FW E-bikes OS 15 June CCFrom:Huntley, Sarah
To:Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria; Tate, Teresa; Burke, Dan; OSBT
Subject:FW: E-bikes OS 15 June CC
Date:Friday, July 7, 2023 9:59:29 AM
Forwarding email from a constituent. Not clear to me whether a response is necessary
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 12:27 AM
To: OSBT <OSBT@bouldercolorado.gov>; Burke, Dan <burked@bouldercolorado.gov>; Rivera-
Vandermyde, Nuria <rivera-vandermyden@bouldercolorado.gov>; Tate, Teresa
<tatet@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Pomerance, Stephen <stevepom335@comcast.net>; Peter Mayer
<peter.mayer@waterdm.com>
Subject: Re: E-bikes OS 15 June CC
Dave, Michelle, Jon, Dan, Nuria, Teresa-
Is anybody at the wheel?
Who is responsible for answering to the following question?:
Why was the packet for 9 Nov. 2022 OSBT missing OSO disposal required for e-bikes to be
allowed? Normal procedures of disposal were absent that packet. Why?
Also relevant are the factors of liability/safety, a bike fatality in the city earlier in the year, the
e-bike study that would not hold under scrutiny and the appropriate or legal width of multiuse
trails.
Lynn 303-447-3216 24/7
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 1:06 PM
To: Huntley, Sarah <Huntleys@bouldercolorado.gov>; OSBT <OSBT@bouldercolorado.gov>; Burke,
Dan <burked@bouldercolorado.gov>; Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <rivera-
vandermyden@bouldercolorado.gov>; Tate, Teresa <tatet@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Steve Pomerance <stevepom335@comcast.net>; Peter Mayer <peter.mayer@waterdm.com>
Subject: Re: E-bikes OS 15 June CC
Sarah, again you fabricated an answer to a question I did not ask. I don't believe you could
answer my actual question, but I invite you to answer it if you can!
Dave, Michelle, Dan, Nuria and Teresa-
I emphasize my request for an answer to 7-3-23 9:53 PM
And I add this one pertaining to what I said:
"Also relevant are the factors of liability/safety, a bike fatality in the city earlier in the year, the
e-bike study that would not hold under scrutiny and the appropriate or legal width of multiuse
trails."
Why were these not documented in the packet? Scroll down to 9:53 and answer all I asked.
Lynn 303-447-3216 24/7
From: Huntley, Sarah <Huntleys@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 10:38 AM
To: lynnsegal7 <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>; OSBT <OSBT@bouldercolorado.gov>; Burke, Dan
<BurkeD@bouldercolorado.gov>; Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <Rivera-
VandermydeN@bouldercolorado.gov>; Tate, Teresa <TateT@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: RE: E-bikes OS 15 June CC
Lynn,
The 11/9/22 meeting the item on e-bikes evaluation was an update from staff, not an item for public
hearing/recommendation to council. The public hearing for e-bikes was at the 12/14/22 meeting.
Here are the 12.14.22 Packet and 12.14.22 Minutes on the OSBT website.
Sarah
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 9:54 PM
To: OSBT <OSBT@bouldercolorado.gov>; Burke, Dan <burked@bouldercolorado.gov>; Rivera-
Vandermyde, Nuria <rivera-vandermyden@bouldercolorado.gov>; Tate, Teresa
<tatet@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: E-bikes OS 15 June CC
External Sender
Dave, Michelle, Jon, Dan, Nuria, Teresa-
Why was the packet for 9 Nov. OSBT missing OSO disposal required for e-bikes to be
allowed? Normal procedures of disposal were absent that packet. Why?
Also relevant are the factors of liability/safety, a bike fatality in the city earlier in the year, the
e-bike study that would not hold under scrutiny and the appropriate or legal width of multiuse
trails.
Lynn 303-447-3216 24/7