Loading...
08.27.18 PRAB Approved Minutes CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER,COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety,please go to the following link: www.boulderparks-rec.org Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Date of Meeting: August 27, 2018 Contact Information Preparing Summary: Sarah DeSouza, 303-413-7223 Board Members Present: Tom Klenow, Jennifer Kovarik, Mary Scott, Pamela Yugar, Raj Seymour and Val Yates Board Members Absent: None Staff Present: Yvette Bowden, Alison Rhodes, Jeff Haley, Tina Briggs, Mora Carrillo, Joy Master, Dennis Warrington, Keith Williams Guests Present: Val Matheson, Senior Urban Wildlife Coordinator;Heather Swanson, OSMP; Alli Fronza lia, newly appointed PRAB.member Type of Meeting: Advisoryf]Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Agenda Item 2: Future Board Items and Tours Bowden reviewed upcoming community touch opportunities. These events can be found at www.Bou lderParks-Rec.or Agenda Item 3: Public Participation Pete Webber, Boulder resident, Executive Director of Boulder Junior Cycling and former member of the PRAB, spoke in support of the proposed cyclocross guidelines to assist in creating a safe environment for all cyclists and park visitors. Deb McCabe, Boulder resident and member of Boulder Community Rowing, spoke in support of the upcoming improvements at the Boulder Reservoir including the improved ADA access onsite. She spoke in support of promoting a partnership at the Reservoir to improve short and long term rowing boat storage and community facilities need__s onsite. Agenda Item 4: Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes from July 23, 2018 Minutes from July 23, 2018 were approved as amended. B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update PRAB members made the following comments about this item: • Kudos to the department for the tot track at North Boulder Park facility. • Clarification about the flarbeck-Bergheim House open house/tour on August 28, 2018 • How soon will the virtual tour be posted on the project website? Agenda Item 5: Action Item No action items were presented this month. • Does the city contract with the facilitator for other city facilitation work? • What is an example of a first priority request for prairie dog relocation? • Commended the working group on all its hard work. • Why is this city taking on the development of this very in depth, careful plan for the benefit of developers? • Why shouldn't the developers have to pay for the costs instead of the city? • If we are serious about protecting the eco-systems, these populations have developed in natural way and they have other predators that depend on them, seems overwhelming to be taking on this amount of managing and relocating just to allow further development in Boulder. • Love the sensitivity of the plan, but not the idea of the plan (seconded by another PRAB member). • Do not support the recommendations of the plan. • Amazing job on the plan. • When you came up with this part of the process, has this thought been raised before(not supporting the recommendation due to the onus on the city as opposed to developers)? • Is there an option for some of the prairie dogs that need to be relocated to be used as natural food for other wildlife? • Are the conditions for requesting to remove prairie dogs the same as for the removal of other wildlife? • Was the Boulder County Health Department consulted during the development of these recommendations? • Recommendation: as we consider feasibility, involve the Boulder County Health Department • Is there an idea of how many prairie dog communities there will be and how this relates to the number of available prairie dog relocations sites? • Are we moving prairie dogs to sites that will have imminent development resulting in the need to move them again? • Has research already been done on pesticides and best practices regarding pesticides and environmental impacts? • Has the city studied the black footed ferret species to determine its projected population growth and how this will impact the prairie dog relocation policy? • How many times does a prairie dog have to be vaccinated/baited by Delta Dust? • Plan and recommendations seem expensive and intensive. • Packet and plan are thoughtful and deep. • Concerned about the challenges associated with implementing the plan. • Understand the inherent conflicts that led to the need for the plan. • Concern about plague and impact on humans. • Concern about the wide spread use of Delta Dust. • Concern about how close housing is to the prairie dog sites at Foothills Community Park. • Hear stories about prairie dogs getting trapped in window wells near this location. • Plague is very treatable in humans and mainly impacts the prairie dogs. • Fear of"plague". • Concern is more for the animals than for human impacts of plague. • The money spent on this one species or one issue could negatively impact the city's ability to address other issues with reduced funding or limited staff resources. • Prairie dogs serve an important role in the ecosystem. • There is a city of Boulder ordinance that protects prairie dogs. • No protection for prairie dogs at the state or federal level. • Are prairie dogs considered an endangered species? • Don't support the recommendations due to the amount of city work and resources involved. • Developers need to assume the costs. Or, if the site is problematic due to the presence of prairie dogs, then "so be it". • It should not be the city's responsibility to make the land developable for the builders. • Same should apply if a city department wants to develop a site that is inhabited by prairie dogs, site shouldn't be developed. • Not supportive of relocation of prairie dogs to sites that are likely to be developed in the future. • Support the current recommendations because they are very broad and thoughtful. • Direction is to develop a framework in which the city can operate more consistently. • This has served as an effective process to achieve the consistent framework. • Agree with the current approach and recommendation. • Costs, particularly to commercial developers, need to be borne by those commercial interests. • Middle class people are bearing the brunt at the expense of other city services. • The materials presented make it difficult to understand the ramifications to the Parks and Recreation department. • Is there additional information or clarification about how the recommendations would impact parks and recreation properties explicitly? • Is the department usually a"giver" or"taker"of prairie dogs? • flow do the issues present for the department and what are the ramifications of some of the specific program elements (Delta Dust on park properties)? • Parks and recreation projects might be moved lower in prairie dog relocation priority that could delay some capital projects and increase costs to budgeted capital projects. • Every property is different and what is on the properties varies. • The community continues to evolve. • Using lethal control as a measure to address lack of receiving sites is not an acceptable policy. It should only be used if it makes sense to support the species or ecosystem as a whole. Agenda Item 7: Matters from the Department A. Guidelines for Cyclocross in Urban Parks Due to missing attachment, this item will be addressed at the October meeting. Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Board A. Civic Area Bookend PRAB Liaison Bowden presented this item to the Board. PRAB members made the following comments about this item: • Valerie Yates, Raj Seymour (possibly) • More information will be sent out by Bowden prior to the September meeting B. Ecosystems, Climate Change and Community Well-Being—Joint Advisory Board Meeting Preparation From the perspective of your board and its advisory role,what are the 2-3 most significant ecological issues facing the community in the next 3-5 years? • Wildfire, loss of urban canopy and pollinator decline • Development and growth • Population and growth • Population and growth • Creek and water quality • Plastics • Wildfire • Access to water/water rights • Water infrastructure management plan • Expense of water(use of all the water in pools/irrigation) From the perspective of your board,what opportunities do you see to address these issues? Does your board think we will need to be able to address these issues? What resources do we need to implement these opportunities? • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) • Growth paying its own way • How can other departments support the implementation of UFSP • Urban canopy is top concern • There is a plan and support in implementing it is important • Development as an opportunity to accomplish things (growth paying its own way) • How can this group share resources or come up with a more integrated approach so the city doesn't have competing priorities • Identify important metrics so that everyone is using the same consistent data to discuss issues • Opinion polls by city needs to be more strategic: rather than asking whether the city should have trees should we be educating the community about the importance of trees? • There is scientific proof about the value of trees; regardless of the community's thoughts • Community is unique around expectation around engagement around issues • Is the tree issue one that the community should be gently"told"? C. PRAB Retreat Planning • Send Doodle poll for Monday, October 15`" and Fridays in October(3 pm and later). • Tour cemetery prior to the retreat? D. PRAB Community Engagement Update • Board members attended the following activities/meetings/tours: Leveraged social meda posts; mentored PRAB members; Harbeck House Tour. Adjourn: There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7: 36 p.m. Approved by: est zz-z2I, 6=24 �-- Tom Klenow tarDe:S;0 Board Chair Board Secretary Date e Date �" - .�; �.E•r. , l• F 7