Loading...
1 - Draft Minutes - Open Space - October 14, 2009 OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes October 14, 2009 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Pat Billig Bill Briggs Allyn Feinberg John Putnam Kay Tauscher STAFF PRESENT Steve Armstead Kacey French Ann Goodhart Julie Johnson Whit Johnson Joe Mantione Annie McFarland Dean Paschall Mike Patton Pam Prentice Jim Reeder Ronda Romero Eric Stone Chris Wanner Delani Wheeler CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1- Public Participation Mark McInyre, Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance, Boulder: Mark wanted to thank the department for the work on the Spring Brook monitoring study. He also thanked the bike patrol. Mark believes the bike patrol had a large influence on compliance with rules and regulations on this trail system. He added that the southern trail system is a good example of how shared use trails can work. These trails are a great asset to the community. Patrick Murphy, Boulder: Patrick believes that dog waste is out of control on the Sanitas trail. He asked that the department examine this trail. Mike Patton thanked Mr. Murphy and said that staff members need to hear about these issues. The department will look into Mr. Murphy's comments. Lori Fuller, FIDOS, Boulder: Lori talked about the monitoring study on the Spring Brook Loop. She said the Spring Brood study dealt with two distinct issues pertaining to dogs. The first is the failure of some dog guardians to have their dogs leashed on this leashed trail. FIDOS does support compliance with leash regulations in regions where they have been created by an open public process with opportunity for citizen input. However, she added that it does not appear many people with dogs use this trail. After monitoring, rangers observed only 87 total dog parties in 8 months which is less than 2.5 visits per week. It appears that the mere existence of a leash law has significantly reduced the dog traffic on this trail. If the most extreme dog restrictions are imposed on this trail, she feels the result of these restrictions will be minimal due to the low volume of dog traffic. The second issue is the failure of some dog guardians, who do have their dogs on leash, to prevent their dogs from going off trail more than 10 feet for more than 30 seconds. This restriction goes beyond anything that has ever been discussed. This concept of strict on trail regulation would be a drastic change in management strategy. She added that the public is supposed to be comforted that it is left up to the ranger's discretion to issue a ticket for this offence. In her opinion this is problematic policy. Rangers should enforce rules that are clear to the public rather than act like judge and jury to interoperate fuzzy restrictions which will lead to conflicts with trail users. Chris Morrison, BATCO, Boulder: Chris spoke with Steve Armstead about the Spring Brook compliance report. He takes issue with dogs not being able to go off trail. Chris believes it is unreasonable to ask dog owners to comply with the rules in this area. AGENDA ITEM 2 - Director's Updates Mike Patton introduced Steve Armstead who is the Visitor Master Plan Coordinator. Steve asked if there were any questions about the Spring Brook Loop On-Trail and Dog Regulation Compliance Monitoring Study. AGENDA ITEM 1A PAGE 1 Pat Billig asked what the definition for off trail was. Steve answered that if a dog and dog owner is off trail for a short period of time and it is clear that they were not intending to go off trail as their destination, that would be acceptable. The rules and regulations apply to the visitors who intend to go off trail as the majority of their visit to open space. Bill Briggs asked if the rules that applied when conducting the monitoring study would apply to visitors when issuing a citation. Steve answered that the guidelines used by the monitors are not the same as the rangers. If a ranger encounters a visitor who is off trail in a Habitat Conservation Area (HCA), the ranger will take into consideration what the visitor is doing and take it on a case by case basis. Bill Briggs asked, if a person is off trail and gets stopped by a ranger, are they violating a city ordinance? Steve responded that there is a regulation specifically for Spring Brook and there is ordnance for off trail use in HCA. Mike Patton added that the off trail regulations are part of city code. John Putnam asked if the department is going to look at dog compliance and regulations to see if any changes need to be made system wide. He added that there has been enough public comment and concern to warrant a look. Mike Patton responded that he had a meeting with Ed Mills and talked about looking at all the dog regulations. The department will be back to the board after conversations have been had with not only FIDOS but the cominunity at large. Mike Patton brought to the board's attention that our next board meeting falls on a city holiday and asked if they would like to reschedule for a different date. The board decided on November 4 at the regular time. The meeting will be held at the administrative offices for Open Space and Mountain Parks located on Cherryvale Road. Delani Wheeler reminded everyone who was planning on attending the countywide open space advisory commission meeting that it will be on Saturday at Boulder County Open Space's Longmont office. Delani will send out the particulars to the board via email. AGENDA ITEM 3 - Matters from the Board le None AGENDA ITEM 4 - Consideration of Boulder County Ballot Question 1A regarding extension of the expiration of its 0.23% county-wide sales and use tax from 2019-2034 and increasing its bonding authorization an additional $50,000,000 for the purchase of Open Space land. Delani Wheeler, Central Services Division Manager, gave a brief summary of the ballot question under consideration. She added that city council adopted a resolution on October 6 in support of the ballot issue. The department is asking that the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) ratify the action taken by city council. Delani asked if there were any questions. Pat Billig asked how the resolution will be communicated. Mike Patton answered that the department would convey the support of OSBT to the County. City Council already voiced their support. John Putnam asked if there would be a new partnership with the county if this does not pass. Mike Patton responded that the county has allocated most of its money to current acquisitions so a new partnership does not seem likely. Delani said that the staff recommendation is that the Open Space Board of Trustees consider this request and ratify the action taken by City Council on October 6`t' in support of County Ballot Issue IA. AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 2 Public Participation Jason Vogel, Boulder: Jason is a part of the Boulder County Parks and Open Space advisory committee. Boulder County Open Space passed a similar resolution in support of this ballot issue. He asked if the board decides to ratify this consideration would they please consider writing a letter to the local paper. Jason thinks a letter sharing the board's support would go a long way in the public eye. Return to Board MOTION John Putnam moved that the Open Spac Board of Tmstees ratify the action taken by the City Council on October 6 in support of county ballot issue lA and that the board will send a joint letter in support of this to the local papers. Allyn seconded and the motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM 5 - Convening of the West Trail Study Area Community Collaborative Group Planning Process. Joe Mantione, Environmental Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the West Trail Study Area (West TSA) Community Collaborative Group (CCG) process. John Putman asked who will be recording the minutes for the neighborhood meetings. Joe answered that the representatives will be responsible for distributing minutes and the department has provided the elected representatives for the neighborhoods with email address for the caucus members as well as all the contacts the department has for neighborhood homeowners associations. The department has offered to help find locations as well as attend meetings if need be. Allyn Feinberg commented that creating a public outreach process takes some experience. Allyn wanted to know if the department was going to provide some oversight or backup to this process to make sure it reaches the broadest possible participation in the neighborhoods. Joe Mantione responded that the short answer was yes the department will provide all the help that will be needed for the most positive outcome. Allyn also asked if how the board will be kept up to date on the process of the CCG. Joe answered that the board members' email addresses are part of the CCG email list. This will keep the board informed about upcoming meetings without being part of the CCG. John Putman asked if Joe had a recommendation on how the board should participate in some of the outreach groups. John wanted to know if the department would find it helpful to have the board participate or should they not. Dean Paschall, Cominunication and Public Process Manager, responded that the board members are also citizens of the City of Boulder and if they feel it appropriate, than they should feel free to attend the neighborhood meetings. Bill Briggs asked what the policy is for alternate representatives for the CCG. Joe responded that CCG representatives are responsible for attending as many meetings as possible. If they are not able to attend they are to ask the alternate to participate in their place as well as snake sure the alternate is well prepared. Bill also asked if the alternates that were selected at the caucus meeting in September were the official alternates. Joe answered that the alternates that were selected at the public meeting are the official alternates. The department gave each group the option to select its own alternates up to the number of members in that group. For instance, the recreation group could have up to five alternates and so forth for each group. Joe added that none of the groups chose to add more than one alternate to their group. Bill Briggs asked if the CCG comes to consensus on an issue will this be posted somewhere, and how is the progress going to be documented for everyone to follow? Joe answered that progress will be posted on the website. He added that the details are still being worked out; the department will inform the board and public as the process goes along. Bill asked if there are any points of intervention where the department can check in to see if this process is working. Dean Paschall answered that there will be continual monitoring of the process. Mike Patton added that the department will watch the process to make sure it has forward momentum. He said the department will make judgments on whether the process is getting the AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 3 department where it needs to go. Mike is hoping this format helps not only to have communication with the department but also encourages communication among members of the public. John Putnam asked where the points of intervention will be in the process. He doesn't want to see everyone get too far into the process just to find out it is not working. Mike Patton answered that there will be discussion at the first meeting to define where these check in points will be. Allyn Feinberg asked if there will be public participation at the CCG meetings. Will this be a standard for every meeting? Joe Mantione answered that there will be public participation at each meeting. Joe Mantione said that staff requests that the Board approve the following recommendations: • Move forward with CCG members elected at the September 15 caucus. • Require CCG neighborhood representatives to commit to and demonstrate success at implementing a strong communication and outreach program with their neighborhood constituents. • Provide opportunities throughout the process for the public to weigh in on how well the CCG members are representing the various communities of interest. • At the outset of the process, provide CCG members an opportunity to identify key success ingredients, barriers to success, and steps that can be taken to maximize successful outcomes. • Define requirements that structure the CCG decision making process. These requirements are intended to enable collaboration to occur in a fair and productive manner. Public Participation Cindy Carlisle, Carrie Blanding and Mary Eberle pooled their time. Cindy Carlisle, Boulder: Cindy has been a neighborhood activist since 1970. She was an elected City Council member from 1986-1990. On September 15 when she attended the West TSA CCG meeting the room was divided into three groups. The group she was in had two people who spoke up and wanted to be elected as a representative. They were asked to give a brief background on themselves. One of the candidates said he was someone who was interested in the recreation aspects, the other candidate said he was also interested in recreation and described himself as a trail runner. Cindy said that there were about 24 people in the group. When the candidates were asked what neighborhood issues they had been involved in they didn't have an answer. Cindy was concerned with the idea that they had never been involved in any neighborhood issues. When asked about mountainbike access one answered that this issue will be very problematic and the other said they wanted to increase access for mountainbikes. The vote was taken and it was 4-18. Cindy congratulated the Open Space and Mountain Parks department for educating people about neighborhood issues and she hopes the department takes it seriously. Art Schwadron, Boulder: Art has lived in Boulder for 20 years. He is very involved in his neighborhood and visits open space at least three times a week. Art was elected as a CCG member for the neighborhoods. He is hoping the CCG process will bring the community together. Edie Stevens, Boulder: Edie attended the neighborhood caucus in September. She was a part of the south Boulder group. Access seemed to be the biggest issue of concern. She has concerns that the group favors recreation. Edie is a member of her HOA and did not receive any notification of the meeting from them. Jane Monson, Boulder: Jane has lived in Boulder for 20 years and attended the caucus meeting in September. She was a part of the north Boulder group. There were two volunteers to represent the group. The discussion was geared towards access and recreation. Jane has concerns that neighborhood issues such as parking, litter and safety may not be given the same consideration as trail access by their CCG representative. AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 4 Beverly Gholson, Boulder: Beverly wanted to commend the department for reaching out so people can be heard. She is an elected representative of the conservation group. Beverly has a concern about the coalition of mountainbikers that held pre-meetings to deliberately underinine the fair process which the department had come up with. She believes that mountainbikers can be conservationists and recreationists but in this case they engaged in a concerted effort to stack the deck in their favor. Their actions may not have been against the rules, but they show a lack of integrity and respect for the others involved. This has created an environment of distrust before the process has even started. Scott Gordon, Boulder: Scott was elected as one of the neighborhood representatives for the south Boulder area. He is participating in this process to help produce a plan that the community and staff can be proud of. Ned Patton, Boulder: Ned has lived in Boulder for 13 years. He lives about five blocks from the trailhead and believes he will represent his group as an unbiased member of the CCG since he does not experience the neighborhood's issues of concern on a daily basis. Sophie Browning, Boulder: Sophie is a freshman at the New Vista High School. She is unable to be a part of the CCG since she is not yet 18. She has concerns with the representative for her neighborhood. Sophie believes that her neighborhood representative is concerned with access above all other issues. She would like to see a re-vote of all the neighborhood representatives, and would like it done in a fair and honest way. Mike Browning, Boulder: Mike has lived in Shanahan Ridge for 19 years. He attended the September meeting and witnessed the pre-meeting of the Mountainbike Alliance. The facilitator emphasized the point that the process would not work if a special interest group tried to pack caucus seats. Mike has concerns that the representatives that were voted in were not honest as to their affiliation with mountainbiking and is disappointed in how the meeting turned out. He doesn't believe the neighborhood will be fairly represented. Frances Hartogh, Boulder: Frances has lived in Shanahan Ridge for 25 years. She attended the meeting in September and wanted to commend the department and Todd Bryant for explaining the process in a clear and concise manner. The Boulder Mountainbike Alliance members didn't disclose their affiliations and as a result the neighborhood groups are widely represented by mountainbikers. As a long term resident and parent she knows a lot of her neighbors and none of them want the area open to mountainbikers. Since the neighborhood representative didn't represent himself honestly at the meeting, Frances has concerns that the neighborhood won't be fairly represented. Mary McQuiston, Boulder: Mary has lived on Eldorado Springs Drive for 35 years. She attended the caucus meeting and experienced the same things the earlier public speakers have commented on. The facilitator reminded the group twice that if they were with the mountainbike alliance, they should go to the recreation group. The conversation was monopolized by access issues. After the caucus meeting, an email was distributed by the elected representatives of the south Boulder neighborhood group. The email was to inforin residents of an upcoming meeting. The agenda of the meeting focused on access issues for special interest groups that currently don't have access. Neil Blank, Boulder: Neil is the president of the South Boulder Canyon Homeowners Association. His association was not aware of the meeting in September and consequently the Homeowners Association (HOA) was not represented at the meeting. There are many concerns of the residents in this HOA about wild fires and trespassing, among other property and land issues. Neil voiced his concern with his neighborhood group having a fair and honest representative that listens and represents all the issues not just special interest in access. Neil strongly recommends a reevaluation of the neighborhood representatives. AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 5 Susan Douglass, Boulder: Susan agrees with the comments of other members of the south Boulder neighborhood. She attended the September meeting, and feels duped into supporting the representative for her neighborhood. Direct questions were asked and not honestly answered. Susan would like to see the vote redone for her neighborhood representative. David Mapel, Boulder: David has lived in Boulder for 26 years. He attended the caucus meeting in September for the south neighborhoods. David believes the candidates were not completely truthful when asked about their affiliation to the mountainbike alliance. David thinks the process failed at the meeting and suggests a revote for the neighborhood representatives. Ken Foelske, Boulder: Ken is a board member of the Friends of Mt. Sanitas. He missed the September meeting due to attending the City Council meeting. He believes that communication is critical for this process to be successful. Ken read about the meeting in the newspaper, but never received anything in the mail. He would like property owners that abut open space be notified since any changes will affect them directly. Richard Reynolds, Boulder: Richard thinks the process has already been plagued with inconsistencies, imbalance, unintended consequences and Trogan horses. He also believes that the clear intent of the CCG has been broken. Richard's main concern is based around what the current community is leaving for future generations. Ruth Wright, Boulder: Ruth has lived in Boulder since the late 1950's. She has been involved with open space since the beginning. She is concerned with the long term implications of decisions being made now. Chester Dreiman, Boulder: Chester has lived in Boulder for 27 years. He shares the views of everyone who has spoken before him about the south neighborhoods. Chester believes that the elected representative does not have the best interests of the neighborhood in mind. He would like to see a revote for this neighborhood. Karen Hollweg, Boulder: Karen attended the September meeting and was voted in as one of the conservation representatives. She is concerned with the violation of the ground rules that happened at the caucus meeting. Karen believes the process was compromised and would like to see a revote of the neighborhood representatives. Raymond Bridge, Boulder: Raymond has lived in Boulder for 40 years. He attended the September caucus meeting and believes that the selection process was deliberately subverted. Raymond gave a brief history of the CCG process. He still believes in the process but some tough decisions need to be made moving forward. Jason Vogel, Boulder: Jason is the vice president for the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance. He believes that his group has a lot of interested members. Jason does not think what they did as a group hurt the process. He shared his thoughts on how members of the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance have a strong interest in open space. Jason offered to talk to anyone who has questions about the intentions of his group when they attended the September caucus meeting. Mark McIntyre, Boulder: Mark is a member of the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance as well as an elected CCG member. He believes that the caucus process as a whole was imperfect. Mark believes the department kept the rules to the meeting secret. He believes the real problem was a failure to recognize the diversity of the community interested in open space issues and the West TSA. He thinks it's time to get started and trust the process. AGENDA ITEM 1A PAGE 6 Andria Bilich, Boulder: Andria lives in south Boulder. She attended the caucus meeting and her experience was positive. She said it was a room filled with people who were excited and interested in the community. Andria said that people can care about more than one interest and this should be taken into account before any decisions on a revote are made. Julie McCabe, Boulder: Julie attended the caucus meeting and was part of the neighborhood conversation. She believes the meeting may have diverted from the rules, but it went the way the group wanted it to go. Julie believes the meeting was successful. Lori Fuller, Boulder: Lori attended the September caucus meeting. She doesn't see where there was a violation of the ground rules. Lori believes that access is a huge issue and many people who attended had that as their major concern. The selection of representatives was a direct result of the voter turn out and should be upheld. Pat Murphy, Boulder: Pat attended the caucus meeting. He thinks that the board should listen to both sides of the neighborhood issue and make an unbiased decision. Return to Board Mike Patton said that he did not agree with Mr. McIntyre's comment that the department kept the rules secret. The rules were put together through public meetings. Dean Paschall shared the different ways the department used to inform the community about the caucus meeting in September. John Putnam asked if Scott Gordon, elected representative for the neighborhood caucus, wanted to respond to some of the public comments that were shared about him. John asked Scott to explain his affiliations. Scott said he tried to represent himself fairly. He believes he is a well rounded representative. He has many different interests; not just mountainbiking. John Putnam asked Scott Gordon if he disclosed his affiliation with the mountainbike community. Scott said he did not recall, but also does not recall being specifically asked either. Bill Briggs asked Todd Bryan what he was going to do about the distrust that plagues the first CCG meeting. He also asked what the desired end result of the first meeting would be. Todd answered that the trust building process is going to take some time. He is just looking for willingness from all the CCG members to move forward. If there is a willingness to move forward, then there will be something to build off of. If there is not a willingness to move forward with the process, than there will be a possible stalemate situation that will have to be remedied. Pat Billig said that she does not think the rules were followed at the caucus meeting. She thinks that the public wants to know how this process is going to be successful. She added that the issue of mountainbiking in the West TSA needs to be addressed directly instead of masking it behind the different caucus groups. This would open up the neighborhoods to deal with neighborhood issues and not have the focus be on access issues. Kay Taucher said she has concerns with the neighborhoods feeling that they are not being fairly represented. She thinks that if we start this process with bad feelings, we are asking for trouble down the line. Kay is inclined to say that this was a democratic vote and the process should move forward. She added that the neighborhood representatives that were voted in will be held to their responsibility of representing all the interests of the neighborhood. There is still concern about the lack of trust and feelings of ill will that has been voiced. AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 7 Bill Brigg said that he had given his support to the CCG process in the beginning. He realized that if the process was going to work it would rely on the cooperation of the participants. After the September meeting he believes that there was a breach in faith and that the process was not carried out fairly. Some members may believe that they followed the rules, but the spirit of the rules was not followed. Bill left the caucus meeting feeling that the process did not work. Bill said that he is going to support the staff recommendations. He does not see any alternative. Bill still believes in the CCG representatives. He believes that they will commit themselves to this process. Bill said that with less than 100% confidence but with a fair amount of optimism he supports the staff recommendations. Allyn Feinberg agreed with what Bill Briggs said. She said that she was disappointed in how the neighborhood caucus process was done and she lost some faith in the process over all. Going forward she is extremely reluctant and not happy because there is a lot of work that will now have to go into safeguarding the neighborhood interests instead of allowing this to be a constructive process from the beginning. She will take it on faith that the process can be resurrected and that the CCG members can make this successful. Allyn thinks that the mountainbike issues need to dealt with separately and not put together with neighborhood issues. She said that unhappily she will agree with the staff reconunendations. John Putnam said that he also agrees with Bill Briggs and Allyn Feinberg. He thinks there was an attempt to stack the deck at the caucus meeting in regards to access for mountainbikes. John also agrees that mountainbike issues need to be addressed seperatly. He doesn't see a good alternative other than to move forward with the staff recommendations. John said that he believes that most participants approached the process in good faith and he does not want to see their efforts nullified. He still has faith in the CCG process despite the uncertainty the process is going through. John supports the staff recommendations and has faith that the process will be successful. Kay Taucher said if the board supports the process she feels good that issues have to come to consensus before moving forward. If the board decides not to move forward with the CCG process she believes that the department should go back to the way things have been done in the past. Overall Kay feels that there are safety nets in place if the process fails. Pat Billig said that if we go forward with the existing group, then mountainbike access will need to be handled separately because right now this issue is dominating the CCG process. Pat would like to see lists generated to clarify what the issues are that will be addressed throughout this process. There was discussion on possibly adding one more CCG member to represent the at-large population. It was decided that it would take a lot of effort to do this and the results may not be any different than what happened at the September caucus meeting. It was decided to leave the CCG as it is with the current elected representatives. Staff assured the board that there will be public input at the CCG meetings. The department will send out agendas for the meetings to ensure there is good communication with the public. MOTION Allyn moved that the Open Space Board of Tnistees approve the recommendations listed in the staff memo of October 14, 200 which are: • iWove forward with CCG members elected at the September 15 caucus. • Require CCG neighborhood representatives to commit to and demonstrate success at implementing a strong communication and outreach program with their neighborhood constituents. • Provide opportunities throughout the process for the public to weigh in on how well the CCG members are representing the various communities of interest. AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 8 • At the outset of the process, provide CCG members an opportunity to identify hey success ingredients, barriers to success, and steps that can be taken to maximize successful outcomes. • Define requirements that sti7icture the CCG decision making process. These requirements are intended to enable collaboration to occur in a fair and productive manner and attachmentA refers to that point. Bill Briggs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. These draft minutes were prepared by Pam Prentice AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 9