►
From YouTube: Boulder Open Space Board of Trustees Meeting 09-13-2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
C
My
name
is
Pat
billig
I
live
at
3390,
Longwood
Avenue
in
Boulder
and
I'm
here,
representing
the
Audubon
Society
Boulder
County,
Audubon
Society.
This
is
just
a
general
concern
that
we
have
that
I
would
say
just
to
keep
it
in
mind
for
the
next
year,
and
that
is
the
topic
being
disposal
of
open
space
lands
and
I
know.
C
When
I
was
on
the
board,
there
were
always
little
pushes
to
kind
of
quote:
unquote,
simplify
the
process,
but
it's
pretty
clear
in
the
Charter
the
process
that
needs
to
be
followed
for
any
disposal,
whether
it's
within
city
within
the
city
government
or
to
a
private
party
and
Audubon,
is
just
concerned
that
that
this
process
is
really
held
to,
because
it
there's
a
lot
of
pressure
against
it.
Sometimes.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
D
What
concerned
me
is
the
back
side
of
this
memo,
which
is
page
43
of
45
in
your
electronic
packet,
because
I'm,
a
firm
follower
and
advocate
of
the
public
participation,
working
group,
recommendations
and
report
that
was
recently
issued
and
when
I
look
at
this
sequence
of
steps,
I
say
to
myself.
According
to
the
public
participation
working
group
recommendations
after
staff
defines
refines
trail
alternatives
and
evaluation
criteria
at
the
beginning
of
this
sequence,
I
think
we
need
to
have
public
participation
and
I,
don't
see
it
there
on
the
map.
D
A
C
A
E
E
E
When
that
was
happening,
wildlife
was
incredibly
disturbed.
They
were
running
rampant
all
over
the
neighborhood,
especially
toilets.
Their
dens
were
disturbed.
The
machine
made
the
earth
moving
and
just
wreak
havoc
on
the
entire
neighborhood
I
lost
two
cats.
I
live
some
distance
and
over
on
spruce,
700
block
to
mountain
lion
and
another
to
a
coyote,
and
the
Coyotes
were
howling
in
the
neighborhoods.
So
you
have
to
take
that
into
account
with
any
sort
of
development
of
this
this
land
and
it's
a
crucial
piece
for
all
the
citizens
of
Boulder.
E
So
please
hold
a
public
hearing
on
it
in
October,
so
people
can
express
their
views
on
this.
Yes,
we
all
need,
especially
as
we
age
we
need
housing.
Some
of
us
will
be
able
to
age
in
place,
I'm
fortunate
that
way,
but
sound
won't,
but
this
will
not
be
for
the
average
person.
These
are
going
to
be
very
expensive
places,
just
like
the
Academy.
Yes,
you
have
to
have
a
lot
of
bucks
to
move
in
there.
E
A
Hey
thank
you.
Ellen,
Delamere
and
you're
pulling
what
she
loves.
F
Power
point
to
present
the
things
that
surround
the
end
plot,
and
this
is
the
thing
I
want
you
to
pay
attention
to,
but
before
we
do
that,
I've
been
working
on
the
sensor
data
that
we
got
from
Mount,
Senators
and
I've
done
an
awful
lot
of
work
with
it
and
with
detailed
plots
and
one
of
the
things
I've
got
I'm,
not
sure
whether
I
sent
this
to
you
I
sent
it
to
a
number
of
staff.
Members.
F
You've
got
lots
of
plots
in
by
months
and
so
on,
but
in
the
course
of
doing
this,
one
of
the
things
that
hit
home
is
that
we
really
need
to
know
what
the
rate
of
change
of
usage
is.
We
can
wait
until
next
year
and
we'll
have
a
few
data
points,
but
I
particularly
feel
it's
important
that
we
keep
monitoring
those
three
census.
Senators,
so
I've
been
working
with
staff
and
I
got
the
bureaucratic
answer.
F
Yesterday,
sorry,
they
are
sticking
to
their
current
agenda
and
they're
not
going
to
do
anything
so
I'm
appealing
to
recruit,
Tracy,
I
hope
to
turn
that
monitoring
on
and
allow
us
to
get
say
three
or
four
months
of
data
that
we
compare
between
this
year
and
last
year.
Remember
we
had
a
year's
worth
of
data
that
starts
in
first
June
to
the
end
of
May
and
the
counts
are
still
in
place
and
if
we
get
three
more
months,
we'll
take
a
little
bit
of
the
slope.
F
So
if
you
look
at
the
last
figure
that
I've
got
here,
I'm
showing
the
prediction,
if
you
the
red,
is
the
normal
exponential
growth
and
the
green,
the
linear
growth
and
remember
the
endpoint
is
erroneous
because
we
did
not
do
any
counting
on
the
southside
of
sunshine,
Canyon,
Red
Rocks,
the
Centennial
parking
lot
and
up
sunshine.
None
of
that
is
being
counted
at
all,
so
these
are
definitely
low
numbers
to
start
off
with
and
then
we've
got
this
rate
of
increase
well,
which
liner
is
it
going
to
be
on?
F
A
H
Group
we
set
out
to
serve
as
a
model
for
our
city,
values
which
were
collaboration,
innovation
and
respect,
and
we
wanted
to
build
trust
within
the
city's
implementation
of
our
existing
policies.
And
then
the
policies
themselves
and
a
real
charge,
like
the
deliverable,
was
to
provide
consensus
based
adaptive
management
recommendations
to
the
city
manager
and
in
doing
that,
the
city
of
Boulder
promised
and
we're
speaking
about
public
participation
promises.
H
But
we
promised
that
we
would
look
to
that
working
group
for
advice
and
for
innovation
and
their
thinking
and
that
we
would
incorporate
those
ideas
into
our
management
decisions
to
the
maximum
extent
possible.
And
in
doing
so
we
provided
an
information
packet
memorandum
to
City
Council
and
then
six
recommendations
to
the
city
manager
for
approval
in
June
of
this
year
and
in
those
recommendations
the
sixth
recommendation
was
to
form
a
sub
group
which
consisted
of
four
of
the
working
group.
Folks
and
five
of
our
staff.
H
And
in
doing
that,
we
met
on
August
29th,
keeping
in
mind.
Wells
they're
doing
relocations
during
all
this
time
as
well.
But
so
we
met
on
August
29th
to
start
fleshing
out
those
recommendations
and
we
were
very
successful
on
the
29th.
So
then
we
went
sorry.
I
went
too
fast.
So
then
we
took
those
recommendations
that
we
had
started
to
flush
out
and
we
took
them
to
the
whole
group
Monday
of
this
week.
H
H
However,
these
folks
decided
that
they
had
other
priorities
that
they
needed
to
address,
which
actually
worked
out
really
well
for
us,
because
we
only
got
through
two
and
a
half
of
our
recommendations,
and
so
our
next
steps
will
be
to
reconvene
and-
and
it's
that
far
out
because
of
people's
schedules-
and
we
have
some
very
important
voices
and
perspectives
that
we
want
to
make
sure
are
able
to
participate.
And
so
we
will
reconvene
at
the
end
of
October
flush
out
the
rest
of
those
recommendations.
H
And
then
we
will
provide
an
information
packet
memorandum
again
to
City
Council,
with
all
those
flush.
Now
we
can
also
come
back
here
and
prove
more
in-depth,
revealing
of
those,
because
I
think
they're
important
keeping
in
mind
that
those
phase
1
items
were
things
that
we
could
do,
practices
that
we
could
implement
under
existing
plans
and
policies.
So
it
was
our
phase
1
charge.
So
if
we
do
that-
and
we
provide
that
IP
and
get
approval
on
those
recommendations
sometime
in
November,
that
would
be
great
and
that
kind
of
wraps
up
our
phase
1.
H
You
know
I
think
if
I
could
speak
in
general
terms,
because
I'm
not
really
that
involved
with
the
relocation,
so
I
apologize,
that
I
can't
speak
directly
to
them.
But
I
think
because
of
the
work
that
we
did
in
the
working
group
earlier
in
the
year
and
being
really
transparent
and
talking
through
some
of
the
concerns
that
some
of
the
people
who
are
part
of
our
working
group
had
for
what
happened
last
year
at
the
Armory.
I
think
that
our
relocations
went
really
well,
because
we
were
simply
communicating
with
people
who
care
so.
G
J
Not
quite
up
the
fashion
now
how
it
is
to
everything
and
just
a
very
quick
update.
We,
we
know
that
we've
had
discussions
at
the
board
in
the
past
and
in
our
department
of
our
greater
presence
in
the
field
for
staff,
and
we
also
have
been
trying
to
set
goals
for
customer
service
professionalism
within
our
department,
as
well
as
looking
as
frankly
cost
efficiencies
in
regards
how
we
do
the
uniform
for
the
department.
J
So
we
started
a
pilot
and
the
pilot
is
in
the
community
engagement,
work
group
with
the
education
staff,
the
volunteers
and
the
outreach
staff,
and
what
you
can
see
from
the
photograph
here
is
approximately
20.
More
staff
on
top
of
the
20
Rangers
will
be
now
be
wearing
a
uniform
in
the
field,
and
this
pilot
will
last
for
12
months
and
we're
hoping
just
to
test
out
a
few
things
as
we
do
it
regarding
education,
programs,
etc.
J
The
various
presence
and
we'll
see
how
it
goes
we'll
keep
you
updated
as
the
pilot
moves
along,
but
I
just
wanted
to
say:
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
see
who's
in
the
middle
of
that
picture,
but
that's
our
city
manager,
Jayne
wearing
a
portion
of
the
uniform
now
correctly
in
policy
guidelines,
but
we'll
let
her
off.
This
is
actually
supported.
This
you'd
like
to
see
that
as
sort
of
a
citywide
thing
the
uniform
and
how
that
raises
customer
service.
J
A
I
Will
take
the
lead
on
this
and
since
I
will
not
be
here
next
month,
Tom
will
report
for
the
meeting
next
month
and
mark.
Do
we
have
that
overhead
Lee,
as
Lee
is
looking
forward?
Okay,
great
so
just
to
remind
Council,
has
established
a
subcommittee
to
work
on
the
public
processes
around
the
master
plan
development.
This
is
being
modeled
on
a
similar
subcommittee
that
council
established
for
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
update
and
the
subcommittee
serves
throughout
the
planning
process.
I
They
help
working
with
staff
to
frame
a
public
process
for
the
master
plan,
but
they
they
continue
serving
throughout
the
planning
process.
I
I
know
those
who
that
followed.
The
comp
plan
update
there
were
some
significant
mid-course
Corrections
that
the
subcommittee
that
was
advising
on
that
suggested
during
the
comp
plan
process
and
I
think
that's
a
third
very
good
purpose.
So
this
process
has
started
with
Tom
and
I,
representing
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
and
with
Aaron
Brocket
and
Mary
young,
representing
City
Council,
and
we've
just
had
our
second
meeting.
I
We
met
a
couple
weeks
ago
and
God
things
kicked
off
and
then
decided
that
our
monthly
meeting
would
actually
happen
at
lunch
time
on
the
day
of
our
monthly
board
meeting.
So
we
met
for
the
second
time
at
at
noon.
Today.
I
think
one
thing
I'll
say
before
I
get
into
the
agenda
here,
which
sort
of
sketches
the
things
that
we're
working
right
now
is
that
I
think
the
timing
of
this
was
very
beneficial
related
to
the
timing
of
the
public
participation
working
group
and
you've.
I
Probably
all
seen
this
graphic
and
the
report
from
the
public
participation
working
group
I
just
want
to
mention:
there's
a
conscious
effort
on
the
part
of
staff
and
the
subcommittee
to
incorporate
those
concepts
and
recommendations
from
the
group
into
the
public
process,
planning
that
we
are
just
starting
on
now,
so
I
think
that
will
be
evident
through
the
whole
process.
I
think
there's
two
processes
going
on
right
now
or
starting
right
now
that
are
just
worth
mentioning
and
first
there
has
been
a
website
established
by
staff
and
we
it's
too
bad.
I
We
don't
have
the
the
address
for
it,
but
if
you,
google,
open
space
master
plan
subcommittee,
you
will
quickly
get
to
the
website.
That
has
the
agendas
and
the
schedule
for
this
subcommittee
and
the
public
is
free
to
attend
the
meetings.
And
we
much
like
with
the
prairie
dog
working
group.
We
have
adopted
having
open
comment
from
the
public
at
the
beginning
of
each
meeting.
For
ten
minutes
and
I
know
some
of
the
folks
in
the
audience
have
attended.
I
So
there's
a
lot
more
information
than
we
will
go
over
today
on
that
website
and
that
will
continue
to
have
updates.
So
an
email
list
is
being
pulled
together
and
I
think
fairly
soon.
They'll
be
mailing
out
to
that
whole
group.
Just
reminding
that
there
is
this
website
and
here's
where
you
can
get
more
information
and
here's
where
the
meetings
are.
I
A
project
plan
is
being
developed
by
staff
and
with
input
from
the
this
group,
and
that
will,
in
fairly
short
order,
give
us
sort
of
the
roadmap
for
the
whole
master
plan
process
and
a
lot
of
the
public
participation
activities
that
go
with
it
and
then
the
first
things
that
the
public
will
see
and
is
mentioned
up
here
is
the
system,
overview
report
and
hopefully
well
the
target
date
up.
There
is
mid-november,
so,
although
that
may
get
pushed
back
a
little
bit,
this
hasn't
been
updated.
Has
it
mark.
I
So
we're
still
adjusting
schedule,
I
think
it's
gonna
be
a
bit
in
flux,
probably
for
another
meeting
or
two,
but
I
would
say
those
are
the
two
activities
that
are
most
underway
right
now
is
the
system
overview
report
and
the
sort
of
project
plan
and
the
public
involvement
process
for
the
master
plan,
both
of
those
will
get
briefings
to
City
Council
and
will
be
adopted
by
City
Council
before
they're,
finalized
and
out
to
the
public,
but
those
will
be
fairly
early
milestones
Tom.
You
want
to
add
anything
to
that.
Just.
B
A
couple
things
we
did:
no
decisions
were
made
in
the
first
two
meetings.
That
I
think
would
you
know
significantly
affect
our
understanding
of
the
substance
of
this.
We
all
recognize
that
the
first
step
and
the
nine
step
process
is
to
define
what
the
issue
is,
but
we're
not.
You
know
now
we're
just
sort
of
setting
up
the
process.
I,
don't
think
anybody
should
worry
that
some
decision
got
made.
That
would
define
the
scope
of
the
master
plan
test
itself.
B
The
second
is
on
the
email
that
is
using
existing
email
lists,
which
I
think
most
of
those
names
and
addresses
come
from
either
the
West
TSA
or
the
North
TSA.
So
if
folks,
who
are
listening,
if
you
were
participated
in
those
and
haven't
changed,
email
address,
you'll
be
included
in
that
that's
several
thousand
names
and
of
Justice
at
least
gets
us
off
to
a
start,
but
obviously
isn't
anywhere
close
to
the
the
full
community,
and
the
third
was
that
the
date
that
is
being
discussed
was
for
the
rollout
of
the
the
the
overview
report
itself.
B
B
You
know
the
main
components
of
the
report
so
that
we
will
have
a
chance
to
weigh
in
on
whether
there
are
things,
particularly
that
aren't
in
there
that
we
do
want
in
there,
because
that
takes
time
to
accomplish,
and
there
may
be
other
issues
that
arise,
but
I
think
there's
been
some
interest
on
the
board
to
get
our
hands
on,
at
least
in
a
macro
sense.
What's
going
to
be
in
this
sooner
rather
than
later
and
I
conveyed,
then
I
think
we're
on
on
track
to
do
that.
B
I
Thank
you
and
it's
worth
underlying,
underlining
that
the
Charter
to
this
committee
again
is
to
work
on
a
public
planning
process
to
recommend
to
staff
and
city
council,
and
that
does
not
involve
identifying
the
issues
that
have
to
be
addressed
in
the
master
plan.
Those
will
come
out
of
the
the
public
planning
process.
I
B
A
B
Go
ahead,
I
just
wanted
to
I.
Don't
this
will
precipitate
some
discussion
but
I,
like
probably
many
people,
went
up
on
Chautauqua
to
see
what
our
new
trail
was
like,
because
it's
obviously
been
a
subject
of
considerable
interest
and
for
those
who
don't
know
it
uses
a
technology
which
I,
don't
think,
is
completely
new
to
open
space.
But
it's
certainly.
This
will
be
by
far
the
most
public
trail
that
users
I
think
it's
called
stay
lock,
but
in
any
event,
the
important
point
is
that
the
technology
as
I
understand
it,
and
certainly
it's
obvious.
B
When
you
walk
on
it.
It
makes
the
surface
sort
of
harder
and
smoother
and
I
assume
helps
water
flow
off,
and
you
know,
as
one
would
expect
from
sort
of
hardening
a
trail,
makes
the
trail
a
lot
more
resistant
to
both
use,
as
well
as
weather
events.
The
to
my
mind
that
there
is
some
downside
in
that
it
feels
a
little
less
natural.
B
I'll
just
my
own
sense
is
that
it's
a
positive
trade-off
that
you
know
I
think
you
want
to
retain
as
much
of
a
natural
feel
as
you
possibly
can,
but
that
trail
given
the
amount
of
usage
it
gets
given
the
amount
of
water
that
flows
down
there,
you
got
to
do
something
beyond
just
going
back
to
the
same
old,
same
old
and
it
seemed
you
know.
My
impression
is
that
this
is
kind
of
a
sensible
step
to
hopefully
hard
and
then
make
that
train
a
lot.
B
The
trail
a
lot
more
sustainable
without
you
know
turning
it
into.
What's
basically
a
paved
sidewalk,
so
I
thought
it
made
sense
to
do
that
and
wanted
to
sort
of
convey
that,
but
I
thought
you
know
it's
a
not
a
trivial
step
for
us
to
take
in
the
direction
of
trails
that
you
know
frankly
feel
a
little
little
more
artificial
and
little
less
natural
than
what
people
have
been
accustomed
to
on
open
space.
I.
I
Understand
experience,
it's
a
remarkable
piece
of
work
and
I,
assume
and
I'll.
You
know
what
Jim
comment
on
it,
but
it
strikes
me
that
that's
the
alternative
to
having
that
trail
go
back
and
forth,
and
back
and
forth
and
back
and
forth,
and
this
little
it
was
probably
this
technology
that
allows
us
to
maintain
quite
a
steep
grade.
I
N
You're
absolutely
right,
Kirk.
No,
we
have
so
much
traffic
up
there
and
it
is
right
down
the
fall
line.
This
was
the
only
option
other
than
to
extend
that
trail
and
do
switchback
after
switchback
Drive,
and
we
didn't
feel
like
that-
was
the
appropriate
place
to
do
that
and
I
do
want
to.
Let
folks
know
that
that
we
don't
see
a
lot
of
other
applications
for
this
technology,
but
we
did
feel
that
this
is
really
the
only
fix
at
this
point.
For
this
one.
N
O
That's
the
way
I
came
to
talk
to
you
all,
but
yes,
so
the
cost
is
is
significantly
more.
We
were
the
grades
we
can
push
with.
The
stay
lock
is
up
to
20%,
which
is
substantial.
If
we
do
normal
surfacing,
it
depends
on
the
cross
slope.
You
guys
have
seen
Greg's
presentation
a
few
times,
but
we
try
and
stay
within
the
ten
percent
range
we
can
use.
What
else
is
used
in
the
meadow
called
stabilized
crushed
refine
and
that
can
push
us
up
to
fourteen
percent
on
a
really
good
day.
O
O
P
O
It
beads
up
it's
a
wax
component
that
makes
it
firm,
but
and
also
hydrophobic,
so
the
in
the
design
of
the
trail
is
really
intended
to
shed
water,
so
it
should,
in
theory,
shed
all
that
water
we've
accounted
for
several
different
dispersion
areas
for
that
water
to
go
across
the
trail,
and
then
it
should
be
much
more
amenable
to
foot
traffic,
and
that
was
part
of
that
was
a
major
part
of
the
original
trail
alignment
was
that
it
gets
so
greasy
in
the
winter.
It's
so
slippery
people
were
walking
on
the
vegetation.
O
You
know
we
had
trail
segments
that
were
60
to
80
feet
wide
in
some
places,
so
that
is
one
been
one
of
the
amazing
parts
of
that
project
is
that
we've
seen
on
trail
use
really
increase
in
the
meadow,
because
it's
very
obvious
where
you
go
and
it's
way
more
amenable
to
people
hiking
on
trail
at
least
the
summer.
That's
what
we've
seen
yeah.
D
A
One
little
thing
with
master
I
mean
my
matters
from
the
board:
I
just
wanted
to
say:
I
went
up
by
an
Flagstaff
for
the
brass
concert,
it
was
fantastic
and
there
were
13
musicians
and
one
of
them
taught
my
son
French
horn.
So
it
was
pretty
amazing
to
be
up
there
and
there
were
about
maybe
150
people,
but
you
know
just
overlooking
the
valley
again
here
in
the
music
and
you
know,
and
just
celebrating
the
50th
and
I
got
choked
off
quite
a
few
times.
K
A
K
I
was
reminded
of
something
that
I
a
my
colleagues
did
when
I
served
on
the
transportation
master,
sorry-sorry
transportation
advisory
board
and
when
we
went
through
our
master
planning
update
was
basically
we
wrote
a
couple
of
op
eds
and
the
daily
camera
was
rather
Amina
ball
to
to
publishing
those,
and
so
I
wanted
to
kind
of
bring
that
up.
As
an
idea
for
this
board
to
consider
as
we
embark
on
the
master
planning
process,
we
can,
you
know,
communicate
to
the
the
public
through
the
daily
camera.
M
K
I
called
the
chair
of
the
transportation
Advisory
Board
today
bill
Rigler,
who
I
got
to
surf
with
on
tab
as
well
and
wrote
an
op-ed
with
as
well
and
I.
You
know
got
his
input
on
like
how
are
you
guys
doing
this,
and
and
how
does
this
work?
How
do
you
do
that
as
a
board?
You
know,
because
you
don't
want
to
violate
open
meeting
laws
and
all
this
stuff
and
he
volunteered
to
come
and
give
a
presentation
to
our
board
on
how
the
how
tab
has
been
doing
outreach
and
communication
with
the
daily
camera.
K
So
if
that
would
be
of
interest
to
this
board,
he'd
be
happy
to
do
that.
He
is
the
city
council
candidate,
so
October
might
be
a
tough
meeting
time.
Maybe
November
would
be
better,
but
I
just
want
to
kind
of
throw
that
out
there
for
staff
and
Molly
to
consider
for
a
future
agenda
item
right
I
for
one
would
be
very
excited
to
learn
from
the
success
of
tad,
because
during
the
Folsom
right-sizing
thing
we
got
kind
of
hammered
by
the
daily
camera
and
the
the
relationship
seems
to
have
been
transformed
under
his
leadership.
O
Good
evening,
Sam
Kelly
Worcester
Bock
an
engineering
and
project
management
supervisor
open
space,
and
you
got
to
take
two
breaths
to
say
all
of
that
and
I
fortunately
went
piece
here
tonight
as
well:
he's
from
Boulder
County
transportation
in
partnership
with
us
to
do
this
project.
So
real
big
questions,
I'm
gonna
defer
to
him,
but
we
have
this
great
project
team,
the
county,
the
city,
Muller
engineering,
has
been
our
consultant
and
then
we
have
some
seed
funding
and
actually
their
role
has
gotten
much
more
substantial
in
the
process
in
a
very
helpful
way.
O
So
we've
been
grateful
for
they're
gonna
overlay,
the
canyon
sometime
next
year,
and
so
we've
been
able
to
model
together
and
do
a
lot
of
the
permitting
has
won
and
which
has
been
really
helpful.
So
terms
of
the
amendment
where
the
big
ask
is
for
an
extra
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
addition
to
the
money
we
have
already
contributed,
which
is
five
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars,
we
did
receive
a
match
from
seedot
of
four
point:
four
million
the
county
is
putting
in
the
same
amount
of
money.
O
So
it's
a
split
match
for
the
local
match.
We
got
cost
estimates
before
going
into
this
project
in
2011.
In
case
you
guys
didn't
know
it
rained
a
little
bit
a
couple
years
later,
and
the
cost
of
commodities
has
skyrocketed.
So
when
we
readjusted
our
cost
estimate,
we
were
we
were
way
over.
So
we've
looked
at
ways
to
redefine
our
scope
to
try
and
fit
within
our
budget.
We've
done.
O
Several
big-ticket
items
have
been
taken
out,
including
the
underpass
at
four
mile,
and
there
was
a
separate
pedestrian
bridge
to
go
from
119
to
the
Chapman
Drive
trailhead.
We've
eliminated
that
as
well,
so
we've
taken
out
roughly
one
and
a
half
million
dollars
in
reducing
that
scope
there.
So
those
were
some
big-ticket
items
that
seemed
pretty
amenable.
The
county
did
a
ton
of
work
to
try
and
find
a
better
path
where
we
could
keep
these
things
and
we
just
it
was
not
feasible.
O
The
canyons
tight
you're,
pretty
confined,
and
the
other
thing
that
we
did
in
the
amendment
was
better
define
maintenance
responsibilities
and
the
limits
of
the
project.
So
they
start
here.
They
end
here
very
clearly
defined.
We
didn't
know
where
we
were
gonna
start
and
then
when
we
first
went
into
the
IGA,
but
now
that
we've
flushed
out
a
better
design
where
we
understand
those
limits
much
better.
O
This
is
the
scope
of
the
project,
we're
starting
where
it
permanently
terminates
at
four
mile
and
going
up
to
the
Chapman
Drive
trailhead.
So
here
are
the
project.
Costs,
design
and
construction
is
roughly
seven
point
six
million.
Originally
the
four
point:
four
million
from
C
dot
we've
put
in
fifty
five.
The
county
has
put
in
fifty
five
I'm
sorry,
five
hundred
fifty
thousand
and
now
we're
asking
for
an
additional
three
hundred
thousand
from
each
entity.
G
P
Just
had
a
question
I'm
unclear
when
I
saw
this
proposed
before
the
four
mile
underpass
was
simply
not
put
in
due
to
cost,
and
then
you
just
said
it's
cuz.
The
canyon
is
narrow
and
I
just
want
to
know.
This
seems
like
a
key
thing
that
should
be
done
for
the
public
safety
at
some
point,
but
if
it's
too
narrow,
if
it's
like
not
physically
possible,
that's
different
from
like
we
gotta
spend
another
million
bucks.
L
Because
of
the
cost
and
really
the
whole
idea
of
the
original
of
doing
an
underpass
at
four
mile
was
obviously
one
to
get
people
in
the
four-mile
Canyon
safely,
but
also
to
facilitate
a
new
connection
to
the
pitar
so
preserve
which
the
county
has
been
supportive
of
in
our
open
space
management
plans.
It's
something
our
partner.
L
The
space
group
is
looking
at,
but
we
basically
at
this
point
we're
kind
of
focusing
on
what
the
CIE
diagram
is
allowing
us
to
do,
which
is
extend
the
canyon
trail
up
to
Chapman,
and
then
we
definitely
we've
heard
a
lot
of
input
from
the
community
and
I.
Think
it's
something
that
the
commissioners
as
well
they're
interested
in
pursuing
in
the
future
of
connection
potentially
to
the
Four
Mile
and
then
something
to
Picasso
as
well.
Okay,.
O
B
Had
several
questions
first,
I
gather
that
the
seedot
contribution
is
that's
essentially
fixed,
and
so,
as
the
cost
goes
up
and
down,
we,
we
pay
the
differential,
apparently.
L
Is
fixed,
we've
already
gone
to
see,
dot
and
they've
agreed
to
these
scope,
changes
and
you're,
pretty
very
much
right
where
the
city
and
the
county
is
equal
funding
partners
that
cut
them
on
the
hook
and
I
do
want
to
stress
if
an
estimate
here
at
a
podesta,
the
other
slide
as
well.
These
are
very
much
estimated
cost
right
now,
I'm,
pretty
confident
in
our
engineers.
Estimates
for
that
Muller
recently
designed
an
open,
Clear,
Creek,
Canyon,
Trail
and
Jeff
qey.
So
they
have
a
lot
of
experience.
L
These
types
of
projects
and
they've
been
really
good
to
work
with
and
we're
looking
at
ways
we
can
partner
with
seedot
on
their
project,
to
hopefully
save
a
little
bit
of
money
here
and
there,
but
but
you're
right
we're
pretty
much
we're
responsible
for
everything
else
as
part
of
our
local
match
or
local
overmatch.
In
this
case
of
the
grant
is.
L
Tell
the
people
that
bid
on
it,
so
we
know
so
we
have
an
engineer's
estimate
and
that's
vaguely
what
it
is.
You
know
probably
change
when
we
do
our
final
plans,
we're
going
to
put
this
out
to
bed
most
likely
we're
working,
hopefully
have
see
dot
actually
construct
the
trail
as
part
of
their
overlay
and
flood
recovery
project
on
the
canyon,
and
so
the
schedule
is
a
little
bit
up
in
the
air
right
now,
because
we're
both
working
on
some
FEMA
permitting,
which
is
taking
a
little
bit
longer
right
now.
L
B
Wanted
to
understand
a
little
bit
more.
What
happened
because
and
this
isn't
in
any
sense
finding
fault
or
anything
like
that,
but
it
struck
me
that,
and
maybe
it's
my
misunderstanding
of
the
numbers,
which
will
be
the
purpose
of
my
questions,
but
that
something
really
dramatic
happened
to
the
cost
of
this
beyond
those
numbers.
As
I
understood
this,
the
original
estimate
was
5.5
million
to
get
to
the
'but
a
so
linked
trail.
And
now
it's
6.1
million
just
to
get
to
Chapman
I
think
is
less
than
half
of
I
realized.
B
There
was
an
underpass
enough
to
deal
with
it,
but
it's
less
than
half
of
the
original
distance.
Yeah,
like
the
length
of
this
project,
got
cut
by
more
than
50%
cuz.
It's
only
half
a
mile
from
where
four
mile
you
know
we're
the
end
of
the
current
end,
the
Boulder
Creek
path,
the
Chapman's,
only
half
a
mile
on
the
road.
B
The
length
of
this
got
cut
by
at
least
half,
but
the
cost
went
up
by
another
20%
or
so
correct.
It
seemed
like
that
was
an
enormous
tan.
It
was
a
flood,
but
that
seemed
like
an
extraordinary
skyrocketing
of
costs
and
who's
curious
sort
of
what
you
know.
I
can't
just
be
that
there's
Mormon,
you
know,
cost
more
to
buy
materials.
That's.
L
That's
changed
the
design
a
little
bit
four
mile
that
underpass
actually
wasn't
originally
included
in
the
the
scope
of
the
feasibility
study.
So
that
is
why
we
came
in
at
that.
7.6
number
originally
was
much
higher
and
when
we're
joking
I
mean
in
2008
right
after
the
County
passed
original
trail
sales
tax,
we
were
getting
projects
coming
in
at
bid
about
forty
to
fifty
percent
under
our
engineers
cost
Testaments.
That
is
not.
That
is
changed
substantially
and
colors,
really
not
joking.
L
We
have
to
put
a
lot
of
traffic
control
out
there
I'm
pretty
much
a
regular
basis,
rather
than
putting
it
up
taking
it
down
every
day.
So
I
will
say
it
shocked
us
a
little
bit
too
when
we
first
got
the
initial
cost
estimate
when
we
have
30
percent
design,
but
it
is
consistent
with
other
projects
that
we've
seen
both
trail
and
Road
lately
that
design
costs
and
construction
costs
just
continue
to
rise
as
the
economy
improves
and
people
are
busier,
and
so
we
have
to
they're
bidding
higher
simply
because
they're
busy
so.
O
Emiram
at
the
city
seeing
something
similar
we,
our
purchasing
department,
recently
said
that
we're
seeing
bids
come
in
at
least
20
percent
over
engineer's
estimated
costs.
It
was
a
perfect
storm
of
the
flood,
an
increase
in
commodities
costs
and
an
increase
in
the
in
the
economy,
and
so
we've
now
seen
this
huge
surge
and
it's
it's
been
substantial
on
several
other
projects
as
well.
Okay,.
N
K
I
have
a
few
yeah,
so
this
was
not
a
planning
process.
I
was
you
know,
following
closely
since
I'm
new
to
the
board,
so
I
had
a
couple
of
building
off
of
Kevin's
question
about
the
four
mile
underpass.
Is
the
current
design
compatible
with
adding
an
an
underpass
later
or
is
it
just
gonna
be
off
the
table
forever
because
it
just
an
alignment,
will
never
was.
L
Convenient
that
the
two
things
we've
had
to
reduce
we
removed
from
the
scope
are
at
the
very
beginning
and
very
end
project.
So
we
it's
fairly
easy
to
ration,
say
easy.
It's
feasible
to
come
back
and
add
the
meta
future
point.
Okay
and
the
designs
are
looking
at
a
conceptual
level
for
the
underpass,
we're
really
dependent
on
the
I
extension
they
more
connected
into
the
existing
trail.
That's
out
there,
okay.
L
That's
actually
so
there
used
to
be
an
old
red
bridge
that
went
over
to
the
Chapman
trailhead
in
the
old
redline
property,
and
we
just
have
enough
to
hit
at
our
aerial
photography.
Okay,
at
the
time
that
map
was
made,
got
it.
So
here's
a
new
there's,
a
much
there's
a
much
wider
and
there's
a
much
wider
bridge.
Now,
that's
built
basically
right
next
to
it
that's
hundred
year.
Flood
plain:
is
there
meant
to
look
like
that's
what
wide
bridge?
Yes
for
the
connection,
the
chat
I'm.
L
K
O
K
1010
C
county
transportation
shall
be
responsible
for
general
maintenance
and
capital
repairs
on
the
trail
extension
maintenance
practices
will
follow,
Boulder
County
parks
and
open
space,
maintenance
policies
and
practices
and
leading
up
to
that
is
a
section
of
the
of
the
Boulder
Creek
Trail
that
is
maintained
as
by
open
space
or
by
transfer.
So.
L
Everything
basically
and
the
maintenance
difference
in
the
canyon
are
a
little
fuzzy.
We're
trying
to
clarify
okay,
so
basically,
where
the
paved
section
ends
right
now
and
it
goes
under
the
underpass
wait,
long,
canyon,
yeah,
that's
the
cutoff
between
City
and
County
maintenance
and
so
okay.
Honey
maintains
all
that
crush
you're,
fine,
well,
you're
free
to
drive
before
you
hit
Chapman.
There's
that
small
section
that
will
go
on
open
space
property
right
is
a
soft
surface
trail
and
rather
than
have
a
small
section,
we
don't-
and
it
should
say
this-
the
soft
surface.
L
We
don't
plow
it
in
a
winter.
We
do
a
little
bit
of
mowing
and
sweeping
or
mowing
at
least
in
this
case,
rather
than
have
to
have
an
open
space
crew
go
out
there,
we
just
figured.
It
would
be
easy
enough
to
add
that
that
portion
of
maintenance
to
the
county
and
then
okay
I
assured
the
bike
ped
bridge
we
built
at
Chapman,
Vincent's
city
crews
will
be
out
there
for
the
trailhead.
They
would
be
able
to
maintain
that
bridge.
Okay,
those
are
thinking.
Okay,.
K
Q
K
A
Said
have
you
left?
We
talked
about
quite
a
few
things
that
I
had
down.
I
just
had
some
general
concerns
about
how
we
were
gonna,
minimize,
the
disturbance
to
the
HCA
on
the
Chapman
side,
and
then
the
you
know,
the
materials
being
so
close
to
the
creek.
That's
a
concern
for
me.
How
that
you
know
doesn't
get
dumped
into
the
creek
and
is
removed
properly
and
then
I'll
start
with
this
great
finished
with
a
few
more
so.
O
There
won't
be
any
work
done
on
the
Chapman
side.
It
just
terminates
at
the
bridge
going
into
the
Chapman
Drive
trailhead,
so
there
will
be
no
work
done
on
the
HCA
of
the
Chapman
area.
O
We
have
had
discussions
at
length
about
ecological
conservation
and
in
this
process,
and
the
county
has
been
really
amenable
to
hearing
our
concerns,
and
so
we've
SPECT
a
lot
of
what
you've
said
in
into
our
specifications.
Particularly,
we
found
some
metal
Spurs
when
we
did
the
Chapman
Drive
trail
project.
So
we've
incorporated
the
state
required
or
state
suggested
mitigation
tactics
for
that
and
then
have
Buller
County
uses
their
open
spaces
standard
specifications
as
their
general
standard
specifications
for
anything
ecologically
based,
and
so
it's
it's
very
much
in
line
with
our
standard
specifications
as
well.
L
In
there
wasn't
that
much
change
as
my
understandings,
the
state,
the
county
are
currently
remodeling
the
floodplain
in
Boulder
Canyon,
and
we
have
submitted
a
letter
map
revision
to
FEMA
as
part
of
this
project.
Just
because
there's
a
small
portion
I
will
be
near
that
ten
year,
flood
plain,
and
so
we
did
a
lot
of
modeling.
We've
submitted
everything
through
the
state
since
we're
partnering
on
that
project
and
they've
kind
of
incorporated
there.
The
latest
modeling
that
we
have
for
the
canyon
in
our
application,
the
fema
and.
L
O
O
It
came
to
our
attention
that
there
was
only
really
a
couple
places
to
park
your
equestrian
vehicle
on
the
Western
Corridor,
so
we're
going
to
add
that
it's
in
the
floodplain,
so
it
we're
waiting
for
the
county
to
do
all
the
modeling
and
then
we're
gonna
just
mooch
off
of
that,
but
as
far
as
usin
access
on
the
trail,
the
standards
are
the
same
as
they
are
for
other
multi-use
trails.
Some,
the
one
underpass.
L
O
A
I
guess
there
was
discussion
about
you
know
you
can
spook
a
horse
quite
a
bit
taking
a
minute
low
overhead,
especially
that
the
noise
is
too
red
going
over.
So
that
was
I
just
wondered
if
we
had
evolved
past
that
to
any
better
design
decisions
uh-huh,
there
aren't
quite
a
few
a
questions
believe
there.
No
I
then
run
that
Boulder
Creek
Trail,
it's
surprising.
O
L
O
A
P
P
A
A
N
B
R
All
right
good
evening,
everyone
I'm
Bethany
Collins
with
open
space
property
agent,
and
we
also
have
Lindsey
MERS
with
transportation
staff
here.
Should
you
guys
have
any
questions?
This
is
at
the
action
item.
Tonight's
agenda
item
is
in
front
of
you
for
action
from
a
staff
update.
You
had
gotten
in
April,
related
to
the
confluence
area,
multi-use
trail
project
and
just
as
a
reminder,
I
can
get
this.
R
The
22
acre
pearls
pearl
Parkway
extension
would
come
to
open
space
for
management
for
because
of
its
quality
habitat,
because
it
would
again
not
bisect
open
space
properties
any
longer,
and
so
we
can
continue
some
of
the
riparian
and
restoration
efforts
in
this
area.
As
part
of
that
agreement
in
planning
efforts,
they
also
wanted
to
implement
some
of
these
multi-use
path
connections
and
have
collaborated
with
us
on
the
best
way
to
do
that
through
open
space
without
utilizing
that
right-of-way,
without
obviously
going
straight
through
open
space
properties.
R
We
have
discussed
this
idea
of
obviously
just
keeping
it
to
the
outer
edges
of
the
open
space
properties,
as
well
as
just
connecting
some
of
the
already
existing
trails
in
the
area
that
you
see
in
yellow
on
this
map,
so
that
the
acquisition
transfers
and
disposals
were
talking
about
are
on
the
screen.
Open
space
would
be
acquiring
what's.
In
gray,
the
pearl
Parkway
extension,
approximately
22
acres
transportation,
which
is
the
city
Transportation
Department,
would
be
getting
basically
everything.
That's
in
crosshatch
shred
that
is
not
located
along
61st
Street.
R
Those
crosshatch
would
be
a
10
foot
wide
paved
path
paved
path.
It's
called
a
transfer
rather
than
a
disposal,
because
it
is
a
transfer
to
another
city
department.
It
is
not
a
disposal
to
an
outside
agency
or
a
private
partner.
It
is
a
also
called
a
transfer
because
there
is
no
deed
involved.
It
is
a
transfer
of
management
and
basically,
the
land
type
interests
in
that
property.
This
transfer
is
also
proposed
because
these
extensions,
these
connections
will
likely
allow
e-bikes
on
them.
R
You
guys
have
previously
gone
through
the
process
of
approving,
and
council
now
has
approved
an
ordinance
that,
in
order
for
ebikes
to
be
allowed,
it
cannot
be
open
space.
It
cannot
be
called
open
space,
so
we
have
to
do
these
transfers
pursuant
to
section
177
of
the
Charter
in
order
to
allow
these
transfers
to
take
place
and
allow
ebikes
so
we're
turning
it
from
open
space
to
transportation.
R
The
area
along
61st
Street
will
be,
is
a
disposal
to
Boulder
County
in
order
to
allow
future
road
widening,
which
it
would
accommodate
the
right
of
what
the
the
trail
that
will
go
along
61st
Street,
as
well
as
bridge
replacement
over
over
Boulder
Creek,
so
I
know
there
was
some
confusion
in
in
the
memo
and
I
want
to
remind
you
guys
of
what
you
what
the
role
is
of
board.
So
there
is
a
recommendation
role
in
section
175
of
the
Charter,
for
you
guys
to
approve
the
acquisition
of
that
22
acre
pearl
Parkway.
R
R
You
must
also
recommend
that
City
Council
approves
the
transfer
and
disposals
under
that
same
section,
175
of
their
Charter.
So
that's
why
the
motion
that'll
be
in
front
of
you
for
tonight
is
rather
lengthy,
because
it
involves
both
approval
by
you,
as
well
as
a
recommendation
that
the
City
Council
approved
several
elements
of
this.
A
I'd
like
to
make
a
few
comments.
First,
one
is
I,
think
it's
confusing
for
the
public,
the
citizens
to
understand
the
difference
between
transfer
and
disposal.
So,
while
we're
on
camera,
I'd
like
to
take
a
minute
to
explain
that
the
transfer
process
avoids
the
public
input
and
disposal
involves
the
public
input,
so
one
of
my
concerns
right
off
the
bat
is
that
the
language
that's
used.
A
So
much
in
this
proposal
has
so
many
words
transfer
when
in
the
past,
what
we've
asked
is
not
to
have
that
as
a
part
of
the
language
I
realize
that
the
end
result
is
to
use
177
as
the
shorter
the
vehicle
for
that
respect.
I
want
the
public
to
understand
that
there's
a
big
difference
between
these
two
words
and
then
I'd
also
like
to
say
to
the
trustees
that
I
feel
very
strongly
that
what
we're
doing
is
we
need
to
take
it
very
seriously.
B
R
A
10
foot
wide
section
where,
where
the
lines
appear
to
be
trails
along
61st
Street,
it
will
be
40
about
45
feet
or
no.
An
additional
excuse
me
an
additional
20
feet
on
each
side
of
the
road
in
most
places
near
the
bridge.
They
will
likely
meet,
need
a
little
bit
more,
and
so
that's
why,
right
now,
the
the
acreage
is
given
in
the
memo
are
approximate
that
will
the
disposals
will
only
and
transfer.
B
B
Could
you
just
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
you,
know,
I
understand
it's
not
very
wide
and
it's
not
it's
not
an
enormous
amount
of
acreage,
but
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
just
sort
of
what
are
the
qualities
of
the
land
that
we're
proposing
to
dispose
of
and
I'm
sure
I
have
a
good
feel
for
I
mean
some
of
its
officers
along
the
side
of
the
road,
but
I'm
less
familiar
with
the
the
northern
edge
of
straight
eek
line.
That's
right
and.
R
That
will
be
right
along
the
fence
line,
so
you
know
that's
as
agricultural.
It
is
that
is
currently
an
agricultural
field
and
I,
don't
believe,
I
believe
it's
dry.
Land,
agriculture,
as
well
as
the
Eastside,
the
cholera
open
lands,
parcel,
is,
is
dry
land
and
it
actually
isn't
irrigable
right
now
they
can't
get
water
to
it,
cuz
of
impotent
because
of
the
topography.
R
So
these
are
open
native
vegetation
that
obviously
get
a
little
bit
more
sparse
and
impacted
as
you
reach
the
fence
lines,
and
so
it
was,
you
know
in
walking
these
properties
and
in
working
with
transportation
and
open
space
planning
staff,
while
they
could
transportation
really
could
again
kind
of
follow
their
right-of-way
and
implement
the
trail
that
way
or
the
current
right-of-way.
We
said
you
know,
let's,
this
is
the
better
route,
both
to
avoid
kind
of
some
wetland
and
the
best
crossing
of
I.
R
M
M
Q
Jim
crane
8380
snaffle
bit
quart
Littleton.
There
was
the
open
space
director
between
1979
and
2002,
so
I've
maintained
an
interest
in
what
you're
doing
and
I
think
you're
doing
a
fabulous
job
interviewing.
The
memo
that
you
have
before
you
I
have
some
concerns
and
they
deal
with
the
last
two
paragraphs
on
page
four
and
so
I
just
want
to
raise
those
concerns
with
you
and
the
first
sentence
of
that
paragraph.
First,
paragraph
talks
about
existing
paved
trails
that
we
would
be
better
managed
by
the
Transportation
Department.
Q
That
is
a
statement
that
was
just
thrown
out
there
without
any
backup
without
any
discussion,
and
the
implication
is
open.
Space
property
would
then
be
transferred
to
the
Transportation
Department
because
it
be
maintained
better.
So
what
are
the
circumstances?
Why
would
be
maintained
better
or
the
current
costs,
and
what
of
the
current?
What
are
the
current
problems
with
your
maintenance
of
those
properties?
So
I
think
that,
in
talking
about
transferring
a
chunk
of
open
space
to
another
department,
but
you
should
have
a
study
session.
What
is
the
value
of
the
land
that
is
being
transferred?
Q
What
are
you
gaining
and
what
I'm
concerned
about
is
that
if
this
becomes
your
policy
anytime,
you
develop
an
open
space
trail,
whether
it's
for
handicapped
access
or
because
the
trail
is
getting
a
lot
of
use
from
your
customers
that
you
then
create
roads
throughout
open
space
and
the
whole
purpose
of
the
open
space
program
was
to
congregate,
bring
together
open
space
lands
and
have
them
contiguous
without
those
kinds
of
things
coming
in
between
them.
So
I
think
that's
something
that
you
should
consider
and
I
would
recommend
that
you
have
a
study
session.
Q
The
second
is,
in
the
second
paragraph,
support
likes,
having
transfer
the
22
acres
in
the
form
and
basically
wind
up
with
seventeen
and
a
half
acres
and
my
concern
there
again
is
process
and
policy,
what's
the
actual
value
of
what
you're
giving
up
now.
In
this
case,
it
looks
like
a
pretty
good
deal,
but
you
should
have
an
appraisal
of
what
you're
giving
up.
What
is
the
cost?
What
is
the
value?
Not
that's.
Q
What
is
the
value
of
what
you're
getting
giving
up
and
then
what's
the
value
of
what
you're
getting,
and
that
should
be
an
independent
appraisal,
because
you
don't
know
what
you're
giving
away
you
may
be:
giving
away
residential
property
for
agricultural
property
in
five
acres.
422
sounds
pretty
good,
but
that's
not
the
way
that
I
think
that
you
should
be
doing
that.
I.
Think
that
you
haven't.
Q
You
should
have
a
disposal
process
for
any
piece
of
open
space
that
you
despite
decide
to
dispose
or
transfer,
because
in
my
opinion,
disposal
and
transfer
it's
the
same
thing.
You
lose
that
open
space
forever.
It's
not
yours,
its,
not
the
public's
anymore
and
I've
suggest,
and
this
is
just
off
the
top
of
my
head
and
it
really
required.
Would
really
you
know
that
you
should
put
more
thought
into
it.
So
why
why?
Q
Why
is
the?
Why
is
the
property
became
the
way?
What
is
the
current
use
of
that
property?
What
was
the
original
cost
to
acquire
that
property
the
current,
and
what
is
the
current
value
as
determined
by
an
appraisal,
so
I
think
you
need
to
go
through
all
those
steps
and
at
the
end
of
those
steps
you
need
to
say
well.
This
is
a
good
deal
or
a
bad
deal
and
then
determine
what
the
impact
is
going
to
be
on
the
open
space,
fun.
Q
Finally,
I
have
a
concern
and
Tracy
have
a
concern
that
I
think
there's
a
conflict
of
interest
for
you
here
you
were
transportation.
He
worked
in
the
transportation
department
before
as
a
transportation
engineer,
and
this
property
is
being
recommended
to
be
given
to
the
transformation
transportation
property
had
no
cost,
and
I
would
say
that
when
there
is
an
apparent
conflict
of
interest
that
you
should
recuse
yourself
and
have
the
other
staff
members
put
together
the
memo
and
comes
to
conclusions
whatever
that
might
be
on
the
part
of
the
door.
So
those
are
my
comments
today.
P
P
My
primary
concern,
I,
think
of
the
people
of
Boulder
and
the
community
is
my
primary
concern
and,
in
this
case
I
see
a
clear
example
of
how
these
peripheral
area
could
be
used
as
a
means
of
transporting
people
for
recreation
and
for
commuting
by
non
gas-powered
means
as
being
really
good
and
and
I
think
that
this
is
actually
a
way
of
minimizing
a
lot
of
other
impacts
that
we
have
in
our
community.
So
I
think
this
is
a
great
idea
when
it
was
initially
presented.
P
I
thought
it
was
a
great
idea
in
April,
because
I
know
people
who
live
on
in
places
where
this
would
be
a
major
connecting
route
for
them
to
get
to
work,
to
get
to
school,
to
get
to
places
to
eat
or
whatever
it's
a
big
hole
in
our
sort
of
bicycle
and
pedestrian
transportation
system.
So
I
think
that
being
said,
I
think
it's
a
really
good
idea.
P
I
understand
a
lot
of
the
concerns
and
and
I
think
I
really
feel
as
if
a
lot
of
the
challenges
that
open
space
always
has
is
you
know
we
acquire
or
manage
lands,
but
the
geography
of
that
is
not
well
defined.
It
could
be
within
the
city
limits.
Still,
it
could
be
outside
of
the
city
limits.
Sometimes
it's
in
a
different
County
and
so
I
think
management.
P
Partnerships
such
as
this
is
a
really
good
example
of
how
to
reduce
our
burden
because
doing
something
like
going
out
and
plowing
snow
on
a
half
a
mile
trail
in
the
middle
of
city,
Transportation
Department,
manage
trail
seems
like
a
pretty
hard
burden
for
us
to
have
to
bear
when
we
don't
need
that
infrastructural
management
at
all
any
place.
So
in
the
last
time
that
this
happened,
when
we
discussed
a
couple
of
other
transfers
of
paved
paths
within
the
city,
I
felt
the
same
way
that
I
really
just
want
the
trail
to
be
managed.
P
B
So
I
think
I
and
we
do
take
disposals
very
seriously
and
spend
a
lot
of
time
looking
carefully
at
exactly
what's
being
proposed,
and
why
and
to
me
there's
a
variety
of
criteria
here,
all
which
point
in
the
same
direction.
One
is
that
it
appears
that
the
what's
being
proposed
for
disposal
was
the
minimum
amount
necessary
to
achieve.
What's
what
we're
trying
to
do
here,
it's
not
like
we're
just
sort
of
proposing
to
dispose
of
land
that
far
exceeds
what
will
be
needed.
The
pretty
narrow
corridors
that
we're
talking
about.
B
Second,
we
are,
you
know
it's
for
an
important
purpose,
both
in
terms
of
this
overall
project
and
which
serves
a
lot
of
open
space
purposes,
and
you
know
obviously,
a
portion
of
this
that
the
disposals
occurring
because
of
the
e-bikes,
but
that's
a
you
know-
there's
been
a
decision
by
the
city
that
that's
something
that
we
want
to
have
available
as
part
of
our
transportation
network.
And
so
you
know
even
our
view
of
passive
recreation
and
open
space.
B
B
We're
getting
five
acres
for
every
one
acre
that
we
give
listening
to
the
description
of
the
land.
What
we're
giving
up
long
fence
lines
along
roads
seems
almost
inconceivable
that
that
land
has
a
higher
value
per
acre
than
what
we're
getting
in
retire.
Never
getting
five
acres
are
in
return
compared
to
what
we're
giving
up.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
it
checks
all
the
boxes
that
we
would
need
to
check
in
order
to
do
a
disposal
I.
A
I
have
significant
concern
about
do
business,
in
that
we
don't
know
the
price
of
what
we're
getting
versus.
What
we're
giving
up.
We
don't
have
an
evaluation
for
the
up,
that's
exact,
and
it's
concerning
to
me
to
set
the
standard
that
we're
essentially
doing
the
swap
the
language
concerns
me
very
much
in
that
we
Kelso
has
given
us
directives
not
to
include
this
language
over
never
again,
I
counted,
17
transfer
words
to
seven
disposals
I
I
find
this
confusing
for
the
public
and
I
also
feel
like
to
do
a
swap
one.
A
We
don't
really
know
what
the
value
is.
How
can
we?
How
can
we
possibly
do
that
taken
if
we
start
this
going
down
this
road,
where
we're
just
giving
X
to
get
something?
Do
we
really
know
that
this
five
acres
is
not
worth
way
more
than
one
to
22
and
the
difference
Ned
is
so
given
that
there's
no
figures
on
this,
it
would
be
hard
to
evaluate
and
I
I
think,
since
this
has
come
up
so
many
times
with
so
many
parcels
ever
since
I
was
on
the
board.
A
Mou
who
didn't
I
want
to
be
absolutely
clear
here
because
comments
when
a
person
is
perceived
as
an
environmentalist
you
know
is
taking
that
I
don't
want
connectors
and
I
don't
want
transportation.
That's
not
true.
I'm
excited
about
the
connectors
but
I'm
nervous
about
the
trend
and
I'm
nervous
about
stamping
on
a
directive,
something
that
essentially
transfers
land,
and
that
becomes
something
that
becomes
a
precedent
and
then
is
the
next
process,
and
we
don't
know
what
that
price
is
gonna
be,
and
this
feels
like
I'm
very
much
like
a
slippery
slope.
A
I've
had
a
lot
of
citizens
who
have
read
me
talk
to
me
and
said
that
they're
very
concerned
over
this
process
and
I
have
to
agree.
If
I
had
on
this
document,
some
type
of
money
and
I
could
say:
okay,
we
never
getting
this
and
it
has
these
mineral
rights
really
has
this
or
we're
gonna
have
access,
or
we
know
that
the
master
plan
is
gonna.
Tie
you
into
this
eventually
or
we
know
that
this
wetlands
is
not
going
to
be
impacted
or
further
down.
A
R
Thing
I
can
tell
you
in
due
diligence
on
these
properties.
They
are,
they
were
deed,
restricted
when
they
were
sold
to
us,
and
so
they
are
deed
restricted.
With
the
exception.
The
right-of-way
is
the
only
thing
that
can
be
developed
for
anything
other
than
an
open
space
or
recreation
or
agricultural
or
wildlife
habitat
purpose.
So
residential
development
is
not
allowed
on
these
parcels.
R
If
we
didn't,
if
for
any
reason,
they
were
transferred
or
valued
as
if
they
were
not
owned
by
open
space,
they
are
not
residential,
they
are
not
developable
other
than
the
the
road
right-of-way,
so
we
at
open
space
would
be
open
and
I.
Think
transportation
would,
if
you
guys,
direct
us
to
get
an
appraisal.
As
long
as
you
understand,
the
right-of-way
will
likely
come
up
and
come
back
at
a
significantly
higher
value
and
an
open
space.
Would
you
know
transportation
could
look
to
open
space
to
transfer
funds
for
that
additional
acreage?
I
You
know
Molly
you.
Your
questions
in
my
mind,
raised
the
question
of
whether
for
something
like
this,
the
dollar
value
is
the
most
important
thing,
I
be
more
concerned,
and
you
mentioned
it.
If
there
were
things
that
were
really
disparate
in
terms
of
the
ecological
value.
If
we
were
getting,
you
know
dryland
pasture
and
we
were
giving
up
wetlands
or
something
like
that.
I
think
that
to
me
would
be
much
more
critical
because
I'm
sort
of
where
Tommy
I
it's
hard
to
see
how
we're
not
going
to
end
up.
I
However,
you
monetize
it
getting
a
lot
more
than
we're
giving
up
in
terms
of
dollars
and
looking
at
the
alignments
we're
giving
up
and
having
walked
all
of
those
compared
to
the
riparian
area.
That's
right
along
the
Parkway
or
it
may
be,
not
riparian,
but
maybe
wet
meadow
I
think
from
an
ecological
standpoint,
we're
probably
getting
better
than
we're
giving
so
I
guess.
My
question
to
you
is:
are
you
more
concerned
about
the
apparent
precedent
of
donating
open
space
lands
for
multi-use
trails?
A
Concerned
about
the
donating
I'm
concerned
about
the
process,
in
that
when
we
spent
citizens
funds-
and
we
tell
the
citizens-
this
was
being
bought
for
open
space
purposes
and
then
it
gets
turned
into
transportation
purposes.
Then
we
have
to
turn
back
to
the
citizens
and
say
to
them
that
we
are
doing
something
different
than
was
intended,
but
that
land
initially-
and
that
is
a
great
concern.
How
are
we
gonna
validate
this
to
our
citizens
and
if
it
continues,
how
are
we
gonna
address
these
issues?
These.
R
Again,
the
transfers,
at
least
to
transportation,
are
are
again
to
satisfy
the
e-bikes
ordinance.
We
have
to
turn
it
to
not
open
space
and
those
those
the
mo
use.
The
the
document
we
do
to
use
to
carry
those
out
have
a
reporter
clause
that
if
they
are
not
used
for
that
paved
paths
with
ebikes,
they
revert
back
to
open
space.
R
I
R
Most
of
the
has
I
presented
in
July
that
we
talked
about.
We.
We
have
papers
all
over
open
space
that
are
managed
again
managed
by
transportation.
We
don't
do
the
snow
plowing.
We
don't
do
the
mowing
along
the
side.
They
are
managed
by
transportation,
many
of
which
we
have
not
again
changed
the
color
we
have
not
transferred,
many
of
which
don't
or
some
of
which
don't
allow
ebikes
the
the
issue
here,
the
ones
that
you
are
seeing,
because
can
you
put
that
back
up
by
any
chance.
R
You
know
basically
complete
or
fill
in
those
gaps
so
because
it
doesn't
make
sense
from
an
enforcement
standpoint
for
anyone
to
or
a
signage
standpoint
or
a
management
standpoint
for
it
to
be
transportation,
open
space
transportation,
open
space
get
on
get
off
your
ebike.
You
know
if
this
is
going
to
be
again
a
commuter,
the
purpose
being
in
the
the
TMP,
a
commuting
trail
from
Gunbarrel
to
at
least
the
anders
to
airport
connection
to
into
the
city,
and
these
are
meant
to
be
commuter
trails
and
they're.
R
P
P
That's
in
city,
open
space
is
part
of
a
commuting
system
and
then
a
heavy
bike
on
it,
and
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
transfers
or
anything
like
that.
If
that
doesn't
make
sense,
so
it
no
longer
becomes
the
trigger
for
why
we
have
to
transfer,
and
then
we
can
say
there
is
a
class
of
open
space
trails
where
a
bike
should
never
be,
but
it's
not
open.
Space
trails
means
no
e
bikes.
P
If,
if
that's
something
that
you
think
would
help,
I
think
that
this
is
the
second
time
I've
been
on
the
board
that
the
ebikes
has
been
the
trigger
I'm,
a
big
fan
of
ebikes
and
I'm,
a
big
fan
of
transportation,
but
I
also
feel
like
this
shouldn't
be
a
trigger.
This
shouldn't
be
a
reason
why
we
have
to
transfer
lands
from
one
management
to
another.
It
should
be
transferred
because
it
makes
sense
for
it
to
transfer
because
of
management
challenges
anyway.
P
A
R
A
state
law
passed
last
year
since
the
the
city's
ordinance
that
that
defines
a
bike
says
not
only
there's
three
there's
actually
three
levels
based
on
how
fast
they
go
basically
and
the
the
two
lower
ones
and
the
majority
of
e-bikes
are
actually
now
not
classify
or
classified
not
as
motorized
they're
defined.
Out
of
so.
B
It's
a
question
of
what
the
phrase
passive
recreation
and
the
Charter
means
right.
That's
you
know
we
as
a
as
a
city
and
decide
passive
recreation
has
a
broad
meaning
or
a
narrow
meaning
to
either
include
or
exclude
ebikes
nets,
and
that's
our
own
decision
about
how
we
wish
to
view
governing
document.
R
P
Not
advocating
we
try
to
change
this
I'm,
advocating
that
we
can
write
a
letter
to
City
Council,
saying
look,
this
is
a
problem
again
and
again.
Then
it's
running
us
into
these
issues
of
transfer
disposal
blah
blah
blah.
Can
we
get
some
guidance
about
how
to
deal
with
this,
because
we
don't
anticipate
this
ending,
as
there
are
probably
more
pads
that
are
not
in
the
mountains
that
are
not
in
the
wilder
parts
of
our
area?
That
eventually
will
have
these
same
questions.
Come
up
as
more
people
want
to
commute
by
an
electric.
P
K
G
J
B
When
this
was
brought
up
two
years
ago,
maybe
I
mean
I.
Remember
because
we
were
dressing
council
on
this
issue.
There
was
a
definite
perception
that
the
purposes
of
the
Charter
there
was
a
bright
line,
definition
of
passive
recreation
as
distinguishing
you
know,
presence
of
a
motor,
at
least
in
a
motor
in
moving
the
human.
There
are
other
issues
about
you
know
what,
if
the
motor
is
serving
some
other
purpose,
such
as
on
a
drone
or
auto,
maybe
even
a
camera
or
you.
M
B
You
know
the
view
that,
in
that
discussion,
from
both
people
who
were
present,
some
of
whom
had
you
know,
done
a
fair
amount
of
research
on
what
passive
recreation
means
and
various
statutes
across
the
country,
but
which
go
to
some
lengths
to
define
it
that,
while
it's
not
completely
uniform
the
more
common
understanding
of
passive
recreation,
is
you
can't
have
a
motor
now
it
may
be
that
there
was
a
cultural
change
going
on
here.
That
would
cause
us
to
examine
that
issue,
but
I
think
that's,
probably
a
fair
characterization
of
the
discussion.
I
Sounds
to
me
like
an
issue
that
you
would
want
to
discuss
during
a
master
planning
process
and
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
I
think
it's
an
issue:
that's
gonna,
take
quite
a
while
to
resolve
and
I'm,
not
sure
not
sure
I
want
to
shackle
this.
You
just
seem
sort
of
out
of
scale
to
try
to
solve
these
questions
by
something
that
big
in
such
a
positive
way.
I.
B
Think
Kevin's
raising
a
fair
point
and
I
think
you're
raising
a
great
solution.
I
think
there
should
be
at
some
point
of
public
discussion
on
you
know
as
our
thinking
about
what
passive
recreation
means
changed
a
little
bit
and
you
know
you
bikes
are
interesting
mix
or
they
are
who's
ever
used.
One
of
them
knows
there
is
still
a
very
active
component.
Doesn't
you
know,
doesn't
pedal.
B
P
R
Lindsay
and
I
often
try
to
emphasize
and
reiterate,
there's
a
speed
limit
on
all
of
these
trails.
Whether
you
are
on
a
road
bike
and
exceeding
the
speed
limit
or
you
are
on
an
e-bike
and
exceeding
the
speed
limit.
You
you're
exceeding
the
speed
limit
and
so
they're
held
to
the
same
speed
limit
and
both
can
do
absolutely
have
the
ability
of
violating
that
and.
M
K
In
the
interest
of
full
disclosure,
my
normal
Wednesday
night
is
to
ride
along
these
same
path,
segments
on
any
bike
to
go
out
to
75th
and
and
Belmont
to
pick
up
my
farm
share
with
my
son.
That
is
not
something
that
your
typical
person
can
do
ranked
without
the
aid
of
an
e-bike
and
very
much
I.
You
know
the
confusion
with
which
path
segments
do
I
need
to
have
the
motor
off
do
I
need
to
be
walking
it.
It
is
confusing
as
an
e-bike
user
so-
and
you
know,
I
am
somewhat
biased.
K
Having
served
on
the
transportation
advisory
board
before
serving
on
this
board.
That
I
do
see
value
in
these
in
these
connections,
both
as
a
user
and
to
meet
our
transportation
goals
and
to
to
balance
that
out.
I
mean
I'll,
reiterate
now
in
the
more
appropriate
section
of
our
discussion
that
I'm
really
excited
about
getting
the
the
land
in
this.
This
lot
through
the
middle.
It's
like
contiguous
habitat
blocks
and
common
management,
and
it
seems
just
a
small
sacrifice
to
lose
a
little
bit
of
the
edge,
but
I
I
agree,
Molly
and
I'm.
K
P
R
B
B
One
was
some
of
this
is
a
recommendation,
but
the
disposal,
part
of
it
we
actually
have
to
approve
and
I,
was
trying
to
fight
this.
Separating
these
two
things
get
the
verb,
one's
a
recommendation
and
one's
an
approval,
and
obviously
I
wanted
to
add
some
language
making
clear
that
both
of
the
transfers
are
disposals.
So
that's
my
motion,
Oh
second.
P
I
Molly
I'm
still
open
to
a
number
of
the
issues
you
raised
about
disposal
and
transfer
processes
and
how
they
should
be
done.
I
mean
you've
raised
questions
about.
Do
we
have
the
information
we
really
should
have
and
if
you
want
to
propose
that
as
a
topic
for
a
study
session
in
the
future
for
us,
because
it's
it
is
complicated
and
I
absolutely
agree,
it
can
chooses
the
heck
out
of
me
and
I
think
the
public
too.
I
So
anyway,
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
you've
raised
a
bunch
of
important
questions
and
if,
if
there's
a
way,
we
can
get
have
a
better
discussion
with
staff
and
maybe
even
move
towards
clarification
of
what
our
procedures
are.
I
would
certainly
be
open
to
that.
I
think
it's
worth
doing
and.
B
I
would
add-
maybe
this
goes
without
saying,
but
often
it
doesn't
hurt
to
say
it.
I
would
hope
that
if
anyone
faced
with
a
disposal
motion
felt
they
wanted
a
field
visit
from
knowledgeable
staff
to
go,
see
exactly
what's
there
within
colleges
to
kind
of
walk
through
what
we're
talking
about
that,
they
would
feel
completely
comfortable,
asking
and
I'm.
You
know
recognizing
the
time
could
be
tight,
that
staff
with
everything
possible
to
accommodate
that.