APPENDIX C
Focus Groups & Individual Mee�ngs SUMMER 2023 Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs California State Parks, together with the consul�ng team suppor�ng the BBFMP, conducted 6 focus groups and 6 individual mee�ngs with Indigenous representa�ves, neighbors, partners, local leaders, and others. These focus groups and mee�ngs were intended primarily as Listening Sessions to provide an opportunity to build trust and to iden�fy mutually beneficial opportuni�es for collabora�on and partnership.
Guiding Ques�ons: •
Where is there alignment between BBFMP Objec�ves and the goals of your organiza�on/community?
•
Does your organiza�on/community have any projects, programs, or ini�a�ves that could be opportuni�es for collabora�on?
•
Do you have any ideas about how to beter reach people who are engaged with your organiza�on/community in the planning process?
•
What is the best way for us to con�nue these conversa�ons?
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
1
Focus groups were conducted with: •
Environmental Groups: Ecology Ac�on, Save the Redwoods League, Santa Cruz Mountains Bioregional Council, Sempervirens Fund, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and Center for Biological Diversity (August 31, 2023)
•
Local Leaders in Boulder Creek (September 14, 2023)
•
User Groups: Santa Cruz County Horsemen’s Associa�on and Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship (two separate focus groups on September 19, 2023)
•
Saddle Mountain Neighbors (two separate mee�ngs: September 26, 2023 [via Zoom] and September 30, 2023 [in-person])
Individual mee�ngs were conducted with: 1. Seraph White, Outdoors Empowered Network & Bay Area Wilderness Training 2. Cat Willis, Santa Cruz County Black Health Maters Ini�a�ve (SCCBHMI) 3. Meredith Cook, Community Bridges 4. Dus�n Schmucker, UCSC Recrea�on 5. Richard Tejeda, Saved by Nature 6. Val Lopez, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band •
Additionally, representatives from the following agencies were invited to participate in individual meetings and may participate in future engagement phases: Negus in Nature, Radical Adventure Riders, Disabled Hikers, Friends of County Parks, Latino Outdoors, UCSC American Indian Resource Center
Synthesis of Insights Across Mee�ngs Broad Support for Focus on Ecological Health and Sustainability •
There is very strong support, par�cularly from environmental groups, but also widely across other par�cipants, for protec�ng the ecological health of the old growth. Some environmental group par�cipants are concerned that dra� plans may s�ll allow too much use in and near old growth.
•
Par�cipants want to ensure that new facili�es are designed with a focus on sustainability. Sustainability sugges�ons included greywater reuse, rainwater harves�ng, bioswales and meadows, passive building design, charging sta�ons for electric vehicles, compos�ng/incinera�ng toilets, managing food and garbage to minimize impacts on marbled murrelet, and providing community resilience centers to help address climate risks for the wider community.
Need to Increase Sense of Safety and Welcome for BIPOC Visitors •
Par�cipants feel strongly that it is important to foster a sense of safety and inclusivity to help BIPOC visitors and other members of other tradi�onally underrepresented groups feel comfortable, safe, and welcome at Big Basin. The park needs to con�nue to work with
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
2
community-based organiza�ons to determine the best ways to do this. •
Communica�on approaches and language used are important. Providing more culturally competent translated materials and avoiding insensi�ve language in signage and interpre�ve materials would increase accessibility and sense of welcome.
Aten�on Needs to be Given to the Many Components of Increasing Accessibility •
Transporta�on and cost are major barriers for many low-income Californians who would like to visit Big Basin.
•
Ways to address affordability include low-cost or free shutles, low-cost or free recrea�onal opportuni�es for students and families, elimina�ng parking and other fees for special programming, and establishing gear libraries that provide rentals on a sliding scale.
•
User groups want safe trail access and beter access to basic facili�es such as bathrooms and trash receptacles for trail users across the park. Areas for equestrian staging and more bike friendly infrastructure would help increase access for those uses.
•
Clear communica�on and signage including wayfinding, maps, and online resources would also improve accessibility.
•
ADA accessibility also emerged as a strong priority. Par�cipants suggested addi�onal engagement with people with disabili�es during the design process.
Increasing the Visibility of Indigenous Stories and Prac�ces Should be a Priority •
Across focused engagement par�cipants feel that there are important opportuni�es for incorpora�ng Indigenous stewardship, history and stories, and cultural prac�ces throughout Big Basin. Ongoing funding for Tribal stewards could play an important role in ensuring that this work is done well.
•
There is support for providing Indigenous cultural/ceremonial space at Litle Basin, but there is also concern about accessibility, shared public and Tribal use, challenges associated with mul�ple Tribes using the site independently.
Neighbors Want to Minimize the Impacts of Facili�es at Saddle Mountain •
Neighbors remain very concerned about poten�al impacts from addi�onal facili�es at Saddle Mountain. They are par�cularly concerned about traffic and road condi�ons, trespassing and safety, and poten�al nuisance issues like trash and noise.
•
Ideally, neighbors would like Saddle Mountain facili�es to be designed for more limited use, only during �mes of peak park visita�on. The excep�on to this is general support for staff housing at Saddle Mountain.
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
3
MEETING SUMMARIES Individual Interviews: Community-Based Organiza�ons and Focus Communi�es (August to September 2023) Key Takeaways •
Safety and Sense of Welcome. o
It is important to foster a sense of safety and inclusivity to help BIPOC visitors and other
o
The park should con�nue to work with community-based organiza�ons to determine the
o
members of focus communi�es feel comfortable and welcome. best ways to do this. Law enforcement officials in the park need to be sensi�ve to the trauma�c experiences of some BIPOC visitors. Undocumented visitors may be especially reluctant to trust law enforcement.
•
Language and Communica�ons. o
Providing more culturally competent translated materials and avoiding insensi�ve and “triumphalist” language in signage and interpre�ve materials would increase accessibility and sense of welcome. (See Kings Canyon Na�onal Park Visitor Center for transla�on examples.)
•
o
More targeted outreach and communica�on that includes representa�on of BIPOC
o
Celebra�ons and inclusive programming can bring more BIPOC community members to
communi�es is needed. “People want to feel like they are being spoken to.” the park.
Equitable Access. o
Transporta�on and cost are big barriers for many low-income Californians who would like
o
Hos�ng more low-cost or free recrea�onal opportuni�es for students and families and
o
Gear libraries that provide rentals on a sliding slide can help lower-income visitors feel
o
Focused programming could also help expand opportuni�es for camping and backpacking
o
It is also important to have facili�es that allow larger family and community gatherings and
to visit Big Basin. Low-cost or free shutles may be able to fill a gap. elimina�ng parking and other fees for special programming would also help. safer and more comfortable visi�ng Big Basin. for low-income and BIPOC youth. accessible picnic areas and trails.
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
4
•
Indigenous Perspec�ves o
There are important opportuni�es for incorpora�ng Indigenous stewardship, history, and
o
There is support for providing Indigenous cultural/ceremonial space at Litle Basin, but
cultural prac�ces throughout Big Basin. there is also concern about accessibility, shared public and Tribal use, challenges associated with mul�ple Tribes using the site independently.
o
Ongoing funding for Tribal stewards could play an important role in ensuring that this work is done well. (See Grinding Rock State Park for example programs.)
Par�cipants 1. 2. 3. 4.
Seraph White, Outdoors Empowered Network & Bay Area Wilderness Training Cat Willis, Santa Cruz County Black Health Matters Initiative (SCCBHMI) Meredith Cook, Community Bridges Dustin Schmucker, UCSC Recreation
5. Richard Tejeda, Saved By Nature 6. Val Lopez, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Additionally, representatives from the following agencies were invited to participate in individual meetings and may participate in future engagement phases: Negus in Nature, Radical Adventure Riders, Disabled Hikers, Friends of County Parks, Latino Outdoors, UCSC American Indian Resource Center Interviews were conducted by Will Fourt (Parks California) and Garret Hammack (State Parks). State Archeologist Mike Grone interviewed Chairman Lopez of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band.
Focus Groups: User Groups (September 19, 2023) Key Takeaways •
User groups want safe trail access and better access to basic facilities such as bathrooms and trash receptacles for trail users.
•
User groups also want clear communication and signage including wayfinding, maps, and online resources. They also want clear communication about where different uses (horses, dogs, mountain bikes) are allowed.
•
An equestrian staging area is a major priority for the Santa Cruz County Horsemen’s Association. Staging area would need pull-through parking stalls with paved lanes. In addition to other basic facilities (restrooms, trash), it would be ideal to have water spigots, hitching posts, a mounting block, and a plan for manure. (Wilder Ranch has a good example of a staging area and Mid Peninsula Open Space and San Vicentes have good examples of reservation and permit systems.)
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
5
•
Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship would like to see more bike friendly infrastructure in Big Basin including official bike routes via the coast, shuttles with bike racks, and bike racks and bike parking at trailheads. They would also like to have opportunities for bike-in camping and bikepacking near key park attractions and space that would support large events like the Old Growth Classic. Ideally, they want more consideration of future access for e-bikes and other transportation alternatives as well.
Par�cipants Focus groups with the groups below were conducted by State Parks staff. They met with each group separately on the same day. Santa Cruz County Horsemen’s Association Robin Musitelli, Peggy Hughes, Debbie Boscoe, Heather Shupe Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship Matt DeYoung, Drew Perkins
Focus Group: Saddle Mountain Neighbors - September 26 (Zoom) and 30 (In-Person), 2023 Focus Group Goals •
Provide details about the planning process for the BBFMP overall
•
Discuss (in preliminary/general terms) the siting of facilities at Saddle Mountain
•
Better understand key considerations/concerns for neighbors and begin identifying ways those concerns may be incorporated into the Basis of Design
•
Collaborate in identifying ways that State Parks can be a good neighbor to existing and future neighbors in the areas surrounding Saddle Mountain
Key Takeaways •
Neighbors still have significant concerns about the impacts of facilities at Saddle Mountain. Participants expressed support for the new details about common goals for addressing key issues, but they are eager for additional information about mitigation approaches as planning and design move forward.
•
Neighbors expressed very significant concerns about traffic and road conditions. These concerns include potential traffic congestion, especially during busy weekends; the need for clear escape routes; the need to address a blind spot and dangerous intersection at Saddle Mountain; the need for a turn lane into Saddle Mountain; and general road repair and maintenance issues, particularly for Lodge Road and Little Basin Road.
•
There is a lot of concern about potential nuisance issues. Neighbors want facilities to
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
6
include “all the things that visitors need to behave well.” This includes trash receptacles, restrooms, designated smoking areas, clear signage, etc. Neighbors also mentioned the need to consider potential noise impacts and to create visual and sound buffers between facilities and neighboring homes. •
Overall, neighbors are very concerned about trespassing and general safety. Neighbors appreciated park rangers emphasizing that if nuisance or safety concerns arise, neighbors can call the rangers’ State Parks office voicemail or contact the rangers through the sheriff’s non-emergency dispatch. Neighbors indicated that installing large official-looking signage marking park access boundaries (and discouraging trespassing) could help reduce concerns.
•
Neighbors would like facilities at Saddle Mountain to be designed primarily for use only during the periods of highest visitation. Neighbors would also like more clarity about potential impacts from the interim phase and future phases of facility use at Saddle Mountain.
•
One participant brought up a concern about eminent domain being used for property acquisition. Park staff stated unequivocally that that would not happen and that any property acquisition would be from willing sellers only.
•
Neighbors are generally supportive of the idea of staff housing at Saddle Mountain along Old Basin Road. One focus group participant emphasized the importance of 3-bedroom houses for parks staff so that they can stay in the park in the long-term with growing families. Neighbors also expressed support for Indigenous ceremonial use at Little Basin and for locating the maintenance facility at Saddle Mountain.
•
Neighbors mentioned a number of ways that amenities in the park could benefit them. These included potentially connecting to fiber internet; installing an accessible pay phone; improving cell service and labeling service areas for visitors; and providing emergency landing zones for helicopters. Neighbors would also like to have more park rangers who are dedicated to the Big Basin area.
•
Neighbors feel that ongoing engagement and communication with State Parks is critical. Focus group participants expressed appreciation for the additional engagement with them during this first phase of the FMP process.
Follow Up •
Share PDF of presentation with focus group participants
•
Share focus group feedback related to facility siting, design, and impact mitigation with relevant park staff and members of the consultant team
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
7
Par�cipants Zoom Focus Group Participants 1. Jesus Beltran 2. Laurel Neel 3. Sarah Corneille In-Person Focus Group Participants 1. Jesus Beltran 2. Laura Bailey 3. Laurel Neel 4. Marty Moore 5. Mary Lee Friis-Hansen 6. Paige Garrahan 7. Peter Reinhard 8. Steven Travis 9. Theresa Brees 10. Zach Bailey Note: Eleven (11) total neighbors participated in one or both of the focus groups.
Facilitators/Staff •
Amy Morris from Land and Water Connections Consulting served as overall facilitator for the Zoom and in-person focus groups; Amy took notes during the Zoom focus group as well
•
Will Fourt from Parks California/State Parks gave an overview presentation and answered questions
•
Logan Woodruff from Placeworks and Garret Hammack from State Parks attended both the Zoom and in-person focus groups; Logan took notes during the in-person focus group
•
Scott Sipes, State Parks Ranger, attended the Zoom focus group and helped to answer questions
•
Andrew Dobbs, State Parks Ranger, attended the in-person focus group and helped to answer questions
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
8
Focus Group: Boulder Creek Local Leaders - September 14, 2023 (Boulder Creek Library) Key Takeaways •
Participants were generally very supportive of what they heard about the Facilities Management Plan (FMP). They understand the need to relocate and redesign facilities to protect old growth ecosystems and meet other objectives.
•
Participants want to ensure that new facilities are designed with a focus on sustainability. Sustainability suggestions included greywater reuse, rainwater harvesting, bioswales and meadows, passive building design, EV charging stations, composting/incinerating toilets, and providing community resilience centers.
•
ADA accessibility also emerged as a strong priority. Participants suggested additional engagement with people with disabilities during the design process.
•
Participants expressed support for historical building styles (in keeping with the park’s history) and for providing facilities to support equestrian use of the park.
•
There is a great deal of interest in the future expansion of the shuttle system. Participants would like to see the shuttle routes and stops designed in ways that promote local businesses and draw attention to local history.
•
Participants noted that Saddle Mountain neighbors are still likely to be very concerned about facilities being located in that area. They suggested highly visible marking of park boundaries to help prevent trespassing.
•
There is some concern about communication with local community members, particularly related to ongoing confusion about parking access and the shuttle system. Participants would like to support the Park in its communication efforts by amplifying social media posts and reaching out to their networks.
Follow Up •
Share PDF of presentation with focus group participants
•
Share focus group feedback related to facility design with relevant park staff and members of the consultant team
Focus Group Par�cipants 1. Tonje Wold-Switzer, Community Bridges and Santa Cruz County Long Term Recovery Group 2. Laura Whaley, Santa Cruz Public Library (formerly State Parks staff at Big Basin) 3. Gary Walter, Highlands Park Senior & Community Center (filling in for Coco Walters) 4. Kevin Foster, Boulder Creek Neighbors Facebook (also an emergency response volunteer) Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
9
5. Karen Edwards, Boulder Creek Business Association 6. Tamara O’Kelly, Boulder Creek Business Association (retired from a landscape architecture firm) Additionally, representatives from the following groups were invited to participate: Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District, SLV Water District, Boulder Creek Fire Department, Valley Woman’s Club.
Facilitators/Staff •
Amy Morris from Land and Water Connections Consulting served as overall facilitator
•
Will Fourt from State Parks gave an overview presentation and answered questions
•
Autumn from State Parks took overall notes; Amy took flip chart notes during discussion
Focus Group: Environmental Group Representa�ves - August 31, 2023 Key Takeaways •
Participants were generally supportive of what they have heard about the Facilities Management Plan (FMP). They support the ecologically focused vision and appreciate the thoughtfulness of the planning approach.
•
There was strong support for relocating facilities outside of old growth areas to protect ecological processes and sensitive species, particularly marbled murrelet (MAMU). Several focus group members noted that there may well be public concern about relocating facilities and about future stewardship approaches, but that they support those changes.
•
There was also strong support for efforts to work with Indigenous partners on cultural access and stewardship and on more nuanced interpretative resources centering Indigenous stories.
•
There is some concern that returning visitation, particularly overnight camping, to pre-fire levels and re-establishing campsites at Huckleberry in the old growth will negatively impact MAMU. (A view that “now is the time to adjust people’s expectations about where they will have access.”)
•
Focus group members recommended additional attention and study related to the following: off-stream water storage and rainwater storage; making RV dump stations “foolproof” and keeping them away from water sources; wet rot on trees; managing food and garbage (including adequate dish washing stations) and providing effective educational signage; and opportunities for elevated trails and other approaches to further minimizing impacts in the old growth.
•
Focus group members are very interested in forest stewardship planning and trail planning
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
10
as well, and they want to be engaged. It was not previously clear to all the focus group members that the EIR for the General Plan would continue to be the umbrella environmental review document for all these efforts.
Follow Up •
Share PDF of presentation with focus group participants
•
Share focus group feedback related to biological resources, water, and site design with the relevant park staff and members of the consultant team (see 5th bullet above)
Par�cipants 1. Amelia Conlen, Ecology Action, climate action focused (water, climate, transportation planning) 2. Anthony Castanos, Save the Redwoods League, land stewardship manager 3. Jen Michelsen, Santa Cruz Mountains Bioregional Council; worked on San Lorenzo River for almost 20 years; 2nd post-fire research symposium coming up 4. Laura McClendon, Sempervirens Fund, conservation director, strategic land purchases, background in biology and anthropology 5. Lisa Barboza, Sierra Club Loma Prieta, outing chair; worked in wildlife biology and engineering, tree planting; hiking at Big Basin since 1985 6. Shaye Wolf, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD); climate science director, background as an ecologist; CBD was concerned with general plan and protections for marbled murrelet (MAMU)
Facilitators •
Amy Morris (Land and Water Connections Consulting) facilitated overall and led discussion (and recorded Zoom meeting)
•
Will Fourt (Parks California, State Parks) gave an overview presentation and answered questions
•
Both Amy and Will took notes
Focus Groups and Individual Mee�ngs Summary Public Dra� | 04 January 2024
11