HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.16.15 OSBT PacketOPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Monday, November 16, 2015
Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
6:00 I. Approval of Minutes
6:05 II. Public Participation for Items Not Identified for Public Hearing
6:15 III. Matters from Staff
Bear Study
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 2015 Update
6:55 IV. Matters from the Board
Discussion: Feedback to Council for 2016 Retreat
7:15 V. Adjournment
*Public Hearing
STUDY SESSION
7:20 **Study Session: North Trail Study Area Plan Preliminary Scenarios
** The study session is open to the public but there will be no public participation.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 1
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes
Meeting Date October 14, 2015
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Shelley Dunbar Frances Hartogh Molly Davis Kevin Bracy Knight Tom Isaacson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Jim Reeder Steve Armstead Mark Gershman Bethany Collins Deryn Wagner
Brian Anacker Don D’Amico Marianne Giolitto Kelly Wasserbach Cecil Fenio
Leah Case Alycia Alexander
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes
Frances Hartogh said on page three, under Return to the Board, it should say, “Frances asked whether the
vehicle acquisition program focuses on clean-burning/electric vehicles.”
Tom Isaacson moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to approve the minutes from Sept. 9, 2015 as
amended. Kevin Bracy Knight seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Molly Davis was absent at the
time of the motion.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda
Eileen Monyok, Boulder, spoke in regard to the North Trail Study Area (TSA) process. She said she is in
favor of sharing the trails equally, and if possible, merging aspects from different scenarios.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from Staff
Marianne Giolitto, Wetlands and Riparian Ecologist, gave an update to the Board on the Boulder
Creek Master Plan.
Frances asked how many people attended the public meetings. Marianne said Urban Drainage sent out
500 letters, but attendance was lower than hoped. Molly asked if this was publicly noticed. Marianne said
it was posted on the website in addition to the letter than was sent out to the neighbors. Shelley asked if
this plan will come back to the Board at any point. Jim Reeder said yes, with possible approval for
funding.
Brian Anacker, Science Officer, gave an update to the Board on his role within Open Space and
Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department
Kevin Bracy Knight suggested making this data fully accessible. Brian said OSMP is on board with
making data available, but still working on what can and cannot be posted. He said he will also be listed
as a contact on the website which will make getting information easier. Molly Davis asked what
information can be taken from transects. Brian said there is a lot of environmental data that can be
extracted, as well as the distance to closest trails and the disturbance history.
Steve Armstead, Environmental Planner, gave an update to the Board on the North Trail Study
Area (TSA).
Kevin asked if there will be any new materials provided at the next Open House. Steve said no new
materials, however the survey results will be shared; these will be posted on the website in advance of the
meeting. Shelley asked what the best way for people to give input is. Steve said the survey tool did not
allow for people to elaborate so he would suggest people participate in workshops or give feedback
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 2
online. Shelley said when staff advises people about the comment period, it should be made clear why the
timeframe is set as is. Frances said it would be helpful to understand how staff plans to manage a trail in a
Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) with critical habitat and including data would be helpful. She asked if
Boulder County has been involved, and if it would be possible to have a representative from that
department present at the study session.
Jim Reeder, Trails and Facilities Division Manager, gave an update on various staff projects.
Frances asked if a map of the prescribed burn information will be on the website. Jim said yes.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board
None.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – Request for a recommendation to approve the purchase of approximately
24.59 acres of land with one house, associated outbuildings and appurtenant water and mineral
rights at 4290 Eldorado Springs Dr. from the Brett D. Trigg Heritage Trust for $1,600,000 for
Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes. An additional expenditure of up to $100,000 is being
requested for immediate needs.
Bethany Collins, Property Agent, gave a presentation on a possible acquisition.
Frances asked if the public will be able to access this property. Bethany said short-term management will
come out within a year, but the area in its entirety will be evaluated during the South TSA.
Public Comment
Doug Pagels, Boulder, said this is a special area and has belonged to a single family for all of its time. He
is concerned that trail building might be inappropriate and disrupting. He asked that staff limit impacts to
the neighbors, and give the parcel the strongest and highest protection status as possible.
Rich Reynolds, Boulder, said this is an extraordinary piece of land. There is a huge variety of wildlife. He
is concerned about this being used for trails. He urged the Board that it not be cut, sliced and diced. That
would result in a loss of values that are protected. Please try to keep the integrity of this property.
Return to the Board
Kevin said this area has a great view. Keeping the heritage of this place would be a great asset if possible.
He asked staff when it comes time to think about management, please keep in mind requests from
neighbors. Tom said he agrees this meets Open Space purposes. He said he cannot promise an outcome,
but does not believe there will be a harsh opening. Shelley said she agrees with Tom; it would be ideal to
have the land remain as agriculture land. Frances expressed her thanks to the Trigg Family for their
willingness to work with Open Space. Molly suggested when Open Space purchases a piece of property
having the owners or neighbors write down the history/story of their land so it can be saved and shared.
Motion
Frances Hartogh moved the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that the Boulder City
Council approve the purchase of approximately 24.59 acres of land with one house, associated
outbuildings and appurtenant water and mineral rights at 4290 Eldorado Springs Dr. from the
Brett D. Trigg Heritage Trust for $1,600,000 for Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes, as well
as an additional expenditure of up to $100,000 for immediate needs. Molly Davis seconded. This
motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case.
CITY OF BOULDER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Susan Richstone, Deputy Director, Planning, Housing + Sustainability
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager, PH+S
Courtland Hyser, Senior Planner, PH+S
Jean Gatza, Sustainability Planner, PH+S
Caitlin Zacharias, Associate Planner, PH+S
DATE: November 16, 2015
SUBJECT: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 2015 Update – Briefing on
Foundational Work, Community Engagement, Focused Topics, CU South,
and Next Steps
PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP) 2015 Update and receive feedback on the foundational work to date (i.e., Trends
Report, projections, fact sheets, and mapping); the community engagement plan and input so
far; topics and tracks for the BVCP update; CU South property, and next steps for the 18-month
project.
Open Space Board of Trustees Role in the BVCP
The BVCP is jointly adopted by the City of Boulder (“city”) (Planning Board and City Council)
and Boulder County (“county”) (County Commissioners and Planning Commission). While the
Open Space Board of Trustees is not responsible for approving the plan, staff is seeking
feedback and ideas from the board about relevant policy areas of the plan, including any topics
related to open space, the natural environment, relevant BVCP maps (including the land use,
trails and natural ecosystems maps), alignment with current OSMP planning projects, and
community engagement. The planning team will advance the feedback to the four approval
bodies at their meetings in December and January.
Feedback
Does the Open Space Board of Trustees have any questions about the foundational information
(i.e., Community Profile, draft Trends Report, Subcommunity Fact Sheets, 2040 projections), or
feedback about:
1.Community engagement and next steps?
2.Topics to address in the 2015 update and/or specific topics relevant to the Open Space
Board of Trustees, including open space, the natural environment, relevant BVCP maps
(including the land use, trails and natural ecosystems maps), or current alignment with
OSMP planning projects?
3.The approach for addressing the CU South property as part of and beyond the BVCP,
including the suitability analysis process?
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 1
BACKGROUND
Plan Purpose and Joint Adoption
The BVCP is the community’s plan for the future.
The core components of the plan include policies and
maps. The policies are intended to guide decisions about
growth, development, preservation, environmental
protection, economic development, affordable housing,
culture and the arts, urban design, neighborhood
character and transportation for the next 15 years. Two
maps, namely the Land Use and Area I, II, III Maps,
define the desired land-use pattern and location, type,
and intensity of development.
Despite its 15 year horizon, the BVCP is updated every
five years to respond to changed circumstances or
evolving community needs and priorities.
Since the 1970s, the City of Boulder (“city”) (Planning
Board and City Council) and Boulder County
(“county”)(County Commissioners and Planning
Commission) have adopted the plan jointly. The ongoing
collaboration to address issues of shared concern is
relatively unique among communities.
2015 Update
The webpage for the 2015 update and portal for interested participants to sign up for project
updates is: www.bouldervalleycompplan.net. The webpage also includes a link to the 2010 plan
and maps. Maps relevant to OSBT’s work, including the land use map, plan area map, trails
map, and natural ecosystems map can be found at the end of the document. The 2015 BVCP
update will carry forward long-standing core values, as noted (above). Additionally, an updated
plan will be able to more clearly and
graphically convey the community’s vision;
better align the city organization and its
services; provide clear guidance and tools for
implementation; and include metrics to
monitor progress, among other goals for the
update.
Plan Implementation
The plan is the overarching policy guide for
the community. As such, its policies tend to
be less detailed than those that are found in
the city’s 20+ master plans. The BVCP is
implemented through many means as shown
in the graphic to the right. The BVCP’s land
use map sets parameters around future
growth and guides development standards
and zoning, and regulations in the Boulder Land Use Code are largely instrumental in guiding
BVCP Core Values
(p. 9, 2010 Plan)
1.Sustainability as a unifying
framework to meet environmental,
economic, and social goals
2.A welcoming and inclusive
community
3.Culture of creativity and innovation
4.Strong city and county cooperation
5.A unique community identity and
sense of place
6.Compact, contiguous development
and infill that supports evolution to a
more sustainable urban form
7.Open space preservation
8.Great neighborhoods and public
spaces
9.Environmental stewardship and
climate action
10.A vibrant economy based on
Boulder’s quality of life and economic
strengths
11.A diversity of housing types and
price ranges
12.An all-mode transportation system to
make getting around without a car
easy and accessible to everyone
13.Physical health and well-being
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 2
development to achieve plan goals consistent with the land use map. The city and county
closely adhere to the BVCP as guided by an intergovernmental agreement.
Feedback and Input to date
A summary of all the feedback to date, including input from boards and commissions, public
events and online polls, and Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Planning Board,
Planning Commission, and City Council will be updated regularly and can be found on the
project webpage.
Staff also has met monthly with a BVCP Process Subcommittee (Elise Jones and Lieschen
Gargano - Boulder County; Sam Weaver, Macon Cowles, John Gerstle, and Leonard May - City
of Boulder) to brief them on Update progress and receive guidance on ways to effectively
develop and implement public involvement opportunities.
Work Plan and Schedule
The project began earlier this year with focus on the technical foundational work and
development of a community engagement plan and kick off events. The plan process will
continue through summer 2016. Input and guidance received to-date from elected officials,
boards and commissions, and the public has resulted in continual refinements to the process
and approach for the 2015 BVCP update schedule. The four phases will each entail extensive
community dialogue and engagement. The project timeline is on the project webpage, here.
Phase 1—Foundations and Community Engagement Plan (to August 2015)
Phase 2—Issues Scoping with Community (through fall 2015)
Phase 3—Analyze and Update Plan Policies and Maps (fall 2015 - early 2016)
Phase 4—Prepare Draft Plan for Adoption, Extend IGA (to mid 2016)
Implementation steps, such as changes to code and zoning map updates would be completed
following plan adoption.
During Phase 1—Foundations/Community Engagement Plan—the planning team
completed the background data collection, projections, Trends Report, creation of
subcommunity fact sheets, and initiated work on interactive, 3D, and visualization maps.
The short Phase 2—Issues Identification—currently underway is aimed at working with the
community to refine and solidify the priority issues to be addressed through the 2015 BVCP
update through 2016.
Phase 3—Plan Analysis and Updated Policies and Maps—is a longer phase aimed at doing
the substantive work to develop choices and analysis for the plan update as well as the
“housekeeping” updates to align it better with plans and policies. Planning for this phase has
been initiated, but the actual work will be conducted over the winter and spring months. Several
events/milestones will provide opportunities for the community to help shape the plan
throughout this process.
During this phase, the team will advance the 3D modeling and visualization tools to help convey
conditions, options, and tradeoffs. Policy refinements and additions (e.g., adding arts and
culture, climate commitment policies, local foods, etc.) will also occur with community input.
Gaps in metrics to measure plan outcomes will be identified and the full set of measurements
further refined. Finally, the Land Use Plan and Area maps will be updated, reflecting input and
analysis from the public request process as well as scenarios and analysis.
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 3
Finally, Phase 4—Draft Plan and IGA—will synthesize all the previous phase deliverables in a
draft plan for consideration/adoption. Additionally, the “Comprehensive Development Plan
Intergovernmental Agreement” (IGA) between the city and county (valid through Dec. 31, 2017)
will need to be updated before its expiration.
Community Engagement
The city and county are aiming for an open and engaging update process that is focused on
critical issues. The process should result in a useful, relevant, and updated plan completed in
2016. The update will entail extensive, authentic community dialogue and engagement as
described in the Community Engagement Plan. The Community Engagement Plan can be
found on the project webpage. Recent and ongoing engagement events include:
Kickoff Event - A communitywide “Boulder 2030” kickoff event was held on Monday,
August 31 at Chautauqua. The event included previews of videos and presentations
about the plan and its role, information about current conditions and trends, interactive
ways of capturing community input, and family activities. About 225 members of the
public attended the event, excluding staff and support personnel.
Culturally-Appropriate Engagement – Staff and decision-makers seek a meaningful
engagement process with Boulder’s immigrant communities and culturally-appropriate
venues and processes. The approach focuses on one-on-one conversations with
community leaders and spokespeople, building on their knowledge and trust within the
community; working with bilingual partners at events or “pop-up” meetings using
comment forms in Spanish and English; partnering with Intercambio to get input from
immigrant students in English classes.
Outreach with Civic, Businesses, and Community Groups - Staff is in the process of
reaching out to civic, nonprofit, and other organizations and offering to have a city staff
member join them to talk about the update process and hear input.
Pop-Up Meetings - “Pop-up” meetings in conjunction with events and at gathering
places happened around town in August and September. Their purpose was to provide
information, increase awareness about the plan process, invite people to engage, and
ask initial questions about what people love and consider to be issues facing the
community.
Youth Engagement – Some of the pop-up meetings and other events were geared for
younger segments of the community – children, youth, and university students. The
City’s Youth Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB) and Growing Up Boulder are
partnering with the planning team.
BVCP Statistically Valid Survey – Staff with RRC Associates worked with the four
approval bodies to develop a survey and get feedback in August. In mid-September,
RRC distributed the survey to 6,000 households with follow-up focus groups. It is
expected that results of the survey and focus groups will be available in November.
Boards and Commissions – the planning team will be updating city boards and
commissions on the plan and inviting early input between September and December.
Dates for meetings with boards and commissions are identified under “Next Steps.”
Data and Trends Discussions – The planning team also held several drop in sessions
geared to allow discussion of the more technical aspects of the project -- data, trends,
forecasts and maps.
Local Listening Sessions – The city (and in some cases the county) are coordinating
local listening sessions around the community in the fall to share the fact sheets and
information about the local community and hear from community members about issues
of relevance in different parts of the community. A schedule for these sessions is below
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 4
(all sessions run from 6:30pm-8:30pm):
o Central Boulder including University Hill and the Chautauqua areas - Monday,
Nov. 9 at Whittier International Elementary, 2008 Pine St.
o North Boulder/Palo Park - Wednesday, Nov. 18 at Crest View Elementary,
1897 Sumac Drive, in conjunction with interdepartmental open house about
upcoming transportation, greenways and parks projects and a trail study affecting
the area
o South Boulder - Monday, Nov. 30 at Fairview High School, 1515 Greenbriar
Blvd.
o Southeast Boulder - Wednesday, Dec. 2 at Eisenhower Elementary, 1220
Eisenhower Drive
o Gunbarrel/Area III (Unincorporated Boulder County) - Monday, Dec. 7 at
Heatherwood Elementary, 7750 Concord Drive
o Crossroads/East Boulder - Wednesday, Dec. 9 at the Boulder Elks Lodge,
3975 28th St.
ANALYSIS AND FOUNDATIONAL WORK
This section highlights the work completed to date to aid in future conversations about the 2015
plan update.
Community Profile
The 2015 Community Profile, partially updated in April and mostly complete as of Aug. 31,
2015, provides a snapshot of the Boulder community. It can be found here.
2040 Projections
During each five year update, the city updates the long term (i.e., 25 year) projections for
housing units and jobs. Projections give a broad sense of what type, location, and pace of
housing and jobs might occur communitywide based on current adopted policies—reflecting
what could happen under current zoning and reasonable assumptions regarding demographic
and household trends and economic growth. They help inform conversations about the kind of
future Boulder wants and potential changes to current policies. They do not represent a “given.”
For example, in the past, the city has made changes to land uses – from commercial and
industrial to mixed use and residential – based on the projections and community-defined
priorities and desired future outcomes. Once the plan and projections are updated, city
departments such as transportation, parks, and utilities use them to plan for system needs in
long range master plans.
Projections have their limitations for planning. They are not particularly helpful when it comes to
discussing quality or character of development or social issues (e.g., diversity, cost of housing,
types of future jobs and incomes, etc.). Additionally, they are not useful at the site-specific level
because the methods of calculation are based on broad assumptions.
In general, the BVCP projections are based on a Geographic Information Systems model
estimating capacity. The full report, maps, sources of data, and methodology that accompany
the projections are available here. For additional details, refer to the 2015-2040 BVCP
Projections Methodology, available here. The projections document presents two sets of
numbers: projected growth at 2040, and the capacity for additional growth beyond 2040 (based
on what current zoning would allow). The zoning capacity number is useful to determine
whether building under the city’s current zoning regulations results in the amount and mix of
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 5
development that is desired for the future. It is not a “given” and has no time frame associated
with it.
The 2040 projection results indicate existing housing units of 45,700 in the city limits; 104,800
people, and 98,500 jobs in the city and potential by 2040 for almost 6,300 new future housing
units (including almost 1,000 new CU housing units) in the city, 18,200 new people (including
group quarters), and 18,500 new jobs. Growth rates are based on an average residential rate of
0.6% and an average non residential rate of 0.7% annually. Current zoning allows greater
capacity for jobs than housing, with housing reaching capacity by 2040 and an additional 34,200
jobs possible beyond 2040.
Subcommunity and Regional Fact Sheets
The city and county have prepared a series of ten Fact Sheets: one for each of the nine Boulder
subcommunities, and one for Area III (located outside of the city but within the BVCP planning
area). The sheets document existing land use, facilities, and demographic conditions at the local
level and include historic information. Draft versions are on the project website and can be the
basis for local Listening Sessions and focused planning at the local level to better understand
needs that are more specific to localized areas rather than the entire Boulder Valley or citywide.
The sheets are also being digitized to create online “stories” with interactive maps and data.
Trends Report and Top Trends
The Trends Report highlights Boulder’s trends and presents information at the city, county, and
regional scales and organizes the information according to the sustainability framework. The
latest draft is online (available here) and incorporates input received from elected officials,
boards, commissions, and city and county staff as well as some local agencies including the
school district, CU, and others. For the community kickoff, the planning team distilled the cross-
cutting trends into the posters and in the presentation, and as summarized below.
1.Boulder has Potential for Redevelopment—Mostly in the Northeastern Part of the
Community
2.Boulder Continues to be a Center for Employment in the Region
3.Boulderites are Changing How they Travel – At least within the City
4.The Community is Taking Action and Getting more Prepared for Climate Change and
Other Threats
5.Boulder’s Housing Types and Availability are Shifting Toward Multi-Family Units; Costs
are Rising
6.Population is Growing and Aging
7.Social Disparities Exist; Some are Widening
8.People Seek more Walkable Neighborhoods
9.Healthy Living and Eating Continues as a Way of Life
10.Quality of Life is High
Interactive Mapping and 3D and Visualization
The planning team is working with ESRI to develop online interactive story board maps for
different parts of the community. Online maps will have the ability to display different conditions
and data as well as 3D buildings and topography. These maps can be the basis for scenario
testing and analysis and visualization later in the planning process.
Topics and Tracks for the 2015 Update
At previous meetings of the Planning Board, Planning Commission, City Council, and the Board
of County Commissioners have continually refined a list of topics to address in the 2015 Plan
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 6
update. Some of the initial ideas evolved from findings of the Consultant Report from late
2014/early 2015 which incorporated feedback from several city boards, and the most recent
community kickoff helped to further shape the topics, which generally are noted below.
“21st Century” Opportunities and Challenges
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan will integrate with other plans, initiatives, and emerging
issues including:
Aging Population – Age-friendly community (i.e., programs and policies to address
anticipated needs of an aging population by 2040)
Arts and Culture (e.g., policies from the Community Cultural Plan, work of the library,
and other programs)
Biodiversity (e.g., policies from urban wildlife, integrated pest management, and open
space programs)
Climate Action and Alternative Energy (e.g., policies and goals relating to the Climate
Action plan and renewable energy goals)
Community character – diversity (i.e., goals emerging from the Design Excellence
project and Form Based Code pilot)
Local Food (e.g., improving upon existing goals in the plan and incorporating new
initiatives and programs relating to health, wellness, and local foods).
Resilience / Regional issues (i.e., incorporating work from the 100 Resilient Cities
grant program and coordination with the city’s Chief Resilience Officer)
Growth Management and Livability/Housing
The city and county may identify possible changes to the land use map in focused areas or
policies to accomplish community goals such as housing or growth management, or to adjust
the jobs and housing mix. Questions to address include but are not limited to: What should be
the future mix and rate of growth of jobs and housing? Where are appropriate locations for
future housing and what types are needed to address “missing middle” income ranges?
Neighborhoods and Character
The city has been hearing a lot of interest from neighborhoods in the past year to improve
communications, address land use incompatibilities, and address other service and
infrastructure needs. The BVCP update can potentially address topics such as: Are there
additional policies to preserve existing neighborhoods and housing? What programs, services,
and infrastructure might be necessary to improve neighborhoods lacking such services? How
can neighborhoods be more resilient and communicate better in times of emergency?
Improve Plan Document / Update IGA
Additionally, the 2015 BVCP plan can become one that:
retains its long standing values but that contains a clearer, more graphic vision and
values;
has stronger links between the policies and actions and implementation; and
is measurable with metrics and tied to data.
Renewal of the City/County Intergovernmental Agreement should also occur and be initiated
well in advance of its expiration on Dec. 31, 2017.
CU SOUTH PROPERTY
As part of the 2015 plan update, the city will be working with the University of Colorado and
coordinating with the community to analyze possible changes to the BVCP land use
designations for the CU South site (see map on the following page). This work would be in
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 7
advance of any land use changes or
annexation or zoning.
The first step will be a site suitability
study that will determine opportunities
and constraints through inventory and
analysis. Staff anticipates beginning
this project before the end of 2015,
with completion in the spring of 2016.
Following (and perhaps concurrently
with) this suitability analysis, staff will
provide more information about the
approach, including community
engagement at the November 16
OSBT meeting.
NEXT STEPS
Early-Nov. Survey focus groups
Nov/Dec Local listening tour around different parts of Boulder Valley
Dec. 15 Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Board to discuss survey
and focus group results; initial screening of requests; and topic tracks for the next
phase of the BVCP process (options and analysis)
Jan. 26 Joint session with Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission
Updates to City Boards and Commissions:
Sept. 11 Youth Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB)
Sept. 28 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)
Oct. 5 Downtown Management Commission (DMC)
Oct. 7 Landmarks Board (LB)
Oct. 7 Environmental Advisory Board (EAB)
Oct. 7 Boulder Design Advisory Board (BDAB)- Memo only
Oct. 12 Housing Authority- Boulder Housing Partners (BHP)
Oct. 12 Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
Oct. 19 Human Relations Commission (HRC)
Oct. 21 Boulder Arts Commission (BAC)
Nov. 16 Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT)
Dec. 2 Library Commission
Dec 9 Boulder Design Advisory Board- Presentation
AGENDA ITEM 3 PAGE 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
DATE: November 9, 2015
SUBJECT: Open Space Board of Trustees Feedback to Council Questions
________________________________________________________________________
In preparation for the annual retreat on January 22 and 23, 2016, Council invites each board
and commission to provide feedback to the following questions. Your responses should
reflect the consensus of your board or commission, rather than individual views.
1. What are your top priorities within the framework of the council work plan adopted at the
last city council retreat?
2. What would you like to see done that would further advance the council goals?
3. How can your board or commission specifically help reach the council goals?
4. Are there city policies that need to be addressed that would enable your board or
commission to function at a higher level?
5. Are there other items that council should address in the coming year?
6. Are there other priorities outside of the council goals that your board or commission
would like to address in the coming year?
To assist with your discussion, attached you will find:
A. OSMP Department Project Priorities for 2016
B. 2015 Council Work Plan
C. 2013 OSBT Responses to Council Questions
D. Council Retreat Questions, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 1
ATTACHMENT A
Department Project Priorities for 2016:
1. Continue Flood Recovery of Trails and Habitat (likely to continue into
2017, includes County coordination);
2. Submit Final North Trail Study Area (TSA) Plan to Council for approval
by mid 2016;
3. Following North TSA Approval by Council, Begin Visitor Master Plan
Update to be Recast as Open Space Master Plan – establishes policy
guidance, priorities and measures of success across services and programs,
and addresses overarching issues such as carrying capacity, night-time and
temporal use;
4. Implement Top Priorities of West TSA, North TSA, Agricultural
Resource Management Plan (note: Ag Plan approval later in 2016), and
Forest and Grassland Management Plans;
5. Continue to Improve the Visitor Experience – distinguish between new
initiatives and existing services (New initiatives include such items as Voice
and Sight program implementation and monitoring, recycling at trail heads,
and dog waste composting. Existing efforts include current day-to-day
outreach and education, volunteer programs); and
6. Develop Regional Trails through strategic property acquisition,
coordination with other agencies, and other avenues as needed (e.g.,
Eldorado to Walker Ranch, Joder and the Boulder Creek Path extension).
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 2
City of Boulder2015 Work Plan(Tentative as of December 16, 2014)Project1st Quarter2nd Quarter3rd Quarter 4th QuarterCC: Open Access Transmission TariffSS: Power Supply SS (2): Rates, Energy Services, Power SupplyProject update Project updateBudget updateBudget updateBudget updateBudget updateStaff ActivitiesMunicipalization Transition Plan Municipalization Transition Plan Municipalization Transition Plan Municipalization Transition PlanCouncil SS: Review interim goals, targets and strategiesStaff ActivitiesLaunch action plan Energy system transformation; blue print conveningImplementation based on action plan Implementation based on action planCouncilBriefingSS (2)Staff ActivitiesHousing Matters launch event, engagement activities Draft strategy developmentImplementation based on adopted strategyImplementation based on adopted strategySS: Direction of preferred scenario SS : Draft plan and action planNext Corridor ‐ 30th St or ColoradoStaff ActivitiesDevelop East Arapahoe action planCouncilSSDirection or IPDirection or IPDirection or IPStaff ActivitiesDevelop scoping planStrategy analysis and development Strategy analysis and development Strategy analysis and developmentCouncilSSDirection or IPDirection or IPStaff ActivitiesIssues identificationStrategy analysis and development Strategy analysis and development Strategy analysis and developmentCouncilUpdate and coordinate with BVCPUpdate and coordinate with BVCPStaff ActivitiesCouncilBriefingBriefingStaff ActivitiesSS : Review options & Update; including recommendations for TDM tool kit for new developmentCouncil action on TDM Tool Kit for new developmentRecommendations including planning code changesSS: Review options and update Ongoing work plan in 7 focus areasOngoing work planOngoing work planOngoing work planAlternatives analysis and specific option developmentSpecific option development/refinementsJoint Board workshop & public engagementJoint Board workshop & public engagementStaff and elected official activities ongoing Regional TravelAccess Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS)Staff ActivitiesCouncilHousing/Land Use PlanningClimate CommitmentResilienceTransportation Master Plan ImplementationCouncilBoulder Valley Comprehensive PlanSustainable Streets and Centers/ East ArapahoeCouncil TransportationClimate and Energy Comprehensive Housing Strategy (Housing Boulder) Energy Future and Associated Projects AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 3
City of Boulder2015 Work Plan(Tentative as of December 16, 2014)Project1st Quarter2nd Quarter3rd Quarter 4th QuarterCouncil SS: Parkland Concepts PlanCC: Approval of Concept PlanOutreach to community & partners; create delivery plan for spring, summer, fall eventsDeliver spring events Deliver summer activities and eventsReview 2015 activation; compare lessons from 2014 and revise for 2016Draft of parkland concept plan options for public workshop, Boards, Council review Board/Commission input on Concept PlanBegin detailed design work on park improvementsComplete detailed design work for bidding Develop overall site master plan concepts, begin to formulate major capital projectsInitial feasibility planning on major capital projectsContinue to develop capital projects, identify potential partners, explore financing optionsContinue to develop capital projects, identify potential partners, explore financing optionsCouncil IP and local meals for Council PilotCouncil consideration of Local Food Procurement Policy; Review and acceptance of Ag Resources Management PlanCouncil consideration of Local Food Procurement Policy; Review and acceptance of Ag Resources Management PlanStaff ActivitiesSS: Review options IP CC: Public Hearing and Decision Recommendation & development of ordinances, changes and recommend other strategies to address Moratorium goals Follow up on other strategies & coordination with Hill Reinvestment Strategy; incorporate strategies into other work planBoard review & public engagementBoard review & public engagement Direction on 14th Street redevelopment proposal SS SS: Update on strategy Residential service district (RSD) pilot programRSD pilot program RSD pilot program RSD pilot programWork plan implementationWork plan implementationWork plan implementation On‐going work plan implementationEstablish benchmarks and evaluation criteriaCommercial district: Eco Pass Study & Commercial bear dumpstersImplement volunteer program for clean upEvaluate existing programsIntegration of strategy recommendations from MoratoriumResearch options for sustainable governance & fundingDevelop options for sustainable governance & funding14th Street Lot public/private partnership redevelopment options re: work force affordable housing14th Street Lot public/private partnership redevelopment options re: work force affordable housingStakeholder engagement Stakeholder engagement Stakeholder engagementStakeholder engagementCouncil IP: 2014 Accomplishments SS: As part of Human Services strategy update IP ‐ Services and Regional coordination updateStaff ActivitiesCouncil Council update and input on testing phaseBriefingSS: Adoption of Community Cultural PlanStaff ActivitiesResearch phase complete. Drafting phase complete. Testing phase beginsTesting phase complete. Certification phase beginsImplementation begins. New public art policy draftingPublic Art Policy drafting Civic AreaCommunity Cultural Plan Staff ActivitiesUniversity Hill MoratoriumCouncilCouncilStaff Activities University Hill Reinvestment Strategy Civic Area ImplementationStaff ActivitiesLivabilityLocal FoodSustainable Agriculture and Local Foods Homeless Action PlanAGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 4
City of Boulder2015 Work Plan(Tentative as of December 16, 2014)Projects1st Quarter2nd Quarter3rd Quarter 4th QuarterCouncil Staff ActivitiesOngoing redevelopment coordinationNorth Side of Pearl and Goose Creek bridge landscaping install. Bridge opens Depot Square opens CouncilOngoing and Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation program beginsOngoing SS: 2016‐2021 CIP OngoingStaff ActivitiesCouncilReport on 2015 City EventsSummary of 2015 City EventsStaff ActivitiesImplement new events application and internal review processRefine systems as neededRefine systems as neededImprove events application for new online Landlinks System in 2016CouncilSSSSStaff ActivitiesBroadband Action Group formation and consultant assessment Consultant assessment continued Consultant assessment continued Present findings and recommendations CouncilSS: Staff Recommendations design tools/process changes IPCC: Draft recommendations/Adopt strategy Staff ActivitiesIssues identification/ preliminarywork on design tools/ process changesTechnical analysis /develop options Draft recommendationsPublic engagementBoards/public engagement Boards/public engagement CouncilStaff ActivitiesFlood Annexations ‐ Individual Flood Annexations ‐ Old Tale Rd OngoingOngoingCouncilSSPublic Hearing Staff ActivitiesCouncilIP: Stormwater Master Plan and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan considerationStaffStormwater Master Plan and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan updates continueStormwater Master Plan and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan updates continueCouncil CC: Second reading Staff ActivitiesEducation campaignEnforcement beginsMonitor OutcomesMonitor OutcomesCouncilSSStaff ActivitiesResearch regulations and possible fees or taxes Human Services StrategyOther Boulder JunctionCapital Projects Activity CityWide Special Events Community BroadbandDesign Excellence Flood‐related Annexations Flood Management Smoking Ban ‐ ImplementationVacation Rental by Owner (VRBO)AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 5
.This page is intentionally left blank.AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 6
ATTACHMENT C
2013 OSBT Responses to Council Questions
1.What are your top Priorities within the framework of the council work plan?
None of the council’s priorities on the 2013 work plan relate to Open Space.
There are a number of items relating to Open Space that are already on the work
plan, but are lower in priority.
2.What would you like to see done that would advance council goals?
See number 1.
3.How can your Board help reach the council goals?
See number 1.
4.Are there any other items that council should address in the coming year?
Voice and Sight
o This issue is currently waiting council action. What is the status on
changing these regulations?
OSMP will support Zero Waste by continuing to evaluate compostable dog waste
bags on Open Space.
Homelessness /camping continues to be a problem on Open Space
o Risks for fire.
o Shelters are not open in the summer.
o What programs are being implemented?
o What does enforcement look like?
Define passive recreation.
o Need clarification to city charter/definition?
Nighttime Use
o This is on the overarching OSMP issues list from several years ago.
Off-trail Use
o This is on the overarching OSMP issues list from several years ago.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Michael D. Patton, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
DATE: December 10, 2014
SUBJECT: Council Retreat Questions
1.What are your top priorities within the framework of the council work plan adopted at the last
City Council retreat?
Tackle the remaining "overarching issues" that have yet to be addressed – nighttime use,
on-trail/on-corridor, etc.
Continue to pursue opportunities for regional trail connections; Prioritizing connecting Open
Space lands (City, County, State, and Federal) to towns via sustainable, fun trails
Prioritze opportunities for obtaining optimal wildlife corridors
Trailheads as part of transportation system.
2.What would you like to see done that would further advance the council Goals?
Having a better understanding of what the priority is for these last remaining "overarching
issues" in light of scarce human resources, the competing long-term projects that came out
of the Visitor Master Plan such as the TSAs, etc.
Get metrics on certain council goals rather than ambiguous yet desirable outcomes. An
example, how many acres of land do we still need to acquire in order to meet the goal of
"local food" production?
3.How can your board specifically help reach the council goals?
We can ensure that the next big projects such as the North TSA are executed in such a way
as to alleviate some of the missteps of the last TSA. To this end, the Board should exercise
its good judgment to create a TSA process that minimizes conflict while staying true to the
goals set out in the Visitor Master Plan. The Board should be more actively involved in
defining and executing this TSA if possible.
Be more responsive to the community desires while balancing the competing preservation
and conservation goals of the Open Space charter. Have better out-in-front-of-the-issue
communication on decisions that affect users.
Follow up the "enhancements to the Green Tag program" with the proper tools to help
people address the most annoying (i.e. Conflictive) behavior – signage and poo bag stations
at every trailhead and trash receptacles wherever feasible.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 8
ATTACHMENT D
Be aware of staff's limited bandwidth in light of the lack of upper management
positions currently filled. Additionally, be available to assist in the transition of the interim
director to the new director once that role is filled.
Review and improve signage.
Coordinate with transportation/TAB on “trailhead as part of transportation system.”
Re-evaluate processes for defining how sustainable the trails are and work to fix older
concepts that don't work, such as reevaluating old easements, etc. to maximize our future
holdings.
Improving public outreach to connect with unaffiliated users.
4.Are there city policies that need to be addressed that would enable your board to function at a
higher level?
The North TSA should consider connections to other properties as part of the process
Evaluate the process for starting the TSA so the West TSA doesn't repeat itself.
Reevaluate the timeline on the department’s resource management and master plans.
5.Are there other items that council should address in the coming year?
We are not asking council to address issues other than the North TSA and overarching
issues.
6.Are there other priorities outside of the Council Goals that your Board/Commission would like to
address in the coming year?
Improving external communications of OSMP; Better public engagement.
Select a North TSA process that will be efficient without sacrificing inclusiveness and begin
that process.
Trail maintenance, construction, and reconstruction needs to be prioritized further.
Change the conversation re environment vs. recreation
North TSA should be a higher priority and the process should begin in the next couple of
months.
Increase, promote and support the education component for ecological values on Open
Space
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 9
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Mark Gershman, Environmental Planning Supervisor
Steve Armstead, Environmental Planner
DATE: November 16, 2015
SUBJECT: Study Session: North Trail Study Area Plan Preliminary Scenarios
_________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this study session is for the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and staff to
discuss the progress to date on the North Trail Study Area (TSA) Plan and community input on
the four preliminary scenarios.
II. QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD
1. Does the OSBT have questions or comments about the planning process? As hosts for
the process, are you experiencing quality engagement with the community?
2. Does the OSBT have comments on the community input about which of the preliminary
scenarios best balances the North TSA interests?
3. Which of the preliminary scenarios do OSBT members suggest staff revise and advance
as preferred scenarios?
4. Are there specific actions or changes to the scenarios OSBT members think important for
staff to consider in the development of preferred scenarios that balance the interests
better?
III. BACKGROUND
Trail Study Area Plans
In 2005, the Boulder City Council approved the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
Visitor Master Plan (VMP). An integral feature of the VMP was the creation of TSAs. TSA
Plans were to establish visitor access and recreation resource management priorities and projects
for specific areas of OSMP lands.
The North TSA
The North TSA includes lands north of the Diagonal Highway on the east and lands north of
Linden Avenue on the west (Attachment A). The North TSA Plan will include management
recommendations for 7,701 acres that OSMP owns and manages. The North TSA planning area
includes land with some level of city open space ownership, but where OSMP does not provide
or manage public access (conservation easements, lands jointly owned with and managed by
Boulder County). Lands not managed by OSMP are outside the scope of the North TSA but do
provide important context for plan recommendations. Attachment B includes a map showing
existing and planned trails on neighboring public lands. The goal of the North TSA Plan is to
improve visitor experiences and increase the sustainability of trails and trailheads while
conserving the area’s natural, cultural and agricultural resources.
PAGE 1
The Planning Process
The planning process has four phases (Attachment C). The first phase focused on collecting and
compiling information about current conditions and management practices in the TSA. The
primary deliverable for the first phase was the inventory and assessment report which was
available on June 15, 2015.
The second phase identified key interests and issues that need to be addressed in the plan. The
interests and issues along with the inventory and assessment information will inform and guide
the development of alternative scenarios which are ways to meet interests or address issues. This
phase resulted in a list of interests and potential actions to help direct the development of
scenarios.
During the third (current) phase, staff, the community and the OSBT will assess scenarios,
resulting in the selection of preferred scenarios and recommended actions to include in a draft
plan. This part of the planning process will conclude with the completion of a draft plan.
The fourth and final phase includes the review of the draft plan by the community, the OSBT and
recommendation and acceptance of the plan by City Council.
Community Engagement
The intent of the planning process and community engagement is to have broad community
participation, inclusive dialogue and connect with the community in varied and meaningful
ways. Community members have been involved through a range of different approaches
including:
Eight community workshops
Inspire Boulder, the city’s internet-based participatory platform
On-site and local store-front engagement
Email and social media submissions
Youth engagement
Community participation in the assessment, interest and preliminary scenario development
phases of the process has represented a diversity of perspectives in the community including
people visiting trails in the North TSA, neighbors, stakeholder organizations, youth and families.
Currently, 638 people have signed up to receive email updates about the plan. A complete
compendium of comments received is available on the North TSA Website.
Figure 1. Community Engagement Participation Levels
Engagement Approach Assessment Phase Interest Phase Expert
Panels
Preliminary
Scenarios
Workshop Participation 60 36 65 155
In-field, store front,
neighborhood and Latino
community engagement
167 413 NA Outreach
Only
Youth engagement 16 57 NA NA
Totals 243 507 65 155
PAGE 2
Engagement Approach Assessment Phase Interest Phase Expert
Panels
Preliminary
Scenarios
Comments on Inspire
Boulder/online/email/social
media comments
105 115 NA 196
OSBT Hosting of the Process
The OSBT has been involved with the development of the North TSA Plan from the beginning
as “host” of the North TSA Plan. The intent of this role is to make it clear that OSBT is the
recommending body to the City Council and to raise the board’s visibility in different types of
community forums. The role as host also supports community engagement throughout the
process, providing an alternative to the three-minute public testimony approach of more
traditional public hearings. As host, the board’s participation can clearly be seen by the
community and the City Council as the board primarily welcomes, listens to and observes the
community engagement process.
North TSA Plan Interests
The North Trail Study Area Interests and Issues report is a compilation of the perspectives and
feedback provided to date during the interests and issues phase of the North TSA planning
process. Community members were asked to share their interests in the planning area rather than
positions. Positions describe what someone wants or needs, while an interest explains why they
want or need it. If the community was asked to share ideas about positions, the final result would
be distributive, rather than integrative, and a lot of people would not get what they want.
Assessing the “why” of what community members want enables staff and the OSBT to better
meet the needs of a diverse community and recognizes that individuals carry multiple interests
about managing properties, allowing for more win/win opportunities.
Through the various engagement efforts to understand the community and stakeholder interests
in the North TSA, ten interests emerged. These interests are consistent with the goal and
objectives of the North TSA Plan and provided guidance for staff in the development of the
preliminary scenarios. The desired plan outcomes or actions that were suggested in the effort to
understand interests also informed how potential actions were combined into different scenarios.
North TSA Interests
Improved Visitor Experience Improved Connectivity
Conservation of Resources
(Natural/Agricultural/Cultural)
Balance of Recreation and Resource
Conservation
Improved Access and
Accessibility Increased Safety
Honoring Community Values and
Commitments Decreased Visitor Conflict
Increased Education and
Understanding
Effective Planning Process and Plan
Implementation
PAGE 3
IV. ISSUES
North TSA Plan Preliminary Scenarios
Finding ways that the North TSA can be enhanced for the identified plan interests accomplishes
the goal of the North TSA Plan. The interests also provided a means to focus the range and types
of actions to be considered in the development of preliminary scenarios. Scenarios are
conceptual visions of alternative trail changes, proposals for new trail connections and trailhead
improvements for the North TSA that also advance efforts to conserve the area’s diverse natural,
agricultural and cultural resources. Scenario maps depict concepts of a proposed set of actions
that make up the scenario. Staff had three primary factors to guide the development of the
scenarios:
1. Consistency with the North TSA Plan Sideboards.
2. How the group of proposed actions achieve the interests.
3. How well the scenario balances the interests.
Staff deliberately avoided the approach of developing scenarios that prioritized specific interests
such as scenarios that were best for improving visitor experience or best at protecting natural
resources. In determining changes and actions to include in the scenarios, staff considered
suggestions made by the community as part of the public engagement effort to understand
interests, information from the inventory and assessment report and ideas shared during the
expert panels. The fundamental intent of each scenario is to balance all of the community
interests through different combinations of proposed actions.
Balancing Interests in the Preliminary Scenarios
Each of the four preliminary scenarios seeks to balance the North TSA interests in different
ways. OSMP staff reviewed the inventory and assessment report and the full scope of
community input from the assessment phase through the expert panels to propose ideas. The
North TSA project team worked hard to listen to each other’s ideas and consider different and
creative proposals for addressing the interests. Staff also understood that there are a lot of ways
proposed actions could be combined to balance the interests. None of the preliminary scenarios
have the “right” mix and balance of ideas; however, staff believes the four scenarios provide a
good base for integrating community feedback into the scenarios and building the preferred
scenarios.
To develop the scenarios, staff began with the four subareas and discussed a range of possible
actions for each of the subareas. Staff then combined actions in alternative ways so the interests
could be balanced across the subareas. The subareas were then combined in different ways to
make up the four preliminary scenarios and further adjustments were made to balance interests.
Proposed actions that were important to balancing interests across the four scenarios include:
Regional connections;
New trail connections;
Trail re-development;
Measures to avoid habitat fragmentation and conserve sensitive resources;
Innovative ideas to manage a range of passive recreational activities and decrease visitor
conflict;
Trailhead and access improvements; and
Education and stewardship opportunities.
PAGE 4
A table summarizing some of the significant actions and the ways they varied between the
scenarios to balance interests across the scenario is available in Attachment D. A summary table
comparing the scenarios is available online along with the scenario maps and tables describing
the actions relevant to all scenarios and to each of the individual scenarios. The tables describing
the scenario actions identify the intended interests that the recommended actions achieve. Staff
has updated several of the regulation maps online for the scenarios so that they reflect more
accurately the trail changes proposed in the scenarios.
Community Feedback on Preliminary Scenarios
Staff initially presented the preliminary scenarios to the community at a workshop on Oct. 5 and
provided an opportunity for participants to provide initial thoughts about the scenarios and how
they did or did not balance the interests. Feedback from break-out groups and from a participant
poll is available on the project website. After the workshop, staff posted an online survey to
gather additional input. Both the poll and the survey aimed to gather information on community
perspectives about how well the scenarios balanced interests and on which interests the scenarios
fell short. They were not designed to determine what changes to make to the scenarios or to
select which scenarios should be preferred.
A second workshop on Oct. 19 sought feedback from participants about which of the scenarios
they thought could be improved on how well they balanced the interests and to suggest changes
to the scenarios that would improve the balance. Community members were able to provide
feedback online for a week after the workshop. Feedback from the second workshop and online
comments were combined together and are available in a detailed table. Included are all
comments submitted in response to the questions staff asked for feedback on:
Which scenario was selected?
Why it was selected?
What changes are proposed and how do the changes improve the balance among the
interests?
Staff compiled feedback on the suggested changes to the scenarios in a separate summary table
(Attachment E) that includes proposed changes and associated rationale.
There was substantial community engagement and feedback during both workshops and
associated online community review and comment opportunity for the preliminary scenarios.
Staff received many comments including support for the various scenarios, concerns about
specific actions and suggestions on how interests could better be accomplished and balanced for
particular scenarios.
Staff has identified general themes about the most common interest and action comments.
Highlights are listed below with more details available in a summary table (Attachment F).
Overall
Scenario 4 was commonly seen as balancing the interests well for the scenarios that had a
Joder connector on the west side of US 36 and Scenario 3 for the connector being located
on the east side of US 36.
Most Wonderland Lake changes appeared to balance interests well.
PAGE 5
There was support for:
Proposed trail redevelopments at Boulder Valley Ranch near Mesa Reservoir.
Retaining the Sage Trailhead as convenient access to the popular Sage and Eagle trail loop
and expanding the Foothills Trailhead.
Rerouting the Joder Interim Trail to lessen the steep grade, make it more sustainable, and
reduce potential visitor conflicts and to carefully avoid sensitive resources when
determining reroute.
Locating the Joder connector west of US 36.
Encouraging greater support for advancing regional connections, particularly with
working to further a trail connection to Heil Ranch and the community-proposed Trail
Around Boulder (TAB) sections in the North TSA.
There was concern about:
The proposed west of US 36 Joder connector going through an area of sensitive natural
resources and feedback that a biologically diverse HCA should not be fragmented by a
connector trail.
Scenario 1
Proportion of respondents
who think scenario balances
interests well enough, very
well, or extremely well
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being well addressed
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being insufficiently
addressed
Oct 5 Polling 31%
Online Survey 30%
There was support for:
Maintaining the large, unfragmented habitat block in the North Foothills HCA.
The Joder connector being located east of US 36.
The loop trails on Joder.
Most of the proposed changes at Wonderland Lake.
Bike access on Old Kiln trail during weekdays.
There was concern about:
The proposed Wonderland trail providing access to the cattail marsh.
Bike access on Old Kiln trail during weekdays.
Recommended changes to Scenario 1:
Do not relocate the Sage Trailhead to the BVR agricultural headquarters, keep the
trailhead and add trailer parking at the headquarters and expand the Foothills Trailhead as
included in other scenarios.
Add a trail west of Lefthand Trail for a more direct connector and a loop opportunity.
PAGE 6
Scenario 2
Proportion of respondents
who think scenario
balances interests well
enough, very well, or
extremely well
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being well addressed
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being insufficiently
addressed
Oct 5 Polling 42%
Online Survey 52%
Overall:
This scenario was infrequently commented on.
There was support for:
The Joder connector on the west side of US 36 utilizing part of the railroad grade.
Not creating additional trails on Joder.
Recommended changes to Scenario 2:
Do not relocate the Eagle Trailhead. Instead expand the current location to include
designated horse trailer parking.
Use the Joder connector as an opportunity to educate visitors about the special resources
of the HCA.
Add a single loop trail at Joder.
Scenario 3
Proportion of respondents
who think scenario
balances interests well
enough, very well, or
extremely well
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being well addressed
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being insufficiently
addressed
Oct 5 Polling 23%
Online Survey 23%
There was support for:
The designation on Joder as a HCA.
Maintaining the large, unfragmented habitat block in the North Foothills HCA.
Recommended changes to Scenario 3:
Reduce the number of loops on the Joder property and ensure the location of the loops
minimizes impacts to sensitive resources.
Add alternating days or directional use for the Joder loops.
Do not include the proposed new trail connection parallel to the Feeder Canal due to
concern about impacts to eagles.
Do not allow dogs on the Papini connector trail to increase resource protection in the
area.
Do not change Old Kiln access to voice and sight on corridor.
PAGE 7
Do not allow horses on the Hogback Ridge Trail due to steep terrain and erodible soils.
Create multiple loops on the Wonderland hogback (higher and lower) and retain a more
direct access trail to the hang glider launch sites.
Scenario 4
Proportion of respondents
who think scenario
balances interests well
enough, very well, or
extremely well
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being well addressed
Most common
interest(s) identified as
being insufficiently
addressed
Oct 5 Polling 58%
Online Survey 86%
Overall:
This scenario was the most frequently commented on.
Recommended changes to Scenario 4:
Add a spur trail to viewing overlook on Wonderland loop and on Old Kiln.
Add a trail west of Lefthand Trail to create a loop opportunity.
Designate or add single track trails next to wider vehicle accessible trails.
Change the proposed single loop at Joder to multiple loops.
Create additional voice and sight opportunities: consider allowing voice and sight access
on the Joder Interim Trail, Lefthand Trail and voice and sight or leash on the Joder
connector.
Change the designation on Joder to Natural Area or Passive Recreation Area.
Change the designation of the North Foothills HCA. (Staff considers changing the
designation of the North Foothills HCA not within the scope of the North TSA Plan as
this designation was established in the Visitor Master Plan.)
V. NEXT STEPS
Staff will begin developing what will likely be two preferred scenarios that integrate the
feedback from the OSBT and the community on the preliminary scenarios and suggestions on
how to improve the balance of interests. As a key component of the potential preferred scenarios,
staff will assess further options and opportunities for the location of the Joder connector being
located on the east or west side of US 36. Assessing options for the west side, staff will look at
options that best minimize and mitigate potential natural resource impacts. Assessing options for
the east side, staff will look at options that provide for a more direction connection west of
Lefthand Trail that could provide an enjoyable visitor experience.
Staff is planning a community open house and workshop for Dec. 10 to present the preferred
scenario(s) and begin an opportunity for public input. Staff anticipates an extended opportunity
for public comment on the preferred scenarios during the holidays. On Jan. 13, 2016, staff
intends to discuss the preferred scenarios and community input with the board at a study session.
It will also be important at the study session for staff and the board to discuss the potential
implementation priority of recommended actions and cost considerations. Integrating feedback
PAGE 8
on the preferred scenarios, staff will revise and refine recommendations from the preferred
scenario(s) into draft plan recommendations. It is the hope of staff that community review of a
draft plan can begin in late February to enable the draft plan to be presented to the OSBT in
March of 2016.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: North Trail Study Area Basemap
B: North Trail Study Area Basemap with Adjacent Planned Trail Systems
C: North TSA Planning Process
D: Actions Associated with the Preliminary Scenarios
E: Preliminary Scenarios Improvements Summary
F: Preliminary Scenario Feedback Highlights
PAGE 9
This page is intentionally left blank.
PAGE 10
DoddReservoirReservoir(Private)
LefthandReservoir
Swede Lakes
BohnLake
McCaslin Lake
Allens Res.
SpurgeonReservoirNo. 1
JoderReservoir
Boulder Reservoir
Lefthand Valley
CootLake
LagermanReservoir
Steele Lakes
Sixmile Reservoir
(Private)
(Private)
FoothillsReservoir
Clover Basin Reservoir
DavisReservoir
TrevartonReservoir
LoukonenReservoir
BroadwayLefthandCanyonDr.L e e Hill
R
d
.
M a gnoliaD r.Poo r m anRd.L ooko ut Rd.N. 85th St.Ge
e
r
Ca
nyon
Dr.
Nelson Rd.N. 49th St.N. 55th St.Nimbus Rd.
Oxford Rd.71stSt.N. 71st St.Diagonal Hwy.61stSt.Pea r lPkw y.Oxford Rd.
Jay Rd.Edgew o o d Dr.Arapa h o e A v e.
Canyon Blvd.Folsom St.28th St.Pine St.
Broa
d
w
a
y20th
S
t
.
Pearl St.
Arapahoe Rd.
Valmont Rd.28thSt.Iris Ave.30thSt.30th St.Baseline Rd.
South Boulder Rd.Table Mesa Dr.
S.
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y 76th St.Baseline Rd.Diagonal Hwy.TableMes a Dr.Cherryvale Rd.Canyo n B lv d .F la g staffD r.Arapahoe Rd.
Hwy 52
9th St.Folsom St.57th St.63rd St.55th St.49th St.Nebo Rd.N. 41st St.N. 39th St.Plateau Rd.N. 51st St.Rogers Rd.
St. Vrain Rd.N. 59th St.N. 61st St.N. 75th St.N. 65th St.Nelson Rd.N.63rdSt.N. 75th St.Pike Rd.
Plateau Rd.
Prospect Rd.Airport Rd.N. 63rd St.Yarmouth Ave.
L
i
ndenDr.
Pearl St.
University Ave.17th St.Colorado Ave.55th St.Baseline Rd.
Valmont Dr.75thSt.75th St.79thSt.Nimbus Rd.N. 73rd St.N. 77th St.N.83rdSt.Moo
r
h
e
a
d
A
v
e
.
Monarch Rd.55th St.Baseline Rd.Bould er Cany onD r.Foo
t
hi
llsPkwy.JamesCanyon
D
r
.
SunshineCanyo
n
D
r.Mapleton Ave.
Balsam Ave.Foothills Pkwy.Jay Rd.OurayD r.Olde Stage Rd.Violet Ave.19th St.Independence Rd.63rdSt.51st St.39th St.N.Foothills Hwy.Longhorn Rd.
LeftHan
d
C
reek
Bo u l d e rCree k
SouthBoulderCreekFour Mile
C
re
e
k
F o u r Mile C a n y o n Cr
BearCanyonCreekD ryC reekF our Mile C an yon Creek
SkunkCreekBum
m
e
r
s
Gulch
V ieleC ha nn e lDryCreekDryC reekSkunk CreekSkunkCreekSkunk CreekSk unkCreekUser: GardE1 Date: 10/28/2015 Path: E:\MapFiles\TSA\NorthTSA\NorthTSA_Basemap_vA.mxd
µNorth Trail Study AreaSubareas
NorthernProperties
Boulder ValleyRanch
WonderlandLake
North Foothills
0 1 20.5
MilesNORTH TRAIL STUDY AREA BASEMAP
Date: 10/28/2015
North Trail Study Planning AreaNorth Trail Study Subareas
"i OSMP Trailhead
!(A OSMP Access Point
!(R OSMP Recreational Feature Access
!i Boulder County Trailhead
OSMP Hiking/Equestrian TrailOSMP Multi-Use TrailOSMP Gliding Access
Non-OSMP Managed Multi-Use TrailNon-OSMP Managed Hiking Trail
Lands Not Included in the North Trail Study AreaOSMP Easement or Jointly Owned, County-Managed LandOther Government Land
North Trail Study Area LandsOSMP Fee & Managed Property in the North TSA
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 11
DoddReservoirReservoir(Private)
LefthandReservoir
Swede Lakes
BohnLake
McCaslin Lake
Allens Res.
SpurgeonReservoirNo. 1
JoderReservoir
Boulder Reservoir
Lefthand Valley
CootLake
LagermanReservoir
Steele Lakes
Sixmile Reservoir
(Private)
(Private)
FoothillsReservoir
Clover Basin Reservoir
DavisReservoir
TrevartonReservoir
LoukonenReservoir
BroadwayLefthandCanyonDr.L e e Hill
R
d
.
M a gnoliaD r.Poo r m anRd.L ooko ut Rd.N. 85th St.Ge
e
r
Ca
nyon
Dr.
Nelson Rd.N. 49th St.N. 55th St.Nimbus Rd.
Oxford Rd.71stSt.N. 71st St.Diagonal Hwy.61stSt.Pea r lPkw y.Oxford Rd.
Jay Rd.Edgew o o d Dr.Arapa h o e A v e .Canyon Blvd.Folsom St.28th St.Pine St.
Broa
d
w
a
y20th
S
t
.
Pearl St.
Arapahoe Rd.
Valmont Rd.28thSt.Iris Ave.30thSt.30th St.Baseline Rd.
South Boulder Rd.Table Mesa Dr.
S.
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y 76th St.Baseline Rd.Diagonal Hwy.TableMes a Dr.Cherryvale Rd.Canyo n B lv d .F la g staffD r.Arapahoe Rd.
Hwy 52
9th St.Folsom St.57th St.63rd St.55th St.49th St.Nebo Rd.N. 41st St.N. 39th St.Plateau Rd.N. 51st St.Rogers Rd.
St. Vrain Rd.N. 59th St.N. 61st St.N. 75th St.N. 65th St.Nelson Rd.N.63rdSt.N. 75th St.Pike Rd.
Plateau Rd.
Prospect Rd.Airport Rd.N. 63rd St.Yarmouth Ave.
L
i
ndenDr.
Pearl St.
University Ave.17th St.Colorado Ave.55th St.Baseline Rd.
Valmont Dr.75thSt.75th St.79thSt.Nimbus Rd.N. 73rd St.N. 77th St.N.83rdSt.Moo
r
h
e
a
d
A
v
e
.
Monarch Rd.55th St.Baseline Rd.Bould er Cany onD r.Foo
t
hi
llsPkwy.JamesCanyon
D
r
.
SunshineCanyo
n
D
r.Mapleton Ave.
Balsam Ave.Foothills Pkwy.Jay Rd.OurayD r.Olde Stage Rd.Violet Ave.19th St.Independence Rd.63rdSt.51st St.39th St.N.Foothills Hwy.Longhorn Rd.
LeftHan
d
C
reek
Bo u l d e rCree k
SouthBoulderCreekFour Mile
C
re
e
k
F o u r Mile C a n y o n Cr
BearCanyonCreekD ryC reekF our Mile C an yo n Creek
SkunkCreekBum
m
e
r
s
Gulch
V ieleC ha nn e lDryCreekDryC reekSkunk CreekSkunkCreekSkunk CreekSk unkCreekUser: GardE1 Date: 11/6/2015 Path: E:\MapFiles\TSA\NorthTSA\NorthTSA_Basemap_vB.mxd
µNorth Trail Study AreaSubareas
NorthernProperties
Boulder ValleyRanch
WonderlandLake
North Foothills
0 1 20.5
MilesNORTH TRAIL STUDY AREA BASEMAP
Date: 11/6/2015
North Trail Study Planning AreaNorth Trail Study Subareas
"i OSMP Trailhead
!(A OSMP Access Point
!(R OSMP Recreational Feature Access
!i Boulder County Trailhead
Lands Not Included in the North Trail Study AreaOSMP Easement or Jointly Owned, County-Managed LandOther Government Land
North Trail Study Area LandsOSMP Fee & Managed Property in the North TSAOSMP Hiking/Equestrian TrailOSMP Multi-Use TrailOSMP Gliding Access
Non-OSMP Managed Multi-Use TrailNon-OSMP Managed Hiking Trail
Non-OSMP Planned Trail
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 12
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
North Trail Study Area Plan
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
PLANNING PROCESS
PURPOSE: Share knowledge about desired outcomes and topics that will guide the development and assessment of
alternative scenarios and recommendations for the draft plan.
RESULTS: Desired actions for consideration in scenario development.
KEY INPUTS:
•Community interests about desired plan outcomes and why the outcomes are wanted.
•Discussion of issues that could pose a challenge in the North TSA.
•Community dialogue about what is learned and can be implemented in the North TSA and why.
PURPOSE: Assess alternative scenarios and integrate preferred recommendations into a draft plan.
RESULTS: Preferred scenarios compiled into a draft plan.
KEY INPUTS:
•Draft alternative scenarios developed by staff to achieve identified interests and objectives.
•Community feedback on draft scenarios to inform preferred scenarios and recommendations.
PURPOSE: Review draft plan and approve final plan.
RESULTS: Final North Trail Study Area Plan.
KEY INPUTS:
•Community review.
•Open Space Board of Trustees review and approval.
•City Council review and acceptance.
PURPOSE: Share knowledge of the current conditions of recreational, natural, cultural and agricultural resources.
RESULTS: Inventory and Assessment Report.
KEY INPUTS:
•Community knowledge of visitor experiences, resources, what is functioning well in the North TSA and what
needs improvement.
•Staff-prepared information on recreational, natural, cultural and agricultural resources.
An interest is the WHY behind the WHAT.
An issue is WHAT may need to be changed.
A scenario is a set of potential actions that addresses interests and issues.
Inventory and Assessment
Interests and Issues
Draft Plan Development
Plan Acceptance
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 13
ATTACHMENT D: ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRELIMINARY SCENARIOS
KEY ACTIONS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
North Foothill
Trails
Joder
connector east
of US 36
Two multi-use
loop trails on
Joder
Two loop
trails on
Hogback
Ridge
Joder
connector west
of US 36
Joder Interim
Trail
Joder
connector east
of US 36
Three loop
trails on Joder
with temporal
separation
Joder
connector west
of US 36
One loop trail
on Joder
Maintaining
Habitat Blocks
and Resource
Conservation
Strategies
Maintain habitat
block in HCA.
Joder connector
trail in HCA
Joder property
has only the
interim trail
Maintain habitat
block in HCA.
Joder connector
trail in HCA
Joder property
with one loop
trail
BVR Trail
Redevelopment
Redevelop the
entire trail
system around
Mesa
Reservoir
Partial
redevelopment
of trail system
Replace Old Mill
Trail with a re-
rerouted
western section
of Cobalt Trail
Reroute Eagle
Trail
connection to
Sage Trail
Partial
redevelopment
of trail system
Reroute Hidden
Valley Trail
Create a loop
trail within
Papini
Redevelop the
entire trail
system around
Mesa Reservoir
Wonderland
Lake
Loop trail with
connector trail
from loop to
west Old Kiln
Trail
Fishing and
educational
pier with
additional
interpretive
access to
cattails
Loop trail
Covered
meeting area
near trailhead
Fishing and
educational pier
Loop trail with
connector trail
from loop to
west Old Kiln
Trail
Fishing and
educational pier
Loop trail
Fishing and
educational pier
Regional Trail
Connectivity
Northeast
connectivity to
Niwot Road on
North Rim
Trail and a
Northeast
connectivity to
Niwot Road on
North Rim Trail
Connection with
Northeast
connectivity to
Niwot Road by
connecting with
Boulder
Northeast
connectivity to
Niwot Road on
North Rim Trail
and a new trail
PAGE 14
new trail on
the Axelson
property
Seek
connectivity
through Area
III land.
Boulder
Reservoir Trails
Reservoir Trails
and a new trail
east of 55th St.
on Johnson
property.
on the Axelson
property
Seek
connectivity
through Area III
land.
Trailheads Relocate Sage
Trailhead to
agricultural
headquarters
site.
Passenger-
vehicle parking
at Schooley
Relocate Sage
Trailhead
farther west
along Longhorn
Road or
improve in
current location
Relocate Eagle
Trailhead to
Ellison
Property.
Passenger-
vehicle parking
at Cox house
Relocate and
combine Sage
Trailhead with
expanded
Foothills
Trailhead
Passenger-
vehicle parking
at Schooley
Relocate and
combine Sage
Trailhead with
expanded
Foothills
Trailhead
Passenger-
vehicle parking
at Cox house
PAGE 15
ATTACHMENT E: PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
All Scenarios
N-S Joder Trail Connection
Preferred connector trail on west side of 36 that provides an interesting visitor experience, but also minimizes impacts to natural resources as
much as possible. A connection on the west side improves safety because visitors would not need to cross US 36.
Should have N-S connector west of US 36 for safety reasons, visitor experience, connectivity (especially up to Lyons) and access. Consider closing
it to bikes a few days a week.
Designate the West Beech railroad grade or something close to it, avoiding sensitive habitat. The trail on the east side of US 36 should not be
close to the highway. Consider adding signage near the trail indicating that visitors must remain on trail in order to protect specific natural
resources (with information about those resources) and consider building a low fence that wildlife can cross, but which might help keep visitors
on the trail.
Use west of US 36 N-S connector as an opportunity to educate about HCAs.
Suggested contracting with a trail design professional to design this connector trail for sustainability, to reduce visitor conflict, to minimize
impacts to resources, and to provide an interesting visitor experience.
Didn't like the connector trail east of 36 because: The elevation change from North Foothills at Hogback Ridge to Left Hand and back to the
saddle at Interim Joder is too large for pleasant climbing and safe descent without significant redesign and additional land purchases. Keeping
the trail higher and more level (West of 36) is a quick and easy way to fix this.
With N-S Joder Trail Connection east of 36, connectivity for bikers is short-changed in 2 places: Foothills to Lefthand Trail and Lefthand Trail to
Joder property- use sustainable trail design to ensure that elevation gain is comfortable and safe for visitors and enable trails to be used in wet
seasons when the Joder soils are impassable.
Don't like the proposed N-S connection east of 36 because the elevation change from North Foothills at Hogback Ridge to Lefthand and back to
the saddle at Interim Joder is too large for pleasant climbing and safe descent. If the connection is kept east of 36 consider creating a new trail
alignment designed for visitor experience:
provide a trail for bikes that doesn't require gravel paths and dirt roads;
consider a trail that crosses Broadway instead of following it coming from North Foothills- then heads towards Cobalt, routing west of Cobalt and
avoiding the climb and subsequent steep descent to Sage before it crosses Longhorn Road.
Consider creating a more sustainable, bike-friendly route paralleling Lefthand to the west and providing the opportunity for a shorter loop with
Lefthand or west of 36 trail. Contract out to professional trail designers for sustainability and visitor experience (also fo cusing on safety and
decreasing visitor conflict).
As for the Boulder/Joder connection I must say I am torn. The trail on the west side of 36 would definitely have an impact o n the habitat that is
there. To that end I am not totally in favor of that option. The conflict that would be created if the connection is on the east side of 36 is also of
GREAT concern to me. But again to that end the solution I see would be to make a loop from Hwy 36 through BVR to Joder and then back on a
PAGE 16
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
separate trail. You could even designate a direction the loop should be taken. I think there is plenty of room to separate two trails and the
habitat disruption would be less than creating the trail on the west side of 36. Just throwing something out there I can see from Joder going to
the Beech Pavilion (with the existing connection to the Left Hand Trailhead) following the existing Left Hand Trail to BVR and using some
configuration to the east of dry lake to get to the Foothills parking lot on 36. Going the other direction you might head more north to the west
side of the ranch and have a trail closer to 36 that eventually again takes you to the Beech Pavilion where you could have a short stretch of side
by side trail to take you back to Joder. Just a rough thought.
If N-S connector is east of 36, consider creating a loop from 36 through BVR to Joder and then back on a separate trail to reduce visitor conflict.
Two trails on the east of 36 would create less habitat disruption than a trail on the west side. Consider: from Joder going to the Beech Pavilion
(with the existing connection to the Lefthand Trailhead following the existing Lefthand Trail to BVR and using some configuration to the east of
dry lake to get to the Foothills parking lot on 36. Going the other direction you might head more north to the west side of t he ranch and have a
trail closer to 36 that eventually again takes you to the Beech Pavilion where you could have a short stretch of side by side trail to take you back
to the Joder property.
If a trail West of 36 is not possible, I implore you to create a completely new trail alignment East of 36, designed with user experience in mind.
This would also be a great supplement to the West of 36 trail (and spread out user traffic), but it’s a lower priority to me if I had to choose only
one. This trail would need to be VERY different from the current trails:
- Allow bikes a trail that does not require gravel paths and dirt roads!
- Consider a route that crosses Broadway instead of following it (coming from North Foothills), then heads towards Cobalt, routing West of
Cobalt and avoiding the climb and subsequent steep descent to Sage before it crosses Longhorn Rd.
Preferred connector trail on east side of 36 so that important habitat remains unfragmented. If an east of 36 connection is used, it should not
simply be Lefthand Trail, but should involve a more interesting connector trail and a culvert under 36 to provide for a safe crossing of the road.
Support N-S connector east of 36 because there are enough usable trails there for cyclists to get from Joder Ranch to Boulder and this would
protect the natural ecosystem of the areas west of 36, avoid habitat fragmentation and not carve new trials that allow some use and prohibit
others.
If N-S connector has to be east of US 36, consider: creating a loop from 36 through BVR to Joder and back on a separate trail to reduce visitor
conflict. Two trails east of 36 would create less habitat disruption than a trail west of 36.
In order to safely and effectively connect an east of 36 trail with Joder, the gravel road leading to the saddle needs to be redesigned as a real
trail with a longer, switchbacked climb. This climb is too steep for many riders and the fast descent on gravel is unsafe.
Suggested working with CDOT to reduce speed limit near Joder property to increase safety as bike and pedestrian and horse activity in this area
increases.
It is worth noting that the current undesignated trail that proceeds north from the Foothills Trail along the old railroad grade BCAS Comments on
NTSA Page 3 accesses important rare plant communities including Bell’s Twinpod (Physaria bellii) and New Mexico Needlegrass Herbacious
Vegetation. Even with its current light usage, this trail is providing a corridor for B+ designated Jointed Goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical). This trail
should be closed and targeted for IPM treatment. It should certainly not be designated.
PAGE 17
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Lefthand Trail to Schooley property connection (and a Trailhead on Schooley) is a priority for reasons apparent below.
We should preserve a trail-less HCA between Wonderland area and Joder if at all possible, channeling rec users to the east side trail system and
back across Hwy 36 to the Joder area by some sort of safe road-crossing. If it is not politically possible to do this we should construct a north
foothills trail which does not necessarily follow the old RR grade but wanders where it must (the VMP requires that trails in an NCA be along its
perimeters) to avoid known sensitive resources and soils
I feel the possible underpass/culvert (1F) would be an important connector on the northern end of 4E to the eastern trails-Left Hand Trail. (map-
attachment)
Supported a tunnel under 36 to connect the Lefthand Trail with the Joder/Sixmile Fold access. This is not explicitly included in the table of
actions found in all scenarios, but we believe it is critical for safety and trail connectivity.
Add a multi-use tunnel under Foothills Highway and develop trail connections to Left Hand Trail Beech access area. South from Beech access I
would add a new OSMP multi-use trail east of the Foothills Highway and west of the Left Hand Trail. This would function as the primary bike
thru-trail to the Joder Trail.
N-S Joder Connector Trail Regulations
Horses should not be allowed on the Joder connector or on the Hogback trails because of the HCA designation (weed introduction and off-trail
use).
If visitor conflicts arise on this connector trail, consider designating specific days for bicycles, hikers, and equestrians.
Supported dogs on leash being allowed on N-S Joder connector trail.
Support for no dogs (or minimally, dogs on leash) and no bikes.
Joder Trails
The loops proposed for the Joder property in some scenarios are impossible to evaluate, because the possible routing cannot be ascertained.
The department’s inventories, both at the time of purchase and more recently, have shown that HCA status is warranted. The property includes
rare plant and animal species, as well as natural springs and wetlands. Boulder County Audubon Society (BCAS) supports developing recreational
trails in the area, but only if this can be done without degrading the environmental resources. The appropriate trail density, feasibility, and
routing can only be judged with detailed proposals, not the vague loops shown on the maps for Scenarios 1, 3, and 4. We therefore would
advocate investigation of the possibilities for management of Joder, but we are extremely skeptical of creating an acceptable proposal to bring
to the Board of Trustees in time for its study session. Any proposal for Joder requires serious examination by knowledgeable members of the
public.
Supported a loop trail west of 36 that would provide an interesting and challenging mountain biking experience that could tie into the trails east
of 36.
Existing road connector from US 36 up to the top of Joder is too steep to be maintainable and is not great for recreation because it's a wide dirt
road. It is unsafe due to the gravel and the speed at which bikes will travel on this steep trail. We encourage staff to reroute the interim trail
using the contours to climb in a sustainable way and connect into the loop proposed in Scenario 4.
Supported re-route of Joder Interim Trail as in Scenario 4 because it is currently too steep and wide, with loose gravel and will result in visitor
PAGE 18
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
conflict. Supported the additional loop trail proposed in order to serve the needs of bikers, hikers and equestrians.
Supported one loop on Joder to improve visitor experience.
Trails on the Joder Ranch can be confined to a single loop trail (multi-use with temporal restrictions to reduce conflict). A single loop would allow
us to retain the HCA designation if the trail is a “perimeter trail.” Furthermore, we need to design visitor access to the riparian areas
purposefully, or birdwatchers will create social trails everywhere there (rich habitat).
Support for more trails at Joder (two or more loops instead of just one), including mountain bike trails built for varying ability levels (west of 36
and on Joder)
As for Six-mile Fold, many educators use the area and would appreciate a modest, well designed singletrack more or less for educational uses
only (no off-trail use?). Staff comment: Six-Mile Fold is managed by Boulder County Parks and Open Space.
Before loop trails, in addition to the Interim Trail, are formalized on Joder, detail of impacts on wildlife habitat and high value diversity should be
regarded.
From loop trails offer connections in different directions (including future connection to Heil)
Joder Trail Regulations
Designate Joder Interim Trail as multi-use.
Allow Voice & Sight access on corridor for dogs.
Supported Joder Interim Trail being voice and sight (which would be consistent with public-recommendation for Joder to be designated as a
Passive Recreation Area) and would provide a voice and sight connection opportunity with the Buckingham Trail.
Voice & Sight access should not have to be on corridor
Allow voice & Sight access on Joder and the Foothills Trail.
Support for dogs on leash on Joder loop trail.
At Joder either limit bikes to certain trails or certain days.
Suggested directional trails for mountain bikers or designated hiking-only and biking-only trails to decrease conflicts.
Add directional loops like Betasso allow uses on alternate days
If there is a N-S connection to Joder (either east or west of 36) don't minimize impacts to habitat by reducing the number of loops on Joder,
instead don't allow bikes or dogs on Joder trails
Consider alternating days for uses or use directional loops to reduce visitor conflict
Allow bikes on Joder trails
Allow off-trail use by equestrians at Joder Ranch (and BVR).
North Foothills HCA and Trails
No trail access should be allowed in the HCA to preserve unfragmented habitat.
Don't allow horses on the Hogback Trail- because it is too steep and because of the nature of the soils and trail sustainability
Joder Trailheads
PAGE 19
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Supported making the Interim Joder Trailhead parking lot permanent, enlarged for better car parking and three horse trailer spaces. Build this
parking lot to OSMP standards with landscaping and restrooms.
Amenities such as restrooms should be installed for everyone at one trailhead on the Joder Ranch. OSMP has indicated its concern in the past
about installing trailheads "too far" from roads. We do not understand, therefore, why it would recommend Cox ), which is very far from the
road and not visible from it. An alternative might be to allow parking at Cox, if an alternate equestrian trail is built off the road from the lower
trailer parking lot to the "trail" past Cox. Equestrians don't want to have to ride on the Joder road with all those cars going up and down the road
to their parking area at Cox.
Didn't support building trailhead parking either at Schooley across US 36 or up at the former Joder Ranch horse facility near the Cox House.
If we must create any parking here, it should be for equestrian trailers only which would avoid at least some of the highway crossing challenges.
Management Area Designations
Consider designating Joder as Passive Recreation Area. Designation of Joder as an HCA is clearly inconsistent with the long history of human use
of this property as a horse ranch. It is inconsistent with the way HCAs are defined in the VMP.
Consider designating West Beech as a Natural Area (if this is needed to maintain the health of the grasslands over the long term). This would also
allow for some off-trail use. Staff comment: The designation of the North Foothills HCA is not within the scope of the North TSA Plan as this
designation was established in the Visitor Master Plan.
Consider designating West Beech as a Passive Recreation Area (instead of an HCA, as proposed). Staff comment: The designation of the North
Foothills HCA is not within the scope of the North TSA Plan as this designation was established in the Visitor Master Plan.
Designate Six Mile Fold area as an HCA due to its unique resources that deserve special attention. Staff comment: Six-Mile Fold is managed by
Boulder County Parks and Open Space.
Supported preservation of the HCA west of US 36 with limited trail access: no dogs (or minimally, dogs on leash) and no bikes.
Supported retaining the recommended Habitat Conservation Area designation for the Joder property.
Maintain West Beech's designation as HCA. Staff comment: The designation of the North Foothills HCA is not within the scope of the North TSA
Plan as this designation was established in the Visitor Master Plan.
No scenarios suggest NOT making Joder a HCA, banning dogs, but all scenarios allow bikes and horses on Joder trails. Need to make Joder non-
HCA and allow dogs for consistency.
Share OSMP reasoning for proposed retention of HCA status for Joder.
BVR Trails
Supported adding a loop trail out of the Lefthand Trail to improve visitor experience, but not using this east of 36 trail as a N-S connector trail.
Consider making this loop trail one-way in order to reduce visitor conflict and improve visitor experience.
Consider creating a more sustainable, bike-friendly route paralleling Left Hand to the West and providing the opportunity for a shorter loop with
Left Hand or the West of 36 trail. This should be contracted out to professional trail designers to ensure it would provide a great user experience
and hold up to the use it would receive. - In order to safely and effectively connect this (or any other) Eastern trail with Joder, the gravel road
leading to the saddle needs to be redesigned as a real trail, with a longer, switchbacked climb. This climb is too steep for many riders and the
PAGE 20
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
fast descent on gravel is unsafe!
reroute all BVR trails to improve the quality of the recreation experience (including the Lefthand Trail, the North Rim Trail, the Mesa Reservoir
Trail)
Given that the existing Lefthand Trail dead-ends at a road, consider using the contours immediately east of US 36 to make a loop with the
Lefthand Trail and Cobalt Trail for a better visitor experience
Consider adding parallel single track trails next to all road segments; roads are not trails (including Sage Trail and Eagle Trail); note that the
section of the Eagle Trail from the descent off the mesa to the Boulder Valley Ranch TH already has such a parallel single track - why not officially
designate this? And develop others for the remaining road segments!
Support retaining the existing Degge/Mesa Reservoir/Hidden Valley Ranch etc trail complex and designating it pedestrian/equestrian only
Support for maintaining the large grassland habitat block in East Beech, by retaining the peripheral routing of the Lefthand Trail, with no further
fragmentation. This meets long-standing policy established in the Bounder County Comprehensive Plan from 1999 on, the North Boulder Valley
Management Plan from 1997, and the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan of 2010. Note that because this area has a history of agricultural
use, non-native grasses may require restoration work in the long term. However, its importance for biodiversity and critical wildlife are well-
established by multiple studies over a period of a decade and a half. For the time being, avoiding fragmentation accomplishes what is required.
Do not install any new fencing on the East Beech property.
Please add benches around BVR to improve accessibility.
Don't allow dogs on Papini Trail- critical habitat with raptors and ground nesting birds
BVR Trail Regulations
Support for opening all trails in BVR to bike access to allow for more easy loop options for families (including Hidden Valley Trail, Mesa Reservoir
Trail, trail to Kelso Road).
Support for designating the existing shelf trail connecting the Sage loop and Mesa Reservoir one-way uphill to prevent visitor conflicts.
Suggested directional trails for mountain bikers or designated hiking-only and biking-only trails to decrease conflicts.
Allow off-trail use by equestrians at BVR.
Support retaining the existing Degge/Mesa Reservoir/Hidden Valley Ranch etc trail complex and designating it pedestrian/equestrian only
Supported designating some areas for off-trail use by equestrians on the East Beech, Boulder Valley Ranch, and Axelson properties (shown in
purple dots), to honor historic uses and in view of the low equestrian use and lack of impact to resources in these areas.
Support opening the Papini trail for pedestrians/equestrians only, with a small lollipop loop at the east end to make for a more satisfying visitor
experience
BVR Trailheads
Don't move the Sage TH. Consider expanding it and/or leaving it open and expanding the Foothills TH.
Supported expansion of Foothills TH, with a minimum of two horse trailer parking spaces.
Designate horse trailer parking at BVR near the public riding arena.
PAGE 21
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Or convert Sage TH to horse trailer parking if another location is designated for vehicles, or use the former public trailer parking at the BVR
homestead.
Use the NTSA process to ensure that the arena at BVR is reopened to equestrian use (the current lessee has posted intimidating "Private, No
Trespassing" signs there and aggressively chases the public away) and to reinstate horse trailer parking close to it.
Wonderland Lake
Supported a trail along the creek to Old Kiln (especially a loop trail that connects into Foothills Trail)
Do not close the northern section of the Old Kiln Trail. Please retain at least the trail spur leading out to the east edge of the Old Kiln Trail and
use this as an educational opportunity for visitors to learn about the flood.
Do not add a fishing pier to Wonderland Lake. This is a well preserved lake with minimal human interference that provides good wildlife habitat.
Supported adding fishing pier and improved fishing opportunities proposed at Wonderland Lake, but consider having the pier be south-facing so
it doesn't face directly into the homes to the north.
Give the fish in Wonderland Lake more structure. The fishing pier is a good idea. However, you also need to give the fish more structure to live in
the lake. Add some downed tree trunks and big rocks to the lake. A big heap of praise to the changes you’ve made that have encouraged a lot of
growth of cattails and willows around the lake. Children love water, so Wonderland Lake is really important for getting children outside to play!
Fishing is a big activity for families in this neighborhood.
Supported hardened access on the peninsula for education and accessibility, but requested consideration for the proximity to the
homes/neighbors to the north.
Keep two loop trails (upper and lower) on mountainside west of lake. Like the current social trails- just rebuild for sustainability.
Don't move the hang/paraglider access trail so far north. Improve the trail, but don't move it.
Keep connection to Old Kiln Trail for a longer hiking option. Improve and designate social trails instead of re-routing alignments.
Make trails go where people want to go. In the Wonderland Lake area users have created fun and interesting loop trails to the west and north of
the lake. Designate a set of trails that create loops of differing length that roughly follow the current mix of designated and undesignated trails.
Do not make these trail too shallow in the name of “sustainability”. Keep the trails west of the lake steep, challenging and interesting.
I suggest making the loop about ½ the present proposed length, starting at the SW side of Wonderland Lake and tracking the present trail up to
“Wonderland Overlook” and then down more diagonally NE than the present route (which was washed away in the flood) and is mostly steep
east-west.
Please add benches around Wonderland Lake to improve accessibility.
Appreciated mix of off-leash options in some proposals near Wonderland Lake. Supported the trails west of Wonderland Lake as off-leash dog
access.
Supported Voice and Sight opportunities in the Wonderland Lake area.
Supported dogs on leash in Wonderland area.
Support for dogs on leash in the Wonderland area, including on the Hogback Trails. (continue to educate about the damage dogs can cause to
natural resources and why leashes are required).
PAGE 22
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Supported off-leash, Voice & Sight access west of Wonderland Lake. These trails run through a PRA where per the VMP "Dog management is
predominantly Voice & Sight.
Supported bike access around Wonderland Lake
Don't allow bikes on Old Kiln
Consider making the Old Kiln Trail uphill-only for bikes to connect with Ridge Dr., rather than closing it on the weekends.
Allow bikes on the Old Kiln Trail M-F (as proposed in Scenario 1)
Supported designating one of the many through-trails at Wonderland Lake as pedestrian/equestrian, in order to preserve connectivity for
equestrians on the Trail Around Boulder (TAB).
Northern Properties
There already exists and Lagerman/IMEL/AHI will enhance a balance of recreation in this area without opening additional lands. The public
makes significant use of the quiet country roads every day and through numerous public events throughout the year. Keep the rest of the
Northern Properties closed to avoid disruption of agricultural operations and preserve its quiet rural character which is one of the biggest but
easily lost values of this area. Don't spread public use of this area of roads onto surrounding lands which will disrupt wildlife movement. Wildlife
will already have to adjust east of 63rd when Lagerman/IMEL/AHI opens- then adjust again west of 63rd if you open lands as well. Wildlife if
negatively impacted when too much change happens too soon. Don't open properties that will encourage trespass onto adjacent private lands,
many of which contain public attractions, yet are vulnerable to disruption or damage.
The biggest negative of the North TSA scenarios is the opening of good agricultural properties to public use without a dedicated trail. Agriculture,
i.e., hay production and livestock, don't mix well with recreation and create major safety problems and a big potential for visitor conflict.
There are appropriate properties for the public use but good irrigated agricultural land is not one of those places.
With regard to the northern properties, I am interested in seeing all leased agricultural properties closed to the public. The northern properties
are mostly agricultural lands and in this instance I agree with the City of Boulder Charter, item d, that open space should be preserved,
maintained and used for "preservation of agricultural uses and land suitable for agricultural production". Opening any of these random
agricultural properties that do not connect with anything throughout northern Boulder County seems inconsistent with your goals, does not
improve visitor experience, increases chances for visitor conflict and greatly increases safety concerns. When there is not a designated trail, I do
not understand the reason for allowing the public on leased agricultural land. You do not have the staff to monitor these random plots, they do
not connect to anything, there are safety issues, there would not be improved access or accessibility and they could potentially be a big source
of visitor conflict. It takes a LOT of time and effort to produce nice hay so at the very least, you should consider seasonal closures, April -
October.
Feel that you should consider the risk, safety and liability issues that could exist when you open these smaller leased agricultural lands with cows
to the public. Also, the grasslands where the cows graze are irrigated fields during the spring and summer and again not conducive for walking
or hiking.
As I am sure you are aware, the Left Hand Feeder Canal runs through the length of the Stratton property and that is a serious safety concern.
"Certain Death" is the signage on the Northern Water (CBT) feeder canal and it is not so different from the Left Hand canal. I would think the
PAGE 23
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
City of Boulder would want to seriously look at this safety concern before ever opening that property.
I am very interested in seeing the historically agricultural properties remain (whether it be hay pastures or grasslands for cows) agricultural
properties, without visitor traffic. There will not be improved visitor experiences by opening these properties.
Berman Brothers property is not adequate for public access- there isn't parking or buildings. This stretch of Neva to Niwot Road is so heavily
populated already that any parking would be dangerous to all the bikes and runners. Please keep this property closed to the public as it currently
is.
The property on St. Vrain just west of 65th and the property on 65th both show possibly being open to the public. I'm not sure what purpose this
would serve except possibly for dog walkers. The property on 65th is next to a horse boarding facility and it may give them access to do a little
"hacking" outside the arena, but would not be a destination for riders.
Regional Connectivity
Though it is not mentioned in the scenarios, BCAS also supports the work begun by the department to establish a route on the shoulder of Olde
Stage Road to provide a safe connection north to the Boulder County Open Space at Heil Ranch.
Encouraged trail system connection N. Boulder to Heil. The old Wineglass ranch homestead road that parallels US 36 seems like one of the
better options for the connection than BVR as riders wouldn't have to cross US 36. Or the tie to BVR via Neva shelter could also make a good
loop.
I would like to see an underpass/tunnel "Lefthand Trail" on the east side of 36 across to the west side of 36 to connect with Joder.
Add the N-Water Ditch Trail
Connect Lake Valley to Joder
Connect N Water/Monarch to Boulder Valley Ranch
Allow public access with indiscreet trails east and north of Lake Valley Res north.
West side Boulder Reservoir connection
Connect from mail reservoir entrance to Boulder Valley Ranch
Connect Pleasant View North
I would also like to see the city of Boulder work with the forest service to develop a new trail going to the top of Fairview Peak above Jamestown
that could connect to this trail system.
Overall
Consider establishing a confined and well fenced area immediately adjacent to the largest and most used parking area where dogs could run off
leash. Invite Open Space lovers who also love dogs (FIDOS, e.g.), to share authority with OSMP to plan and maintain this dog run area,
establishing rules and encouraging a culture of user pride and responsibility.
Supported the restoration and re-vegetation of all undesignated trails not integrated into designated trail connections.
Supported proposals for trail improvements, actions to protect natural resources, interpretive signs and nature study.
For more general policies raised by the scenarios, we applaud the department for considering temporal separation possibilities for trails where
bikes are allowed. Long experience indicates that on the single-track trails preferred by cyclists, other users are displaced, so that as a practical
PAGE 24
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
matter, they become exclusively used by one user group. Temporal separation provides a proven, albeit expensive, way to reduce conflict. We
suggest that directional restrictions can provide some of the benefits of reducing user conflict with minimal enforcement expense.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan, we believe that where dogs are permitted in the North
TSA, they should be on-leash, both to reduce user conflict and enforcement expense, and to protect the valuable natural resources of the area.
Scenario 1
BVR
Don't move agricultural headquarters out of BVR and move Sage Trailhead to this location because:
it is part of Boulder history;
it would make it more difficult to manage and oversee current operations;
it doesn't support ag plan goal of "ensuring long-term sustainability of agricultural operations;
it would probably lead to demise of historic ranch buildings.
Wonderland Lake
Do not allow access to the cattail marsh. This would affect and damage the ecosystem and sensitive resources.
Overall
Recreational use dominates this scenario. More actions need to be implemented to preserve natural values
There was support for Scenario 1 as is because: it provides more mountain bike access on creative, interesting and challenging trails and it
includes bike access on Old Kiln Trail on M-F. Cycling commute options are limited and dangerous from Pine Brook Hills to Boulder and this
would provide a safe bike commuting opportunity.
Scenario 2
BVR Trails
Leave the north west quarter of the Sage-Eagle loop as voice and sight instead of changing it to on-leash as proposed in Scenario 2.
BVR Trailheads
Don't like plan to relocate Eagle Trailhead to Ellison property. This would require extensive reconstruction and tear-down of existing structures.
Does NOT take into account persistent flooding due to irrigation. Does NOT take into account current cattle grazing and high probability of
cattle roaming out of gates which are often left open by recreational users. Does NOT take into account current irrigation operations and access
to said irrigation operations by trail users. Would most likely require extensive fencing to be put in place to continue current cattle grazing
operations. Does NOT take into account nearby Osprey nesting platform. Would funnel large amount of traffic on boundary of current Wildlife
Closure area from March 15th to October 31st. Further chops up habitat and grasslands , contrary to initiative one of the City of Boulder 2010
Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan.
Wonderland Lake
On the south side of Wonderland Lake there is a large property berm that affords homeowners privacy. The north side doesn’t have a similar
berm, so it is requested that any covered meeting area be erected on the south side rather than the north side.
Scenario 3
PAGE 25
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Joder Trails
Reduce number of trails on Joder property (potentially from 3 loops down to 2 loops) and limit them to areas near the Interim Trail and existing
road and areas where invasive/barnyard grasses dominate; avoid high quality grasslands, rocky/ridge habitats and natural springs and drainages.
Joder Trailhead
Adequate parking for regular vehicles (not horse trailers and buses) is needed at Joder - in one of the two locations proposed in other scenarios
(e.g. Trailhead on Cox property).
Regional Connectivity
Eliminate the alignment along the Boulder feeder canal to conserve natural resources in the area- especially eagles.
Scenario 4
Joder Trails Regulations
Temporal separation at Joder would be okay, if necessary
Support for dogs on leash on Joder loop trail.
Pedestrians/dogs on-leash/equestrians only on the "South Joder Trail/Joder loop trail" would provide a better and more equitable equestrian
experience on this former horse ranch; it would allow dogs on-leash as directed in the Joder 1 property sale; and it's on a shale slope that would
be difficult to maintain to bike standards. An alternative would be to make the loop multi-use, but allow equestrian and pedestrian off-trail use
on Joder and BVR.
Maintain voice and sight access on the Buckingham Trail.
Supported designating another trail on Joder as pedestrian/equestrian only to honor equestrian history of the ranch.
North Foothills
Support for two loops on Hogback.
Support for realigning the Hogback Ridge Trail with designated usage pedestrian/equestrian
Don't work on Wonderland Lake Hogback. Hardly anyone uses it and the existing trail is adequate- money would be better spent elsewhere.
BVR Trails
The newly designated trails ending at 55th Street and near Niwot Road would be an ideal place to continue a trail connector to link to the
Reservoir trails. This would make more loop trails possible without having using 55th street to compete with vehicle traffic.
BVR Trail Regulations
Allow Voice & Sight access on Lefthand Trail. (To balance V&S on Lefthand Trail, Hidden Valley Trail can be designated no dog). V&S designation
of these trails north and west of Wonderland Lake would provide nearby V&S access to the other numerous residents who live in this area, thus
greatly reducing car travel. As climate change is one of the largest impacts that OSMP lands face, all reductions in car travel are important.
Regarding "on corridor," the VMP makes no mention of V&S "on corridor" in Passive Recreation Areas, thus I feel that "on corridor" is
unnecessary on these trails.
Support closing Hidden Valley Ranch Trail to dogs as in Scenario #1.
PAGE 26
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
BVR Trailheads
Support for paving Longhorn Road to the BVR Sage Trailhead, if “road maintenance” is seen as a problem (this action would enhance access for
the lessee and boarders as well)
Support enlarging the Eagle Trailhead to include designated horse trailer parking
Support for building a new TH at Linden with designated horse trailer parking to enable equestrians to access WTSA trails as well as this portion
of the TAB north into NTSA.
Wonderland Lake Trails
The odd numbered scenarios are the only ones showing a trail connection Old Kiln and Wonderland Hill (1L & 3L). I would like to see this trail
included on scenario 4.
Put a trail along Four Mile Creek from Broadway Ave. to the Kiln Trail. Extend the existing trail that runs underneath Broadway just north of
Violet Ave, past the trailer park. Run a new trail from just before where that sidewalk crosses Four Mile Creek. Have the trail go along Four Mile
Creek and join up with the existing Kiln Trail along the creek. There used to be a social trail along here. This is a beautiful walk! It is flat, beautiful,
has lots of wildlife, interesting flood geology, good fossils, and the historic old kiln. This will give residents of two low-income trailer parks a
beautiful close-by place to walk and share nature with their children. This will improve access and accessibility, improve visitor experience,
improve connectivity and increase education.
Give the paragliders a decent trail. OSMP and Boulder Parks and Rec need to work TOGETHER to keep a paraglider landing area in or next to
Foothills Park. Everybody loves to watch them. They add a unique feature to this area. Why does the new trail alignment make paragliders walk
way to the north to get to the launch area? This makes no sense. Put the paraglider trail so it goes west from where you have the two green dots
on the Foothills South Trail on Scenario #4 map.
The ridge above Wonderland Lake should have an upper trail that connects between Old Kiln and the areas near the paraglider launch. The
upper trail would enable a loop coming from Wonderland Lake with tremendous views and visitor experiences.
Designate the upper social trail which goes up to the saddle just south of the "Upper Paragliders Ridge" from the lower trail which turns north
and then back down (east) from the tree filled tongue I have been calling "Wonderland Overlook."This lower trail is the one going up the
foothills starting at the southwest side of Wonderland Lake. The 2 short trails leading from the lower trail out from and then back to the
Wonderland Overlook U-shaped trail could be eliminated in order to balance the retaining of the trail going up to the saddle just south of
Paragliders Ridge. I believe it is vital to retain this upper spur because 1) it is very scenic, 2) it remained essentially undamaged from the 2013
flood, unlike the lower trail leading up to Wonderland Overlook from the SW side of the lake, 3) there is a stand of trees at the top of this spur
with some rocks where the hiker can sit in shade just south of Upper Paragliders Ridge and watch the paragliders do their thing without
crowding them on the ridge they fly off of. This is virtually the only place a hiker can find shade on the trail system west of Wonderland Lake.
Add a sidewalk on Violet Ave. This will improve access to Foothills Park and the trails between Linden and Lee Hill. Many lower-income people,
especially immigrants, live in the big trailer park at 19th and Violet. They currently have no safe way to walk to the park area. There is a huge
fence along the west border of the trailer park. There is no sidewalk along Violet Ave east of Broadway. Adding a sidewalk will improve access
and accessibility and increase safety. Staff comment: Not within the scope of the North TSA Plan, recommendation for City of Boulder
PAGE 27
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Transportation Department.
Wonderland Lake Regulations
Supports giving up equestrian access on the rest of the trails in the Wonderland Lake area that were offered as open to horses in Scenario #4, in
order to preserve the balance between recreational use of open space and conservation of natural resources.
Wonderland Lake Trailheads
Designate horse trailer parking at Fourmile Trailhead to enable equestrian access to Foothills Trail and Wonderland trails. Alternatively, to
maintain balance if this action isn't taken, keep one trail through Wonderland Lake/Foothills open to horses.
Regional Connectivity
Explicitly commit to seeking a connection northward from Joder to Heil Ranch.
Connecting Niwot and Gunbarrel to Boulder Reservoir is important for connectivity which leads to spreading users out away from each other for
a much better user experience and a safer user experience.
The Trail Around Boulder would be an absolute gem - the section through the NTSA should be clearly established and pursued.
Supported building a designated multi-use trail from Schooley south along Neva Road, then along the Beech Shelter driveway to the Lefthand
Trail.
We need a trail connector to link Boulder Valley Ranch with the aforementioned neighborhoods. Right now those neighborhoods only have a
link to dirt trails via a unofficial rail crossing on to the short 1.3 mile Cottonwood Trail. There is Boulder County land on the west side of the
Orange Orchard neighborhood that could be used to access trails throughout Boulder Valley Ranch through a trail heading north from Jay Road
into the newly designated trail coming from Kelso Road, going through “Area II” of City of Boulder Parks and Rec land. This would be a vital trail
connection to neighborhoods that are current underserved when it comes to dirt trail access. As an alternative, a connection from N. 47th
street could be made to the new Kelso trail if access could be secured. This section of Boulder desperately needs to access to more trails. Now
pedestrians, trail runners, and mountain bikers must go on busy roads such as 55th street, encouraging people to drive to trailheads.
I cannot understand why the City of Boulder is not pursuing and utilizing the County's deeded trail corridor, Outlot G, directly on the South side
of the North Rim subdivision. This trail was deeded to Boulder County in 1991 (Outlot G in North Rim filing #2). It is the perfect connector trail
between East Beech and the South and East sides of North Rim and Lake Valley. For many years I rode my horses, ran and biked on this short
trail because it was a quick connection to the Beech area. This trail has been blocked for years, by the homeowners, I suspect, and no one from
the City or County seems to care. Now would be the perfect time to include this trail in your plans and sort it out. This trail was promised and
deeded in 1991 as a concession by the subdivision developer. There is no better time to negotiate an agreement with the County and transfer
ownership to the City. This trail will provide much improved connectivity and visitor experience. Please take the time to i nvestigate the
possibility.
Designate the existing trail on Buckingham north at least to the existing fence for all users, with a strong push for an off-road connection north
from there to Heil Valley Ranch.
Supported building the trail connection to 55th at Axelson. "align trail parallel to 55th Street, create trail anywhere between 55th Street and
feeder canal" -- which isn't shown on the map either. We would support such a trail -- NOT on the feeder canal but in the general vicinity -- for
PAGE 28
PRELIMINARY SCENARIO IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
all users, as it would make a great loop connecting Axelson and Eagle.
Support for building the North Rim/Axelson trail complex as multi-use and extending north to Niwot Road
Northern Properties
Support closing the four agricultural properties (Stratton, Campbell, Hester, Deluca) immediately north of Neva Rd/Left Hand Trailhead.
Strongly support the other agricultural property management actions of Scenario 4 (Closing Ryan, Andrea, Waldorf and Jacob and Brewbaker to
public access, opening Berman Brothers, Bruning, Dodd, Abbott, Johnson, Bison and Oasis, and partially opening Steele and Bennett. Scenario 4
does a good job of balancing access and agriculture.
Support for: 1) the agricultural purposes for Open Space and Mountain Parks. Passive recreation access, ongoing agricultural activities, and
preservation of natural resources are not mutually exclusive and can be accommodated simultaneously on many agricultural properties. We
believe the recommendations made by staff in Scenario #4 balance these purposes very well. 2) closing the Brewbaker, Stratton, Campbell,
Hester, Deluca, Waldorf, Ryan, Andrea, and Jacob properties, as recommended by staff 3) allowing public access, including equestrian, on the
Bison, Oasis, Berman, Abbott, Dodd, Schooley, Bruning and Johnson properties but not constructing infrastructure for visitor access, as
recommended by staff 4) allowing partial public access (including equestrian, but not dogs) on the Steele and Bennett properties but not
constructing visitor infrastructure, as recommended by staff.
No support for :1) closing agricultural properties merely because they are agricultural properties. They were purchased under the willing
seller/willing buyer principle, enabling farmers to derive substantial amounts of money to continue farming or not as they choose. Staff has
done a good job balancing which properties should be open, partially open, or closed to public access.
Overall
There was support for Scenario 4 as is, with people stating that it provides a good balance of the identified interests.
Scenario 4 should include more opportunities for dogs off leash. I welcome more trails open to bikes and more trails open to off-leash dogs.
The NCWD Feeder Canal (“Boulder to Lyons”) trail should continue to be pursued as a highly desirable north-south central County connector.
Staff comment: Not within the scope of the North TSA Plan.
Make all the trails east of HW 36, the new Joder trails, and the new trail west of HW 36 from North Boulder to the Joder Ranch multi-use trails
(with dogs on-leash as required by the habitat conditions).
Consider access to the un-improved cattle underpass south of Nebo Road (and leave it unimproved).
Please increase education and awareness by communicating why people should follow the rules (e.g. to protect important habitat, etc.)
Support for use of trails on designated days (include a weekend day) for different users.
I think the county should set up a for profit shuttle service from Lyons to Boulder on weekends. Staff comment: Not within the scope of the
North TSA Plan.
PAGE 29
ATTACHMENT F: PRELIMINARY SCENARIO FEEDBACK HIGHLIGHTS
Table 1: Comments Relative to all Scenarios
KEY TOPICS COMMENTS RELATIVE TO ALL SCENARIOS
Overall Actions Support for:
The restoration and re-vegetation of all undesignated trails not integrated into designated trail connections.
The proposals for trail improvements, actions to protect natural resources, interpretive signs and nature study.
Regional Connectivity Support for increased regional trail connectivity including:
Joder to Heil Ranch
Niwot to Gunbarrel to Boulder Reservoir
Trail Around Boulder
Trail connection to 55th at Axelson
North Rim/Axelson trail complex
Wonderland Lake Support for:
The designation of/re-routing of certain trails (see full feedback for specific details).
Adding a fishing pier.
Hardened access on the peninsula.
Concern with fishing pier for resource concerns.
Suggested changes:
Find an alternative loop route for northern section of Old Kiln Trail.
Add benches around lake to improve accessibility.
Wonderland Lake Trail
Regulations
Support for:
Mix of voice and sight options, especially on loop trail.
Keeping dogs on leash on loop trail.
BVR Trails Support for re-routing Boulder Valley Ranch (BVR) trails to improve visitor experience.
Suggested changes:
When re-routing BVR trails to ensure that the large grassland habitat block in East Beech is retained.
Add or designated existing parallel single track trails next to all road segments.
Add benches.
BVR Trail Regulations Suggested changes:
Allow bikes on all BVR trails.
PAGE 30
Retain Degge, Mesa Reservoir and Hidden Valley as pedestrian/equestrian trails.
To not allow dogs on Papini connector to protect raptors and nesting birds.
BVR Trailheads Suggested change to not move the Sage Trailhead, but do expand the Foothills Trailhead.
Joder Trails Support for re-routing Interim Trail for safety, visitor experience, decrease steep grade and decreased visitor conflict in ways that minimize impacts to
sensitive resources.
Joder Trail Regulations Support for:
Interim Trail with loops being multiple-use and loop not being multiple-use.
Loop trails having alternating days or directional loops.
Suggested changes:
Loop trails being voice and sight on corridor.
Allowing off-trail access to horses.
Joder Trailheads Support for retaining horse trailer parking at Interim Trailhead.
Suggested change to expand amenities (restrooms/horse trailer parking) at Joder Interim Trailhead.
Management Area
Designations
Support for recommended Joder Property management area designation as Habitat Conservation Area (HCA).
Suggested change that the Joder Property management area designation be Natural Area or Passive Recreation Area.
Northern Properties Support for:
Keeping some agricultural properties open because they were purchased as open space enabling farmers to continue farming or not as they choose.
Keeping Berman Brothers closed- there is not parking available for the public
Closing Stratton, Campbell, Hester and Deluca
Closing Ryan, Andrea, Waldorf, Jacob, and Brewbaker.
Opening Berman Brothers, Bruning, Dodd, Abbott, Johnson, Bison and Oasis.
Suggested change to keep the leased agricultural properties closed to avoid disruption of agricultural operations and preserve the quiet, rural character.
PAGE 31
Table 2: Comments Relative to Specific Scenarios
KEY TOPICS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Regional
Connectivity
Support for finding two north to
south corridors.
Support for the Boulder Feeder Canal
conceptual alignment.
Concern with conceptual trail
connection near Boulder Feeder
Canal due to eagle activity.
Support for finding two north to
south corridors.
Support for connecting Niwot and
Gunbarrel to Boulder Reservoir.
Suggestion to make it transparently
clear OSMP is seeking opportunities
for regional connections.
Wonderland
Lake
Support for most of the proposed
changes at Wonderland Lake.
Concern with providing access to
cattail marsh and impacts to sensitive
resources.
Suggestion to consider placement of
covered meeting area (shade
structure) in a way that minimized
view from neighbors.
Support for the connecting trail from
Wonderland Lake loops to Old Kiln.
Suggestion to have an upper and
lower loop.
Suggestion to not move paragliding
access so far north.
Concern with not finding a
replacement loop for Old Kiln.
Suggestion to designate horse trailer
parking at Fourmile Trailhead
Suggestion to add Old Kiln link and
new route for north Old Kiln.
Suggestions for adding overlook spur
trails to the loop trail.
Wonderland
Lake Trail
Regulations
Support for Old Kiln Trail M-F (and
suggestion for uphill only access
instead of not allowing it on
weekends).
Concern with bike access on Old
Kiln Trail due to visitor conflict.
Concern with voice and sight on
corridor on Old Kiln due to
regulation inconsistency and
enforcement.
Support for voice and sight on
corridor on loops.
Support for limiting horse access
with suggestion of making one trail
through area open to horses.
BVR Trails Suggestion to add a trail west of
Lefthand Trail for a more direct
connector and to create a loop trail
with Lefthand Trail.
Support for rerouting trails to
improve the quality of the
recreational experience.
Support for maintaining ADA access
to Eagle and Sage loop.
Suggestion to link new connector
trail to 55th Street to Boulder
Reservoir trails.
PAGE 32
KEY TOPICS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Suggestion to add trail west of
Lefthand trail to create a loop trail
with Lefthand.
Suggestion to designate or add single
track trails next to wider vehicle
accessible trails.
BVR Trail
Regulations
Suggestion to leave the northwest
quarter of the Sage-Eagle loop as
voice and sight.
Suggestion to allow bikes on Cobalt
Trail.
Support for changing Lefthand Trail
to voice and sight and Hidden Valley
to no dog as recommended in
Scenario 1.
Suggestion that all BVR trails be
opened to bike access.
BVR
Trailheads
Concern with moving the Sage
Trailhead to agricultural headquarters
at BVR.
Concern with relocating Eagle
Trailhead to the Ellison property due
to irrigation flooding, cattle grazing
and Osprey nesting.
Concern with relocating Sage
Trailhead.
Support for enlarging Eagle
Trailhead and adding trailer parking.
Suggestion for retaining Sage
trailhead and expanding it or
Foothills Trailhead.
Suggestion for designating horse
trailer parking near the public riding
arena at BVR.
Suggestion for paving Longhorn
Road.
N-S Joder
Trail
Connection
Support for connection on east side
of US 36 (due to habitat
fragmentation and natural resource
concerns)
Concern for connection on east side
of US 36 due to less desirable visitor
experience, safety and crossing US
36.
Support for connection on west side
of US 36 (for visitor experience,
accessibility, safety)
Suggestion to add signs indicating
that visitors stay on trail to protect
specific resources (identify those
resources), educate about HCAs and
construct low wildlife friendly fence
Support for connection on east side
of US 36 (due to habitat
fragmentation and natural resource
concerns)
Concern for connection on east side
of US 36 due to less desirable visitor
experience, safety and crossing US
36.
Support for connection on west side
of US 36 (for visitor experience,
accessibility, safety).
Suggestion to integrate railroad grade
into the trail.
Suggestion to add signs indicating
that visitors stay on trail to protect
specific resources (identify those
PAGE 33
KEY TOPICS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Suggestion that if connector trail is
on east side of US 36:
o don’t use existing Lefthand Trail
as connector
o design this connector trail with
visitor experience in mind
o consider creating a loop from US
36 through BVR to Joder and
back (designating direction the
loop should be taken to
minimize visitor conflict)
o consider creating a loop trail off
of Lefthand Trail for improved
visitor experience
to keep visitors on the trail.
Suggestion to add an
underpass/culvert to cross US 36
near Schooley property as it is
important for safety reasons
Suggestion that if connector trail is
on east side of US 36:
o don’t use existing Lefthand Trail
as connector
o design this connector trail with
visitor experience in mind
o consider creating a loop from US
36 through BVR to Joder and
back (designating direction the
loop should be taken to
minimize visitor conflict)
o consider creating a loop trail off
of Lefthand Trail for improved
visitor experience
resources), educate about HCAs and
construct low wildlife friendly fence
to keep visitors on the trail.
Suggestion to locate trail near
perimeter of HCA.
Suggestion to locate trail as best as
possible to avoid sensitive habitats.
Suggestion to move connector to east
side of 36.
Suggestion to add an
underpass/culvert to cross US 36
near Schooley property as it is
important for safety reasons
N-S Joder
Connector
Trail
Regulations
Support for dogs being on leash
Suggestion that dogs not be allowed.
Suggestion to consider closing the
trail to bikes a few days a week.
Suggestion horses not be allowed on
connector and off trail in HCA
Support for dogs not being allowed
Suggestion that dogs be allowed on
leash.
Suggestion to consider closing the
trail to bikes a few days a week.
Suggestion horses not are allowed on
connector and off trail in HCA.
North Foothills
HCA and other
Trails
Support for Maintaining the large,
unfragmented habitat block in the
North Foothills HCA.
Concern with connection on west
side due to habitat fragmentation and
natural resource concerns.
Support for Maintaining the large,
unfragmented habitat block in the
North Foothills HCA.
Suggestion to not allow horses on
Hogback Ridge Trail.
Concern with connection on west
side due to habitat fragmentation and
natural resource concerns.
Support for realigning Hogback
Ridge Trail for pedestrian and
equestrian use.
Suggestion to add second loop to
Hogback Trail.
Joder Trails Support for the loop trails on Joder.
Suggestion to design loops to
Suggestion to add a loop on Joder.
Suggestion for having directional
Suggestion to reduce number of
loops to one or two loops and keep
Support for loop linked to connector
trail.
PAGE 34
KEY TOPICS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
mitigate impacts to HCA. trails for mountain bikes or hiking
only and biking only trails.
them closer to Interim Trail and
avoid sensitive resources.
Suggestion to add additional loops on
Joder.
Joder Trail
Regulations
Suggestion to ad directional loops or
having uses allowed on alternate
days.
Support for alternating days for uses
or directional use.
Support both for no dogs on Joder
loops or requiring dogs on leash.
Support for pedestrians, dogs on
leash, and equestrians only on south
part of loop trail.
Support for temporal separation or
directional for multi-use loop.
Support for dogs on leash on loop.
Suggestion that Interim Trail be
voice and sight control.
Suggestion to maintain voice and
sight control on Buckingham Trail.
Suggestion that equestrians be
allowed off trail.
Joder
Trailheads
Suggestion to expand parking for
passenger vehicles as suggested in
other scenarios.
Suggestion to keep parking on the
east side of US 36.
Resource
Conservation
Strategies
Suggestion to implement more
actions to preserve natural values.
Suggestion to avoid wetland areas
with trail placements and locate
closer to road easements when
possible.
Suggestion to avoid shale barrens.
PAGE 35