7C - Greenways Master Plan UpdateCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 1, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: October 10, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning the
Greenways Master Plan lJpdate
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Public Works/Utilities:
Anne Noble, Interim Greenways Coordinator
Planning Department
Bev Johnson, Environmental Planner
OVERVIEW:
Tha initial Greenways Master Plan was adopted by City Council in January 1989. The intent oF
the original Master Plan was to articulate the overall policy direction for the Greenways
Program. This document is the frst update to the Greenways Master Plan aud was developed
by a staff group, representing the various departments that have an interest in the Greenways
Program.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff requests that the Planning Board recommend to City Council the adoption of the final
phase of the Greenways Master Plan update. Also requested is a Planning Board
recommendation that Council give CEAP approval authority to the Greenways Advisory
Committee.
QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD:
• Does the Board have any questions or comments on the organizational issues that were
addressed during the final phase of the Master Plan update? These issues include:
S:\plan\pb-items\memos\Anplanboardl l-Ol AGENDA ITEM #7C. Paec t
organizational structure of the Greenways Program, a project review process, maintenance
and financing of the Greenways system.
• Does the Board have any questions or comments regarding the establishment of the
Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) which is made of representatives from the five
boards that have an interest in the Greenways Program?
• Does the Board have any concerns with recommending to Council that the GAC be given the
authority to approve the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for
Greenways projects?
BACKGROUND:
The Greenways Master Plan update has been completed in three phases. Phase I included an
evaluation of the program to date and historical information about the program. This was
completed in June 1999. The second phase, involving the adoption of projects and opportunities
far each program objective, was accepted by City Council in September 2000, after review and
recommendation by the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Transportation Advisory
Board (TAB), Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd (PRAB), Open Space Board of Trustees
(OSB'1~ and the Planning Board. At tl~is time, city staff is requesting a recommendation to City
Council to approve the final phase and adopt the Greenways Master Plan Update. The final phase
of the Update involved reaching consensus on the following issues:
• an organizational structure for the Greenways Program
• the development of procedures and processes for project planning and public
invoivement
• a maintenance strategy
• a financing plan
In March 2001, staff presented a recommendation to Clty Council for each of these issues.
Staff's recommendation was revised in June 2001 to include the establishment of the Greenways
Advisory Committee. These recommendations have been incorporated into the final draft of the
Master Plan and are as follows:
Greenways Organizational Structure (page 165 of the Master plan Update)
The Greenways Coordinator will be part of the Utilities organizational structure, reporting to the
Utilities Project Coordinator. The Greenways Coardinator will wark with an interdepartmental
staff review group (Greenways Coordination Team) representing the various objectives of the
program. The Greenways Coordination Team will be responsible for coordinating information
about the program with their board members and other city staff from their departments.
Greenways Project Review Process (page 83)
The interdepartmental nature of Greenways projects has in the past required project reviews by
multiple boards. As a part of the Master Plan update, a less cumbersome process for Greenways
project review and approval has been developed. The new process involves the establishment of
a Greenways Advisory Commiuee (GAC). The GAC wili be made up of one representative
S:\plan\pb-items\memos\Anplanboardl 1-Ol AGENDA iTEM #7C. Paee 2
from the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Transportation Advisory Board (TAB),
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and
Planning Board, designated by the chair of each of the boards. The members of tl~e GAC will act
as the representative and liaison for their respective board on Greenways issues and interests.
The Committee will provide a single point of contact for the public to bring comments and allow
an opportunity for discussion where all of the Greenways Program objectives are represented.
The Greenways Coordinator, in conjunction with the staff Greenways Coordination Team, will
identify projects for the Greenways Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on development
activities, available outside funding sources and the opportunity to coordinate work with other
city projects. The CIP will be developed for a six-year period consistent with the rest of the city.
A Community and Environmental Assessment (CEAP) will be prepared for projects which may
have a significant impact .on environmental, social or cultural resources, which involve
community or neighborhood controversy, or which involve one or more conceptual alternatives
that require community input. Projects requiring a CEAP will be identified during the CIP
process.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Community and Environmental Assessmant
Process (CEAP) for Greenways projects will be reviewed by the Greenways Advisory
Committee (GAC) in a public hearing, The five advisory boards, that are represented by the
GAC, will receive a copy of the CIP and CEAPs as an infarmation item (non-agenda) and
comments can be directed to the GAC and/or the Greenways Coordinator. The Greenways CIP
will also be brought to the Planning $oard for recommendation, consistent will all other city
CIPs. The GAC will provide recommendations to staff and the Planning Board on the
Greenways Program CIP and will approve the CEAP subject to Council call-up. All projects on
land managed by Parks or Open Space will be taken to those respective boards in a joint hearing
with the GAC for approval of the CEAP, subject to Council call up.
Ail capital projects ($50,000 or more) proposed within a Greenway (whether funded through the
Greenways Program, a private developer or another city workgroup) will be reviewed by the
Greenways Coordinator and staff Greenways Coordination Team for compliance with the
Greenways Master Plan and Greenways Design Guidelines. Project CEAPs for projects within a
Greenway that are being funded outside the Greenways Program budget will be provided to the
GAC as an information item to give the GAC an opportunity to provide comments to staff and/or
the sponsoring advisory board, with the sponsoring advisory board approving the CEAP, subject
to Council call up.
Maintenance of the Greenways System (page 157)
The Greenways System is currently maintained by several maintenance work groups within the
city. Tasks are divided by geographical location, as well as function. City staff, representing the
different work groups that maintain the Greenways System, identified and evaluated the
maintenance activities associated with the Greenways system. In an effort to clarify existing
responsibilities and establish consistant levels of service, a matrix of current practices was
developed (page 161). The matrix identifies the tasks and frequency performed by each work
group. A GIS map (Appendix VIII-1) was also developed to clarify maintenance responsibilities
S:\plan\pb-items\memos\Anpianboardl I-01 AGENDA ITEM #7C, Puee 3
by geographical location. Using the Current Practices matrix, maintenance practices between the
different work groups were compared and a consistent standard was agreed upon (page 162).
In an effort to reduce confusion regarding maintenance responsibilities, a procedure far
reporiing, tracking and correcting maintenance problems was established. All Greenways
maintenance problems can be reported to the Street and Bikeway Maintenance hotline at 303-
413-7177. The Street Maintenance staff will follow up on the problems that are within their
jurisdiction and forward the other items to the appropriate work group. A database of reported
maintenance problems is kept by Street Maintenance, with other work groups having access to it.
Most of the Greenways maintenance requirements are currently being addressed through the
existing organizational structure. However, weed control and habitat maintenance and
maintenance for improved water quality were discussed and noted as not currently being
addressed. Specific activities considered for maintenance to a"habitaY' standard were developed
and are listed on page 158 of the Master Plan. In order to address the identified deficiencies in
habitat maintenance and weed control, the 2002-2007 Greenways CIP is specifying $150,000 to
be dedicated for this purpose.
Financing Plan (page 165)
Cost estimates for the projects and opportunities identified on the Greenways Master Plan Map
(Appendix I-1) and described in the Reach Inventory (page 102) in Section VII are contained in
Appendix VII-2. This information has been summarized in Table IX-1 (page 167). After
removing proposed improvements which would be considered under the CIPs for other
departments such as Transportation and Fiood Control, potential Greenways projects identified
in this Master Plan Update have an associated total construction cost of almost $16 million. At
the current annual funding of $450,000 per year, with $150,000 being dedicated to habitat
maintenance and additional costs associated with design, property acquisition and studies,
proposed improvements could be completed over a 53-year period, assumiug all of these
improvements are funded solely tku~ough the Greenways budget.
Inereases to program funding levels were evaluated as part of the Master Plan update process,
but due to city-wide budgetary constraints, no changes to the existing funding levels were made.
Continued Funding of the Greenways Program at $450,000 per year is anticipated.
REVIEW OF FINDINGS:
The Master Plan update presents the following information:
• Chapter I, Executive Summary
• Chapter II, Background Information, provides an overview of the history of the Greenways
Program and its development and evolution to its current configuration.
• Chapter III, Plan Development, explains the processes used to complete this Master Plan,
including the methods used to identify and prioritize project opportunities.
• Chapter IV, Planning, Permitting and Public Involvement Process, explains the methods for
project pianning, evaluation and review.
• Chapter V, Service Provision Policies, presents information pertinent to• the Greenways
Program from comprehensive plans and other city master and subcommunity plans.
S:\plan\pb-items\memos\Anplanboardl 1-Ol AGENDA ITEM #7C, Paee 4
• Chapter VI, Future Progr~ms, identifies possible futui•e opportunities to address Greenways
Program objectives.
• Chapter VTI, Future Opportunities, identifies Greenways projects and opportunities for each
of the Greenways stream reaches.
• Chapter VIII, Maintenance Plan, defines consistent maintenance standards and identifies
responsibilities for maintenance of Greenways projects.
• Chapter IX, Organizational Structure and Finance, presents a discussion of the organizational
structure of the Greenways Program and a long term funding plan for the program.
• Chapter X, Appendices, contains supporting information used in the completion of this
Master Plan.
PUSLIC COMMENT:
The first two phases of the Greenways Master Plan were reviewed and recommended for
approval by the five advisory boards that have an interest in the Greenways Program. City
Council accepted the first two phases of the Master Plan update in September 2000. The final
draft of the update, which has addressed the remaining outstanding issues associated with the
organization of the Program, was distributed to the five advisory boards as an information item,
with the review and recommendation (attached) of the Greenways Advisory Committee that
represents these boards. The Master Plan update has also been reviewed by the Development
Review Committee (comments attached).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Planning Board recommend to City Council ttie adoption of the Greenways
Master Plan update. Also requested is a Planning Board recommendation that Council give CEAP
approval authority to the Greenways Advisory Committee.
Approved By:
~„ ~
{~~ ~' l'~
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Greenways Advisory Committee Recommendation
Attachment B: Development Review Committee Comments
Attachment C: Staff & Board Members' Comments
The final Draft Greenways Master Plan update was distributed to the members of the
Planning Board in September 2001 and is not included as an attachment to this
memorandum.
S:\plan\pb-items\memos\Anplanboardl 1-01 AGENDA ITEM #7C. Paee 5
ATTACHMENT A
Greenways Advisory Committee Recommendation
Greenways Master Plan Update
October 17, 2001
Alison Richards motioned that the Greenways Advisory Committee recommend to the City
Council to approve the Greenways Master Plan with all the amendments and corrections
discussed.
Tina Nielsen seconded.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Alison Richards motioned to request that the City Council give the Greenways Advisory
Committee authority to approve CEAPs that are funded by Greenways.
Tina Nielson seconded.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
*Amendments and corrections are as noted in the DRC & Staff/Board member comments.
RplidlilbAN~PageA~
ATTACHMENT B
DRC Comments and Greenways Staff Response
Ocfober 11, 2001
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: October 8, 2000
CASE MANAGER: Nan Johnson
LOCATION: City of Bvulder
REVIEW TYPE: Plan Review & Comment
REVIEW NUMBER: M-2001-01
APPLICANT: Anne Noble, City of Boulder Greenways Advisory Committee
PROJECT NAME: GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN
DESCRIPTION: Plan Review & Comment on the final draft of the Greenways Master Plan. The
Greenways Advisory Committee is to meet October 17, 2001 to make a
recommendation on the Master Plan to the Planning Board and City Council. Final
acceptance of the pian by City Council is anticipated in November 2001.
REVIEW FINDINGS AND COMMEN7S
AccesslCirculation
Several sites along Greenways have been reviewed or have been considered for redevelopment that would require review.
These include:
• McKenzie Junction - This is located along Fourmile Creek between the crossings of Diagonal Highway and
Foothills Parkway. It is expected that the developer would participate in trail improvements.
• 2750 Baseline (Liquor store at 27`h and Baseline) - This site abuts the Skunk Creek Greenway. This site has not
been in for review at time of comments, however there have been preliminary discussions. Easements could be
obtained under certain levels of review.
• 5865 Arapahoe - This site is located where South Boulder Creek crosses Arapahoe. 7he proposal would include
on-site connections for pedestrians and bicycles to the Greenway system.
• Boulder Community Hospital - This site is located at 48'h and Arapahoe. The proposal includes participation in
funding a bridge and the connection from 48'" Street to the Boulder Creek Greenway trail shown on the plan.
. North Broadway Developments - Sites near and along the. Fourmile Creek Greenway near its crossing of Broadway
have been considered for varying levels of development. These may present opportunities to obtain easements
and construction of elements of the Greenway system.
Boulder County
1. This is a good document - layout well done and shows a good balance of water, trail, and habitat issues.
2. The document is cognizant of irrigation ditch issues when identified as historic resources. Nowever,
recreation/trail improvements can have negative impacts on all ditches, whether considered historic or not. These
negative impacts should be avoided.
Greenways Staff Response: In addition to noting irrigation ditches as a cultural resource, areas of
high quality habitat, as well as those proposed for restoration are shown on the Greenways Master
Plan Map and in the Reach Inventory (page 102).
3. The Maintenance Map has some errors -- the County doesn't maintain the paved trail north of the sewer plant; not
sure about the small trail just north of Platt School near Baseline Reservoir.
Greenways Staff Response: Errors will be investigated and corrected.
~ ry~ ~ 7~; page t 1~.
4. Preble's BMPs - There should be some specific mentioning of the Preble's Mouse and mitigation/impact
avoidance in the trail construction and maintenance sections of the Plan; especially for areas where the Mouse is known to
exist or where the habitat for the Prebles is good. Cary Richardson in Mountain Parks/Open Space could help with this.
Also, the draft Mouse Conservation Zone map can be seen on the Web at
httq://www.co.boulder.co.us/lu/soec qroi/hcpmap qdf
Greenways Staff Response: Page 40 of the Master Plan includes a discussion of sensitive species,
specifically mentioning the Preble's Mouse. Protection of species of concern is also mentioned under
the Terrestrial Habitat Goals on page 70 and is included in the Checklist for Permit Compliance on
page 85. Potential mouse habitat is also noted in the Reach Inventory (e.g. Boulder Creek Reach 1 on
page 124).
(Peter Fogg, Boulder County Land Use Dept. 441-3930 and Jeff Moline, Boulder County Parks and Open Space Dept.
441-3959)
Engineering
The Draft-Greenways Master Plan is a comprehensive document and does a good job addressing the requirements of the
Floodplain Development and Wetlands permitting processes, as well as the requirements of the City's CEAP process. it
also does a good job of addressing the multi-objective goals of the Greenways Program. While the Plan does provide
Greenways reach inventories and qualitative rankings for each segment, is still somewhat difficult for the reader to get a
sense of overall project or corridor priorities related to project implementation and the development of the CIP. There is
mention that the Greenways program has adopted an opportunistic approach to achieving objectives, and further that the
Greenways Coordinator, in conjunction with representative staff, will identify projects for the CIP based on development
activities, available outside funding sources and the opportunity to coordinate work with other City projects. It does seem
like further discussion of overall implementation priorities would be helpful, particularly in the Executive Summary. Bruce
Johnson,303-441-3206.
Greenways Staff Response: The purpose of the Greenways Pro.gram is to integrate six different
objectives along six designated creek corridors and Boulder Creek. Most of the objectives of the
Program are addressed and prioritized in separate master plans and are budgeted through those
departmental CIPs (e.g. Transportation, Flood/Drainage, Parks and Recreation etc.) with the exception
of the habitat protection/restoration objective. These environmental projects have been prioritized and
are listed in Appendix VII-3. A description of the prioritization process is included on page 99 of the
Master Plan. Projects are budgeted in the Greenways CIP that generally meet more than one of the
Program's objectives and may not necessarily be a priority when the objectives are viewed separately.
Miscellaneous - Plan Documents - Review Process
It is important for planning staff to have an understanding of how the coordination will occur between.this master plan and
other master plans (for example, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, and the North
Boulder Subcommunity Plan). This would be coordination with regards to policies, project implementation, funding, the
public process, the permitting and approval process, and land use regulations, and design guidelines and standards.
Planning staff has expressed the need for this plan to address how its implementation will interface with development on
private property. For example, will exactions be requested on drainage and transportation projects? This could provide
some basis for negotiations when reviewing projects. How will acquisitions occur? Providing information on minimum
standards, for example, widths of pedestrian and trail easements would be very useful for planners when reviewing
projects.
Also, distinguishing the changes of this draft since the Planning Board's last review may be helpful to the reader of this
document. (Nan Johnson, 441-4190)
Greenways Staff Response: The Greenways Master Plan has incorporated information from all of the
master plans that address Greenways objectives. The information in the Greenways Master Plan has
also been coordinated with the Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan. Policies, project implementation,
funding and public process have all been integrated into the Greenways Master Plan. Coordination
will continue to occur through the Greenways staff team which consists of staff from other
departments who are involved in master planning. Development on private property should comply
Agenda ilem # 7c Page 9 ~
with the Greenways Master Plan and Greenways Design Guidelines, as well as the City's Design and
Construction Standards. The method of implementation through development review will be
determined on a case-by-case basis and depend on the type of development activity, city funding
available, and negotiations with the landowners.
Open Space - The following comments are from Joe Mantione of the city's Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department.
My intent is to make sure. the program funding deficienf and deferred environmental / maintenance needs get appropriate
attention as issues to be addressed by the new Greenways Advisory Committee, the Greenways staff coordinating
committee, and other policymakers.
Over the last several months, I have represented OSMP on the Greenways staff coordinating committee. So, I feel
invested in the new draft Greenways Master Plan, which ali the member departments on the commitfee have had a hand
in writing.
Prior to my participation on the committee, plan components that were previously completed and reviewed by the various
staff and boards included background information, results of various studies, service provision policies, and identified
projects and opportunities. The now complete draft plan adds the procedures and processes for project planning and
public involvement, an organizational structure, a financing plan, and a maintenance strategy. OSMP believes the updated
Greenways Plan is a vastly improved document than the previous plan. Among other improvements, the plan provides:
• A comprehensive compendium of information about the Greenways program
• A conceptual and policy framework to guide decisionmaking
• Reach-by-reach identification of specific projects and projection of the costs of trails, underpasses, drinking fountains,
flood improvements, and environmental improvements / habitat restoration
• Logical methods for setting Greenways project priorities
~ More emphasis, in general, on meeting the environmental goals and objectives behind the Greenways program
• The completion of a habitat evaluation that assessed existing conditions and restoration opportunities along the
tributary greenways
~ A commitment to increase the allocation of funding resources to maintenance, primarily weed control. This
commitment is reflected in the 2002-2007 CIP by reallocating $150,000 of the total Greenways budget of $450,000 to
weed control. These funds would provide for a seasonal weed crew and associated equipment and materials.
• A work plan commitment to update the Greenways Design Guidelines, which would incorporate appropriate
maintenance standards, restoration methods, and environmental practices with respect to weed control and habitat
management
~ A commitment for a five-year post-project monitoring and follow-up program, which would identify the degree of
success and implement corrective measures to any post-project problems
OSMP believes the Greenways Master Plan provides these and other benefits. OSMP supports the new organizationai
structure for the Greenways program. OSMP supports the new procedures and processes for project planning and public
involvement, with maybe one modification. The plan recommends that all Greenways projects be reviewed by the Open
Space Board of Trustees (OSBT), as well as other appropriate boards. For projects not on OSMP properties or not having
a direct or proximate impact on OSMP properties, the plan recommends that the OSBT review the project as an
information item. While this inclusiveness seems good, it does not necessarily use the Board's time efficiently.
Consequently, staff recommends, where there is no direct OSMP interest in a proposed Greenways project, that OSMP
staff be given the discretion to decide whether or not to distribute this information to the Board.
Maintenance / Deferred Maintenance Fundinct
On the other side of the ledger, OSMP does not feel the plan goes far enough in setting the long-term direction for the
Greenways program with respect to securing adequate long-term financing, ensuring that desired maintenance standards
are met, and eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog. Based on previous discussions with the City Managers Office
and the participating agencies, and the current economic downturn and long-term economic uncertainties for Boulder, the
plan for now may have gone as far as it can with recommendations for a long-term funding plan and a maintenance plan.
W ith respect to long-term financing, the plan does not recommend increasing the overall level of funding for the
Greenways program. The plan does identify the cost of currently proposed greenways trail opportunities {approx. $8 m)
and environmental improvement and habitat restoration needs (approx. $8 m) that are stand-alone projects from other
n~enaaicem~ L Pa~e# `.
larger flood control or transportation projects. Many of the environmental improvement and habitat restoration needs
represent deferred projects that did not get addressed when previous Greenways capital projects were funded and built.
In addition, some of these needs will only get intensified and more costly to deal with as time goes by. If the $150,000 of
the $450,000 Greenways budget was allocated to these types of projects, the plan calculates it would take more than 53
years to complete them. The plan unfortunately stops there, with the exception that there is an acknowledgement that the
City could apply for external funds like EPA grants and GOCO funds for some of these projects. The plan does not identify
any specific goals with respect to r2ducing the backlog of deferred environmental improvements or habitat restoration
projects by obtaining external funding sources over some reasonable amount of time.
With respect to the maintenance of the tributary greenways, the plan recommends increasing the qverall level of
maintenance by allocating $150,000 per year out of the annual $450,000 greenways budget. OSMP supports increasing
the level of effort behind maintenance and the plan's recommendation of transitioning to a higher standard of "habitat"
maintenance. However, while the plan recommends this standard, it simply acknowledges the lack of funding to move to
this standard.
The severity of the funding shortfall is further demonstrated by the fact that the 2002-2007 CIP allocates $150,000 from the
$450,000 Greenways program funding (split evenly among the three funding sources) to weed control, which is an
essential maintenance function and contributes to habitat protection and restoration (see page 158). According to the Plan
on page 165, the types of projects that are clearly undertunded and could be funded with this $150,000 include not only
weed control but other habitat maintenance and environmental restoration activities and associated costs with design,
acquisition, and studies (and presumably also includes catch-up on deferred habitat maintenance). The key funding
questions that need to be addressed is how deficient is each of these categories with and without this additional funding,
and is it possible to do any of these functions at a reasonably adequate level with this level of funding? If deferred needs
are great and funding deficits are large for each category of need, then each of the participating departments in the
Greenways program must share the responsibility for correcting these deficiencies and find a way to secure additional
funding.
Environmental Restoration / Habitat Preservation
OSMP believes that the Greenways program faces serious problems related to inadequate funding for environmental
improvements, habitat restoration, and a"habitaP' level of maintenance. In addition, the plan points out the serious lack of
funding for adequate tree maintenance and planting and outreach and education activities to creekside landowners. While
the current economic situation may not lend itself to a solution to these problems in the short term, OSMP believes that the
Greenways Master Plan should direct the new Greenways Advisory Committee and the Greenways staff coordinating
committee to develop more specific options for closing the funding gap. Given all the competing needs of city government
in an increasing scarce funding environment, OSMP believes that these Greenways funding issues need to be
championed by those entities overseeing the program. Otherwise, it will be too easy to keep treating the Greenways
program as a poor cousin when flood control, transportation, or other capital needs are considered.
W ith regard to monitoring of physical and ecological conditions in the tributary greenways, OSMP believes that the five-
year post-project monitoring and follow-up program is a definite improvement to many of the historical practices. However,
there is a great need for an on-going, comprehensive program that monitors the conditions along the greenways, emerging
trends, and the impacts of public and private improvements and actions. A monitoring program is not cheap, and money
for monitoring is always scarce. However, OSMP suggests that the Greenways Advisory Committee and the Greenways
staff coordinating committee make development of a monitoring system a priority. It would require new monitoring
activities, but it would also involve integratfng many existing monitoring activities conducted by multiple city departments.
In sum, OSMP supports the draft Greenways Master Plan. It is definitely a stronger plan to guide future decisionmaking.
However, the Plan must be used as a vehicle to focus more attention to the thorny funding deficit problem and the need for
increased maintenance levels, environmental and habitat enhancements, and monitoring activities.
If you have any questions about the OSMP comments, please call me at x2047 or e-mail me at
mantionei (o~ci. bou Ider.co. us.
Greenways Staff Response: The Greenways Program is currently funded by the Transportation Fund,
Flood Control Fund and Lottery Fund, each contributing $150,000. Increased funding for the Program
was discussed with the staff that oversee all of these budgets as part of the Master Plan Update. A
discussion of lottery Fund distribu4ion also took place during a joint board meeting with the Open
Agenda Item 3 7C page t/~
Space Board of Trustees and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, While staff was supportive of
increasing funding to the Greenways Program, revenue shortfalls and other project needs limited the
availability of resources. Due to citywide budgetary constraints, no changes to the existing funding
levels were made. During the CIP process every year, there is an opportunity to reevaluate funding
increases.
NEXT STEPS
It is the Plannins~ staff's understandinq that this document (the final draft Greenwavs Master Plan) will be
presented to the Greenwavs Advisorv Committee (GACI at their October 17. 2001 meetins~ at which time GAC will
develop a recommendation for the Planninst Board and Citv Council meetinqs in November 2001.
Agende Item A~L Page tl~
ATTACHMENT C
Greenways Master Plan
Staff & Board Members' Comments & Responses
October 18, 2001
Susan Richstone:
Master Plans usually state that they will be reviewed and amended on a certain timeframe. E.g.
reviewed annually and amended as needed, major update and review every 5 years. You might
want to insert language indicating sotnething to the effect that...like all plans, to continue to be
useful over time the plan will need to be reviewed and updated as needed over time to reflect
changing conditions and priorities. Therefore, the pian will be reviewed on an annual basis by
the Greenways Advisory Committee and amended as needed.
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate the annual review and major update every
five years as part of the ameadments and acknowledgement page.
SueEllen Harrison:
Just a reminder that acceptance of the Plan does not negate the need for appropriate permits i.e.
wetland, flood and approval or acceptance of Plan does not mean that ordinance requirements
have been met.
Greenways Staff Response: Acknowledged
Ellie Bussi-Sottile;
p. 23, last paragraph
first sentence - change "full service" to "varying degrees of maintanance"
second sentence - continue sentence (after the word "program") with "specifically for Greenways
and natural areas."
Fourth sentence - change "monitoring" to "informal scans"
p. 47, last paragraph, second bullet
add the word "replacement" so that the bullet reads, "Responsibilities for installation,
replacament, and maintenance of trees need to be clarified."
p. 159, Section D
Change title from "Forestry Maintenance° to "Tree Maintenance"
first paragraph of section D, fifth sentenca: delete the wards "and safety" so that it reads "...Parks
staff performs clearance pruning." In the next sentence, change the word, "Division° to "Section"
p. 162, Table VIII-2
in the 2nd row (the Forestry row) below the Trees heading, delete the words, "Accelerated trim
(by °green" time)" - note - leave those words in the cell above
in the footnote bullet that explains Accelerated trim - change the word "bloom° to "leaf out"
P 41 Urban Forest 2nd par.
Re wrote it slightly to say:
The Urban Forestry Program provides planting, pruning, removai and routine safety inspections
for city-owned trees on street rights-of-way and within city parks. The Forestry staff currently
provides maintenance for over 4Q000 trees within the city under their jurisdiction.
3rd par.
S:\plan\pb-items\memos~ANGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA TTEM #7C, Paee /,~
Trees located on city-owned lands within the Greenways conidors should receive routine
inspections for the purposes of diagnosing problems, controlling disease, and reducing liability.
......The rest of this par. should be included with no changes.
1 st par. should be included with no changes.
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate as part of the amendments and
acknowledgement page.
Betty Solek:
I looked over the environmental priaritization method discussion and stil] thought it needed some
smoothing so; T word processed up some suggested language. I think what's in there will work
but take a look at what I put together and see what you think. These changes are for the last 2
paragraphs on p. 99 and the first paragraph on p. 100. I looked at the proposed criteria for
evaluating program success at achieving water quality goals (p.71) with Chris & Donna and they
agreed that those were good criteria, so no change there.
All of the Greenways goals & objectives, except the environmental objectives, are covered under
individual master plans and associated city work plans. Consequently, a method was developed
to prioritize sE~-eler~e environmental projects during the Greenways master planning process.
A prioritized list of environmental projects and opportunities resulted which will facilitate
identification of potential funding sources to accomplish these projects. The prioritization
method involved tabulation of all identified Greenways environmental projects, application of a
scoring system for projects and ranking of projects based on Greenways objectives and
environmental assessments.
Scores for the projects were developed from recent environmental shidies, a matrix of
overlapping and conflicting objectives and the results of a weighting analysis of stresses on
Greenways riparian habitat and water quality.
The stress analysis was based on a methodology developed by the Nature Conservancy entitled
"The 5-S Framework for Site Conservation". The method involves:
• Identifying specific environmental functions of Greenways that are impaired system-wide
• Evaluating severity and extent of stresses on riparian and water quality functions
• Identifying mitigation strategies to alleviate these stresses
Identified mitigation strategies were assigned weighting factors in terms of feasibility, cost and
effectiveness. Results of the stress analysis are summarized in Table VII-3.
The stress analysis was system-wide in that it was applied to Boulder Creek and its tributaries.
The list of environmental projects and opportunities was reviewed to categorize the type of
mitigation strategy, which would be accomplished by each project. Weights for each mitigation
strategy were incorporated into the overall scoring system, which included habitat quality,
overlap or conflict with other Greenways, objectives in the reach, property ownership and risk of
failure. Results of the project ranking based on these scores are provided in Table VII-4.
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate as part of the amendments and
acknowledgement page.
S:\plan\pb-items\memos~.SNGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C. Pase /3
Jim Tydings:
Maintenance-the tables are extremely helpful. A couple of questions: Flooding/underpasses- Do
all of the pathways underpasses have close gates? If not, which locations do not and is the
responsible dept, planning on installing them by what date? Why is Streets checking the gates
every 24 hours and Parks is doing it on as needed basis - will this create gaps in having the
underpasses open during flood/high water events? (2). Is it correct that the Transportation
Division is responsible for repairheplacement of all bridges on the pathways-If so, should
requests for Yhis work go the Street and Bikeway Maint. hotline or to specific individual(s) in
Transpo?
Greenwnys Staff Response: Not all of the underpasses have flood gates. The frequency of
flooding varies greatly among the underpasses. Most of the underpasses that ilood on a
more frequent basis have gates. Greenways staff is checking to see if Parks can check gates
every 24 hours to match Transportation. Bridge replacement is the responsibility of the
Transportation Division. Reguests for any type of Greenwa,ys/Bikeways maintenance can
be directed to the Street and Bikeway hotline and it witl be directed to the appropriate
person.
Debbie Ritter & Marni Ratzel:
Transportafion Goals (page 74)
Consider adding a policy statement that indicates a commitment to provide adequate bicycle
parking along new multi-use path segments at appropriate activity generators such as parks and
open space trailheads.
"The Bicycle System Plan, a component of the Transportation Master Plan update of 1996
outlines the importance of secure bicycle parking as a factor in determining bicycle mode share.
In accordance with the city's criteria for bicycle parking, it is recomntended that future
greenways projects evaluate and install adequate and secure bicycle parking at destination areas,
as appropriate."
Additional Services (Page 98) --section continued from previous paga
Li__ghtine sub-heading section
^ Amend last sentence to read: Street lights must be individually evaluated in terms of their
perceived safety from crime and conflict with other users, and effects on haUitat.
Other Im~rovements
^ Amend last sentence to read: These improvements will be evaluated on a case by case basis
and discussed for incorporation in the Design Guidelines update.
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate as part of the ~mendments and
acknowledgement page.
Fourmile Canyon Creek
Reach 3~Pa~e 104) -
^ Clarify the plan for a path between Garnet Lane and 19`h Street. Currently two bullets state
contradictory plans. (Bullet 4 states "Construct soft-surface pedestrian only path between
Garnet Lane and 19`h Street, yet Bullet 5 states: "Re-evaluate multi-use path from 19`h to
Garnet Lane and between Garnet Lane and 26~h Street. "
^ Transportation's prefened position is to maintain continuity of the trail and therefore supports
including a proposed continuous multi-use path between Garnet Lane and 26`h Street.
S:\plan\pb-items\memos~ANGreenways Mas[er Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C, Paee /'~j~
Greenways Staff Response: The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan shows an off street .
pedestrian only path beCween Garnet Lane and 19« Street, with an on street connection
between Garnet Lane and 26`h Street. Construction of a multi-use path would require an
amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The Greenways Master Plan is
recommending that a multi-use path be reconsidered in the future, with an Amendment to
the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. This recommendation was made in light of major
tlood improvements that are being proposed along Fourmile Canyon Creek, which will
require considerable habitatrestoration.
Reach 5 (PaQe 107)
^ Consider adding bullet as follows: "Construct trail from west side of Boulder Valley
Meadows Park to Broadway"
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate as part of the amendments and
acknowledgement page.
Wonderland Creek
Reach 1 (PaQe 108~
^ Delete bullet 2- it is done.
Reach 4(Pa eg I 11)
^ Other Conditions, Bullet 1 inaccurately sYates °No trail exists".
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate corrections as part of the amendments and
acknowledgement page.
Reach 6 & 7 (pa¢e 113~
^ Consider feasibility of constructing trail connections along these reaches and depicting
proposed multi-use trail on City oF Boulder Greenways Master Plan Map.
Greenways Staff Response: The Greenways Master Plan Map and Reach Inventory comply
with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Adding trail connections would require an
Amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which can be done at 1 later date if
these trail connections are determined to be feasible. (This trail link is not included in the
Transportation Master Plan or the previous version of the Greenways Master Plan Map
approved in 1998.)
Goose Creek
Reach 4 (page 119~
^ Add bullet: "Construct trail connection to 29`~' @ Bluff Street
• Amend bullet 1 under'Other conditions' to read: "Trail exists."
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate corrections as part of the amendments and
acknowledgement page.
Reach 6 fpage 122~
^ Add bullet: Construct trail connections between 13`h - 19`h Streets in conjunction with
potential daylighting of creek.
Greenways Staff Response: This trail opportunity was not identified on the Greenways
Master Plan Map which was recommended for approval by all five advisory boards and
was approved by City Council in September 2000. This trail link was also not included in
S:\plan\pb-items\memos~ANGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C, Paee /,~
the Transportation Master Plan or the previous version of the Geenways Master Plan Map
approved in 1998. This recommendation will be incorporated into the amendments and
acknowledgement page as a recommendation for a future Greenways Master Plan Update
or the Greenways Master Plan Map can be amended if a creek day lighting project moves
forward before that time.
Boulder Creek
^ Consider including a policy statement that supports maintaining and expandiug a continuous
soft path trail along the entire conidar.
Greenways Staff Response: Acknowledged, will incorporate this suggestion into the
discussion for the update of the Greenways Design Guidelines.
Reach 1 (~age 124)
• Amend bullet 1 under' Other Conditions' to read: Trail exists from Goose Creek to Valmont
Road.
Greenways Staff Response: Will incorporate correction as part of the amendments and
acknowledgement page.
Skunk Creek
Reach 3 (p 136~
^ Missing multi-use trail link: Consider feasibility of constructing multi-use trail connection
between 35~h Street and E. Aurara Avenue and depicting proposed multi-use trail on City of
Boulder Greenways Master Plan Map.
Greenways Staff Response: This trail liuk is not included in the Transportation Master
Plan or the previous version of the Geenways Master Plan Map approved in 1998. Tlie
riparian area along this section of Skunk Creek is very narrow, therefore construction of a
trail is not considered feasib[e.
Bear Creek
Reach 2 (n 1421
Bullet 3 under'Other conditions' states: "The path is wider than the creek in some places and is
constraining the stream corridor". Clarify action associated with this statement. Does this imply
that future Opportunities may consider narrowing the path?
Greenways Staff Response: No future action is being proposed.
South Boulder Creek
Reach 3 (p I501
^ Missing multi-use trail link: Consider feasibility of constructing multi-use trail connection
between Arapahoe Road and the Centennial Trail, and depicting proposed multi-use trail on
City of Boulder Greenways Master Plan Map.
^ Transportation's preferred position is to maintain continuity of the trail and therefore supports
including a proposed continuous multi-use path.
Greenways Staff Response: This trail link is not included in the Transportation Master
Plan or the previous version of the Geenways Master Plan Map approved in 1998. The
riparian area along this section of South Boulder Creek is considered to be
S:\plan\pb-items\memos~ANGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C, Paae ~~
environmentally sensitive. It would be difficult to construct a trail in this area and
minimize the impacts to the environment, as well as homeowners.
Linda Andes George:
--questions:
--p. 158: branch h-immiqg to "improve habitaY'-(wildlife likes sloppy landscaping)?
Greenways Staff Response: Accelerated trimming of branches was proposed as an
etthanced maintenance measure 9n order to provide a 7 ft vertical path clearance earlier in
the season. This was not intended as a way to improve habitat, but was included in tl~e list
because it related to vegetation.
~-p. 162: no column for funding the monitoring which is so tantalizingly described on p. 97.
Elsewhere?
Greenways Staff Response: The cost of post project monitoring is proposed to be included
as part of the construction budget and is not part of the maintenance activities of the
maintenance work groups listed in the table on page 162.
--p. 167: what is proposed trail along Bldr Crk which will cost $l OK?
Greenways Staff Response: The table on page 167 identi~es 9,049 linear feet of proposed
traiL This iucludes a trail connection at the hospital site and east of 30th Street, as welt as
the connection between Valmont Road and 63rd Street, which are shown on the Greenways
Master Plan Map. It was assumed that the cost of constructing a trail is $100 per linear
foot, with the estimate for trail construction along Boulder Creek totaling $904,900, which
is shown in Appendix VII-2 under the total trail cost for Boulder Creek.
--current document is a hu~e imDrovement on the original master plan.
--origiual had no serious stream or reach inventory, no specifics on how good intentions far fish
and wildlife preservation would be implemented in project design, no clear idea of ways &
means to effect maintenance and certainly not monitoring, and an abundance of generally vague
language.
--new doc. contains much that is encouraging, includin~
--system-wide inventory (although an evaluation of the complete tributary/stream netwark AS an
ecosystem still does not exist); at least now we have a rigorous and scientific evaluation of all of
the reaches and segments.
--better balance in terms of a proposed process for consideration of projects (or "opportunity
developments") with the GAC in place. This promises a more integrated way to approach
planning, as well as a more publio-friendly one
--a firm commitment to establishing a maintenance program and a design guidelines pianning
document
--ideas for future programs (p. 95) that are very exciting: Creek Care, Adopt-a-Reach & school
partnerships etc
--in sum, there has been a head-on and creative approach here to problem-solving {dealing with
the issues)
--We still need a good many specifics-devil in the details (p. 5: "guidelines & restoration " and
p. 6: "design guidelines" to be provided in separate documents)
S:\plan\pb-i[ems\memos~ANGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C, Paee %~
--maintenance (for weed control-p. 160), monitoring (p. 85 & 97), and riparian restoration
continue to be funding orphans. All other aspects of proposed projects and past projects have
funding from interested departments save these three. It is not clear even now how the Gr.
Coordination Team will resolve this huge problem, although it is encouraging to see that a matrix
for maintenance has been established, which will at least clarify who is supposed to do what. The
proposal to use a substantial part of the budget to get,weeds under control is also exciting. After
an initial strong push, once natives are established, this effort can be scaled back. Weed control
is not sexy, so it is good to see this courageously realistic and practical suggestion.
--the monitoring process described sounds good. But who wiil iinplement it and who will fund
it?
Greenways Staff Response: Post project monitoring will be part of the construction budget
and will be funded as part of the project. (e.g. The Wonderland Creek project currently
under construction includes a contract for post construction monitoring for four years.)
--the design guidelines are the other truly essential missing element. The environmental
community has been requesting a city-wide set of such guidelines (not just for Greenways but for
projects affecting urban open lands) for many years. Greenways can and should set up the
prototype for such a vision, but it is obvious that this is going to be a political hot potata It must
be undertaken, however, and it must be linked with approval of the drafr master plan. What is a
master plan without design gui~elines??
Greenways Staff Response: Greenways staff acknowledges that "how" something is
designed is as important as identifying which projects and opportunities are to be
implemented. The Greenways Design Guidelines will be upolted by the interdepartmental
Greenways staff group and will establish city-wide guidelines. This will require a
significant effort in order to be a comprehensive and useful document.
The Design Guidelines are linked to the Greenways Master Plan, but are a sep:-r~te
document and should not delay the approval of the Greenways Master Plan Update. The
Greenways Master Plan Update involved a significant staff effort and public process to
reach consensus. The Master Plan was completed in three phases, with the bulk of the
document (Program purpose, objectives, goals, projects and opportunities) reviewed and
unanimously recommended for approval by all five boards last summer, with City Council
"approval" in September 2000. The Tinal document, which is currently under review,
incorporates the resolution of organizational issues including: organizational structure, a
project review procedure, maintenance and funding. The Greenways Master Plan Update
provides the basis for administering the Greenways Program. It important to officially
adopt these recommendations and Tinalize the Master Plan Update.
The Greenways Master Plan Update specifies a comprehensive project review process, with
the involvement of both an interdepartmental staff team, as well as the review and
approval of the Greenways Advisory Committee, representing all of the five advisory
boards that have an interest in the Program. While it is important to update the Design
Guidelines, there is signi6cant review of Greenways projects and linking the approval of
the Master Plan Update to the completion of the Design Guideline Update would be
detrimental to the Program.
S:\plan\pb-items\memosWNGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C. Paee /~
Alison Richards:
p. 9 spelling "Olmsted"
p. 22 typo "currently"
p. 23 correct to read Eleven miles of Greenways path traverse city parks
p. 37 typo "Greenway"
p. 48 correct to read 26~h to Edgewood segment of Goose Creek
p. 74 spelling "compliments"
p. 96 typo "litter"
p. 97 spelling "Eben Fine"
p. 99 stress analysis? See Betty Solek's Comment above for rewritten explanation.
p. 113 trail Poplar to Garnet done
p. 118 Goose connect to businesses north and south of Goose Creek
p. 121 Goose connect to businesses
p. 123 move Valmont after Glenwood (sequence of underpasses)
p. 124 change trail exists to trail exists from Valmont to Goose Creek
p. 148 spelling Leggett
p. 150 change to "on road connections"
p. 152 Add proposed bridges Greenways Staff Response: Proposed bridges were not
identi~ed on the Greenways Master Plan Map. They will be identified at the project level
during the CEAP process.
p. 157 typo "tracking"
Appendix III-1-3 typo "scuipture garden"
Clarify drinking fountain cost. Greenways Staff Response: Drinking Fountain costs are
shown on page 97 as $3000 and in Appendix VII-2 as $15,000. The $3000 cost is for the
drinking fountain only, with the $15,000 including the cost of the drinking fountain,
extension of the water line to the appropriate location, tapping the water line, a backflow
preventer, a water meter and associated connection fees.
The maintenance Standards spell out desired schedule, but result not specified. Greenways Staff
Response: This will be addressed in the update to the Greenways Design Guidelines.
What "private party" maintains trail NIST to Hollyberry & upper part by Transportation, how
often? Greenways Staff Response: NOAA/NIST maintains the section through their
property and the small segment at the western edge is maintained by Transportation at the
same frequency as the rest of the path system.
Greenways Staff Response: Greenways staff acknowledges all of the above corrections
noted in Alison Richard's comments.
The Transportation Advisory Board requested that the reach inventory note the reaches where no
trails are currently being proposed because of residential development conflicts.
Greenways Staff Response: The following reaches do not currently show a proposed
continuous trail connection because of potential residential conflicts:
Fourmile Canyon Creek Reach 3(per the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan)
Wonderland Creek Reaches 5, 6 and 7(per the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan)
S:\plan\pb-items\memos~ANGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C, Paee /~f
Goose Creek Reach 6
Skunk Creek Reach 3
South Boulder Creek Reach 3
The Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) also requested staFf check in with the
Environmental Advisory Board to see if they have an interest in participating in the GAC. Staff
will follow up on this.
S:\plan\pb-items\memos~ANGreenways Master Plan Comments AGENDA ITEM #7C, Paee a1J