Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.06.26 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes_S MINUTES OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JOINT LISTENING SESSION June 26, 2018 Third Street Center 520 S. Third St., Carbondale OSTB Present: Graeme Means Howie Mallory Amy Barrow Michael Kinsley Wayne Ives Dist. 1 Dist. 2 Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. 5 Chair Absent Staff Present: Gary Tennenbaum, Dale Will, Lindsey Utter, Janet Urquhart, Jon Peacock BOCC Present: Patti Clapper (chair), Rachel Richards, Steven Child, George Newman Media Present: John Masters, GrassRoots TV Public Present: 66 individuals signed the sign-in sheets at the door Patti Clapper called the session to order at 4:10 p.m. Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail Plan Listening Session Patti Clapper, BOCC chairperson, explained the purpose of the listening session —to hear from the public on the draft Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail Plan. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners will decide whether or not to adopt the plan and decide on the details of the plan. Gary Tennenbaum, director of Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, gave an overview of the public process on the plan so far and said the plan is a vision for a trail that will be built in phases if it is adopted. Each phase will have its own public process, he said. Public comment Kate Hudson, Crystal Valley resident —She offered five points: 1. No matter what trail alignment is built, it will have environmental impacts; 2. A trail along Hwy. 133 will have riparian impacts; 3. A trail that crosses back and forth across the Crystal River will impact wetlands, streamflow and riparian vegetation; 4. Phased trail construction will affect the entire river, not just the segment adjacent to construction; 5. Impacts to the river will be difficult to reverse. Edie Engstrom, Crystal Valley resident —The trail should remain in the highway corridor. Placing recreation benefit over environmental impact is an"arrogant paradigm." Will Rousch, Wilderness Workshop conservation director —He commended the county for providing opportunities for public input into the plan, but said even more accommodation for feedback could have been provided. Regarding the draft plan, it offers environmental benefits and, in some areas, alignment recommendations appear to have been chosen with wildlife in mind, he said. In other areas —Bear Creek, the area below McClure Pass and Red Wind Point — the proposed alignment should be changed to protect wildlife. While there are existing social 6/26/2018 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes Page 1 of 7 trails in those areas, a formal trail would increase use exponentially, to the detriment of wildlife, he said. Vince Savage, lodge owner in Marble A walking/biking trail in the Crystal Valley is preferable to more vehicles on Hwy. 133. He urged officials to guard against the "tyranny" of Crystal Valley residents. John Emerick, Wild Rose Subdivision resident —He considers himself a supporter of the proposed trail and agrees with the proposed highway alignment for a trail in the Filoha Meadows segment. He said no trail should be built on the former railroad grade in the Avalanche/Narrows stretches either, as those are important habitat areas. By not building the bridge that would be needed at the upper end of the Narrows under the current draft plan proposal, there would be funds to build a cantilevered trail on the highway side in the Narrows section. He urged officials to purchase the residential property just south of Filoha that is currently for sale, to be used for parking and wildlife viewing. Doris Downey, resides a mile south of Redstone — She thanked the county for a diligent, transparent public process and said she supports the trail and an alignment that is off the highway as much as possible. She urged the use of the Bear Creek and McClure segments that are proposed and said she walks them regularly without wildlife conflicts. Holly McLain, Carbondale resident —She is concerned about the human impact on wildlife and exploding human population in Colorado. If trail is built, it is imperative that wildlife is protected. She prefers a soft-surface trail for equestrians and runners. Homeowners deserve their privacy; the trail belongs along the highway to protect wildlife and the privacy of landowners, she said. Chelsea Brundige, Old Snowmass resident —The trail would cause greater impact to the Crystal River and riparian areas than the draft plan recognizes. In all, 75 acres would be impacted. The Crystal River Stream Management Plan identified critical riparian areas; the proposed trail alignment in several areas would impact these areas negatively. The trail planning should acknowledge biodiversity; in some areas, the off-highway alignment is in conflict with biodiversity protection. She cautioned against building a trail segment by segment and losing sight of impacts to the entire corridor in the process. People tend to use b ce trails to reach a destination, not to linger in nature, she added. Elizabeth Thele, Crystal Valley resident —The valley has seen a big increase in traffic since Hwy. 133 was declared part of a scenic byway. She used to see more wildlife in her neighborhood. She is opposed to the trail, which would impact wildlife and her neighborhood. A trail would impact homeowners' privacy and peace of mind. Phil Youngman —Wild Rose Subdivision resident —Impacts on wildlife and riparian areas are concerning. In addition, Dorais Way in his neighborhood is a problem segment; it is a single-lane road where vehicular travel is difficult. It would be hazardous to add bicyclists and pedestrians. A trail using Dorais Way will create a dangerous situation; he wondered if residents would be liable for accidents. 6/26/2018 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes Page 2 of 7 Jim Kirschvink, Carbondale resident —He thanked the county for moving forward with the trail planning despite the controversy. He is concerned about a lack of access to public lands and questioned what he called overstated impacts to wildlife. Decisions should be based on a credible evaluation of impacts to wildlife. He asked what if the Rio Grande Trail had not been built, noting there was opposition to its construction, and suggested the county will lose the opportunity for a Crystal Trail if it doesn't move forward with the project. Bill Hanks, Avalanche-area resident —He said the Colorado Natural Heritage Program identified 7 parcels in the Crystal Valley for conservation. He also referenced the work of a Wildlife Task Force and said he hopes all input is considered, including the Wilderness Workshop environmental study. He asked for demographic information —who are the bicyclists who would use the trail. A core value in the Crystal Valley is preserving its rural character, he said. Peter Westcott, Missouri Heights (Eagle County) resident —He said he is disappointed in the Wilderness Workshop environmental study, suggesting the Workshop commissioned a study to reach a desired outcome. He thinks he favors the trail and thanked the BOCC for not letting a wealthy landowner's study be presented during the listening session. There are currently residences on the east side of the river, there are dogs and there is hunting. All have a big impact on wildlife, he said. He said he doesn't know the true impacts of the trail, but believes the plan has found the "sweet spot" with its alignment recommendations. If the trail can be on the east side of the river without impacting wildlife, it should go there. He trusts the county to do the right thing. Chuck Ogilby, Crystal Valley resident —He loves bike trails and agrees with John Emerick about purchasing the residential property on the south end of Filoha. A trail is something he'd love to see in the Crystal Valley. Perhaps bicyclists will keep deer from coming onto the highway, where animals are killed by vehicles. Hunting poses a threat to wildlife, but it is never brought up in conversations about the proposed trail. Hunters can draw for a tag to shoot the best ram in the Crystal herd, he noted. He favors the off-highway alignment and thinks wildlife will adapt to the trail. Kevin Wright, retired Colorado Division of Wildlife officer —Best science dictates no trail should go in sensitive areas, including Red Wind Point, Janeway North and South, Avalanche, the Narrows and Filoha Meadows, he said. He noted the county's Environmental Bill of Rights and said the county should follow its own policy. Elk cow-calf ratios remain low and the Crystal Valley sheep herd is struggling and will be affected by additional stress. He questioned the effectiveness of seasonal closures and whether they will be enforced 20 or 30 years from now. The important habitat at Red Wind Point is the cliff bands, not the upper meadow as stated in the draft plan, he said. He asked why the trail plan protects Janeway North but not Janeway South, and said Avalanche and the Narrows should be considered as one segment. He said if there is any environmental consciousness, it should be considered and said it would be nice if Open Space and Trails followed the county land-use code and its own guidelines. Paige Meredith, Crystal Valley landowner —His family owns a half-mile of Crystal River frontage and asked what if his family proposed paving 11.5 acres of their property, which he said 6/26/2018 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes Page 3 of 7 is the equivalent of paving a bilce path from the KOA Campground to Redstone. He said his family has tried to build a caretaker dwelling unit on their property but county regulations are daunting. He asked how a trail with multiple bridges complies with county regulations. Leslie Thomas, Pitkin County resident — She questioned the need for another trail to Crested Butte and said she's not sure of the purpose of the proposed trail. She urged the county to listen to the wildlife specialists and said we all need to be stewards of the land. There are natural resources that can't be replaced, she said, and she questioned building something that draws lots of people. Darryl Fuller, Carbondale resident —He read a definition of the word "steward" and said young people will become the next generation of stewards by interacting with the landscape. An off- highway trail would let people access and immerse themselves in the Crystal Valley. The public needs opportunities to access public lands and explore. He called for careful trail design and attentive management to help keep lands accessble. Ian Carney, operates ranch south of Carbondale —He opposes a trail on any alignment and asked if the potential for bandit trails, up Nettle Creek and Coal Basin, for example, have been considered as a resulting impact of building a trail in the valley. He noted elk migrations on the ranch he operates have already been impacted by people and a trail would bring even more people. Bill Jochems, Redstone resident —Pitkin County was a pioneer in adopting a land-use code that protects wildlife from development, he said. Now, the county is becoming a developer on the biggest scale since the state put a highway up the Crystal Valley. He urged the boards to put themselves through the same rigorous review process as any developer. The trail alignment that would be least disruptive to wildlife and the character of the valley is along the highway, he said. Tom Newland, consultant —The cost of constructing a trail along the highway has been evaluated independently by an engineering firm; the conclusion is it could be built for $40 million rather than the $100 million estimated by the county, he said. The county estimates appear skewed to favor the off-highway alignment, he added, though Newland said all the estimates are guesses and should not be used as the deciding factor in routing a trail. He said it is a misconception that a trail along the highway will produce a poor user experience or put the user in danger. A trail along the former railroad corridor could be more dangerous, given the driveway crossings and one-lane gravel roads that are components of that route. Debris flows are possible along both the highway and off-highway alignments, he said. A trail alignment along the highway, which is already a transportation corridor, makes the most sense and the costs are manageable, he said. He provided his comments in writing to the BOCC for the record (see Attachment A). Mace Pburn, South Bill Creek Road resident —The off-highway alignment would put the trail down Bill Creek Road, which is too narrow for two vehicles to pass and has no space for trail use, as well, he said. It is not reasonable to compare the Rio Grande Trail to the proposed trail in the Crystal Valley. The phasing of trail construction, which could put construction off for a long time, does not matter, he said. 6/26/2018 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes Page 4 of 7 Pat Piburn, South Bill Creek Road resident — She urged that trail planning focus exclusively on the highway alignment and not on Alignment B on the opposite side of the river. There is no advantage to people, wildlife or riparian areas with the B alignment, she said. A trail on Alignment B is for human entertainment and not for the protection of anything. She said she does not like being called a"nimby" and chastised the county for holding the listening session at 4 p.m. on a Tuesday. The county is not making public participation easy and needs to do more outreach if it wants to build a trail She urged the county to look at the project from something other than a bicyclist's point of view. Hunt Walker, Carbondale resident —He said he supports the trail proposal and, in general, would prefer to see the trail on the old railroad grade. Historically, coal trains were probably the biggest impact to wildlife in the Crystal Valley; in the 1970s-1990s, it was development of homes and coal trucks that impacted wildlife, he said. Now, he said, homes that have the biggest impact. He said he sees opposition to the trail as a nimbyism disguised as wildlife protection. Open space lands in the Crystal should be open to everyone, he said. Crystal Valley residents alone should not be able to dictate what happens with the trail, he said. Gideon Kaufman, attorney —A trail alignment along the highway would have little or no impact on wildlife and would keep humans away from the national forest and vital habitat, he said. He urged the BOCC to be sensitive to building a trail in the habitat that remains and noted the existing stretch of the Crystal Trail along the highway provides an excellent experience for trail users. Every Parks and Wildlife expert agrees on where a trail should or shouldn't go; the county should invite their input, he said. He showed a photo enhancement of the Janeway South property to show what kind of river restoration could take place there and submitted it for the record (see Attachment B). A trail that crosses back and forth over the river would be even more impactful as a result of the bridges that would be necessary, he said. He also said a real public process would give affected members of the public an opportunity to participate in trail planning rather than just make brief statements or written comments. Bill Spence, Crystal Valley resident —He said he will benefit from completion of a trail from the KOA Campground to Redstone and that a trail along the highway will be more expensive than one on Alignment B. He said some arguments about wildlife sensitivity are a bit overblown and suggested residential areas in the Crystal Valley and hunting impact wildlife more than a trail would. He believes the trail would serve the community well Chuck Downey, resides a mile south of Redstone —The stretch of proposed trail from Redstone to the top of McClure Pass is the simplest and least controversial to build. If nothing else is constructed, the Redstone-McClure trail would serve a purpose, connecting the largest concentration of residents in the Crystal Valley, he said. He urged the BOCC to work with owners of the Redstone Castle to secure a trail route across that property. The Bear Creek and old McClure Pass road segments should be used for the trail; he said he uses them regularly and does not observe wildlife conflicts. George Trantow, Marble homeowner —He supports the trail as proposed and said the Redstone- to-McClure Pass segment should be a priority. The trail would be a Redstone to Crested Butte Trail first. He said the trail would be an amenity for both tourists and residents. 6/26/2018 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes Page 5 of 7 Bob McCormick, Redstone resident —He said he favors the trail, with cost, aesthetics and wildlife as factors that must be considered. He noted a Redstone development proposal would bring 40,000 vehicle trips to Hwy. 133 and up the one-lane road that serves his house. He said he is shocked that more people aren't concerned about that proposal Dan Johns, Old Snowmass resident —He said everyone is a nimby when it's their backyard that's in question. He noted the Rio Grande Trail used to be private open space in his backyard, but he is a cyclist and believes the Crystal Trail is a huge amenity that should be constructed. He favors a trail on the old railroad grade, not the highway. Frosty Merriott, Carbondale resident —He said he remembers serving on the Carbondale Town Council and, in a joint meeting with the BOCC, hearing Commissioner George Newman say he would always speak for wildlife. Marriott said it is a sentiment that stuck with him. He cited global, U.S. and Colorado population growth and predicted a trail would draw large numbers of people. It will be a detriment to wildlife, he said. Mike Pritchard, director of Roaring Fork Mountain Bilce Association —He said the association has been waiting a long time to see the trail project pushed forward and that RFMBA supports the vision of the plan with allowance for further study. He noted the plan's action items aren't just about a trail The Redstone-to-McClure Pass segment makes sense as a stand-alone trail and RFMBA looks forward to working with the county on the project. The trail is about shared use of public lands, he said, noting some segments are already in use. Marge Perry, Crystal Valley resident —She sees use of the existing trail along the highway and would like to find a solution that leaves habitat intact. That is best done by keeping the trail on the highway. It is a worthy goal to provide access to public lands, she said, but scale is everything and the large number of people who will use a formal trail will create impacts on an unacceptable scale. Bill Fales, Crystal Valley resident - As a former Open Space and Trails Board member, he said he is saddened by the planning process for the trail and does not recall seeing more negative publicity about the open space program than he has seen as a result of the trail plan. He was glad to hear the county is not contemplating condemnation for the trail, he said. A previous study found the construction of the trail unfeasible, he said. He does not want to see the trail project take away from funds available for the preservation of open space. He also noted that participants in a recent, large bilce tour rode on Hwy. 133 and did not use the existing bilce trail. He said his biggest concern is wildlife and he noted elk have already been displaced by recreation and are calving in his hay fields. He urged the county to listen to the experts and align the trail along the highway. Jay Engstrom, Carbondale resident —Pitkin County pushes developers to recognize the impacts of projects and he wants to make sure the trail project is developed correctly. County standards should apply to the trail and the county should be a leader in trail development, he said. The younger generation is accepting of compromise and will accept a trail along the highway to protect wildlife, he said. 6/26/2018 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes Page 6 of 7 r John Hofmann, Carbondale resident —There is only one alignment up the Crystal Valley that doesn't require further development; it's an incredible asset and the county needs to use it. A trail on Alignment B makes the most sense, he said. Animals like being in proximity to humans who aren't shooting at them, he said. He said trail opponents have homes in critical wildlife habitat and walk their dogs there. County commissioners, he said, have an obligation to the greater good and to the future. A video of the meeting is available at: https://www.yo utube.com/wa tc h?v=Xk7MIIbAIvKY&feature=youtu.be ADJOURN The OSTB-BOCC joint listening session of June 26, 2018 was adjourned at approximately 6S4 p.m. Approved: Attest:/ ns, 7/, ti✓1 4/- sr Chair JaneUrquhart County Open Space& Trails Board O Stewardship and Outreach Coordinator 6/26/2018 OSTB-BOCC Listening Session Minutes Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT A -17ORoad,Unn;; Bac,1;,Cr)C0 81021 Phone 197(1)n27$f,.t[. NEWLAND -'`i"7O)921ol9w czouzr r•+mric ynrnn@ opn,ner Crystal River Trail Listening Session Presentation 6-25-18 Thank you, County Commissioners and OST Board members. For the record, my name is Tom Newland. I am a 37-year resident of Roaring Fork Valley. I have a degree in Outdoor Recreation Planning and Management and have worked for many of the public entities in the valley designing and constructing trails. Most germane to the Draft Trail Plan is my work authoring the 2004 Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail Feasibility Study and conducting the permitting and design administration for Phase 1 of the Crystal River Trail. Here are my comments on the draft plan: Wildlife. I believe it is a simple choice. The Railroad Alignment impacts wildlife by crossing important sheep and elk habitat. Bighorn sheep use the railroad grade to move up and down the Valley as well as the cliffs immediately above. I believe the seasonal trail closures recommended for mitigation will have little success as they require vigilant oversight and are vulnerable to violations through the many adjacent subdivisions the Railroad alignment goes through.This is the professional opinion of every Park and Wildlife Manager serving the Crystal Valley with a collective experience of over 75 years. Why doesn't the County invite them to speak to you, so you can hear firsthand their opinions rather than relying on a few week study by ERO? The Highway alignment has little or no impact on wildlife. It places the trail on side of river where high human use already exists; it eliminates potential points of conflict between humans and animals, and it keeps humans away from National Forest lands that contain vital habitat. Costs. To verify the trail construction costs in the plan, I did an independent analysis in collaboration with High Country Engineering and Site Improvement Services, Inc. Both alignments were field-checked for the appropriate trail sections, potential alternative alignments were explored for each, and unit costs for the trail sections were developed using recent, local project bids for similar construction. Let me summarize the results of the analysis. The Railroad Alignment had minor changes to the trail section and no other feasible alignments outside the old railbed. Along the Highway Alignment, we found over 70 places where the trail section could be changed or where the trail could move away from the highway and closer to the river. Our cost analysis also found that the trail sections could be constructed for considerably less than the linear foot costs shown in the draft plan.The miscellaneous costs, including mobilization, project supervision, traffic control, overhead, etc., also came in significantly lower than those estimated in Land Use Planning•Permit Expedition•Ptu)cct M tn.ctettient•()+.vn"l'.kepiesentative•Infuttnati n Management ATTACHMENT A the plan. The result was an estimated cost of$40 Million for the Highway Alignment, well below the $100 Million in the County's plan. My take away from this exercise is that the County's estimates seem to skew the costs in favor of the Railroad alignment. As Gary Tennenbaum admitted at the public meeting in Aspen last month, trail costs at this point are just"engineered guesses". In all my years planning and designing projects, I've never seen a project come in at the cost that was estimated prior to construction. At this point in the planning process, it's my opinion that costs are too "fuzzy"to be taken as objective criteria, and in no way should they be seen as a fatal flaw for one alignment over another. User Experience. User experience is a very - subjective criteria. It completely depends on one's perception of the facility and its surroundings. girr- • y There is a misconception that a trail on the Highway Alignment will be crammed next to the highway all the way up to Redstone. In fact, if properly designed, 60%of the Highway Alignment will not be adjacent to the road. At all times the trail will be separated from the road, either by grade, distance and/or barrier. As I have mentioned before,there are many places where the trail can be taken away from the highway right-of-way and put down next to the river. When you think about it, the Highway Alignment is really just an extension of the existing trail from Carbondale to Seven Oaks. Have you heard complaints about the user experience along the existing trail? I haven't. User Safety: Another myth being perpetuated through this process is that the Highway Alignment is not as safe as the ., .. Railroad Alignment. Here is some of the things I've heard: . The highway alignment puts users in danger because it's so close to fast-moving vehicles. This isn't true. There is virtually no chance of a vehicle/trail collision due to the 4 - - engineered safety standards used in trail - . _ _ design. These standards were used in • Phase 1 of the Crystal River trail and shown to the left. 2 ATTACHMENT A The subdivision roads can be used as trails. Actually, the Railroad Alignment may be more hazardous to the trail user than the Highway Alignment because of all the hidden driveways, obscured sight lines and very narrow road platforms found on these one-lane gravel roads. (shown to left). Although County staff sites the Holland Hills roads as a successful example of mixing traffic, this is like comparing apples to oranges because the 10-feet Holland Hills roads are wide, open 2-lane roads. riE': • _,, Mixing a trail with a narrow, rural road is unsafe and = • - • . harms the user experience. , ' ' • • There are too many debris flows along the Highway : } • rA s,"w= Alignment. In reality mudslides, debris flows and rockfall occur with similar frequency on both alignments. We are conditioned to believe otherwise because we all use the Highway Alignment exclusively to go up and down the valley. In the event of a mudslide, the Highway Alignment can be cleared and open much faster than Railroad Alignment due to its easier accessibility and the availability of CDOT resources, who must open the road. One issue that hasn't been raised regarding user safety is accessibility for emergency services. Obviously, the Highway Alignment is more accessible to EMS. Getting help on the Railroad Alignment will take longer, since there is less traffic passing by. When planning any project for my clients, I always remember what Chief Scott Thompson once told me: in emergency situations seconds can literally mean the difference between life and death. 3 ATTACHMENT A According to the schedule in the plan, most of •AVs"know"where other cars, peds and bikes the additional (and needed) trail planning is a are in real time and at all times long way off. Future technologies that are rapidly becoming real will be forcing a sea- • r Radar Sensors change in the way we travel very soon. I'm ` talking about Autonomous Vehicles, or"AVs". / Experts say that the tipping point, where more AVs will be on the road than normal vehicles, is 2035. In the future signs, guardrail, traffic LIDAR Sensor signals, and lane delineations will no longer be needed. No more drunk or distracted drivers ffN.e n.•G rt means virtually no traffic injuries or fatalities, and there won't be any engine noise with the electric motors used in the AVs. AVs will know where all users of a transportation corridor are at any given time using redundant sensors, meaning that they will dependably and safely share the road platform with pedestrians, wildlife, bicyclists and other vehicles. Impacts to Private Property. is disappointing that the plan doesn't adequately address the impact to the property owners along the Railroad Alignment. There are 50+ separate privately-owned properties that could see significant impact if the Railroad Alignment is used. The Railroad alignment will open these properties to potential trespassing, vandalism, and littering. The Railroad Alignment can also be used to access unlawful camping areas on public & private lands. The bottom line is that the trail on the east side of the river will lead to a significant increase traffic and people, impacting the property owners' privacy and quiet. Impacts to the National Forest. The Railroad Alignment has real impacts to the National Forest. We all know that the federal government doesn't have the resources to mitigate these impacts, which will not get better, and the damage and disruption caused by social trails will certainly be created as time goes by. The County says that it will help fund the management practices needed, but for how long? County budgets are approved yearly, and priorities change as different Commissioners are elected, so this promise of assistance is by no means a given in the long run. River Impacts. Impacts to the river and the river edge are very real with the trail. As a River Ecologist with extensive knowledge of the Crystal has reported, of the two proposed alignments, putting a trail on the Highway Alignment, where there is already a road, would have substantially less impact on the river and riparian area. Building a trail on the Railroad Alignment would require more areas where natural stream banks would have to be armored, more riparian disturbance and vegetation impacts, more impervious surface area in the riparian buffer zone. It would also create a continuous migration barrier between the river and adjacent high-quality habitat areas to the east. Switching back and forth between alignments would have the greatest river impact because that would require bridges. The draft trail proposal has as many as 9 new potential bridge sites, each of 4 ATTACHMENT A which would further constrain the river, encroach on the floodplain and riparian habitat and reduce resilience to large disturbances like floods or fires. Using the Railroad Alignment would also preclude future opportunities to restore riparian habitat and river function in places like Janeway and Red Wind Point. Below is a rendering of what a restoration project could look like at Janeway: kl)41\4PIH. - -. iii ` L I t4 r vitio-; "46 ' "Canw• AP( . - ' 44' f - _ , . '± `ft JANEWAY EXISTING JANEWAY ENHANCED , , Summary: In conclusion, the Highway ' ; ' ' SI,,. _ Alignment makes the most sense from a e-- \ " - cumulative impact standpoint- a t' n , - i�, transportation corridor already exists, why , •'; '_•: i create another one at the expense of wildlife, .,; rfi I the river and the people living in the valley? The Highway Alignment will be less expensive ._ F + I to maintain and operate—less need for l` ' 1' patrolling and assuring compliance with g closures. The Highway Alignment costs are Vow . -- manageable and could go down over time. A 690 sq.ft.house made with a 3-D Printer Wait a minute, what did I just say? How could 5 ATTACHMENT A construction costs come down in the future when our experience tells us the opposite? Large-scale 3-D Printers are now being used to construct houses in Asia. The houses cost$4,000 each and are built in 24-hours. Can faster, cheaper trail construction via 3-D Printer be that far off? In fact, it isn't —Dubai will be constructing a pedestrian bridge with 3-D printers in 2020. I hope you see from my comments that much more study needs to be conducted before any alignment is recommended. Selecting any preferred alignments at this point is premature- it locks you in when further study is necessary, and its impacts become permanent. Rather than generalizing from the past to predict the future, we should be preparing for a desired future and realizing ways to achieve it. I urge you to engage the citizens of the valley early and often in the upcoming planning processes for each segment. If I have learned one thing about community engagement through my career, it is that there must be open and meaningful dialogue between citizens and its government, one which gives citizens an opportunity to ensure that the final product fits with the context of their community. Only then will consensus and success be achieved. Thank you, Z 6 ATTACHMENT B 0(0f 7i( /( $ ►G -a- L4— 1 which would further constrain the river, encroach on the floodplain and riparian habitat and reduce resilience to large disturbances like floods or fires. Using the Railroad Alignment would also preclude future opportunities to restore riparian habitat and river function in places like Janeway and Red Wind Point. Below is a rendering of what a restoration project could look like at Janeway: . JR. et . t.., •1L1 1 PI PI P �T i • Ailltr: ill. ---. JANEWAY EXISTING JANEWAY ENHANCED .- -= •� • Summary: In conclusion, the Highway ,-='-' r'' Alignment makes the most sense from a " •e`• — ' .:l : • cumulative impact standpoint- a r • si _ aiiii- , t l =� transportation corridor already exists, why �.I create another one at the expense of wildlife, ,:) °' lL the river and the people living in the valley? • + --- _ The Highway Alignment will be less expensive I F • to maintain and operate-less need for _J 'wail"' '-�v�'- / patrolling and assuring compliance with , At closures. The Highway Alignment costs are �►�► manageable and could go down over time. - A 690 sq.ft.house made with a 3-D Printer Wait a minute, what did I just say? How could 5