Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20250417.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on April 17, 2025 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Adam McCurdy, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Micah Davis Adoption of the Agenda: Adam made a motion to approve the agenda; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Ann made a motion to approve the minutes; Adam seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: mentioned that the compost area near the Cozy Point Ranch archery range has been reshaped. New sand has been put in place at Koch volleyball courts. Gravel is being cleared from trails. John added that a lot of infrastructure work is underway around town, including the Post Office Trail which is now closed. Matt: mentioned that Parks’ offices will be temporarily located in the Armory for the next 2-5 months during renovation of offices at Parks’ campus. Certain operational work will still take place at the Parks campus. Ann asked when this project began. Matt said that it was envisioned before COVID, paused, and then restarted in 2022; there has been 2-2.5 years of work so far. Matt also mentioned the successful prescribed burn managed in part by Parks staff, including Shelley who handled public communication. Shelley: Laura has been busy with bear activity, including one home break-in for which she loaned the owner an electric mat and it is hoped that the bear will not require relocation or other measures. New Business: SH 82/West Aspen Transportation Needs Study Kate Johnson, City Attorney, and Jen Ooten, Senior Project Manager at the City Manager’s Office, were present to provide Q & A information on two topics the Board requested to discuss: 1- the meaning of Referendum 2’s passage and 2- a broader understanding of the West Aspen Transportation Study (formerly known as Entrance to Aspen). Jen began by showing slides of the Entrance to Aspen project. This project will need a different title if the City enters into a new federal process, hence the new name, “West Aspen Transportation Study.” Jen explained the old record of decision (ROD) from the mid ‘90s and the new ROD which is the culmination of the federal EIS process in compliance with NEPA. These steps document what had happened to that point and the path forward. In 2007, another process took place to determine whether the ROD was still valid, ie. whether considerations, purpose, and need were still the same. Council asked staff to investigate certain things a couple years ago, and based on this request, the City started an education campaign about the preferred alternative at the end of 2022. Then there was a Council change, with a directive to look at other alternatives, including an evaluation of the existing bridge to determine if it could be rehabilitated or if replacement is necessary. The bridge was built in 1961 with a 50-year design life. If the bridge was to be rebuilt in place, working with Power Plant Road and one lane of the bridge as traffic lanes, traffic would back up to Basalt. Possible solutions to this were to build a bridge through the Marolt Open Space or to over-build the existing bridge, which gave rise to the 3-land bridge concept. The City’s letters to the federal agencies are available at Castlecreek.com (a repository of information about the Entrance to Aspen); these letters show the City’s questions about potential processes and funding implications. Ann asked about Cat X. Jen explained that Categorical Exclusion is an initial process, which asks about impacts and is common in small scale projects. The City asked CDOT what processes would be necessary if the City were to pursue alternatives such as the split shot and the 3-lane shifted bridge, and CDOT has been clear that these would require a new full federal process, essentially starting over with a blank slate. Because CDOT has already spent dollars on the initial process, the City would have to pay for a new federal process and a data-based case would also be required. Federally funded processes require the federal process, so the City would need to comply and would pay for the costs of a NEPA study if it is desired to pursue an alternative other than the preferred alternative. There is no guarantee of a specific outcome with the NEPA process, which looks at the least impactful plan and ways to mitigate the impacts; the alternatives are weighed against a purpose and need statement. Adam asked if both CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would need to approve such a request; Jen said yes. Ann commented that it is now up to the new City Council, whether to pursue the preferred alternative or one of the other alternatives. Jen said that last September, Council directed staff to advance a new process, either a new EIS or a supplemental EIS. The City conducted a poll and hired a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) attorney. Since then, the City has been analyzing existing conditions, safety data, infrastructure needs, reviewing RFTA plans and City and County plans, reviewing an origin and destination study, and doing public outreach. As an example, Jen described the decision process with the bridge replacement in Glenwood Springs, which ultimately was a context sensitive solution process. This is a process that brings stakeholders to the table and looks at the people who use the space and facility and, in the case of Glenwood Springs, ultimately brought about the design solution that created a lovely spot under the bridge. The context sensitive solution process brought people to the table and ultimately made the project better. After the March 2025 election, the City continued with analysis but paused work in the public eye. Then, the City launched a public outreach effort with a questionnaire and interactive map, which will be open for a while longer, to ask questions about transportation needs in the corridor. Comments can be submitted for certain locations. Feedback has been gathered and will be presented to Council on Monday. Various stakeholders met with the City in early April toward developing a new “why” statement to answer what is being attempted to be solved. This effort is to see if there is a different answer to the question asked in the ‘90s. If there is a new purpose and need, CDOT and FHWA would have to agree, if Council wishes to move forward. This will likely come back to Council in June, when the information gathered between December and spring is presented with a draft purpose and need and a potential request. A letter would then go to CDOT and FHWA if Council directs moving forward with a new EIS. Kate then discussed Referendum One, mentioning that the City Attorney’s office had previously issued an opinion that if it was desired to pursue the preferred alternative and build bus lanes, an additional vote would be required. This is because in previous years, voters had approved the use of a two-lane highway for vehicular traffic and then a light rail lane when and if funds could be found. Referendum Two passed, which constituted the additional needed vote to make the preferred alternative possible. Under the City charter, a change in use of parks and open space requires a public vote. This now provides voters’ approval to authorize use on the Marolt Open Space for the construction of the 1998 entrance to Aspen ROD and preferred alternative. It also authorized the use of the open space for any future ROD or any future EIS that doesn’t require the preferred alternative. If the City engages in an additional EIS and receives an additional new or amended ROD or preferred alternative that contemplates use of the Marolt Open Space, this constitutes a vote for those uses and no additional public vote would be needed. This is a charter amendment. Dan asked how the referendum supersedes light rail. Kate explained that the prior ballot initiative approved constructing a two-lane highway and a light rail lane. Kate commented that the language in the current ballot initiative refers to “mass transit” which is more general. Jen explained that the preferred alternative is one general purpose lane in each direction and a light rail envelope, with more specific language approving open space use for this plan, and that is why the additional vote was required. Kate added that voter approval of this measure permits CDOT to proceed for both planning and construction activities of either the current ROD or future preferred alternative ROD. Jen mentioned that Council will have an update on where the consultants are in this process on Monday. There will also be a discussion at the May 15th EOTC meeting. The mapping tool and outreach portal will stay open, although data has been pulled down for upcoming meetings. A Council decision point will be coming up this summer. Dan asked for clarification of whether Council will be voting on opening a new federal process. Jen said that it will likely take more than one meeting before Council directs staff on moving forward. If the direction is to open a new federal process, it would require making a case that there is a reason to do so. It will probably be around July before Council makes this decision. Cost is estimated to be $2-3 million over two-three years. Adam asked if Council decides not to pursue a new federal process, if it would go back to CDOT in their prioritization of timing. Jen said that if we put the project back into CDOT’s hands, it would likely be a while before Aspen’s bridge rises to their immediate priority list given that cost will be around $150 million for any of the options and that there are many failing bridges, while our bridge is in fair condition. Adam asked if the City would discuss self-funding; Kate said that it is not possible to speculate on that at this time. Jen added that since it is a CDOT facility, it must go through CDOT’s processes, therefore nothing immediate can happen. Julie asked about using current HOV lanes during rush hour in the meantime. HOV lanes are managed lanes and were funded by EOTC funds; if there were to be a change, those funds would need to be paid back. That is unlikely to happen because the ROD sees them as managed lanes. It also helps the system to have bus priority in those lanes because if busses get stuck in mixed traffic, that reduces incentive to use the bus. Kate added that it is outside of the City’s authority to change use of those lanes. Dan added that a basic concept of transportation systems is the incentive to use the bus in HOV lanes that are unimpeded by general traffic. Dan asked about light rail. Kate said that it has been approved and is still on the table. Kate went over the recent referendum language to explain that “enhancing mass transit” allows for buses. Jen mentioned that if a new process of any kind begins, her office will be reaching out to this department and other stakeholders. Dan asked for clarification of what the EIS is comprised of. Jen explained that a purpose and need statement is part of the City’s request toward a new federal process, and this can include community objectives; it needs to explain what we are trying to solve. The NEPA process acts as an umbrella law, pulling in other laws such as the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, so NEPA looks at the impacts in all of those categories. Dan asked what exact purpose the EIS serves and how it informs federal and state decisions about moving forward or not. Jen explained that the EIS looks at the limits of the study area and the transportation needs to solve in that corridor. Community needs help guide the process. She mentioned the Clean Air Act and the City’s past non-attainment and addressing that as a part of the process. The process is guided by the purpose and need statement. Matt added that the purpose and need statement is what you are analyzing, and the EIS is the analysis. The EIS looks at the options that address that purpose and need, including a do- nothing alternative. Jen highlighted various considerations that might be considered as components of different alternatives; ultimately the EIS is the analysis, and at the end there is the determination of the decision. Kate added that this federal process looks at impacts of physical, cultural, and human environments affected by the proposed project. It doesn’t answer specific questions, rather it provides the community and entities with what the potential impacts of any study, good or bad, may encompass. Jen said that it looks at which alternative best meets the project objectives and has the least impacts. Ann commented that the EIS is very comprehensive, including impacts to historical resources, for example, and required mitigation. The EIS doesn’t say yes or no to a project, rather it provides mitigation information for various impacts, and if mitigation is too expensive and involved, that may steer the project or make it unfeasible. Jen added that there would be a Section 106 review going forward. Dan asked about EOTC’s role and decision-making authority. Jen explained that the City of Aspen was not a signatory to the ROD; CDOT and FHWA were the signatories. Jen explained that back in the ‘90s, entities that cooperated in this effort included the Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office, Board of County Commissioners, RFTA, BLM, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Federal Aviation Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Forest Service. Notably Snowmass was not on that list but would likely be a cooperating agency in a new process. The EOTC brings the three elected bodies together. Kate added that it is not necessarily the EOTC as an agency that will be involved, rather the members themselves will be involved. The EOTC as a group facilitates receiving and discussing information. Jen explained that she will be presenting an update and analysis to City Council on Monday, including data on origin and destination for workers, where they are going in town, and use of the roundabout. Old Business: None. Board Comments: Adam: asked about the wooden tower across from the historic power plant. Matt explained that it was part of a public art installation many years ago. Julie: mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce will be moving into the Armory next week. Tents for Food & Wine will still be placed on the lawn at the old power plant; power plant construction will not happen until after Food & Wine. Matt added that the trail radius softening at that location has been pushed out and will likely be canceled per budget and changes to use of the power plant building. Julie asked if Difficult Campground and Independence Pass are no longer dog off leash areas, noting a law enforcement officer who was recently working there. Adam commented that this was a legit law enforcement officer, and that dog waste is a major clean-up issue for the area. The US Forest Service may look at Independence Pass as an off- leash area but not Difficult Campground. Ann: commented on the trail being built in Clear Creek Canyon and its long construction duration and cost. She suggested it as an example of trail engineering and solutions. Austin added that the highway sections onto which the trail is cantilevered were probably built with that in mind. Julie added comments about bike trails in the Moab area. Dan: thanked staff for making today’s topic discussion happen so quickly. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting May 15, 2025. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Adam made a motion to adjourn; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous.