of it until receiving the materials on October 23, 2003, and thus our time to review and analyze the new proposal from the City has been quite limited to say the least. Nonetheless, we are honored and pleased to have the opportunity to provide these comments today, as we truly believe that the thought and examination we have given to this issue generally can be of benefit to the entire City, and certainly to the City Council and staff, as our City seeks to adopt and implement a new policy in this area. Introduction and Background We understand that the City Council asked City staff to prepare a revised Sidewalk and Trail Policy for consideration by the Council. The Council asked that the revised policy prepared for their consideration be one that allowed flexibility and adaptation to specific and unique circumstance, and therefore one that included exceptions to the general "pave all trails" guidance touted in the prior draft policy that the staff prepared but had not obtained approval of a number of years ago. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 2 In making this request to staff, the Council indicated that it thought that there could be a number of criteria that could be reviewed in any specific situation to determine whether or not an exception to the City's general plan to pave all trails would apply. It suggested that criteria could include the actual and anticipated use of trails, unique natural and topographic features, and the need for environmental protection. At the present time, discussion, and our examination, has focused on the "trails' aspect of the Sidewalk and Trails policy. We have not reviewed, and are not seeking to endorse or provide comment about, any portion of the proposed policy that addresses or deals with sidewalks. Rather, the sole focus of our comments is on the new revisions made to aspects of the policy proposal dealing with trails. The ParticulaEs For Any Trail Should Largely Be Prescribed By the Expected Usage The input and information we have obtain in our exploration of the trail issues is virtually uniform in urging that any decisions about whether to have a trail, and, if so, how any trail should be surfaced, as well as other particulars such as what width should a trail be, should be largely based on how any such trail would be used. Trails can have a variety of benefits, and yet what may be seen as a benefit to one constituent may be seen as a detriment to another. As such, it is important that time be spent in determining how a trail proposed for development or substantial refurbishment would be used,' We have seen that those deeply involved in the development and management of trails take a variety of paths to try to discern how particular trails could and would be used. The actual surveying of users is one of the most common methods, but there are others approaches that have been and are employed as well. We are not aware of any surveying that has occurred with respect to the various trails in the City of Golden Valley, at least those managed and cared for by the City. Certainly, input of this nature could be obtained before any substantial work on any proposed trail, whether for development or refurbishment, occurs. With this in mind, it seems that the policy proposal set forth by the City at the present time puts the cart before the horse so to speak (or, in other words, the pavement on the trail before the input is obtained). Indeed, after careful consideration and deliberation, and for a variety of good reasons, we are of the strong view that the trail policy for our City should not dictate any particular surface as a preferred alternative (or any particular width as well), until the particular expected usage or usages for any trail in question are discovered and documented, and a set of various criteria are examined in light of that input based on the specifics of the particular trail in question. ' For example, would any particular trail be considered or characterized as a sidepath, a connector path, a greenway, a multi -use trail (and even here the uses can vary), or an unimproved trail. These terms come from Design Guidelines: Alternative Transportation and Greenways System Plan put out by Ratio Architects, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 3 Indeed, we believe that it would make far greater sense, and also be of greater benefit for the City and its residents in both the short and long run, if the trail policy gave the City the ability (and flexibility) to do what was right in each specific situation, depending on the circumstances and how the analysis of a variety of factors comes out based on the individual case at hand. As a result, we present an alternative policy proposal for consideration by the various bodies involved in this process, including, the City Council, and if need be, the citizens of Golden Valley themselves. The New Proposed Polic In this section, we set forth the policy proposal suggested by City staff, and then also present the policy proposal which the Neighborhood Association urges the City Council to adopt. A. Initial Section of Policy (Titled "Priorities") The initial section ("Priorities") of the staff's revised policy proposal states: "Trails within parks and nature areas should be paved based upon the need for year round use and access for all users. Paving priority shall be placed on trails with connections to the existing pedestrian system, between neighborhoods and between parks and nature area." For reasons explained above and more fully below, we strongly suggest the following policy proposal be adopted, or something akin to it: Trails within parks and nature areas should be surfaced as appropriate based upon the expected usage of the trail and a desire of access for all users. In determining how any particular trail should be surfaced (or other particulars for any trail as well), the following criteria should receive careful consideration: • Any unique circumstances present with the proposed trail, including landscape features, topographic relief, soil conditions and adjacent domain • Cost considerations, including the economic utility • Accessibility considerations • Historical and cultural considerations • Environmental and ecological considerations • Safety and security considerations, and • Citizen input, including those in vicinity of the trail In reviewing the criteria, the City should seek to determine whether there is a demonstrated advantage of one surface (or other particular) over other options. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 4 Priority shall be placed on trails with connections to the existing pedestrian system, between neighborhoods and between parks and nature area. B. Later section of proposed policy (titled "Construction Standards') The "Construction Standards" section of staff's policy proposal states: Paved paths within parks and nature areas shall be eight feet wide with bituminous surfacing. Paths may be left unpaved in nature areas if soil conditions are not conducive to paving or that cannot be accessed by construction and maintenance equipment without adverse environmental impact. The unpaved trails can be surfaced with wood chips, gravel, ag-lime or other materials based upon safety, use and other factors as may be determined by the Director of Public Works. For reasons explained above and more fully below, we strongly suggest the following policy proposal be adopted, or something akin to it: Except when conditions dictate otherwise, any trail within parks and nature areas shall be eight feet wide if bicycle travel is anticipated on the trail. Paths may be left unpaved in nature areas if soil conditions are suggest that surface option is appropriate, including a determination that it would be difficult to access the site with construction and maintenance equipment without adverse environmental impact. Trails can be surfaced with wood chips, gravel, ag-lime, asphalt pavement or other materials based upon criteria set forth in the priority section of this policy and as may be further determined by the Director of Public Works. Support for Version of Revised Trail Policy Proposed By Neighborhood Association There are a number of factors and circumstances that should be reviewed and considered in determining whether to 1) proceed to create a new trail or reinvigorate an existing one and 2) after making that decision, determining how the trail ought to be surfaced (or other particulars concerning its condition). As indicated previously, decisions of this nature, as well as other decisions that affect any trail ultimately implemented (whether a new trail or as a result of the refurbishing of some type of an existing trail), should largely be dictated by the anticipated usage of the particular trail in question. The expected usage or usages should not be divined from the City offices or from City Council chambers, but rather through active, affirmative steps taken in good faith to understand how the citizenry (and perhaps others) are likely to use the trail. The revised policy proposed by the City staff makes a paved asphalt surface a presumption — a favored and expected outcome. For a variety of reasons, and, importantly, ones that should be key to design and policy decisions in our City, our Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 5 Neighborhood Association strongly urges that there not be a presumption in favor of paving. As such, we offer an alternative policy proposal for review and consideration here, and seek in this memo to briefly touch on the various reasons in support of flexibility and direction afforded by the revised trail policy we propose. We appreciate that with the various materials that have been made available to you on this subject, all which you may or may not have been able to review much less digest, it may in some cases be difficult for you to know or determine what information is correct or more accurate. However, we believe that careful review and consideration will show that the view we espouse is the better one, short and long term, for our City. We further submit that even the fact that some may argue that there is a reasonable debate about some of the various issues at hand alone suggests that there should NOT be a presumption in favor of paving in the new trail policy. Rather, given at least a reasonable debate, and the variety of options that exist, a policy that is grounded upon and that allows flexibility and prudence based on the circumstances and the best information available at the time should guide and dictate any further actions regarding trails, which is exactly what the revised policy proposed our Neighborhood Association is intended to afford. It may be helpful for us to further point out that the policy proposal we suggest is consistent with the guidelines for updating local ordinances that others have used and recommend. For instance, the Conservation Design Resource Manual, which is a planning tool put out in March 2003 by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission and Chicago Wilderness, provides language and guidelines for updating local ordinances. We are making available the portions of this Manual that relate to walkways and trails. Without getting into this entire scope of this comprehensive document, the Manual indicates the model ordinance language in the section setting forth principles and practices for Conservation Design for walkways, in pertinent part, reads as follows2: "Walkways, or a portion of the walkways, should be constructed of pervious materials such as gravel, wood chips or other similar material." There Are Intrinsic Benefits That Derive from Allowing, and Even Encouraging, Flexibility and Dynamism in Our Habitat, includine With Landscape Features. While there is certainly a debate about surfacing options, there is little debate, and we certainly understand why, concerning many positive aspects that the presence of trails in Z In the commentary portion, the Manual explains that "walkways, more similar to trail systems than conventional sidewalks, will not require the same snow removal practices as conventional sidewalks. The pervious material suggested can be shoveled or simply packed down through use." Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 6 our City can and do bring. Connecting people of all ages and stripes with the outdoors, and encouraging and allowing their recreation and commune with nature provides us all with great benefit -- probably more than we can even artfully articulate. In recent years, the study of Biophilia, or the connection of people to nature, has become more and more influential and recognized as important factor to consider and ensure is incorporated in design efforts of all kinds. It is an exciting and incredibly insightful area, and we commend the following sources that explain and elaborate on this area of study: Biophilia by Edward O. Wilson and The Biophilia Hypothesis, which is edited by Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson. The Biophilia analysis maintains that too often, designs of all types seek to eliminate variability. It has been noted that this has very frequently been the result in the United States -- perhaps due to a lack of thoughtful design -- but it also occurs too often in all parts of the world. One major tenet and observation which arises out of the Biophilia analysis is that people are healthier, happier, and more alert under subtly dynamic conditions. Through the principles espoused by Biophilia, we are called to ask questions about the proposed design of any space or area such as: Is it beautiful? Does it engage the senses? Are their places to rest the mind? Does it use the geometry of nature? Does it incorporates diversity of living things and life -like processes? Does it, delight and amuse? Does it provide a sense of beauty in all spaces and to all occupants? Increasingly, many cities and other governmental units are recognizing the value of creating diversity and interest in their infrastructure designs, and have adopted plans and policies that promote flexibility and dynamic constructs that enhance the livability and feel of their communities. There is a growing realization of the impact — positively or negatively -- that design can and does have on the meaning one gleans from, and the attitude with which one experiences, life. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 7 Whether intentional or not, this appears to be the case with the Three Rivers Park System, for example, which includes a variety of trails and paths, some which are paved with asphalt, but some which are surfaced with crushed stone, grass or even brick pavers. We submit that it is this ideal - one of flexibility and dynamism and diversity - that Golden Valley should pursue, both in policy and practice, and this reason alone should give the City solid grounds to enact a trail policy that rather than automatically favors one surface over another, allows the specific circumstances of an individual situation to define what makes the most sense for any particular application in question. Beyond the intrinsic benefits of flexibility and dynamism, there are a host of factors that also suggest that surfacing decisions about trails and paths in our Golden Valley community should be made on a case by case basis, without any particular presumption as to type of surface should be used. We will address these here. Economic Value and Considerations • Economic Considerations Should Be Part of Any Revised Trail Policy No one would seriously argue that economic considerations, including the value our City receives, should NOT be a fundamental part underpinning any trail policy. However, as an initial matter regarding economic considerations, THERE IS NO EXPRESS MENTION OF ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND VALUE in the City staff's proposal. Perhaps the City staff will say that considerations of economic factors and value are an implicit part of the revised Trail policy it has proposed, but we believe that these considerations should be made an explicit part of any revised trail policy adopted by the City. • The Evidence suggests paving, both in terms of implementation but also maintenance, is actually MORE EXPENSIVE than many other- satisfactory alternatives. Based the evidence available, it is at least clear that there is no clear evidence that economic considerations favor paving. Installation/Development Costs. There is no question that it costs considerably more to install asphalt paving than a number of satisfactory alternatives. Moreover, there are a number of surfacing alternatives that either compare favorably with asphalt or are just slightly more in terms of installation, but that have other benefits that outweigh those provided by asphalt over the long term, including that actually are less costly than asphalt to maintain. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 20103 Page 8 Cost of Maintenance Although the City staff has said as part of these deliberations that it believes that paved trails are less costly to maintain, the staff has indicated that it did not perform an economic analysis substantiating this several years ago when it proposed a trail policy that called for paving, and did not obtain any outside verification of costs in this regard at that time either. It also has not provided any analysis or substantiation at the present time showing that maintenance costs with paving are less than those with other surfacing alternatives. Although there may be evidence that suggests that maintenance costs for paving may be less than that with a number of other alternatives, we have not seen it. There are a number of respected sources we are aware of, however, that demonstrate that maintenance costs with asphalt paved trails and roads are in fact MORE than with alternatives such a crushed stone surface. One report showing this was prepared at the request of the legislature for the state of Wisconsin. We have attached a copy of this report for you here. Another report which shows that the cost of maintaining courses surfaced with asphalt paving likely costs more than maintaining a crushed stone or gravel surface was prepared by the Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky at Lexington. A copy of this report is also attached here. We are also familiar with a number of other studies and reports that similarly support the notion that the cost of maintaining asphalt pavement surfaces costs more than what it costs to maintain crushed stone surfaces. In sum, it should be clear that the best and most rigorous information that has been supplied to date concerning both the cost of installation and maintenance of various surfaces suggests, if not conclusively demonstrates, that asphalt paving costs more than other satisfactory alternatives. Accessibility Considerations It should be very clear that there are important considerations and protections that are in place that require trail surfaces to be accessible to people of all abilities. The staff proposal does not include any mention of this important consideration. Again, it may be that the staff concluded that this consideration was implicit in its proposal, but we again suggest that a consideration this important should be made explicit in any policy adopted by the City. There are a number of reasons for this, but one is that this consideration should be an important starting point for any review and examination of any proposal for a new trail or the refurbishing of an existing one. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 9 You may or may not be aware that immediate legal requirements will likely attach in connection with any effort to develop any new trail or to refurbish any existing one that will establish certain accessibility requirements for the trail at issue. As you may recall, we have consulted with several accessibility consultants as part of our work and examination of these issues, including Mike Passo, an expert in this area who worked for many years with Wilderness Inquiry, an organization that, as you may know, specializes in making the outdoors accessible and available to individuals of all abilities, Susan Ostby, a Program Director at the National Center on Accessibility, and others. Although we want to underscore that we understand that only the general trail policy is under consideration at the present time, providing some background concerning these accessibility requirements and when and how they apply in a specific situation may be of assistance. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ("Access Board") is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") to ensure that new construction and alterations of facilities covered by title H and II of the ADA are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities. The Access Board convened a Recreation Access Advisory Committee (RAAC) in July 1993 as the first step in developing a set of additional provisions and application sections. The RAAC issued a report in July 1994 that addresses the various types of recreation facilities and that identified the features of each facility type that are not adequately addressed by the initial ADA regulations. Subsequently, another Committee called the Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas was established in 1997 and ultimately reached a consensus on the accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered outdoor developed areas covered by the ADA. While not formally adopted as regulation yet today, these guidelines continue to be the best available indication of the standards that would and should be applied in any examination of accessibility issues for outdoor developed areas. At the present time, any work beyond normal maintenance on any trail in the City of Golden Valley, including the trail and path in the South Tyrol Hills neighborhood for example, would implicate the accessibility requirements set forth in the report. They dictate types of surfaces allowed for trails, as well as other features such as the inclines allowed.3 It should be noted that under the guidelines, asphalt paving is not required as long as the surface is "firm and stable." 3 Although the Neighborhood Association is still gathering information about the applicability of the ADA and the consensus requirements, it appears at the present time that the standards set forth in section 16.2 of Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 10 The Rocky Mountain Easter Seals Camp, where a number of the meetings firming up the guidelines was held, has used one of the alternative products the Neighborhood Association has pointed out (Gravelpave) on trails and paths at its facility. Aesthetic Considerations There is no question that under the important principles of Biophilia, as well as just as a matter of common sense, the aesthetic considerations are and should be important aspect of any decision as to how to surface a trail. Even knowledgeable technicians and engineers concede this point. Kevin Abbey, Director of the Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies at Penn State University, and with whom tho Neighborhood Association has consulted, is on record as stating that appearance counts "more than you might think, particularly with ever-expanding urban and suburban acres. People say to me, `When you take your kids out for a walk in the woods or go hunting or fishing, do you really want to drive [or walk] on a paved road [or trail]?' Of course not. Aesthetics do play a part." Beyond a contrasting perception and ambiance that many perceive are different between say, a trail paved with asphalt as compared with one surfaced with crushed stone, asphalt paving has been known, including in our own City of Golden Valley, to not infrequently attract graffiti — sometimes down right tawdry but usually at least unpleasant -- particularly in connection with what one otherwise expected was stroll that would hopefully bring some solace and peace. These unsightly additions contribute a whole new dimension to the negative aesthetic many associate with asphalt paving. (On another note, addressing and seeking to eliminate the graffiti can also be quite a struggle, and be just another one of the costs of maintaining an asphalt surface that may not be factored in when comparing that surface to others where graffiti is not as prevalent). The proposed policy submitted by the City staff does not mention anything about aesthetics as being a factor or consideration that should be taken into account in determining what surfacing option should be used for any particular trail. the report indicate that it would not be possible to make the trail and path in the South Tyrol Hills area accessible without substantial renovation given the significant incline on the portion of the path that connects with June Avenue. To our knowledge, the City has not addressed this situation and acknowledged its interpretation of how the guidelines apply one way or the other. We do understand that there have not been any construction drawings or specifications prepared, even though work was originally slated to begin in August 2003. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 11 Historical and Cultural Considerations Rightly so, the City of Golden Valley has been gathering input on and encouraging recognition of the history of the City and how our community has thrived and prospered. This is apparent from the Envision series which the City has sponsored, as well as the new video "Celebrate Golden Valley — A Tradition of Pioneer Spirit and Community Values" which has recently become available. The culture of the City has been and continues to be vibrant as well. Although certainly things change and continue to change, a rich cultural fabric is woven through the institutions and neighborhoods, which is, and should be, cherished and nurtured. Indeed, a rich tradition and cultural meaning can be found in most every portion of our City, and it should be no surprise that there may well be aspects of this history and culture may well be tied in one way or another to the development or existence of a present trail or one that may find its way into development at some point in the future. It would be a shame not to allow or even encourage important considerations of history and culture to play a role in determining whether a trail should be developed or refurbished, and, if so, what form such development or rejuvenation should take. The policy proposed by the City staff does not include mention of history or culture as factors that should be taken into account in determining surface should be applied for any particular trail. On the other hand, historical and cultural considerations are among the criteria that are part of the trail policy proposal presented by the Neighborhood Association. Safety and Security Considerations Again, one could probably presume that most everyone would agree that safety and security issues should be part of the decision making process in selecting the particulars for a trail. At the very least, one would expect that these sorts of considerations would be part of any determination as to whether to create a trail, or rehabilitate one, and how any such trail would be constructed or improved. Any particular situation may involve safety and security issues that differ from other situations, depending on the circumstances. Just as with many of the other considerations mentioned, there is no clear winner with paving here. As previously noted in materials we have submitted to the City, neighbors and more formal experts alike have recognized that there may be an advantage to the warning a bike traveling over crushed stone may produce through the sound of its tires which is not as present or noticeable on asphalt. Similarly, it is widely recognized that paving can and likely will increase the speed of vehicle travel, which also creates safety issues that need to be considered and may well not favor asphalt in many circumstances. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 12 The policy proposal presented by the City staff does not mention these considerations, or identify them as being factors in any way. In contrast, they are specifically included as part of the criteria that would need to be examined for any trail proposal. Environmental and Ecological Considerations Although some may argue to the contrary, a fair reading of the issues in the environmental and ecological area suggest that there is much that can be debated in this domain in terms of the pros and cons afforded by the different surfaces applications that are can be used for trails in Golden Valley. We do not see it as prudent to seek to argue these issues in any detail at this juncture -- we simply do not see it as possible to be able to supply adequate and accurate information in such short order that can definitively resolve the various environmental and ecological issues that exist. The fact that we believe, and think with any fair reading most would also believe, that there is at least a debate about many aspects in the environmental and ecological area as it relates to trails and their surfacing in our community, suggests that these too should be part of the considerations that should be carefully examined in connection with decisions being made about the particulars for any specific trail. The policy proposal presented by the City staff seems for the most part to resolve the various questions of environmental and ecological dimension in a way that eliminates the need for further consideration of most of the questions in these areas when a particular trail is considered, and, with that sidestep, leaves only a limited review of and deliberation about certain environmental and ecological issues (mainly, whether the area cannot be accessed by construction and maintenance equipment without adverse environmental impact). The Neighborhood Association does not believe that the myriad of environmental and ecological issues at play are nearly so cut and dried, and includes environmental and ecological considerations -- broadly defined and not limited to a narrow aspect -- as other important criteria that should be explored in connection with decisions about the particulars for any trail project.4 4 As with any of the criteria that should be examined and considered in connection with a proposed trail, there may be certain particulars or specifics that ought to be part of the plan before any trail is approved. Depending on the circumstance, for example, there are steps that are commonly recommended to address possible environmental issues. Some have to do with the surface applied, while others have to do more with the structure of the trail itself, signage or other aspects of a trail. Experience has resulted in even suggestions to assist in reducing vandalism. See, e.g., Pathways for People — Trail Design to Minimize Environmental Damage and Enhance User Enjoyment, put out by the Purdue University Extension Service. Members of Open Space and Recreation Commission/Environmental Commission October 27, 2003 Page 13 Closin Again, we are appreciative of the opportunity to provide input and attempt to shape this process for the betterment of the City of Golden Valley. We would have liked to present more information from the experts we have had the privilege of working with, or even have them interface with you directly, but to a certain extent the limited time available and other considerations prevented that at this time. We are committed to seeing this through, however, and will continue to work vigorously and tirelessly on these issues, in cooperation with the City Council and others, with an eye toward coming up with the best policy for our entire City. Appreciatively yours, s Jim bbott Ladner co resident — South Tyrol Hills Neighborhood Association cc: Jeannine Clancy/City of Golden Valley Staff South Tyrol Hills Neighbors and other interested citizens