Citizen's Environmental Quality Committee

Sept. 3, 2022 Citizens Environmental Quality Committee Winona, Minnesota 55987 Dear Committee Members: The next meeting of the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, Sept. 8th, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. in the Heritage Room (2nd floor) at City Hall. 1. Call to Order 2. Review of August Meeting Minutes 3. Amendment to Shoreland section of Land Disturbance Policy (10 minutes) 4. Community Garden Update (20 minutes) 5. Sustainability Plan Update (30 minutes) 6. Driftless Regional Read (5 minutes) 7. Other Business (5 minutes) 8. Adjournment Sincerely, John Howard Natural Resources Sustainability Coordinator CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES DATE: Thursday Aug. 4, 2022 TIME: Scheduled for 4:30 pm in the City Hall Misato Room PRESENT: Niki Ciulla, Julie Fassbender, Paul Schmidt, Madalyn Bollig, Sadie Neuman and Dan Hall GUESTS: STAFF: John Howard 1. Call to Order: Call to order at 4:33 PM by Dan Hall (Chair). 2. Introduction of New Members: Sadie and Madalyn, as new members of the CEQC introduced themselves. Existing members in attendance and staff also introduced themselves. 3. Review and Approval of July 2022 Meeting Minutes: Motion by Paul, second by Niki. Approval unanimous. 4. Amendment to Land Disturbance Policy for Invasive Species Control: John summarized the discussion at the most recent Planning commission and public hearing. No members of the public spoke at the public hearing, but the Planning Commission discussed the amendments thoroughly. In the end, the commission approved the code amendments with one dissent vote due to the wording regarding which City department would approve the management plans. John said the next step would be to take it to the City Council, but staff is waiting for comments from the state DNR before doing so. Dan summarized the objective of lowering the barriers and costs to invasive species removal in protected areas. Oversight is still there to protect against removal of native species. Dan elaborated on the discussion regarding who would approve the permit, and the value in not having a very specific person listed in the regulation. Sadie asked if a permit is required for all invasive removal or just large areas. John replied that it applies in the bluff zones, natural state areas and shoreland. Ultimately these changes don’t change what is allowed, but should make it more expedient to proceed with projects. Dan added that the fee would be around $100 as proposed. John said he will be discussing the idea of a per acreage fee rather than a flat fee to his colleagues. Sadie said she will let her friends know about this policy. Madalyn asked about how property owners are educated about the rules. John said there is not a formal education – typically the City replies to complaints, most often in areas adjacent to people’s back yard. Sadie suggested the accessible government subcommittee of the comprehensive plan could help with education. Paul asked about targeted mailing as a means of reaching property owners who have property in area subject to the land disturbance rules. 5. Community Garden Update: Dan transitioned the meeting to the topic on community gardens. John said the Winona Post recently published an article on the topic. The Mayor’s task force met recently and the general recommendation will be to retain the East Rec. gardens and add a West Lake Park location. Sadie asked how many people took the community garden survey. Niki said the number was 68, and that the task force can share the results at a future meeting. Niki said some members of the task force prepared  letters to the editors of the Winona Post to clarify that the recommendation will be to keep the East Rec garden too. John shared that there is a potential garden near East Lake. Julie expressed gratitude for the work of the task force. Dan noted this work has been long developing. Dan asked about the fill needs, and where that might come from. John said the hope is to use left-over fill from the Mankato Avenue project. An added consideration is the wetland status of the area, which the City will need to evaluate before filling. Sadie is interested in seeing the soils of the area. Dan noted that those areas historically were swamps. Julie asked when the Council will discuss the task force’s report. Seems Sept. 6th would be the next meeting where it could be on the agenda. John is not sure if it would be a precouncil session or on the agenda. 6. Sustainability Plan Update: John asked for input on the conceptual ideas, specifically if there are items members disagree with or topics that need to be included. Wordsmithing or typos can be sent to John to correct in the document. Julie is glad to see a plan like this being developed. Paul discussed the placement of the climate change considerations section, which is placed after the background information, and whether it makes sense to move that more to the beginning. Sadie likes the idea of moving it towards the beginning. Madalyn asked about the source of the climate change information – John said it came from state DNR and the US global change information. Madalyn recommends citing this information and is willing to help with that. Niki brought up the food access section. It seems data is incomplete, and does not tell an accurate picture. Sadie agrees. Can we get data for more recent than 2019? Probably makes sense to remove the graphics. Niki shared that the survey data showed people depend on garden produce for food, so food security is still a problem. Paul offered to do some research on local food shelf utilization. Consensus is to make the data more current and relevant. Sadie asked about the food equity table, and what it is trying to convey. It is poorly worded and unclear. Madalyn concurs. Niki asked if Paul had any information on national or regional food security data. Sadie suggested some work done by the University of Indiana. Paul would like to highlight farmer’s market EBT matching system. Food prep is also something to consider and food waste tie in. Sadie discussed the quality of food makes a difference and a recent study on cognitive function decline from eating processed foods. Niki wondered if the sustainability survey had any food related information. Niki will look through the survey data for relevant info. Paul suggests clarification on commuting pattern chart on p.35 because it is hard to understand. Sadie suggests there may be more current info from HKGI as part of the comp. plan work. Sadie asked about who the consultant was. John said the background information was assembled by CEE and the engagement was done by Engage Winona. Niki was impressed by the amount down by Engage Winona, but less impressed by CEE.  John shared the draft questions that will accompany community feedback on the full draft. Paul is not sure about the word “good” in the first question. Sadie agrees that the question is ambiguous. Sadie unsure about the ambitious question. John explained that his goal is to gauge whether people think the plan is aggressive enough (or too aggressive). In other words, to determine if the plan has gotten too watered down as consensus was sought. Julie noted the political dimensions that may influence adoption. Sadie suggests talking with Luke on specific wording. Niki brought up that the document is geared to be visionary, and therefore should be ambitious and the details of implementation will be worked out later. Sadie asked about involvement by other comp. plan subcommittees on this plan – John said Luke is on the steering committee so has a good feel for connections to the comp. plan. Niki asked about public engagement, and how that will materialize. John said the budget is limited so it will probably mostly be online, but hopefully can have a table at the farmer’s market and/or do some listening sessions to hear from the public. Niki interested in helping with this. Paul wondered if the engagement will focus on the goals vs. the background info. John plans on that since the full document is long. Julie suggested reaching out to various representatives who will access different groups in town and get specific feedback. CEQC members welcome to continue reviewing the document and will discuss at future meetings. 7. Other Business: Paul and Dan will be on the Natural Resources comp plan subcommittee. John said the library is having a regional read about climate change, and will share details. 8. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Dan, second by Paul. Adjourned at 5:54. Notes prepared by John Howard.  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 3. Amendment to Shoreland section of Land Disturbance Policy PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: Sept. 8, 2022 The City recently received feedback from the MN DNR regarding the proposed shoreland rules amendment allowing plant removal with a land disturbance permit or habitat restoration plan. The DNR’s comments led City staff to make changes to our definitions and the language in 43.02.34 E) 3) a) i-ii. The definitions are found at the top of the draft amendment, with new text showing as underline. For the 43.02.34 E) 3) a) i-ii modifications, the language was changed as follows: i. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not only allowed unless if approved in a Land Disturbance Permit for that includes habitat restoration. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed compliant with Section 68.04 of this Code. ii. Selective removal of native trees and noxious weed/invasive vegetation is permissible without a Land Disturbance Permit only vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is permissible without a Land Disturbance Permit if preceded by a restoration plan approved by the City. 43.02.34 Shoreland Management Overlay District B) 7) Definitions o) Intensive vegetation clearing: The clearing of 50% or more of the vegetative cover of the canopy, understory or forest floor of an area or the complete removal of trees or shrubsvegetation in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. u) Selective vegetative removal: Clearing less than 50% of the vegetative cover of the canopy, understory or forest floor in a non‐contiguous manner. y) Shore impact zone: Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. ......... D) Shoreland Classification System and Land Use Districts 1) Shoreland Classification System The public waters of the City of Winona have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulation, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Winona County, Minnesota. a) Lakes Table 43-7: Lakes Shoreland Classificaition Table ......... 6) Certain Shoreland Areas – Undisturbed Buffer Zone. a) An undisturbed buffer zone of not less than 100 linear feet from Special Water classifications (not including intermittent tributaries) shall be maintained at all times. Exceptions from this requirement may include water crossings, vegetative removal authorized under 43.02.34 E) 3) a), native vegetation establishment, or vehicular water access, if an applicant fully documents, through a Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) the circumstances and reasons that the buffer encroachment is necessary. The SWPPP must show how potential water quality, scenic, and other environmental impacts of these exceptions will be minimized. ......... E) Performance Standards 2) Placement, Design, and Height of Structures. 3) Shoreland Alterations All alterations of vegetation and topography shall fully adhere to Chapter 68, and shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. If the shoreland includes a Natural State Area designation, the area shall be managed and maintained in accordance with Section 43.04.26. a) Vegetation Alterations. i. Exemption. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 43.02.34(E)(4)of this Chapter are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow. ii. Removal or Alteration of Vegetation. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated in Section 43.02.34(E)(6), is allowed subject to the following standards: 1. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is only not allowed if approved in a Land Disturbance Permit that includes habitat restoration. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed compliant with Section 68.04 of this Code. 2.In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, no clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed unless necessary to mitigate a hazard to life/property and any vegetation removal within bluff impact zones must be compliant with an erosion and sediment control plan per Section 68.04 of this Code. 2. Selective vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is permissible without a Land Disturbance Permit if preceded by a restoration plan approved by the City. 3. The above provisions in (1) and (2) are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead or diseased.  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 4. Community Garden Task Force Report PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: Sept. 8, 2022 The Mayor’s Task Force for community gardens met with the Mayor last week to discuss the nearly complete draft of their recommendations. That document is attached. Based on feedback from the Mayor, more extensive descriptions of existing gardens and potential garden locations will be included in the final report. As the CEQC did much of the work in reviewing potential sites back in 2019 and 2020, John is requesting that the CEQC review their recommendations (attachment #2) to see if anything should be updated. One site that was not reviewed, which may be worth considering, is the park area in the former Madison school site. This area contains fencing and pavement, which will not be conducive to many uses other than a community garden.  Mayor’s Community Garden Task Force Report of Recommended Options Introduction: In the Spring of 2021, Mayor Sherman appointed a set of community members who are knowledgeable gardeners to a task force to explore community garden options. They were tasked with answering four questions. A brief summary of their answers are below and are explained in greater depth in the pages that follow. 1. Is there a need for new gardens? Yes, there is strong support for expanding the number of community gardens. There is more demand than can be met with current gardens, and having gardens closer to someone’s home or work greatly increases the likelihood of them using it. Retaining existing gardens, specifically the East Rec. garden, is also advised. 2. If yes, where and what size is needed? The task force recommends adding at least one west side garden and retaining the East Rec. garden. The open area in the southeast corner of Dacota St. and W. Lake Blvd within Lake Park is the most promising location for an additional garden. Survey data shows localized options (within 1 mile) are most preferred, so additional sites beyond the ERC and Lake Park site would be needed to serve all residents. 3. How should the garden be built? What are the funding needs and potential sources? The answer to both questions is somewhat dependent on the location, as that will impact the size and soil suitability. In general, the task force found the most support for the East Rec. model of raised beds rented to individuals. There was also support for mixed uses such as collaborative and educational gardens. Constructing a standard sized garden bed from cement blocks, such as in the East Rec. garden, would cost between $130-150 and likely take a team of 3 volunteers 30 minutes to complete with the help of a skidsteer dumping in soil. Fencing of some form is recommended, and may be the largest expense. Funding should be sought from various local granting entities as it was successful with the construction of the East Rec. garden. Compared to many City expenditures, community gardens are a low cost option. Volunteer labor and donations can also be mustered for building the gardens. Having a small annual subscription fee will cover many of the ongoing yearly expenses with the garden such as hose and tool replacement, and a majority of staff time. Staff time is estimated to be the largest annual expense and requires around 70-85 hours a year to plan, run and troubleshoot the existing garden. 4. How will the garden be sustained? The East Rec. model of City staff oversight and volunteer assistance appears to work well. Fostering a sense of community by having the gardens in neighborhoods will increase participant ownership of the garden. The stopping and starting of gardens throughout Winona in the recent past soured some gardeners, so making a longer term commitment to future gardens will strengthen support for it. Bottom line Recommendation: Keep the East Rec garden, select a site for a west side garden, and begin work on funding and building the new garden. Is there a need for new gardens? Yes, survey results from the sustainability plan outreach work and a recent survey specific to community gardening show that there is strong interest in expanding the reach of community gardens. Many respondents see gardening as multi beneficial activity - health, cost saving, and enjoyable activity all in one place. It is important to note that retaining the ERC garden is crucial too - survey respondents were very positive about the gardening experience there with 13 indicating it was ideal. Building other gardens elsewhere may not attract the same people or maintain the culture of the current garden. Survey results indicate having gardens within 1 mile appears to be an important factor for about 45% of the respondents, and therefore indicates that no single site would serve all community gardeners. The garden survey also shows interest in more than one type of garden such as food forests, educational gardens and cooperative gardens. Certainly gardens can combine multiple aspects in one site, but the existing layout and high degree of impervious pavement at the ERC may limit the suitability for educational gardens or edible forests. Other gardens exist in the area, but tend to be small scale or for specific groups so are not available to the public at large. Examples include the community gardens at WSU and St. Mary’s, and the three plots at each the YMCA and ReStore. Taskforce members noted that the history of stop and go with community gardens being created and lost (Wapasha garden, Redeemer Lutheran, Watkins) is detrimental and frustrating to gardeners. Thus in addition to creating a new garden, the City should make a commitment to keeping any new garden as a garden. If yes, where and what size is needed? The task force recommends adding at least one west side garden and retaining the East Rec. garden. Additional gardens in more outlying areas of town, such as Knopp Valley, would be needed to fulfill all community member needs but probably could be smaller in scale. Minnesota State College Southeast is developing a community garden, and may present a good opportunity to partner with on a southeast area garden. The key factors for a successful garden site are: sun, proximity to users, water availability, and soil quality. Water availability is the most difficult as only a few sites have water lines on site or readily accessible. Connecting to a water main is an expensive option - likely costing around $15,000 to dig up the street, tie into the main, run pipe to the site and install a fixture. Sun light and proximity to users are generally good in many spaces. Soil quality is very variable throughout town so supplementing or replacing with good soil is probably beneficial at any site, so is not much of a determining factor in siting a garden. The plot sizes at the ERC garden appear well liked, although some would like larger plots. Current plot sizes are 4x4, 2x12, 4x12, 4x16 and 6x12, with most being the 4x12 size. In total there are 53 plots. These dimensions are dictated in some measure by the cinderblocks used to construct them. Utilizing rot resistant wood such as cedar or treated lumber would be another option which may allow for different sizes. As for specific locations, the open area in the southeast corner of Dacota St. and W. Lake Blvd in West Lake Park is probably the best location for an immediate second garden. It has good proximity to people, sun exposure, and importantly water access. The weakness of this site is the marshy nature of the site, so additional fill may be needed, and raised bed gardens would be more suitable than in ground plots. Assuming the 4x12 size, about 90 plots would be feasible in the area outlined below. To gauge the number of plots needed, it may be best to advertise and request people reserve a spot, and then add 25% for future growth. Sobieski Park is also appealing, but its size and location would limit the utility for many residents. It may be a good location for 10-15 plots for people in the immediate area. Areas in East Lake Park were favored by the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee, but Park & Rec staff vetoed these locations prior to the formation of the task force. Utilizing public land for a garden probably makes the most sense because it reduces the risk of it being lost to development, such as occurred with the Wapasha garden that is now the YMCA parking lot. Using land already owned by the City also lowers the total cost of building the garden. How should the garden be built? What are the funding needs and potential sources? The locations chosen for gardens impacts the specifics. In general, the task force found the most support for the East Rec. model of raised beds rented to individuals. Constructing a standard sized garden bed, such as in the East Rec. garden, would cost between $130-150 and likely take a team of 3-4 volunteers 20-40 minutes to complete with the help of a bobcat loader. Utilizing cedar wood may increase the cost by $100 and require more time, but would save some space and probably would be more visually appealing. Funding should be sought from various local granting entities like it was with the construction of the East Rec. garden. The Regional Sustainable Development Partnership, SHIP, Winona Community Foundation and Minnesota Department of Agriculture periodically have grants available to help design or build community gardens. Compared to many City expenditures, community gardens are a low cost option. Staff time will be needed to design the garden and oversee its construction. Volunteer labor and donations can also be mustered for building the gardens as shown through the construction of the existing ERC garden. How will the garden be sustained? The East Rec. model of City staff oversight and volunteer assistance seems to be effective. Fostering a sense of community by having the gardens in neighborhoods and through events should increase participant ownership of the garden. Political commitment to maintaining the space as a garden will assure people that their investment in the garden is a worthwhile endeavor, and should increase usership. Having a small annual subscription fee will cover many of the ongoing yearly expenses with the garden such as hose and tool replacement. The more significant expense will be City staff time spent coordinating the garden. Estimates over the past two seasons indicate that staff spend a total of 70-85 hours over the course of the year, with about twice that time being put in by volunteers. Conclusions Based on input from area gardeners, participants in discussions with the CEQC, the CEQC members, and the Task Force members, the Task Force makes the following recommendations: 1. Retain the ERC garden in its current form to maintain the vitality of that gardening community. 2. Establish a garden in the west side of town, ideally at least the size of the ERC garden. 3. Consider smaller gardens in outlying areas of the City. Survey Data: Commentary: 69 respondents completed our community garden survey. The survey was distributed in the following ways: (1) by email to all current East End Recreation gardeners, (2) by posts in the Facebook group Winona Gardening and Winter Sowing, (3) by posts on Winona NRS social media, and (4) through word of mouth. Looking at the pie charts above, you’ll see that 30 respondents (44.1%) currently participate in a community garden, the majority at East End Rec. 48 participants said “yes” they would like to participate in a community garden in the future, and 16 said “maybe,” meaning that we have documented a need of at least 18-30 residents who require community garden space. The actual need is likely to be significantly greater than those able to complete the survey. This can be seen from the strong support for community gardening expressed in the sustainability survey completed by Engage Winona. In less than 2 sentences, please describe your main interest in community gardening. 68 responses 1. Growing produce, and seeing what others are growing. 2. I believe that gardens are a way to build Community, and connect neighbors and neighborhoods. The many arms of a community garden extend far beyond the act of growing food or flowers. 3. It's my get away place. Love growing things, and live in an apartment. 4. Community gardening is a wonderful way to support healthy communities and sustainable lifestyles. I love the gardens at the rec and try to help whenever I can. 5. I’m in it for the community. I garden regardless. 6. To have additional garden space and to develop connections with other gardeners in the community 7. I rely upon the food I grow to sustain me throughout the year. 8. Being able to have a place to grow veggies as I live in an apartment and wouldn't have the space to do so otherwise. 9. It gives apartment dwellers the opportunity to garden and meet new people. 10. gardening, vegetables, food 11. Have always loved Gardening for produce and fun. Meeting people with similar interests is also a benefit. 12. Organic food for my family and sharing surplus with others...food security 13. Since I live in an apartment the community garden allows me to grow food for my family. 14. Sharing the joy of gardening with other community members outside my social circle 15. I believe community gardens provide the opportunity for residents to actively participate in outdoor activities that strengthen families and a sense of belonging, while providing nutritious fresh food. 16. I love the sense of community and the old tradition of bartering and sharing. 17. I find the raised beds at East End help me access gardening due to problems I have bending over. 18. Fresh food for our community- access to land for renters, low income individuals and affordable food. 19. Planting and sharing 20. Would be to grow food and as self care 21. Builds strong community by sharing skills and produce. Helps ensure food safety and security. 22. Not only to garden, but more so to social network and connect with more people in this community we recently joined 23. Everyone should have access to a space to grow food if they want or need to. 24. I enjoy having a space to enjoy watching things grow 25. Since I rent my apartment, community gardens are the only way for me to grow my own food. 26. The people you get to work with and be around, it gives people a meaning to life when they think they have nothing to live for, it gives them hope 27. I think it’s awesome that we have options available so individuals may grow their own food to supplement their budgets. 28. Sustainable, reliable food sourcing in uncertain economic times. 29. Growing quality food and mingling with people who share a similar interest. 30. Providing food for my family while in a home rental. 31. I like the sunny exposure, the chance to see other gardens, and a place for the grandkids to love. 32. Being able to enjoy the outdoors and having a space to grow things because I live in an apartment and don’t have the space otherwise 33. The beauty of coming together and growing food excites me. I love chatting with people who enjoy growing food. 34. What I loved most about community gardening was the building of community spaces that were beautiful, that helped others, and provided spaces for getting to know and strengthening community 35. Growing food to share. 36. To learn to grow my own food and see the benefits of reaping what you sow. 37. People need the space; gardens build community. 38. I believe that good food is a human right. Everyone deserves access. I also believe firmly that the ability to grow local food is not only a way to help with rising food insecurity, to connect people to their food, but also to grow community. 39. I really wanted to grow my own "Safe Salads" food items! Also, a refreshing way to relax and talk with others who have gardens and get tips. 40. Benefit of community members having access to a garden plot to grow their own food/flowers/etc. 41. Grow my own food and save money. 42. I want a place to grow vegetables. 43. Sharing fresh garden produce with family and volunteer services. Beautifying Winona. Meeting new people. 44. Learning about how others use their produce. The fresh meals and flavors their able to serve from their garden. Sharing the bounty with others. 45. It’s an essential resource for a healthy community. 46. Vegetable gardening. I have limited room at my home and need to expand. 47. My wife and I love fresh vegetables and being 90 good to get out of the apartment. :) 48. Gardens are life. Everyone should have the opportunity to plant and nurture a garden. 49. My yard is small and my pets often destroy what I plant in the back yard, so I would like to have an alternative location to grow food! 50. i love gardening and do not have enough space in my yard. the vegetables that i grow are a lovely addition to our meals. 51. I am currently not a land/homeowner, so I have no good gardening options apart from a community garden. I enjoy growing plants and having the opportunity to participate in my favorite hobby (which produces a useful harvest) is important to me. 52. Growing good food for family consumption and flowers for enjoyment. Being part of and with others of the gardening community. 53. Allows me to spend time with grandchildren teaching about gardening and harvesting fresh vegetables to enjoy on sight or take home to enjoy later. 54. I love gardening & would love to garden in community with others. 55. I garden with my children, and use the space as a way to involve and educate them, and also grow food for our home. We do not have a lot of space at home to grow food. 56. I love to grow my own vegetables to cook with. 57. Brings community together in a positive way. Bringing health, wellness and great mental health for community members.  58. I believe the knowledge and community that comes with community gardening is more urgent now than ever, as our food systems are in peril due to climate change and international conflict. 59. I have limited space on my lot for gardening, I’d love to expand with a community plot. 60. Growing healthy organic food, meeting neighbors, getting my hands in the soil, watching things grow 61. I live in an apartment. I just moved to Winona and would really like a space to grow. 62. Creating resources (bonus) and a sense of community creates true bonds and a sense of contribution. 63. I have my own garden on our property but I feel that its important to have community gardens for those who dont have the space. 64. Having the space to grow vegetables for my family. 65. Have the chance to learn from others. I rent and can’t garden where I live, but want to grow my own veggies and herbs. 66. I believe that this is an important program for those who are not homeowners who wants to have access to a green space. This also allows those with modest means have the ability to grow their own foods. And this is a community unifier in so many ways. Please keep this program and consider expanding. 67. Provide space for those who don't have it to grow healthy foods and space for community. 68. The desire for affordable, fresh produce Commentary: Analysis of key words and topics show the following distribution: Topic # of Mentions Produce/vegetables 37 Community 28 Lack own garden space 23 Food Security 13 See what others grow/learn from others 9 Health (physical and mental) 8 Enjoyment 7 Sustainability 2 Spend time with children, grandkids 2 The survey shows the majority of respondents are interested in growing food, with about 1 in 5 seeing the gardens as helping with food security. There is also significant interest in the community aspect of the garden, with some also expressing an interest in learning about gardening. About a third of respondents lack space to garden at home, or feel it is important to provide space for those who don’t have an area to garden. Commentary: Roughly half of the respondents desire gardens to be a mile or less from their home. Few are interested in traveling over 5 miles. For scale, Main St. and Frontenac Boulevard would be about 1 mile from the current garden site. Five miles would give the ERC garden nearly full coverage of town. Please describe your IDEAL community garden in Winona: 1. Local garden options with ample space so everyone who wants space can have space. High quality soil with full sun. Seating area and occasional programming, such as sharing garden tips. On site shared tools and water access. 2. Supported by City of Winona leadership and stakeholders 3. Like the one at East Rec. Raised garden with tools, water, etc 4. A combination of a cooperative, educational food forest. 5. Multiple gardens throughout the city with at least one “mentor”/master gardener type. Raised beds are nice but not necessary. Gardens need to be convenient. Some people might prefer a garden  close to where they work or at least on the way. That way you are close to it most days. Good soil is necessary. Water access is big. An on-site compost is necessary. 6. Ideal garden would be a space to build community. Perhaps a food forest or cooperative perennial garden with space for community building (pavilion, picnic tables, etc.) 7. A garden bed in town not far from downtown where I can grow vegetables. 8. A garden that includes and offers spaces for children and inexperienced gardeners learning opportunities with the experienced gardeners. 9. East End Rec 10. any place that has in ground plots up to 20X40 feet that are fenced in. 11. Accessible in current location and expanding to other areas, different types, small, medium and large, cooperative. 12. A place with planned activities and times set to meet with other gardeners, a place that is quiet at times and also joyful and welcoming to all 13. A garden that provides space for all who desire to participate and offered at a reasonable cost. 14. The East End Rec gardens 15. all gardens are ideal 16. Range of options and activities, partly for education 17. I believe their should be multiple sites. People have different abilities and needs. People in town should not have to be on a waiting list. There should be small ones tucked into every neighborhood and larger ones for educational purposes as well as those that meet the needs of more experienced gardeners. 18. Provides both individual opportunity and educational opportunities that can bring community members together 19. A good first center where education takes place and community takes care of it. Rentable lots around that with ability to renew for perennials. Free compost and woodchips. (The city shouldn't be allowed to have you pay to deposit your leaves and get zero compost back. A community garden could fix this injustice.) 20. EER is ideal for my needs, plots are kinda small though. 21. An area that is welcoming and accessible to everyone, with both areas open to the public as well as plots rented individually. Fruit trees, bees, green space for children to play, and a welcoming atmosphere. 22. A nice place to meet new people and learn 23. A community garden substantial enough to support community interaction 24. Within a neighborhood that is supportive of it and committed to preserve it. 25. A garden within walking distance to my home that I can grow food for my family but also donate to others without paying rent. 26. Shared plants, give-away surplus, feel of community. 27. One that combines the rent a plots with the community building gardens (cooperative, educational, food forest)... a something for everyone to participate and enjoy garden 28. Basically what we have now. Everyone has their own plot but there is a community plot that we could all work together and get produce to share. 29. An open area near the center of town, accessible by bike, foot, public transportation. 30. A garden that is a center of community. That materials and location be accessible. Primarily volunteer led, but able to help feed so many who are left hungry in this city. I would also love to see community meals put together to be held at the garden, using food from it and perhaps inviting local farmers also? Share what you can but take what you need style. 31. Ideally, i like the gated garden at the East Rec. I like the set up and the shed with tool if I forget to bring mine. 32. Ideal garden would be a mix of the above- rent-a-plots and cooperative garden. Would also include educational garden space. 33. Free to all. Sharing table. 34. Large plots of land for multi-year lease with a water source. 35. The East End rec raised bed garden is my ideal garden. 36. A cooperative garden of fruit and vegetables. 37. Multiple sites with a variety of setups to accommodate all who are interested. 38. A mixed use, mixed age approach 39. The one we have 40. A place where I could grow a few plants and be in community with other gardeners 41. Communal, educational, accessible, colorful, event space, 42. the community garden that was over by Winona Health a few years ago seemed ideal-lovely setting, well managed, excellent soil (it had been amended), periodic events that encouraged interaction and sharing of ideas 43. East Rec community garden is near ideal for me. Water available, secure space open only to participants, tools available to use. 44. East End Rec community garden is near ideal. Raised beds with organic compost with water available and a fence to keep out deer and rabbits. 45. The gardens currently in place are great, just need a method to make them weedless 46. One at the East End Recreation Center 47. A safe space to garden and meet community, with crop and seed sharing, and educational opportunities. Also with the ability to compost food scraps.  48. I was a part of the Wabasha Comminity Garden which was located near the lake Winona and now the new YMCA. Community members were pretty much kicked out of that location, seems like this is an on going problem. A permanent location would be idea. 49. Accessible, safe, and friendly. Educational programming on food safety and preparation, non-conventional produce. Outdoor kitchen and gathering space. 50. Multi-purpose plots and space, perhaps with fruit trees. Education programs, how to use produce… 51. Cooperative and educational gardens, food forests are a wonderful goal but right now saving the ERC has to be top priority. It’s great as it is. 52. Something accessible for people of all abilities. 53. I think a large area (maybe 1/2-1 full acre) of land with raised beds with various types of plants such as fruits, veggies, flowers, herbs etc so all garden members are able to swap items and have them as wanted/needed. And for all members to be dilegent in there plot to help keep the area free of pests, weeds, etc. 54. A place easy to get to in town. 55. A food forest that promotes community engagement and cooperation, but also provides educational opportunities 56. A mix of rented plots and a cooperative garden space 57. My ideal community garden, would not be just one garden. It would be multiple gardens throughout the community accessible by foot and bus. It would be a space for community gathering, sharing, and learning. 58. One that is not located on hot pavement and doesn't require a key to get into Commentary: Coding of responses by keyword produces a more varied set of ideas than the earlier open ended question: Topic # of Mentions Available to all/accessible 17 Community space 14 See what others grow/learn from others 14 East Rec 13 Local 12 Mixed use 10 Produce/vegetables 7 Cooperative 7 Raised bed 4 Food Forest 4 Affordable 4 Water access 3 High quality soil 3 Supported 3 Food Security 2 Spend time with children, grandkids 2 Tools available 2 Compost 2 Key themes are having the garden available to all users and having the space serve a community function in addition to the physical garden plots. Respondents are interested in learning from their fellow gardeners, and having a variety of types of gardens at the site. A sizeable number of respondents (13) feel the East Rec Garden is ideal. Nearly a quarter of respondents felt having the garden be located nearby was important. Do you face any barriers to participating in a community garden (e.g. cost, transportation, availability, etc.)? If so, what resources and forms of support would help you participate? 1. No 2. NO 3. Cost 4. Raised garden, have arthritis in knees. 5. No barriers 6. None 7. I do not drive, only bike and walk. 8. none 9. None but it is important to me to remove barriers for others 10. Education 11. Need raised bed due to medical condition 12. Not at this time 13. they should be free by drawing 14. The biggest barriers I see involve information. When I got my plot at Stone Point many longtime residents had never heard of it. So of course if they don’t know about it they can’t help steer policy. 15. No foreseeable barriers 16. Cost shouldn't be prohibitive 17. No, but would not travel too far to garden 18. I don't currently experience any barriers to participate. 19. It being there and not took down 20. transportation 21. Our barrier is unexpected medical emergencies drawing us away from the garden 22. Sometimes supplies but otherwise not much. 23. As a lower income person, cost can be a barrier. I think that community gardens should be cost accessible for all sorts of incomes. For example, those who can donate, great, for others volunteering could count! 24. I personally, have no barriers 25. Chefs to prepare the seasonal produce and community participation. 26. N/A 27. Yes, mobility issues which require solid paths. 28. Location, location, location. Taking the East end rec area green space away is a big mistake 29. age-it's hard to get down on the ground. raised beds are becoming more important 30. Living on the opposite side of town makes it difficult to maintain my plot as well as I would like. 31. It is a little bit of a drive. It would be nice if there were community gardens in local city parks. 32. None at this time 33. No 34. Right now, the garden space I use is all the way across town, which is a substantial time investment. I plan on using the ERC garden next year. 35. I would need raised beds due to physical limitations. Solid, or semi- solid walks would be ideal. I do sometimes need a walker.  36. Physical limitations make it difficult to g puns level gardening. Raised beds make it possible for me to participate 37. Limited-time 38. It would be very helpful if tools were available. Also if there was bulk ordering of native, organic and heirloom seeds and plants each year Commentary: Generally, respondents did not feel they had barriers to participate, and the fact that only about half of the survey respondents answered this question also implies they are not experiencing barriers. The most common barriers are summarized below: Barriers # of Mentions None 14 Local/transportation 7 Physical - Raised beds 6 Cost 4 Time 3 Education 2 Supplies 2 Awareness of garden 1 Attachment #2 Parks Considered by Parks Comprehensive Plan, or under discussion: Site Name: Belmont Whitten Park Location on site: West half or Center Pros: Cons:  Large open area  Somewhat distant to population center  Little or no competing use  Water access?  Near industrial area. Site Name: Knopp Valley Park Location on site: South end Pros: Cons:  Large area  Fencing would break up openness of park  Ample road parking  Distant to city center  Electrical connection Site Name: Gilmore Valley Park I ‐ Country Drive Park Pros:  No formal park programming Cons:  Distant  Would utilize large fraction of the park Site Name: Gilmore Valley Park II Pros:  Little use Cons:  Distant  Possibly moderate shade  Water access? Site Name: Lot near Links Lane Pros:  No competing uses Cons:  Developable land, so interim use.  Distant to population center.  No Parking  Site Name: Miller Park Pros:  Open area  Near large apartment area – so areas without garden access Cons:  Distant  Parking limited Site Name: Sobieski Pros:  Near existing garden  Smaller yards in neighborhood, so more likely to meet need.  Water and electrical access from building.  Community interest and investment.  Comingling of activities Cons:  Smaller area  Moderate shade Site Name: Lions Park Pros:  Near old garden.  Lots of parking. Cons:  Shoehorned into site  Industrial area with plastic smell Site Name: Aquatic Center – southeast corner Pros:  Central  Water access  Nearby parking Cons:  Moderate shading  Congestion in summer Site Name: Central Park Location on site: SW corner or NE corner Pros: Cons:  No current use  Small area  Downtown location  Moderate shade Site Name: West Lake Park – Sioux St. Pros:  Little used.  Central  Parking available. Cons:  Swampy Site Name: West Lake Park ‐ Dacota Pros:  Little to no competing use  Parking  Central  Water access from drinking fountain. Cons:  Areas are swampy  Soils likely a mix of sand and muck. Site Name: East Lake Park – Lake Lodge Location on site: Lake Lodge and north Pros: Cons:  Water and electrical access  North areas may be too shaded and  Parking swampy.  Central  South area may interfere with picnickers, very sandy soil. Site Name: East Lake Park Location on site: Band Shell Pros: Cons:  Area not used regularly  Traffic on soccer game nights and band  Central nights.  Water access potentially from band shell  Possibly swampy. for western area Site Name: East Lake Park – Rose Garden Pros:  Parking to the south  Central  In cultivated area Cons:  May be perceived as too close to the rose garden. Site Name: East Lake Park – Hamilton/Sarnia Corner Pros:  No competing uses  Central  Excludes geese  Soil drainage.  Comingling of uses. Cons:  Softballs may end up in garden. Site Name: East Lake Park Location on site: Lake View Drive‐In area Pros: Cons:  Large area  Potential for stray Frisbee  Central location  Area may be used for dirt spoils storage.  Less active area of park Site Name: Levee Park Location on site: Pros: Cons:  Central  More trees than other parks  Likely electrical and water access  Some periods of heavy summer use Site Name: Sinclair Park Pros:  Central Cons:  More trees than other parks  Multiple other park uses Site Name: Windom Park Pros:  Central location  Likely electrical and water connections Cons:  Historic park, so use consideration and design requirements.  Limited area. Site Name: Valley Oaks Park – south end Pros:  No other competing uses. Cons:  Technically a storm pond  Distant  Limited parking Site Name: Upper Valley Oaks Pros:  Little to no competing use.  Water and electrical accessible via park building. Cons:  Distant  Abundant Deer Site Name: Airport Location on site: Main Dr. Pros: Cons:  No current use  Distant  Non‐ traditional airport use  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 5. Sustainability Plan Update PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: Sept. 8, 2022 The draft plan text as it stands currently is located in the online document accessible here: https://tinyurl.com/CEQCsustplan CEQC input on the document is welcomed. Thanks to those who have edited and left comments. The plan should be fully drafted by the Oct. meeting. In August, the committee reviewed the questions that would be posed to the general public. Two that the CEQC flagged are below. Proposed questions have the text from last month, modified are for CEQC review. Proposed question: Indicate your level of agreement with the statement, “The proposed sustainability goals are good for the Winona community.” (range from strongly disagree to strongly agree) Modified question: Indicate your level of agreement with the statement, “The proposed sustainability goals make sense for the Winona community” (range from strongly disagree to strongly agree) Proposed question: In your opinion, how ambitious is this plan? (range from not at all ambitious to very ambitious) Modified question: In your opinion, is this plan ambitious enough? • No, should be more ambitious • Yes, appropriately ambitious • Too ambitious • A mix - yes in some areas, no in others. Modified question: On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the plan?  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 6. Driftless Regional Read PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: Sept. 8, 2022 The library systems in Winona, La Crescent and La Crosse are holding a Driftless Regional Read focused on climate change. Events related to regional read begin the week of Sept. 5th and run through November. Details are available at this website: https://www.driftlessregionalread.com/