2018-11-26 EC Agenda PacketAGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 26, 2018, Monday @ 6:30pm
Council Conference Room (across from Council Chambers)
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Rd
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2018 (5 min)
3. Recycling Tour Summary (10 min)
4. Reflect on Solid Waste Panel Discussion (15 min)
5. GreenStep Cities - Step 4 Metrics – Transportation and Fleet (30 min)
(Action requested)
6. Commission sponsored environmental workshop (10 min)
7. Review 2018 work plan (10 min)
8. Program/Project Updates (5 min)
9. Council Updates (5 min)
10. Other Business
11. Adjourn
1
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting, Minutes
September 24, 2018
Commissioners Present: Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Joseph Ramlet,
Scott Seys, Jim Stremel and Debra Yahle
Staff Present: Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor; Marc Nevinski, Physical
Development Director; Tim Teynor, Assistant City Forester; Drew Chirpich,
Environmental Specialist and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant
Absent: None
Call to Order
Chair Hill called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes
MOVED by Galonska, SECONDED by Seys , and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the August 27, 2018 regular meeting.
Solid Waste and Recycling Discussion
Marc Nevinski, gave a brief presentation on the City’s renewed recycling contract with Republic
Services. The new three year contract reflects the recent drop in recyclable commodity values and
will now include a processing fee along with the collection fee. It includes a 50/50 revenue share
should commodity values rebound along with the option to negotiate curbside organics at any time
within the contract period. Total rates will go from the present monthly per household fee of $2.84 to
$3.87 by 2021.
The Waste Collection Forum will be at City Hall on October 29, 2018. The panel will include a
facilitator; representatives from Waste Management and Ace Solid Waste; representatives from the
Cities of St. Anthony, Big Lake, and St Louis Park. After hearing presentations, residents will be able
to ask questions and voice their concerns. This event will be recorded.
Concerning Lime Bikes, Nevinski stated that the pilot program hasn’t been a huge success but still
not a failure either. The City has approximately 50 bikes which Lime Bike is planning on leaving out
all winter. Lime Bike follows state statute on bike operation and placement.
Emerald Ash Borer Management
Tim Teynor, discussed the recent finding of the Emerald Ash Borer in an ash tree in Golden Valley’s
Stockman Park. He talked about the City’s EAB Management Plan and the variety of trees to be
planted after the ash trees are removed over the span of the next two decades.
GreenStep Cities – Step 4 – Land Use
After a brief discussion of Step 4 core topic Land Use led by Drew Chirpich, the Commission made
the following motion.
MOVED by Gitelis, SECONDED by Stremel and the motion carried unanimously to approve the
Performance Metrics entry for Step 4 Land Use with the amended entry for 7.1 into the
GreenSteps Cities website at the time when all core topic areas and optional topic areas are
completed.
2
Commission Sponsored Workshop
Chirpich told of the upcoming workshop, which is the first one sponsored by the Environmental
Commission and addresses the topic “sustainable yards and gardens” chosen as part of the
Commission’s 2018 work plan. This workshop on Low Maintenance Lawn/Turf Alternatives will be
held at Brookview Community Center on October 16, 2018 and will be hosted by Metro Blooms.
They will discuss alternative lawn species that require less input and maintenance than traditional
Kentucky bluegrass and are more drought tolerant.
Participation in Closed Social Media Groups
Memo from the City’s Attorney, Maria Cisneros, was briefly discussed regarding the “Open Meeting
Law” and how it pertains to Commission members engaging in social media. In summary, the “Open
Meeting Law” states that as long as social media groups are open to the general public, council
members and commissioners may participate in the groups without violating the Law. The full memo
is on file.
Program/Project Updates
Highlighted points: City’s development of Goose and Turkey Management Plans; City’s installation of
a dual-charging station for electric vehicles; Three Rivers Park District creating a 2040 System Plan
and asking the public to participate in an online survey; Republic Services Facility Tour for EC
members. The complete Program/Project Update is on file.
Other Business
MOVED by Ramlet, SECONDED by Galonska and the motion carried unanimously to cancel
the October 22, 2018 Environmental Commission meeting and replace it with a tour of
Republic Services Recycling Facility to be finalized by city staff.
Adjourn
MOVED by Anderson, SECONDED by Yahle, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at
8:09 pm.
Claire Huisman
Administrative Assistant
3
Date: November 21, 2018
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: Recycling Tour Summary
On October 22, 2018 City staff and members of the Commission attended a tour of the Republic
Services recycling center in North Minneapolis. Republic employees led the tour and answered
questions about sorting and plant operations, and shed some light on the recycling process and
the common issues they encounter. Staff will lead a brief discussion summarizing the highlights of
the tour and what we learned.
4
Date: November 21, 2018
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: Solid Waste Hauling Forum
The City hosted a facilitated Waste Hauling Forum at City Hall on October 29th. The forum
consisted of six panel members describing their experiences with different waste hauling
processes, from organized to open to consortium models. Following the initial presentations,
audience members asked questions and engaged with the panelists.
At the November meeting, the commission will briefly discuss and reflect on the information
provided at the waste hauling forum.
In order to prepare for the meeting, commission members that did not attend the forum are
asked to watch the video replay which can be found at the following links:
City’s waste hauling webpage
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/recycling/residential-waste-hauling.php
Waste Hauling Forum video replay
http://nwsccc-goldenvalley.granicus.com/player/clip/792?publish_id=48e5b90a-dc56-
11e8-9302-0050569183fa
5
Date: November 26, 2018
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: GreenStep Cities Step 4 – Transportation and Fleet
The City is working toward Step 4 in the GreenStep Cities Program which involves the
documentation of metric measurements in seven core topic areas and five optional topic areas.
Measuring for Step 4 is important as the City must show improvements in each topic area to
advance to Step 5. Improvements within these topic areas will help the community reduce
energy and carbon emissions, save money, and increase resilience to short and long term shocks
and stressors.
Core topic areas
Open Space, Parks, and Trees
Stormwater
Wastewater
City Buildings and Lighting
Renewable Energy
Land Use
• Transportation Modes and Miles
Optional topic areas (in priority order)
• City Fleets
• Infrastructure for Biking and
Walking
• Car, Transit, and Bike Options
• Surface Water
• Green Buildings
• Local Food (only if green buildings
does not prove to be workable)
The next core topic area that the City is completing is Transportation Modes and Miles. While
working on this item staff went ahead and completed the optional topic areas relating to
transportation as well. The performance metrics are attached to this memorandum for review,
with the exception of City employee commuting data, which may be available at the meeting.
Also attached are the guidance documents for completion of this action. After discussion staff
requests that the Commission consider making a motion to approve the City’s Step 4
Transportation-related metrics.
6
7
8
9
10
Location of EV Charging Stations in Golden Valley (4 sites with multiple stations).
11
#6: TRANSPORTATION MODES & MILES
CORE METRIC FOR CATEGORY A & B CITIES; OPTIONAL FOR CATEGORY C CITIES
Bold, green font indicates data elements that are eligible to be recognized at Step 5 if
improvement is demonstrated.
DATA ELEMENTS
Vehicle Miles Traveled 6.1 City Population: Vehicle miles traveled per person, per day 6.2 City Employees in Single Occupancy Vehicles: Vehicle miles traveled per person, per day
6.3 Percent of city population commuting 20 or fewer minutes
6.4 Percent of city employees commuting 20 or fewer minutes
Transportation mode of commuters
6.5 Percent using single-occupancy vehicle
6.6 Percent using a car/van pool & ride sharing
6.7 Percent using transit
6.8 Percent who bike or walk
6.9 Percent working from home/telecommuting
DEFINITIONS
• VMT (vehicle-miles traveled) within city boundaries totals all miles measured and estimated to have been traveled
by all road vehicles annually. Normalizing this total by a city’s population and dividing by 365 gives an average VMT
per person per day. (Element 6.1)
• Percent of city population, and of city employees, who commute to work in fewer than 20 minutes from home
roughly captures the extent to which a city has a close and socially/personally beneficial mix of housing and
employers, and thus the relative need for roads, transit and other transportation infrastructure like sidewalks.
(Elements 6.3 and 6.4)
• Transportation modes of commuters in the city are estimated averages, counting journey-to-work trips by all
employed people within the city, 16 years and older. (Elements 6.5-6.9)
• Carpools include van pools and ride sharing services (taxis, Uber, Lyft). (Element 6.6)
• Alternative data: If you have been gathering or want to gather different data, report those and explain why they are
a better fit for your city. For example, you may want a different commuting time break point – perhaps under/over 15,
or 30 minutes, or more than one percentage break point - to better reflect local conditions and commuting factors.
DATA SOURCES
• Regional Indicators Initiative has VMT per person, per day for selected cities,
at http://www.regionalindicatorsmn.com/travel-chart (Element 6.1)
• Annual VMT for all city roads (federal, State, county, local) is MnDOT
data, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/ (Element 6.1)
• Percent of city population commuting by time from the Census’ American Community Survey (ACS) table S0801:
Travel Time to Work (Element 6.3)
12
• Commute mode for all workers is found in the Census’ American Community Survey (ACS) table B08301: 3-year
estimates through American FactFinder 2 at http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml (Elements
6.5-6.9)
• City mapping data, city employee survey data, timesheet data for employee commuting trips (Elements 6.2 and 6.4)
CALCULATION AND PUBLIC REPORTING
• Report VMT using the annual MnDOT data, which totals all miles traveled by all road vehicles annually and
normalizes it for each city by population to yield VMT/capita/day. Use data for a one-year period ending before the
GreenStep reporting year. (Element 6.1)
• Percent of city population commuting fewer than 20 minutes is from the American Community Survey (ACS). Go
to your city, click “Business and Industry” on the left, then go to “Commuting Characteristics by Sex.” It displays table
S0801. Use the latest data before the GreenStep reporting year. (Element 6.3)
• Travel mode for all workers comes from ACS table B08301, 3-year estimates. Use the dataset Community
Characteristics by Sex for the appropriate city or county. Use the most recent 5-year estimate if a 3-year estimate is
not available. (Elements 6.5-6.9)
• Percent of city employees commuting fewer than 20 minutes from home requires either estimates using employee
home addresses and Google Maps or data from an employee survey. (Element 6.2)
RATIONALE
Vehicles are typically a significant expense for individuals, roads are usually a significant expense for city budgets, and vehicle
emissions exact documented high health care costs and are a key contributor to greenhouse gases. In 2012, on-road
transportation accounted for 27% of the average total of GHG emissions for the 22 cities participating in Minnesota’s Regional
Indicators Initiative.
Cities - through what they directly administer and in what they influence - can lower these transportation costs by providing
and incentivizing more transportation options to their residents, businesses, and employees. Data on VMT, commute time and
modal split is an essential first step, because it’s hard to manage changes in what you don’t measure.
STEP 5 GOALS
Among the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s legislatively delegated authorities and purposes are the goals of: (1)
promoting and increasing bicycling and walking as a percentage of all trips as energy-efficient, nonpolluting, and healthy forms
of transportation, and (2) reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s transportation sector. Supporting these goals
are Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) dollars from the Minnesota Department of Health to increase active
transportation in communities and work sites.
There are no statewide goals for this metric nor any useful guidance at this point in time for all cities in Minnesota. However,
the national STAR Community Rating System (http://www.starcommunities.org) challenges cities to set a drive-alone
maximum mode share of 60% and a bike + walk + transit minimum mode share of 25%. At this point in time GreenStep thinks
individual cities are best equipped to set realistic goals for improvement, and any improvement in this metric – lower VMT,
shorter commutes, mode-shifting away from single-occupancy car use – has multiple clear, quantifiable benefits.
NEED HELP? CONTACT
Philipp Muessig, GreenStep Cities Coordinator, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency: Philipp.muessig@state.mn.us or 651-757-2594
February 2017
13
#3: City
Fleets OPTIO
NAL METRIC FOR CATEGORY A & B & C CITIES
Bold, green font indicates data elements that are eligible to be recognized at Step 5 if
improvement is demonstrated.
DATA ELEMENTS
City Vehicles:
3.1 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for gasoline fleet 3.2 Average miles per gallon (MPG) for gasoline fleet
3.3 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for diesel fleet
3.4 Average miles per gallon (MPG) for diesel fleet
3.5 Number of electric vehicles in city fleet
DEFINITIONS
• City vehicles include owned and leased utility vehicles, cars, vans, trucks, and heavy equipment, such as those
used in snow plowing, street sweeping, earth-moving, and construction. Include police cars, other emergency
vehicles, and NEVs (neighborhood electric vehicles: battery electric vehicles with a top speed of 25 MPH and which,
while usually used by parks departments, can be driven on public roads). Also include data from city-employee-
owned vehicles used for city business for which the city reimburses employees. Transit and school buses are
generally excluded because they are not fully owned and controlled by city government. (Elements 3.1-3.5)
• A city’s fleet is divided for the purposes of this metric into gasoline, diesel-fueled, and electric vehicles. Typically
these are distinct fleets: passenger cars, heavy-duty vehicles, and full-electric cars, with widely divergent average
miles per gallon efficiency. (Elements 3.1-3.5)
• Vehicle miles traveled for gasoline fleet include those miles driven by hybrid electric and hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles. (Element 3.1)
• Average miles per gallon for gasoline fleet are not adjusted (normalized) for the differing energy content of
standard gasoline (E10), E85, and other ethanol blends. The gallons of different blends should all be added
together. Gasoline gallons also do not count gasoline-equivalents for electricity and hydrogen used in hybrid electric
and hydrogen vehicles. (Element 3.2)
• Vehicle miles traveled for diesel fleet include those miles driven by CNG (compressed natural gas) vehicles.
(Element 3.3)
• Average miles per gallon for diesel fleet are not adjusted (normalized) for the differing energy content of standard
diesel (B10) and other blends. The gallons of different blends should all be added together. Diesel gallons also do not
count gasoline-equivalents for natural gas used in CNG vehicles. (Element 3.4)
• Electric Vehicles are owned and leased vehicles where the drive-train is powered exclusively by an electric motor.
This would include NEVs, all electric vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf, and also the Chevrolet Volt and similar cars
where the gasoline engine charges the battery. (Element 3.5)
DATA SOURCES
• City fleet data (Elements 3.1-3.5)
14
• City administration, public works, and parks departments (Elements 3.1-3.5)
CALCULATION AND PU BLIC REPORTING
• VMT for the city’s gasoline and diesel fleets are total miles driven during the calendar year preceding the reporting
year by various vehicles as defined in the Definition section. (Elements 3.1 and 3.3)
• MPG for the city’s gasoline and diesel fleets are calculated as follows: total all miles driven during the calendar
year preceding the reporting year by various vehicles as defined in the Definition section (this is the VMT); divide
gasoline fleet miles by total gallons of gasoline used, and divide diesel fleet miles by total gallons of diesel used. The
two numbers represent each fleet’s average miles per gallon. (Elements 3.2 and 3.4)
• For electric vehicles, report the number owned or leased by the city as of the December 31st preceding the
reporting year, and report total miles traveled by all electric vehicles during the calendar year preceding the reporting
year. (Element 3.5)
RATIONALE
Tracking miles driven and gallons used is widespread and simple to do for two generally distinct vehicle categories. The
two resulting measures are simple ones for city leaders and tax payers to track. Improvements in MPG represent a mix of cost
and energy savings and fewer air emissions from improved vehicle efficiency and improved fuels. In simplifying the MPG
average calculation by not counting the gallon-equivalent energy content of hybrid and hydrogen electricity and CNG, phasing
in of such vehicles is incentivized by the resulting higher MPG numbers.
Electric vehicles are tracked separately, as their superior technology converts 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the
grid to power at the wheels, as opposed to the inefficiency of conventional gasoline vehicles that convert only 17%–21% of the
energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels. See GreenStep’s best practice #13 at http://www.MnGreenStep.org for
ongoing life-cycle research on EVs that is dispelling various myths about oil vs. coal pollution, total transport energy, battery
recycling, total costs, and other issues.
STEP 5 GOALS
Individual cities are best equipped to set realistic goals for improvement, and any improvement in this metric is good. That
said, the State of Minnesota has the following goals:
• To transition 30% of total gasoline used in the state to biofuels by 2025.
• Past state agency fleet goals: (1) use vehicles with fuel efficiency ratings that exceed 30 miles per gallon for city
usage or 35 miles per gallon for highway usage; (2) reduce the use of petroleum-based diesel fuel in on-road
vehicles by 10% by 2010 and by 25% by 2015, using 2005 as a baseline; (3) reduce the use of gasoline in on-road
vehicles by 25% by 2010 and by 50% by 2015, using 2005 as a baseline.
NEED HELP? CONTACT
Fran Crotty, GreenStep best practice advisor for fleets, MN Pollution Control Agency
651-757-2297 or fran.crotty@state.mn.us
February 2017
15
#4: INFRASTRUCTURE FOR WALKING & BICYCLING
OPTIONAL METRIC FOR CATEGORY A , B & C CITIES
Bold, green font indicates data elements that are eligible to be recognized at Step 5 if
improvement is demonstrated.
DATA ELEMENTS
4.1 Miles of new or reconstructed sidewalks & trails completed in the past year 4.2 % of housing within 1 mile of a bicycle route
4.3 Walk Score for your city or downtown
DEFINITIONS
• Miles of new or reconstructed sidewalks & trails include lengths of sidewalks added along streets and in parks
where previously there were none, lengths of existing sidewalks that were substantially reconstructed (not just
patched or repaired) and replaced, and lengths of new and reconstructed walking trails. (Element 4.1)
• Bicycle routes include marked on-road bicycle routes, marked/mode-separated bicycle lanes, and off-road bicycle
paths (which include multi-use and unpaved paths). (Element 4.2)
• Housing includes residential housing units. (Element 4.2)
• Walk Score attempts to calculate and express with a number between 0 and 100 the degree to which a city (either
on average, or in a specific address such as the ‘center of downtown’) facilitates people to walk/shop in it. It is an
imperfect (especially for smaller cities) measure of walkability (existence of sidewalks) and mixed uses (existence of
various commercial/civic destinations that one can walk to). Imperfections include Walk Score’s inability to factor in
the walking experience: we know for example that walkers rarely use an unshaded sidewalk closely sandwiched
between a busy road and windowless building walls, despite useful commercial destinations close by. Additionally,
Walk Score fails to count all businesses (such as home-based businesses, new businesses) and civic/useful
destinations (such as family daycares). See details at https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml (Element 4.3)
• Alternative data elements: if you have been gathering different data, report those and explain how they differ from
these GreenStep elements and why you feel they are a better fit for your city.
DATA SOURCES
• City public works/engineering/parks records (Elements 4.1 and 4.2)
• GIS maps and/or city plat maps and census track data (Element 4.2)
• http://www.walkscore.com (Element 4.3)
CALCULATION AND PUBLIC REPORTING
• Count sidewalk and trail lengths added in the year ending December 31st before the reporting year. While this
element counts non-motorized routes, if including new snowmobiling trails makes sense for your city, report that in
the notes section of the GreenStep reporting spreadsheet.
• Sidewalk miles will be normalized and reported on the GreenStep web site as annual new miles per 1000
residents. (Element 4.1)
• Using a GIS system, map a boundary (or zones if multiple bike routes) within which street biking (or, as the crow
flies) is within 1 mile of a bike route/lane/path. Then calculate the number of residential dwelling units within the
16
boundary or zones. Finally, compare the number of units to total units in the city and express the ratio as a percent,
which is a gauge of people’s access to a minimum quality biking experience. (Element 4.2)
• For smaller cities, dwelling units in census tracts within a mile of bike routes can provide rough estimations. Or
estimation from a city plat map may work fine. (Element 4.2)
• At the Walk Score website either type in your city name and report the resulting score, or type in the street address
of what you consider the heart of your city and report that score. Other approaches could be used – for example,
averaging the scores resulting from street addresses in the middle of each of your defined neighborhoods or each
zoning district. The overall city average number will change if, for example, a large superblock is split by
walkways/streets and if new businesses open. But usually the number will not change much from year to year. Yet
the number remains as a reminder that the city can take actions to change the number. (Element 4.3)
RATIONALE
These three data points attempt to show the degree to which a city has and is building physical infrastructure – sidewalks,
trails and bicycle routes – and mixed used development that allow, facilitate and encourage walking and bicycling. Reasons
for city action in this area are many:
1) Forty percent of Minnesotans do not have a driver's license, cannot afford a car, or are either too young or old or
too disabled to drive a car. As stated by Gil Penalosa, proponent of the “8-to-80 city” (http://880cities.org ), If you
create a city that’s good for an 8-year old and good for an 80-year old, you will create a successful city for
everyone.
2) Forty percent of U.S. auto trips are less than 2 miles, and 28% are less than 1 mile - a healthful, walkable
distance for many people much of the year in Minnesota - yet most of these trips are taken by car.
3) Walking and bicycling options and supportive city infrastructure that allow a household to eliminate one of two
cars saves an average of $7,000/yr. which, if applied to a home mortgage or home equity loan, could finance
$108,000 (assuming a 30-yr. fixed 5% mortgage).
4) The National Association of Realtor’s 2011 Community Preference Survey reveals that most Americans would
like to live in walkable communities - where walking is desirable because of shops, restaurants, and local
business within an easy walk from their homes - as long as those communities can provide detached single-
family homes.
However, not every street and not every part of a city warrants sidewalks and bicycle routes, and streets that do may not
warrant them on both sides of the street. So as is often the case, cities must view these data elements within the context-
sensitivity of their own city and think more of comparing one’s own numbers over time, not so much comparing your city to
another city.
STEP 5 GOALS
A statewide Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan exist, but at present there are no state-wide goals for cities. Therefore,
individual cities are best equipped to set realistic goals for improvement. For example, in some small towns, no
new/reconstructed sidewalks nor additional bicycle routes over time may be just fine, as the facilities are at 100% already. Or,
a low Walk Score may simply represent a small town that can support only a handful of businesses/civic destinations.
NEED HELP? CONTACT
Amber Dallman, GreenStep best practice advisor for mobility options, Minnesota Department of
Transportation amber.dallman@state.mn.us or 651-366-4189.
17
#5: CAR, TRANSIT, & BIKE OPTIONS
OPTIONAL METRIC FOR CATEGORY A & B & C CITIES
Bold, green font indicates data elements that are eligible to be recognized at Step 5 if
improvement is demonstrated.
DATA ELEMENTS
Non-Gasoline or Diesel Fueling Stations 5.1 Number of electric vehicle charging stations
5.2 Number of alternative fueling stations (e.g. e85, CNG)
Mobility Options
5.3 Does your city have a bike-sharing service? (Yes or No)
5.4 Does your city enable car or ride-sharing services? (Yes or No)
5.5 Number of telecommuting businesses/services
5.6 Is the city served by weekday transit? (Yes or No)
5.7 Does the city have structured transit routes? (Yes or No)
5.8 Percent of housing units within ¾ miles of transit routes
DEFINITIONS
• Number of electric vehicle charging stations includes those gas stations and other sites that have one or more
cords/fixtures for electric vehicle charging. (Element 5.1)
• Number of alternative fueling stations (e85, CNG) includes both the number of businesses with stations open to
the public and the number of sites with EV charging and pumps for private use (such as city fleets, private fleets).
(Element 5.2)
• e85/other alternative fueling stations include sites that dispense ethanol above the 10% state standard (such as E-
85), biodiesel pumps selling biofuels above the 10% state standard, and compressed natural gas (CNG) and
hydrogen pumps. (Element 5.2)
• Bike sharing services include bike-shares such as NiceRide or campus-based “yellow bike” programs. (Element
5.3)
• Car or Ride-sharing services include services such as HourCar, the availability of ride-sharing services such as taxi
companies and Uber and Lyft van-pool services, organized ride-sharing services organized by a transit agency or by
a campus or other entity (“ride boards”), but does not include dial-a-ride transit. (Element 5.4)
• Telecommuting services include telework and telemedicine sites/businesses open to the public, and the presence
of a service such as eWorkPlace.com in your city. (Element 5.5)
• Weekday transit means transit available at least 9 hours a day, 5 days a week. (Element 5.6)
• Transit includes fixed-route transit service, deviated fixed-route service (where there is an established route but
buses may stray roughly one mile from the fixed route), and dial-a-ride service (that may be run by organized
volunteers, and where one may need to arrange a ride 24 hours in advance). (Element 5.6)
• Structured routes for GreenStep purposes means that the city is served by transit that has structured routes with
established times and stops. This includes fixed-route and deviated fixed-route service. (Element 5.7)
18
• Housing means residential dwelling units: count those that are within ¾ mile of a transit stop (bus, streetcar, LRT,
commuter rail) and, for deviated fixed-route service, count dwelling units within one mile of the entire bus route. Dial-
a-ride service is not included in this percent of housing measure. (Element 5.8)
• Alternative data elements: If you have been gathering different data or want to gather different data, report those
and explain how they are a better fit for your city.
DATA SOURCES
• Lists by city of publicly available fueling stations are at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ and for the most up-to-date
EV information, see http://www.plugshare.com/ (Elements 5.1 and 5.2)
• City licenses, records, and common knowledge of city staff will be needed for counting the private fueling stations
and the sharing services. (Elements 5.2-5.5)
• GIS maps, data from transit service web sites, city plat maps, and census track data. (Element 5.8)
CALCULATION AND PUBLIC REPORTING
• Annual measurement and reporting for each of these data elements is based upon the cumulative numbers as of
December 31st before the reporting year.
• Fueling stations and sharing services will be normalized and reported on the GreenStep web site as number of
stations, and number of services, per 1000 residents.
• Using a GIS system, map a boundary (zones if multiple transit routes) within which street walking (or, as the crow
flies) is within ¾ miles of all stops and 1 mile of deviated fixed-routes. Then calculate the number of residential
dwelling units within the boundary/ies or zones. Finally, compare the number of units to total units in the city and
express the ratio as a percent. A more detailed description of this GIS approach and links to data are
at: https://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/percentage-population-served-transit (Element 5.8)
• For smaller cities, dwelling units in census tracts close to transit routes can provide rough estimations, or estimation
from a city plat map may work fine. (Element 5.8)
RATIONALE
GreenStep cities across Minnesota report the development and use of transportation options beyond single occupancy vehicle
(SOV) fossil-fueled trips for every transportation need. This metric tries to track the growth of options in a city. It covers fueling
options for vehicles with a lower greenhouse gas footprint, in addition to those lower-fossil-fuel, non-SOV options.
Studies show Minnesotans are willing, on average, to walk up to 3/4 mile to access a transit stop with at least hourly transit
service, and so GreenStep picked this threshold. Studies also show, however, that economic viability of regularly scheduled
transit requires housing densities, for portions of cities, above what we tend to see in many Minnesota cities. For example, as
a very rough rule of thumb, at least 15 dwelling units per acre are needed to support one rush hour bus every 15 minutes. And
very high levels of walking are facilitated in neighborhoods or mixed-use areas with about 20 housing units per acre.
The question for cities over a generation or two is: do we introduce transit first (and have to initially more heavily subsidize it)
and then build denser, more mixed-use nodes, or do we build (zone) first (and increase congestion) and then introduce
transit? Cities must fine-tune an evolution to fit their community culture, accepting the co-existence of several density zones
within the city and region.
STEP 5 GOALS
19
There are no state-wide goals for this metric nor any guidance useful at this point in time for all cities in Minnesota. Therefore,
individual cities are best equipped to set realistic goals for improvement, and any improvement in this metric – higher
numbers, higher percentages – has multiple clear, quantifiable benefits.
NEED HELP? CONTACT
Fran Crotty, GreenStep best practice advisor for fleets, Minnesota Pollution Control agency: fran.crotty@state.mn.us or 651-
757-2297
Amber Dallman, GreenStep best practice advisor for mobility options, Minnesota Department of
Transportation: amber.dallman@state.mn.us or 651-366-4189
Sara Dunlap, Transit Planner, Minnesota Department of Transportation: sara.dunlap@state.mn.us or 651-366-4194
February 2017
20
Date: November 21, 2018
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: Commission Sponsored Environmental Workshop
In collaboration with MetroBlooms, the City and its Environmental Commission hosted a Turf
Alternatives Workshop on Tuesday October 16th at Brookview Community Center. The workshop
addressed different types of lawn alternatives that require lower maintenance and have
enhanced benefits for pollinators.
At the November meeting, the commission will discuss the 2018 workshop and possible ideas for
2019.
21
PROGRAM/PROJECT UPDATES – November 2018
NATURAL RESOURCES
Staff is exploring the City’s eligibility and potential projects for the MnDNR Conservation Partners Grant to assist with
vegetation management, habitat restoration and the protection and improvement of City nature areas, consistent with
the adopted Natural Resources Management Plan.
WATER RESOURCES
Brookview Golf Course Pond Buffers - The City is soliciting quotes from contractors for the establishment of native
vegetation buffers around two more ponds within the City’s golf course. Most of the ponds in the golf course are
connected to Bassett Creek either directly or during flooding. The buffers will stabilize the banks of the ponds, take up
nutrients and filter out pollutants that may enter the ponds, provide pollinator habitat, and deter geese and other fowl.
The work is set to begin this fall or next spring depending upon weather.
2018 Pond Maintenance Project
The City is currently soliciting bids for the 2018 pond maintenance project in the Kings Valley area located in the
northwest part of the City. The City has a program for maintaining ponds every two years and modeling software to
assist in the prioritization of projects based on need and measurable outcomes. Pond maintenance projects involve the
removal of opportunistic vegetation that impacts drainage and infrastructure, dredging and restoring the water quality
treatment volume within the pond, and reshaping and stabilizing slopes with native vegetation.
DeCola Ponds B and C Improvement Project
In September 2018 the City Council approved agreements with the MnDNR and the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission to begin final design work on this flood mitigation project located in the north central part of
the City. The final design process includes community and stakeholder engagement and will continue through spring
2019. Look for more information in the coming months.
Medicine Lake Road and Rosalyn Court impacted by flooding in 2010.
22
ENERGY
Solsmart Solar Panel Installation Checklist- The City has been working on a checklist to simplify all the steps needed for
residents to obtain a permit to install solar panels on their properties. This includes planning, building, and electrical
components. The checklist is undergoing final formatting and will be uploaded to the City’s website in the coming
months. Completion of this checklist will allow the City to obtain bronze certification in the Department of Energy’s
Solsmart program, which the City joined in 2016. For more information on the program visit http://www.solsmart.org/.
EV Charging Station – The City recently installed an EV charging station at the city hall campus and it is now available for
public use. More detailed information will be share and discussed at the December meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENTS
Nov 21, 2018
Watermark (5530-40 Golden Valley Road, 1503 Welcome Ave N)—Zoning Map Amendment, Lot Consolidation, and
Conditional Use Permit to allow a Residential Facility serving 25 people in the Single-Family (R-1) Zoning District. Two
existing single-family homes and a vacant commercial building would be demolished. Scheduled for the November 26
meeting.
4400 Sunset Ridge—Subdivision request to split one lot into two. The existing home would be demolished and two
new homes would be constructed. Scheduled for the November 26 meeting.
800 Boone Avenue North—Amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to limit evening activities associated
with an adult day care use in a Light Industrial Zoning District. A public hearing was held on October 22 but at the
conclusion of the meeting the Commission continued the discussion to the November 26 meeting in order to further
consider the request.
Business and Professional Offices Zoning District—Zoning Code Text Amendment to update and modernize the uses
allowed in this district. Scheduled for the November 26 meeting.
840 Pennsylvania Ave S—Conditional Use Permit to construct an employee parking lot across the street from
Morrie’s Golden Valley Cadillac. The existing structure (known as the Weavewood building) would be demolished.
Scheduled for the December 10 meeting.
1320 Fairlawn Way—Lot Consolidation to incorporate excess MnDOT right-of-way into a parcel containing a single-
family home. Recommended for approval (6-0) at the November 13 Planning Commission meeting. Scheduled for the
December 4 meeting.
Shapco (1109 Zane Ave N)—Conditional Use Permit to utilize an existing parking lot in a Light Industrial Zoning
District for the storage of auto dealership inventory. Recommended for approval (6-0) at the November 13 Planning
Commission meeting. Scheduled for the December 4 meeting.
2040 Comprehensive Plan—Public hearing to consider final revisions to the Comp Plan and send the document on to
the City Council for approval. Recommended for approval (6-0) at the November 13 Planning Commission meeting.
Scheduled for the December 4 meeting.
23