11.08.17 OSBT Packet
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
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
6:10 III. Matters from the Department
A. Chautauqua Access Management Plan 2017 Pilot Program Review and
Preliminary Recommendations
B. Mule Deer Study in Collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife
C. Prairie Dog Update - report on 2017 accomplishments
6:30 IV. Matters from the Board
A. 50th Anniversary Debrief
6:45 XII. Adjournment
* Public Hearing
STUDY SESSION
6:55 Master Plan Study Session **
** The study session will be open to the public, but there will be no public participation
Open Space Board of Trustees
TENTATIVE* Board Items Calendar
(updated Oct. 23, 2017)
December 13, 2017 January 10, 2018 February 14, 2018
Action Items:
• Recommend Process for
Master Plan
• Property Acquisition
• Acquisition Amendment
Matters from the Department:
• High Plains Volunteer
Trail realignment and
restoration project
• Voice and Sight
Compliance Update
• South Boulder Creek
Flood mitigation
groundwater study
Matters from the Board:
• Consider input to
council retreat
• PPWG Working Group
Follow up
Action Items:
• CAMP Ordinance
Changes
Matters from the Department:
• Master Plan Check-in:
Status of Process
Approval and Prep for
Public Kick-off
• Ranger Naturalist
Strategic Plan
Matters from the Board:
• Finalize input for
council retreat
Action Items:
• Property Acquisition
Matters from the Department:
• Master Plan Check-in:
Details of Public Kick-off
and Publishing System
Overview Report
• Tall Oat Grass
Management
• Master Plan: Public
Kick-off
• Mosquito Management
Matters from the Board:
March 14, 2018 April 11, 2018 May 9, 2018
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Community Engagement
Strategic Plan Roll Out
• Integrated Site Planning
for NTSA Projects
• Update on Ag. Plan
Implementation
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Budget Briefing –
preparation for Draft
Capital Improvement
Program budget
• Visitor Experience
Framework
• Volunteer Services
Annual Report and
Acknowledgement
Matters from the Board:
• Master Plan Process
Committee
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Master Plan Check-in:
What we’re hearing;
prep for Focus Area
Workshop
• Draft Capital
Improvement Program
Budget
• Ag. Center Concept
• Planning Services
Strategic Plan
Matters from the Board:
*All items are subject to change. A final version of the agenda is posted on the web during the week
prior to the OSBT meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 1
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date October 11, 2017
Video recording of this meeting can be found on the City of Boulder's Channel 8 Website. (Video start
times are listed below next to each agenda item.)
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Molly Davis Kevin Bracy Knight Tom Isaacson Andria Bilich
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
John Potter Dan Burke Luke McKay Keri Konold
Chelsea Taylor Mark Gershman Phil Yates Alyssa Frideres
Leah Case
GUESTS
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation, PH&S
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (15:22)
Andria Bilich moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the minutes from Sept. 13, 2017.
Molly Davis seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda (15:52)
Lindsay Lydia, Boulder, expressed her concern about safety on Open Space. She suggested putting in
more signage including what to look out for. And if possible, improve sight lines in areas where there is
more human traffic.
Katie Sonders, Boulder, requested the pricing for the Voice and Sight Tag Program offer the Boulder
County resident rate to anyone attending the University of Colorado.
Alan Delamere, Boulder, showed a power point regarding 311 Mapleton.
Russell Hendrickson, Boulder, expressed his concern about parking at Sanitas. He added that Open Space
is overused, however if trails were maintained appropriately there would be no overuse.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Department (30:45)
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation, presented on the development of the Chautauqua Lighting Design
Guidelines.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board (47:55)
Molly Davis gave an update on the 50th Anniversary events.
The Board agreed that if a vote is not unanimous regarding a disposal, the time the discussion took place
will be included in the minutes to provide context on why members voted they way they did.
Deryn Wagner, Senior Planner, and Tom Isaacson gave an update on the Master Plan Process Committee.
AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 2
AGENDA ITEM 5 – Request for a recommendation to approve the purchase of approximately 25
acres of land including the appurtenant mineral rights, a residence, garage and associated
outbuildings, together with the intended disposal of approximately 2.3 acres of land, the residence,
garage, and associated outbuildings, located at 5610 Baseline Road from the Richard and Kathryn
Suitts Trust dated May 7, 2009 for $1,700,000 for Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes. The
disposal will include negotiation of an acceptable purchase price and appropriate encumbrances on
the disposed property to protect the Open Space values of the remaining parcel. (1:31:43)
Luke McKay, Property Agent, presented this item.
Public Comment
None.
Motion
Tom Isaacson moved the Open Space Board of Trustees (1) recommend that the Boulder City
Council approve the purchase of approximately 25 acres of land including the appurtenant mineral
and water rights, a residence, garage and associated outbuildings, located at 5610 Baseline Road
from the Richard and Kathryn Suitts Trust dated May 7, 2009 for $1,700,000 for Open Space and
Mountain Parks purposes, and (2) approve and recommend that the Boulder City Council approve
the intended disposal of the approximately 2.3 acres of Area II land, the residence, garage, and
associated outbuildings. The disposal, pursuant to section 177 of the Boulder City Charter, will
include negotiation of an acceptable purchase price and appropriate encumbrances on the disposed
property to protect the open space values of the remaining parcel. Kevin Bracy Knight seconded.
This motion passed four to zero; Curt Brown was absent.
AGENDA ITEM 6 – Request for a recommendation to approve the purchase of approximately 5
acres of land and appurtenant mineral rights located at 5673 North Foothills Highway from The
Eleanor B. Snyder Living Trust dated December 3, 2002 for $1,000,000 for Open Space and
Mountain Parks purposes. (2:02:39)
Luke McKay, Property Agent, presented this item.
Public Comment
None.
Motion
Andria Bilich moved the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that the Boulder City Council
approve the purchase of approximately 5 acres of land and appurtenant mineral rights, located at
5673 North Foothills Highway from The Eleanor B. Snyder Living Trust dated December 3, 2002
for $1,000,000 for Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes. Molly Davis seconded. This motion
passed four to zero; Curt Brown was absent.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT)
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
Susan Connelly, Deputy Director, Department of Community Vitality
Bill Cowern, Principal Traffic Engineer, Department of Public Works, Transportation
Division
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager, OSMP
Colin Leslie, Human Dimensions Coordinator, OSMP
Amanda Bevis, Project Coordinator, Department of Public Works, Support Services
Division
DATE: November 8, 2017
SUBJECT: Chautauqua Access Management Plan 2017 Pilot Program Review and Preliminary
Recommendations
Executive Summary
The Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) project is being led by the Public Works
Transportation Division and the Community Vitality Department with the goal of exploring ways to
manage existing demand for transportation access to and from the Chautauqua area in ways that minimize
vehicular and parking impacts to surrounding neighbors, visitors, and the area’s natural and cultural
resources. The CAMP scope does not specifically explore resource management or visitor use of adjacent
OSMP land in the Chautauqua area.
Following approval by City Council in April 2017, staff launched a pilot program in summer 2017 that
included free transit using the Park-to-Park shuttle from free off-site parking and managed parking within
the Chautauqua area and in the immediate neighborhood. Referencing data analysis, stakeholder
debriefing sessions, and a community questionnaire, staff considers the pilot program successful and
recommends continuing the program with minor modifications and improvements for five years. Staff
presented 2017 pilot results and preliminary recommendations for a continuing CAMP program at the
October 24 City Council Study Session. The study session memorandum (Attachment A) is included for
the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) to provide questions and feedback on the pilot results and
preliminary recommendations. In addition to the council and OSBT, staff will seek feedback on the
preliminary recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB), the Landmarks Board and the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) board
of directors.
Of specific interest to OSBT may be the following: In March 2017, the OSBT recommended, and City
Council approved with Ordinance 8179 (Attachment B), temporary ordinance changes related to the
establishment of a Parking Management Area in the Chautauqua area, parking fees, and other associated
details, for the duration of a summer 2017 CAMP pilot program only. These temporary ordinance
amendments sunset on Dec. 31, 2017. The preliminary staff recommendation is to continue the
temporary ordinance changes that are necessary to continue the CAMP program for five years, expiring at
AGENDA ITEM 3A PAGE 1
the end of 2022. The staff intent is to return to OSBT and TAB in January 2018 for formal
recommendation to temporarily amend Chapters 2-2, 4-20, 4-24, 7-6 and Title 4, B.R.C. 1983, then to
take this to City Council in February to request approval of the CAMP program and adoption of the
necessary ordinance amendments
Questions for OSBT
1.Does OSBT have any questions about the CAMP Summer 2017 pilot program implementation or
results?
2.Does OSBT have any feedback on the preliminary recommendations regarding the proposal to
continue the summer CAMP program for five years?
3.Does OSBT support the plan for staff to return to OSBT in January 2018 seeking a
recommendation on specific ordinance changes?
ATTACHMENTS
•Attachment A: City Council October 24 Study Session memo and attachments
•Attachment B: City Council approval of Ordinance 8179
AGENDA ITEM 3A PAGE 2
M ayor
Suzanne Jones
Council Members
Matthew Appelbaum
Aaron Brockett
Jan Burton
Lisa Morzel
Andrew Shoemaker
Sam Weaver
Bob Yates
Mary Young
Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
October 24, 2017
6:00 PM
City Manager
Jane Brautigam
City Attorney
Thomas A. Carr
City Clerk
Lynnette Beck
STUDY SESSION
BOULDER CITY COUNCIL
TO FOLLOW 6 PM SPECIAL MEETING
Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) Report on Summer 2017 Pilot and
Presentation of Preliminary Recommendations and Next Steps (1.5 Hours)
Urban Forest Management Update (1 Hour)
City Council documents, including meeting agendas, study session agendas, meeting action
summaries and information packets can be accessed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council.
This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live on
Municipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m.
Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council meeting.
Boulder 8 TV (Comcast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live meetings
that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning service operates in the same manner as similar
services offered by broadcast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with the
television remote control. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on
BoulderChannel8.com. To activate the captioning service for the live stream, the "CC" button (which
is located at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the channel is
providing captioning services.
The council chambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening
devices. Individuals with hearing or speech loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-
659-3656.
Anyone requiring special packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions
may contact the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please
request special packet preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting.
City Council Study Session Page 1 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
If you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting, please call
(303) 441-1905 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o
cualquier otra ayuda con relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-1905
por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta.
Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolorado.gov no later than
2 p.m. the day of the meeting.
City Council Study Session Page 2 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
C ITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
MEETING DATE:
October 24, 2017
AGENDA TITLE
TO FOLLOW 6 PM SPECIAL MEETING
Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) Report on Summer 2017 Pilot and
Presentation of Preliminary Recommendations and Next Steps (1.5 Hours)
PRIMARY STAFF CONTACT
Susan Connelly, Deputy Director of Community Vitality
BRIEF HISTORY OF ITEM
City Council in April 2017 approved a Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) pilot
(temporary program) for summer 2017 to explore ways to manage existing demand for access
to and from the Chautauqua area to minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors, visitors and
the areas' natural and cultural resources. This memorandum and the presentation to be made
at the Oct. 24 study session will present the results and analysis of the pilot program and
outline preliminary recommendations for an ongoing five-year summer weekends program.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
CAMP SS 10.24.17
Presentation - CAMP
City Council Study Session Page 3 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Members of City Council
Jane Brautigam, City Manager
Mary Ann Weideman, Deputy City Manager
Maureen Rait, Executive Director, Public Works
Molly Winter, Executive Director, Community Vitality
Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Director, Public Works-Transportation
Bill Cowern, Principal Traffic Engineer
Susan Connelly, Deputy Director, Community Vitality
Melissa Yates, Access and Parking Manager, Community Vitality
Deryn Wagner, Senior Planner, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Kathleen Bracke, Manager, GO Boulder
Natalie Stiffler, Senior Transportation Planner, Public Works – Transportation
Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner, Public Works – Transportation
Meghan Wilson, Temporary Communications Manager
Colin Leslie, Human Dimensions Coordinator, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Amanda Bevis, Project Coordinator, Public Works
October 24, 2017
Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) –
Report on Summer 2017 Pilot and Presentation of Preliminary Recommendations
and Next Steps
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the study session is to brief City Council on the results of the Chautauqua Access
Management Plan (CAMP) summer 2017 pilot and to seek council feedback on the proposed process and
schedule to develop a recommended implementation plan for summer 2018 and beyond.
The city initiated the CAMP process in response to the 2015 city lease with the Colorado Chautauqua
Association (CCA); to address neighborhood concerns about spillover parking, congestion and safety; and
to be proactive regarding the city’s climate commitment, including reduction in single-occupant vehicle
(SOV) usage. The purpose of the CAMP is to manage transportation access to and from the Chautauqua
area during the peak summer period in ways that minimize vehicular and parking impacts to surrounding
neighbors, visitors and the area’s natural and cultural resources.
City Council Study Session Page 4 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
On April 18, 2017, City Council approved a summer 2017 pilot program to test various mitigation
measures and assess effectiveness in achieving the plan’s purpose in order to inform development of a
CAMP for implementation in future summers. Success for the pilot was defined as:
•Transit ridership levels (not including Transportation Network Companies, or TNCs) of 250
shuttle riders per day on average, including visitors, employees, volunteers, (using summer 2016
data, this would comprise approximately 10 percent of trailhead visitors);
•Increase use of TNCs;
•Reduction in traffic volume on Baseline Road and on surrounding neighborhood streets;
•Reduction in parking utilization on neighborhood blocks to the north of Chautauqua and in the
CCA leasehold area; and
•Reasonable compliance with parking restrictions.
Since the pilot concluded at the end of August, staff and consultants have analyzed data and community
feedback to measure outcomes and determine areas for improvement. The CAMP summer 2017 pilot
appears to be a success relative to the criteria. Staff has prepared preliminary recommendations involving
minor improvements while continuing the same or better level of service for th e majority of pilot
components. Staff recommends that the pilot program become an ongoing funded program for a period of
five years while other relevant studies and updates are completed, including the Open Space and
Mountain Parks Master Plan.
Council feedback on these preliminary recommendations will be presented to several boards during the
next few months. Board feedback will be incorporated into final recommendations for the ongoing
program to be presented to City Council during the first quarter of 2018, along with code changes
required for implementation.
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
Was the CAMP summer 2017 pilot successful? Did it achieve the project goals? Is it the right approach to
continue in one or more future summers?
Questions for Council
1.Does City Council have any questions about the CAMP Summer 2017 Pilot program
implementation or results?
2.Does City Council have any feedback on the preliminary recommendations for an ongoing five-
year summer CAMP program?
BACKGROUND
“Chautauqua” is used as short-hand to refer to a variety of places and things, including the Colorado
Chautauqua National Historic Landmark (NHL) district; various places within the NHL, including the
Colorado Chautauqua Association leasehold area; the city park; the Chautauqua Dining Hall and the
Chautauqua Ranger Cottage; the adjacent open space trailheads; and even the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
Usage of many of these areas peaks every year during the summer months. Access to the Chautauqua area
has been a concern for decades as usage has increased. For example, the number of visitors to Chautauqua
trails doubled between 2004 and 2015. The trails average about 2,500 visitors per day in the summer peak
period, with summer 2015 visitation on weekends approximately double weekday visits on average.
Concerns about increased use have been identified in a series of leases over the years between the city of
City Council Study Session Page 5 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Boulder and the CCA, with a commitment made in the most recent lease (effective Jan. 1, 2016) to create
a Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP).
In February 2016, City Council determined in February 2016 to proceed with data collection in summer
2016 as a foundation for a future pilot program. An internal staff team, along with the Fox Tuttle
Hernandez Transportation Group, evaluated data collected throughout summer 2016 and developed
recommendations for 2017 in coordination with the CAMP Working Group. Staff presented these
recommendations, which were based on data analysis, technical expertise and community input, to City
Council on April 4, 2017. On April 18, 2017, City Council approved a summer 2017 pilot program to
address key issued identified through the 2016 data collection:
•Reduction of automobile mode share to meet CAMP governing principles and city transportation
and climate goals;
•Reduction of parking demand on adjacent neighborhood and CCA leasehold area neighborhood
streets, currently used as overflow parking for access to the area; and
•Reduction of conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians in highly trafficked residential areas.
The pilot included an integrated program of free transit, the Park to Park shuttle from free off-site parking
and managed parking within the Chautauqua area, and staff executed a data collection plan to measure the
components.
Summer 2017 Pilot Components and Results
The CAMP 2017 pilot operated on the weekends, Saturday and Sunday, between June 1 and August 31.
The Council-approved components of the CAMP summer 2017 pilot were:
Transit
•Free transit service: three shuttles branded as the Park to Park shuttle operated in 15-minute
increments from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in conjunction with free satellite parking in five downtown
parking garages, at New Vista High School (Baseline and 20th Street) and at University of
Colorado-Boulder (Broadway and 20th Street/Regent Drive).
•The shuttles ran for a total of 936 total hours and had 22,933 boardings (which includes the number
of people boarding and could include individuals using the shuttle more than once per day), which
equates to an average of 882 boardings per day .
•Dogs were allowed on the shuttle, with no incidents were reported involving dogs.
•An average of 43 percent of the daily boardings occurred at King’s Gate and Baseline (Chautauqua
stop), with an average of 31 percent at the New Vista satellite parking lot, 10 percent at the CU-
Regent satellite parking lot, and the remaining 15 percent spread between the 9th Street and College
Avenue stop and the downtown stops. Average daily boardings peaked at the 11 a.m. and noon
hours and were about 10 percent or more above average each hour from 9 a.m. through 3 p.m. The
distribution of boardings by stop and hour was consistent each month.
•The New Vista High School parking lot was not available for Park to Park satellite parking on the
final weekend of the 13-weekend pilot, and that weekend had depressed shuttle ridership and
increased paid parking transactions.
City Council Study Session Page 6 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•The Via Mobility Services (Park to Park shuttle service provider) bus drivers were friendly and
helpful, and were specifically identified in multiple complimentary e-mails to the Park to Park
team.
Paid Parking
•Paid parking was implemented in four zones: on Baseline Road, around the Chautauqua Green, in
the Ranger Cottage Lot and in the temporary Neighborhood Parking Program (NPP) zone (see
below) for $2.50/hour. There was no time limit or restriction on duration of parking.
•Parkers could pay at any one of five payment kiosks installed temporarily along Baseline and at the
Ranger Cottage using credit or debit cards and entering license plate numbers, or they could pay
using the ParkMobile phone application.
•During the pilot, the average length of paid parking was 2.42 hours.
•Of the paid parking transactions, 64 percent (12,742) used one of the five payment kiosks and 36
percent (7,216) used the ParkMobile app. There were more ParkMobile transactions at Chautauqua
than downtown on the same days.
•Some users experienced difficulty connecting to the ParkMobile app, and some users didn’t realize
that they needed their license plate numbers to pay at the payment kiosk, requiring a walk back to
their cars. Additional signage was added mid-pilot to remind users to record their license plate
number.
Temporary Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) Program
The purpose of an NPP program is to manage parking to balance the needs of everyone who uses public
streets in residential neighborhoods. NPP zones provide for resident permit parking and public parking.
•The city created a temporary Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) zone from 6th Street to Lincoln
Place and from Baseline Road north to Cascade Avenue (one block north of Baseline).
•The city issued 158 resident permits at no charge during the pilot.
CAMP Ambassadors and Guides
•The city hired seasonal employees to be CAMP Ambassadors during the pilot. The ambassadors
were stationed around the five payment kiosks, in the Ranger Cottage lot and around the
Chautauqua Green and were available to answer general questions about the pilot and shuttle and to
provide assistance to people using the payment kiosks. The city trained ambassadors through a pre-
pilot orientation.
•The Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau (BCVB) staffed guides who worked on each shuttle
to orient new and returning visitors on the shuttle.
CCA Leasehold Parking Permits
•The city issued permits to CCA for distribution among its residents, lodging guests, Community
House users and employees and volunteers of all three organizations within the leasehold (CCA,
Colorado Music Festival and Chautauqua Dining Hall).
•On pilot Saturdays and Sundays, CCA used signage to manage access into the leasehold area at two
entry points (one at Kinnikinic Road and Clematis Drive and another west of the trailhead parking
for the McClintock Trail). Parking within the leasehold on pilot Saturdays and Sundays was permit-
City Council Study Session Page 7 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
only past these two signed entry points, with public (paid) parking on the Clematis and McClintock
Trailhead portions of the CCA leasehold (Figure 1 – Parking Study Areas)
•Voluntary compliance with the “permit-only parking” on pilot weekends was higher than had been
anticipated.
•CCA cottagers and staff expressed great satisfaction with the pilot, finding it easier to park within
proximity to their residences or rental lodging, but also appreciation for the reduction in cars
circling for parking. Several people specifically mentioned that it was quieter within the historic
core than it had been in past summers.
Employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
An employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program was organized and managed for each
set of employees within the CCA leasehold (CCA, Chautauqua Dining Hall [CDH] and Colorado Music
Festival [CMF]) to reduce parking demand and expand access to transportation options.
•CCA provided a $3 per day “cash out” incentive for its employees who chose not to get a permit to
park within the leasehold area and limited the number of parking passes provided to employees.
•CDH provided a meal credit as an incentive to employees to not drive or use a parking permit
during their shift on the weekends of the pilot.
•CMF employees (including musicians at rehearsals) were provided with parking permits through
CCA to park within the leasehold. Only about half of musicians and staff were provided permits to
encourage carpooling and use of the shuttle.
•Employee questionnaires were issued prior to and after the pilot to understand the effectiveness of
the TDM program. Results indicate that driving alone to work reduced by approximately 14 percent
over the 13 weekends of the pilot, due to a slight increase in carpooling and with 10 percent of
employees regularly using the Park to Park shuttle service from designated lots. During the pilot,
approximately 20 percent of employees tried the shuttle at least once during the pilot.
Transportation Network Companies (TNC)
To supplement the free shuttle service for visitors and employees, the city worked with Lyft and CCA
worked with Uber to provide ride discounts, particularly outside of shuttle service hours.
•The city subsidized TNC rides to offer a discount to visitors who used Lyft to arrive and/or depart
from Chautauqua at any hour during the weekend. Midway through the pilot, the city increased the
subsidy from $1.25 to $2.50 to encourage usage. By the end of the pilot, 66 Lyft rides were taken
using this method.
•CCA also worked independently with Uber to provide TNC rides from the shuttle lots for
employees arriving before or after the operational hours of the shuttle. No data has been provided at
this time from Uber.
Parking Enforcement
City of Boulder parking enforcement officers patrolled the five managed parking areas to enforce the NPP
zone, CCA leasehold area, and the paid parking zones (Figure 1 – Parking Study Areas).
City Council Study Session Page 8 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Planning and Implementation
Following City Council approval of the pilot approach and required ordinance amendments (archived
here), staff conducted the following activities to plan for summer 2017 implementation of the components
mentioned above:
•Finalized a negotiation with the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) and the University of
Colorado (CU) regarding satellite parking lots;
•Completed a request for proposals (RFP) process and contracted with Via Mobility Services for
shuttle service;
•Developed and implemented a branding and marketing plan;
•Ordered, installed and programmed parking payment kiosks;
•Designed, fabricated and installed 320 transit and parking signage, including variable message
signs on Highway 36;
•Hired and trained 13 on-site parking ambassadors;
•Coordinated with the BCVB on orientation for CAMP ambassadors, BCVB ambassadors and Via
bus drivers;
•Coordinated with CCA and produced parking permits for its leasehold users;
•Ordered and distributed temporary NPP zone permits to neighbors north of Baseline;
•Coordinated with CCA, the Chautauqua Dining Hall and the Colorado Music Festival on an
employee TDM program; and
•Contracted with Lyft for discounted rides to supplement the shuttle service.
As the CAMP pilot transitioned from planning to implementation, staff monitored each pilot component
regularly and made tweaks as possible. In response to user feedback, staff added additional “License Plate
Required” signage to clarify paid parking requirements. Another modification in response to customer
need was gaining Landmarks Board’s Design Review Committee approval to relocate one of the five
payment kiosks from its original location on the far western end of Baseline into the Ranger Cottage lot
by the third weekend of the pilot, which improved user accessibility to the kiosk.
Marketing and Communications
Staff contracted and coordinated with the Vermillion Design and Digital to develop the Park to Park
brand and graphics, communications messaging, print and digital collateral, bus stop wayfinding and
signage, and paid social media and Google advertising strategy. Given the significant number of first-time
visitors to Chautauqua, it was necessary to continually inform new visitors, as well as local residents.
In addition to the Google paid search and social media advertising campaign, the pilot was featured in the
June/July 2017 issue of the City of Boulder community newsletter (“Free Chautauqua shuttle for summer
2017”). During the beginning of the pilot, there was positive media television coverage. Throughout the
pilot, the CAMP and Park to Park webpages were regularly updated with new information, council
correspondence and public input. There were also four “Heads Up” updates to Council – May 19, June 8,
July 21 and Aug. 31.
The city issued a community questionnaire at the end of the pilot. Findings included that 79.6 percent of
respondents were aware of the free shuttle before their first visit, and 64.2 percent of respondents were
aware of paid parking before accessing the area.
City Council Study Session Page 9 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Data Collection
Data was collected according to the schedule below to understand conditions on pilot days and non-pilot
days and to compare with the same data collected in 2016 as available.
Note: “Parking utilization” refers to the number of parking spots used compared to the number of spots
available.
Data Collection Task Number of Collection Days and Times Responsible Party
Daytime Parking Utilization – six
zones: CCA Leasehold, Ranger
Cottage Lot, The Green, Baseline
Road, Temporary NPP, North (and
east) of NPP Neighborhood
6 days, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
2 weekdays, 4 weekend days
Fox Tuttle Hernandez
Transportation Group
(FTH)
Evening Parking Utilization - part
of NPP and North Neighborhood
zones
3 concert days, 4 – 8 p.m. FTH/City
Parking Utilization & Hang
Tag/Permit data - Leasehold, NPP
2 weekend days, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. FTH
Parking Utilization & License
Plate state - New Vista and CU
Regent satellite lots
2 weekend days, 3 peak hours (am, noon,
pm)
FTH
Transit Ridership Pilot weekend days, 7 a.m. – 7 p.m. Via bus drivers,
Automatic Passenger
Counts (APC) on
buses
Traffic Volume and Speed on
Baseline Road
Saturday and Sunday, one weekend City
Parking Enforcement Pilot weekend days City
Baseline Crosswalk Volume &
Driver Compliance – Baseline at
Kings Gate and at Grant Place
2 weekday & 2 weekend days (4 hours
midday)
FTH
Employee TDM data Pre- and post-pilot questionnaires in May
and August; participation data collected
throughout pilot
City, CCA, CDH,
CMF
Trailhead Visitation June 1 – August 31, 24-hours per day
every day
City
City and Regional Hotel
Occupancy
Average June, July, August BCVB
City Council Study Session Page 10 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Data Collection Task Number of Collection Days and Times Responsible Party
CCA Event Attendance Regularly on event nights at Chautauqua
during the pilot
CCA and CMF
Bicycle Parking – Ranger Lot
racks near Ranger Cottage and
Baseline
6 days, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. FTH
Figure 1 – Parking Study Areas
In addition to the data collection plan, staff committed to work with partners and the public to understand
more subjective aspects of success, including conducting an online questionnaire to understand how the
pilot affected customer satisfaction, visitor experience and changes in behavior, and seeking
neighborhood feedback and input on what measures were most helpful.
2017 CAMP Pilot Budget
The total cost of the pilot was budgeted as $457,500 to include transit, parking management
administration, paid parking kiosks and ParkMobile, enforcement, on-site parking ambassadors,
marketing and communications, TNC subsidies and data collection and analysis. With $97,000
appropriated through the 2017 base budget, $357,000 was allocated to this project in the first adjustment
City Council Study Session Page 11 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
to base (ATB) in June 2017, which included $130,000 in revenue estimated to be generated by the pilot
($80,000 parking revenue and $50,000 contribution from the BCVB). As of October 11, 2017, pilot
expenses were 87 percent of total budgeted at $396,722, including encumbrances. Paid parking revenue
generated 50 percent more revenue than anticipated, at $119,967 as of October 11, 2017. In addition to
paid parking revenue, the BCVB contributed $52,024 to the pilot for marketing support and provided
additional ambassadors on the shuttles, at the Ranger Cottage and at the CU-Regent satellite parking lot.
ANALYSIS
The pilot ran for 26 days over 13 consecutive weekends from June 3 through August 27. Data collected
during that period indicates that the pilot met the key issues identified for mitigation.
Key Issues Addressed
Reduction of automobile mode share to meet CAMP governing principles and city transportation and
climate goals.
Operating 936 total hours of service, the free Park to Park shuttle had 22,933 boardings, which equates to
an average of 882 boardings per day. The free Park to Park shuttle was as productive (considering riders
per service hour statistics) as some of the city’s longstanding Community Transit Network routes, such as
JUMP. Staff estimates that transit ridership during the pilot reduced single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
mode share of those seeking parking in the Chautauqua area by approximately 160 vehicles per day. An
adjacent benefit to adding this transit service was that it connected shuttle riders to other destinations
aside from Chautauqua—to downtown and CU—enabling users to leave their car in satellite parking or at
home and enjoy both locations with car-free trips.
In the Chautauqua leasehold (Figure 1 – Parking Study Areas), employee vehicle trips reduced by 14
percent, with 10 percent of employees regularly using the free shuttle. Ambassadors throughout the pilot
and the Dining Hall manager expressed that there was a noticeable decrease in vehicles circling the
Chautauqua Green in search for parking.
Separately from the pilot components, bicycle parking was added at six locations in the city park in spring
2017 prior to the pilot. The CCA added bicycle racks near the Academic Hall, Auditorium, Columbine
Lodge and Dining Hall. OSMP also added and upgraded bike racks, increasing bike parking capacity near
the Ranger Cottage.
Reduction of parking demand on adjacent neighborhood and Chautauqua leasehold neighborhood
streets currently used as overflow parking for access to the site.
Parking management was in effect in five areas, with five parking zones (CCA Leasehold, Chautauqua
Green, Ranger Cottage Lot, Baseline Road and North Neighborhood temporary NPP zone) enforced from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays during the pilot. Parking management included a paid parking
approach as well as temporary NPP management strategy. Throughout the five zones, fewer cars were
parked in the study area in 2017 than in 2016, even during the weekdays when paid parking was not in
place.On weekends, 48 fewer cars per hour were observed, and 35 fewer cars per hour were observed on
weekdays during the pilot. Some leasehold and temporary NPP demand moved into the North (and East)
Neighborhood.
City Council Study Session Page 12 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Paid Parking
•Including all paid parking areas, there was an average of 768 daily parking transactions during the
pilot and a total of 19,958 paid parking transactions.
•Baseline Road (78 spaces in 2017, down from 86 in 2016 following construction of a new
sidewalk): The average number of cars parking along Baseline Road increased both weekdays
and weekends in 2017 as compared to 2016, from 49 to 52 an hour on weekdays and from 49 to
58 an hour on weekends.
•Chautauqua Green (72 spaces): Both weekday and weekend parking utilization decreased slightly
during the pilot as compared to 2016, with the largest reductions after 2 p.m. on weekends. Both
weekday and weekend average peak parking utilization decreased from 93 percent in 2016 to 84-
86 percent in 2017.
•Ranger Cottage Lot (50 spaces): The Ranger Cottage lot was nearly 100 percent utilized at all
hours of management parking, with very slight reductions in 2017 compared to 2016.
Temporary NPP Zone
•Both weekday and weekend parking utilization in the temporary NPP zone (336 spaces)
decreased compared to parking utilization in the same area in 2016. Average weekend peak
parking utilization was reduced from 69 –79 percent (depending on block) in 2016 to 55–62
percent in 2017. In the temporary NPP, overall weekend peak parking utilization reduced by
approximately 20 percent, from 59 percent to 39 percent.
•Weekend parking utilization in the neighborhood north of the temporary NPP (North
Neighborhood in Figure 1) increased from 25–47 percent (depending on block) in 2016 to 36–72
percent in 2017.
•The block of 10th Street between Baseline and Cascade that requested not to be in the temporary
NPP saw peak parking utilization increase from 58 percent on weekends in 2016 to 91 percent in
2017.
•The block of 10th Street between Cascade and Aurora remained stable with 38 percent utilization
on weekends in 2016 and 36 percent in 2017.
Residents within the NPP zone reported happiness with the pilot results, including less parking
congestion, greater ability to access their own homes during the peak day time hours, and less trash and
noise from parkers. Residents outside of the NPP zone expressed that parking impacts to the streets
adjacent to the NPP had increased.
Employee TDM Programs
•CCA Leasehold (236 spaces): Both weekday and weekend parking utilization was lower during
the pilot. Average peak parking utilization was reduced from 63 percent in 2016 to 42 percent in
2017 on the weekends and from 60 percent to 56 percent on the weekdays.
Parking Enforcement
Parking enforcement regularly enforced the five parking zones during the pilot to ensure compliance
within the zones. An average of 49 violations were cited each day of the 26-day pilot. On an average daily
basis, the most violations were cited in the temporary NPP zone, with significantly fewer violations in the
other five zones.
City Council Study Session Page 13 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Reduction of conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians in highly-trafficked residential areas.
At the main Chautauqua intersection of Baseline and Kinnikinic, the percentage of drivers on weekends
that yielded to pedestrians waiting to cross Baseline increased from 64 percent in 2014 to 85 percent in
2016 to 90 percent in 2017. Recent improvements (e.g., east crossing curb extensions and west crossing
median refuge) shortened crossing distances and increased visibility of pedestrians to drivers on Baseline.
A 45 percent increase in pedestrian crossing volume on weekends was observed at Baseline and King’s
Gate as compared to 2016 observations, believed to be a combination of shuttle riders (estimated 30
percent of pedestrians crossing) and persons parking in the neighborhood east of the temporary NPP zone.
Observed driver compliance for yielding to pedestrians at Baseline and King’s Gate increased from 74
percent in 2016 to 95 percent in 2017. Recent improvements (southside curb extension) enhanced
visibility of pedestrians and shortened the crossing distance for pedestrians. Compliance generally
improves with higher pedestrian volumes.
Traffic counts and speed data collected this summer were inconclusive concerning whether motor vehicle
traffic into the Chautauqua area decreased from the pilot. However, the high shuttle use, decrease in
parking utilization in the surrounding neighborhoods and stable trail usage all suggest that motor vehicle
usage in the Chautauqua area decreased along with the potential for conflict with between automobiles
and pedestrians. Data collected on pedestrian crosswalks on Baseline Road have also shown that conflicts
for pedestrians have decreased as the percentage of drivers yielding in crosswalks has increased
substantially. Staff believes this is due to improved facilities constructed recently and the increased
crossings generated by the free shuttle service.
Public Engagement
Email inquiries and comments sent to parktopark@bouldercolorado.gov and
CAMP@bouldercolorado.gov throughout the pilot were handled in a timely manner by staff. All emails
have been cataloged for the public and City Council to review. Most email inquiries were seeking
information about the pilot or Chautauqua in general. In terms of comments or inputs received, the
majority were positive. Two examples:
•I’m a local, and my niece and friends were in town for the weekend. We parked at New
Vista and shuttled to Chautauqua for a Flagstaff hike and then shuttled to the Farmers’
Market for lunch. Afterwards we shuttled back to New Vista. We thought that it was just
the best idea! And, the drivers were helpful and informative ambassadors. - Dave Hoyt
•We used the ParktoPark shuttle from the CU Regents parking lot to go to the Children's
Concert at Chautauqua. It was very convenient for us as first-time visitors. Thanks for
instituting the service! - Kathy Wilson, Loveland, CO
Concerns were expressed by a few neighbors on 9th Street regarding the shuttle noise early on weekend
mornings and by climbers who were not adequately served by the 7 a.m. – 7 p.m. shuttle service hours,
desiring earlier and later service. An example:
•I live on the block of Ninth street adjacent to Chautauqua park. I have parking off of my
alley, as do most of the homes in this area. When we bought our house, I understood that
parking on the street would be an issue, but it's a fair tradeoff for living near the park. I
don't have an issue with people wanting to park near Chautauqua, but I do have an issue
with the noise and frequency with which the Park to Park buses passed our house.
Usually they were almost empty (I did see buses with more people on them on the
Chautauqua-to-New Vista route, but the buses going up and down 9th street were usually
City Council Study Session Page 14 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
almost empty). The buses started at 7 am on Saturday and Sunday mornings, and since
they were scheduled every 15 min in each direction, that meant a noisy almost-empty bus
passed our house approximately every 7.5 minutes, from 7 am until 7 pm every weekend,
and even longer if there was a concert that night.
•Climbers emails from Open Boulder and Boulder Climbing Community/Access Fund
Stakeholder Debriefs and Community Questionnaire
The CAMP staff team conducted debrief meetings with multiple stakeholder groups that were involved
with the pilot to understand their perception of the pilot and provide an opportunity for direct feedback. A
brief summary of their feedback is described below.
•Sustainable Chautauqua neighborhood group (Aug. 15):
o Positives: Very happy with the pilot outcomes (“about as successful as could be hoped”); a
substantial improvement; much less density of cars; less trolling, fewer U-turns on Baseline;
shuttle is a great success because it was tied to parking management (“bus is noisy but I don’t
care, as there is less dust and less trash”).
o Opportunities for improvement: must address big tour buses; request expansion to include
Fridays and run Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day; consider auditorium event night
management, including Meadow Music (Mondays); parking in the area should pay for the
bus.
•Colorado Chautauqua Association staff leadership (Aug. 1 and Aug. 18):
o Positives: Happy with the pilot outcomes (“It feels better”); maintain current pilot parameters
–do not go to seven days/week;
o Opportunities for improvement: transfer permit creation, allocation and administration
process for leasehold to CCA; use hang tags instead of on-dashboard permits to speed
enforcement; request additional and consistent enforcement within leasehold; recommend
adding more ADA spots outside of leasehold and add payment kiosk at McClintock
Trailhead; request the city provide four special permits for cottages located on Clematis to
allow them to park for free; very time-consuming to respond to inquiries about the program;
look to better coordinate or combine the Park to Park shuttle service with the Hop 2
Chautauqua shuttle service for Aauditorium events.
•Chautauqua Dining Hall (CDH) general manager Jerry Manning (8/31/17):
o Positives: CDH staff were surprised at how few complaints or concerns they received from
guests and staff; suspects that the presence of the ambassadors helped respond to concerns
before people walked into the CDH; saw the ambassadors as a huge help to the entire
program; did not experience any negative business impact from the pilot; saw less congestion
(“less traffic circling the Green three times looking for a parking space”).
o Opportunities for improvement: observed guest confusion about when and where to pay; not
enough signage and payment kiosks; strongly supports adding a payment kiosk near the
CDH; agreed with CCA suggestion of adding more accessible parking spaces but wonders if
better on Morning Glory than on Clematis.
•CAMP Ambassadors, BCVB ambassadors and Via drivers (8/31/17):
o Positives: BCVB pilot ambassadors and Via Mobility drivers had an overall positive
involvement with the 2017 pilot and experienced very few issues. Their perception was that
the teams and staff created an atmosphere that was successful and were enabled to make a
positive impact on visitors.
City Council Study Session Page 15 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
o Opportunities for improvement: with the drivers and ambassadors being intimately involved
with the pilot details, they had suggestions for logistical improvements that include more
crosswalk safety, addressing the confusion around HOP 2 Chautauqua, and overall parking
and traffic signage.
In addition to seeking stakeholder group feedback, staff issued a community questionnaire to understand
visitor and customer experience and discern lessons learned. The questionnaire was open from August 14
through September 11, and its availability was marketed via email to the CAMP distribution list, paid
advertising, and social media. Of the respondents, 73 percent rated their experience as very good, good or
fair out of a 5-point scale from very good to very poor. From open-comment analysis, 55 percent of
respondents commented that the pilot was better than expected.
Conclusion from Analysis
Based on the data collected, stakeholder debriefs, community questionnaire and staff perception of the
community’s experiences, the CAMP 2017 summer pilot successfully met or exceeded the performance
measures approved by City Council on April 18, 2017:
•The pilot achieved an average of 873 shuttle riders per day over 26 days.
•Driving alone and parking in the leasehold by Chautauqua employees decreased by 14 percent,
with approximately 10 percent of employees using the shuttle.
•There was an approximately 20 percent reduction in peak parking utilization in the temporary
NPP zone immediately to the north of Chautauqua and the CCA leasehold area on pilot weekends
as compared to 2016 utilization data.
•There was reasonable compliance with parking restrictions. An expected number of parking
violation citations were issued given the volume of parking.
Inadvertent effects of the pilot included an increase in parking utilization in the blocks north and
immediately east of the temporary NPP zone, noise impacts of the shuttle service on 9th Street and the
paid parking mechanisms not being suitable for visitors with disabilities. Staff has identified multiple
opportunities for improvement of the services offered in summer 2017, and fundamentally assesses the
CAMP pilot as having achieved the project goals and being valuable to the community to continue in the
future.
NEXT STEPS
Staff has prepared preliminary recommendations that make minor improvements while continuing the the
majority of pilot components and maintaining the same or better level of service. These recommendations
are summarized below.
Staff also recommends that the pilot program become an ongoing funded program for a period of five
years while other relevant studies and updates are completed, including the Open Space and Mountain
Parks Master Plan. Following the master plan, subsequent site planning and design for the area would
provide staff and the community another opportunity to evaluate the CAMP program in light of other
decision points, such as natural and cultural resource management, appropriate levels of use, visitor
experience and the potential for physical infrastructure changes to improve circulation and visitor
amenities. Allowing CAMP to continue until these comprehensive conversations can occur would ensure
that short- and long-term management decisions take into account all relevant considerations. During the
5-year program, if approved, City Council would receive annual Information Packet (IP) items that
City Council Study Session Page 16 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
updates on the CAMP programs, which would include internal data collection points: shuttle ridership,
paid parking transactions and duration, and enforcement statistics.
The preliminary recommendations and council feedback will be presented to boards throughout
November and December. Their feedback will be incorporated into final recommendations for the
ongoing program to be presented to City Council (anticipated February 2018) along with ordinance
amendments required for implementation.
Preliminary Recommendations for Future Program Implementation
After evaluating the data collection, stakeholder debriefs and community input, staff recommends that the
majority of program components remain the same. Staff would like to extend the program to include the
weekends of Memorial Day and Labor Day, as well as operating on the Independence Day holiday. In
addition, staff would like to receive feedback from the community and boards on:
•Shifting free shuttle operating hours to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., to reduce bus noise on neighborhood
streets in the early morning, accommodate users that benefit from later shuttle service and align
with shuttle ridership data that suggests higher ridership levels during the day. Pre- and post-
shuttle service travel can be complemented by subsidized TNC rides.
•Aligning the NPP program with the NPP update, to include the same level of paid parking and
enforcement, and to include consistent fees associated with NPPs throughout the city.
•Transitioning to “paperless” paid parking based on license plate entry and adding technology
hardware enhancements to the site to increase connectivity in response to difficulty using the
ParkMobile application.
•Exploring the use of “smart meters” and an additional payment kiosk to accommodate users of
accessible parking that will enable drivers and/or passengers to easily access a physical pay kiosk
within close proximity to accessible parking locations.
Improving marketing and communications based on community and staff feedback to provide
clarity and wayfinding of transit stop locations, paid parking regulations and transit service in and
around Chautauqua. Staff would also like to provide additional training for bus drivers,
ambassadors and guides for the buses to enhance their ability to share natural and cultural history
stories with visitors.
The chart below summarizes the changes to specific program components being proposed in the
preliminary recommendation:
City Council Study Session Page 17 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Program Element 2017 Pilot 2018
Recommendation Recommendation Details General Program Duration June 1 to August 31
13 weekends, 26 days
Modify •Saturday of Memorial Day Weekend through
Monday of Labor Day, plus July 4
•Equates to 15 weekends, 33 days
Transit Transit Shuttle
Hours
7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Modify •8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Shuttle Cost Free Same
Transit Route Loop running from downtown, along
9, to New Vista and CU-Regent
Same
Transit Stops 8 stops (4 downtown) Same
Free Satellite
Parking Lots
5 downtown parking garages, New
Vista High School, University of
Colorado-Regent Lot
Same
Transportation
Network Companies
(TNCs)
$2.50 discount per ride with Lyft all
day
Modify •Free rides for Chautauqua employees and visitors to
and from CU-Regent Lot 6am-8am and 8pm-11on
weekends
•$2.50 subsidy each way for visitor TNC trips to and
from Chautauqua on weekends
Parking Daytime Parking
Management Hours
8am – 5pm Same
Evening Parking
Management Hours
None Same
Paid Parking Fee $2.50/hr Same
CCA Leasehold
Zone
•Permit-only parking access
managed by CCA via signage at
two entry points
•Permits issued by City and
administered by CCA
•TDM program managed by all three
employee groups
Same, with program
improvement
•Transfer permit management to CCA to administer a
paper permit program with permit fees that align
with the principles of an NPP program and employee
TDM program; details to be determined
Baseline/Green/
Ranger Lots
Paid parking Same
City Council Study Session Page 18 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
NPP Zone Boundary 6 Street to and including Lincoln
Place one block north of Baseline
Road to and including Cascade
Same •Option for blocks adjacent to NPP to “opt-in” as a
critical component of parking management in the
neighborhood
NPP Zone
Management
•Permit or paid parking
•Residents provided free permit
Modify •Residents will be charged for NPP permits; price to
be determined through the NPP program update
Kiosk Locations 5 total: 4 on Baseline, 1 at Ranger
Cottage
Modify •7 total: 5 on Baseline, 1 at Ranger Cottage, 1 near
Dining Hall
•2 additions: west corner main entrance at
Baseline/Grant; 1 near Dining Hall
Parking Payment
Process
•Kiosks
•Parkmobile smartphone
application
Same, with program
improvement
•Kiosks will be “paperless” (no receipts)
•Wifi cradlepoints added to improve connectivity
•Consider adding WayToPark application (another
smartphone app for paying for parking)
Accessible Parking 4 on Clematis, expected to use kiosk
in Ranger Cottage or ParkMobile
smartphone application
Modify •Add 2 accessible dual-head smart meters to serve the
4 spaces on Clematis
•Assess ADA requirements and add additional
accessible spaces and meters as needed on Clematis
and/or on Morning Glory
Private Cottage
Parking on Clematis
None Modify •Provide 4 permits for the Green Parking Zone, one
per private cottage located on Clematis
•Residents will pay for the permits in alignment with
NPP zone permits
City Council Study Session Page 19 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
As mentioned above, On May 2, 2017, City Council passed on third reading Ordinance 8179 creating a
Chautauqua Access Management Plan by amending Chapters 2-2, 4-20, 4-24, 7-6, and Title 4, B.R.C.
1983, related to the establishment of a Parking Management Area, related fees and setting forth related
details for the duration of the pilot, only. The ordinance amendments sunset on December 31, 2017. The
temporary amendments enacted by Ordinance 8179 are deemed by staff to have been effective. Staff
anticipates addressing the same amendment requirements as part of its recommendations to Council in
2018 for the future summer program.
Process/Schedule for Feedback on Preliminary Recommendations for Five-year Program
The initial/preliminary recommendations presented herein will be presented to the community and to
boards and commissions over the next two months. That feedback will be incorporated into materials
presented to City Council in the first quarter of 2018.
Oct. 11, 2017 What’s Up, Boulder? Citywide Open House and Activities
Oct. 24 City Council Study Session
Nov. 8 Open Space Board of Trustees
Nov. 13 Colorado Chautauqua Association Board of Directors
Nov. 13 Transportation Advisory Board
Nov. 27 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Dec. 6 Landmarks Board
First Quarter 2018 City Council approval of final program and required ordinance
amendments
QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
1.Does City Council have any questions about the CAMP Summer 2017 Pilot program
implementation or results?
2.Does City Council have any feedback on the preliminary recommendations for an ongoing five-
year summer CAMP program?
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Post-Pilot Community Questionnaire Results
B.CAMP Pilot Budget vs. Actual
City Council Study Session Page 20 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A -Report for Park to Park Questionnaire
Park to Park Questionnaire
City Council Study Session Page 21 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Data Results (No Analysis)
City Council Study Session Page 22 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Response Statistics
Count Percent
Complete 335 82.9
Partial 69 17.1
Disqualified 0 0
Totals 404
City Council Study Session Page 23 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Please select all that apply. Do you:
Live within the
immediate
neighborhood of
Chautauqua
Live in the city of
Boulder (not in the
immediate
neighborhood)
Work at Chautauqua Attend school in
Boulder
Recreate in (visiting)
Boulder
Live within the immediate neighborhood of
Chautauqua
Live in the city of Boulder (not in the immediate
neighborhood)
Work at Chautauqua
Attend school in Boulder
Recreate in (visiting) Boulder
Value Percent Count
Live within the immediate neighborhood of
Chautauqua
13.4%52
Live in the city of Boulder (not in the immediate
neighborhood)
48.3%187
Work at Chautauqua 2.1%8
Attend school in Boulder 6.2%24
Recreate in (visiting) Boulder 42.1%163
City Council Study Session Page 24 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Did you get a temporary Chautauqua North Neighborhood Parking
Permit?
42%
58%
Yes
No
Value Percent Count
Yes 42.3%22
No 57.7%30
Totals 52
City Council Study Session Page 25 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Did you travel to Chautauqua during the Park to Park pilot program (in
place Saturdays and Sundays, June 3 to Aug. 27)?
74%
26%
Yes
No
Value Percent Count
Yes 73.8%290
No 26.2%103
Totals 393
City Council Study Session Page 26 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Why did you visit? Please select all that apply.
To hike, climb, or
otherwise use
adjacent open
space
To attend events,
like concerts, talks,
films, workshops
etc. in one of the
hist
To eat at the Dining
Hall
To use the
playground, tennis
courts, green lawn,
or other park areas
Other - Write In
To hike, climb, or otherwise use adjacent open
space
To attend events, like concerts, talks, films,
workshops etc. in one of the hist
To eat at the Dining Hall
To use the playground, tennis courts, green lawn, or
other park areas
Other -Write In
Value Percent Count
To hike, climb, or otherwise use adjacent open
space
80.4%213
To attend events, like concerts, talks, films,
workshops etc. in one of the historic buildings
25.3%67
To eat at the Dining Hall 17.0%45
To use the playground, tennis courts, green lawn,
or other park areas
11.3%30
Other -Write In 6.4%17
City Council Study Session Page 27 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Were there any dogs in your party or group?
16%
84%
Yes
No
Value Percent Count
Yes 15.9%42
No 84.1%222
Totals 264
City Council Study Session Page 28 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
How did you get to Chautauqua? Please select all that apply.
Drove and parked
near or in
Chautauqua
On foot/walked By bike Free shuttle bus Lyft Other - Write In
(Required)
Drove and parked near or in Chautauqua
On foot/walked
By bike
Free shuttle bus
Lyft
Other -Write In (Required)
Value Percent Count
Drove and parked near or in Chautauqua 46.0%122
On foot/walked 17.0%45
By bike 7.5%20
Free shuttle bus 50.9%135
Lyft 1.5%4
Other -Write In (Required)3.0%8
City Council Study Session Page 29 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Which of the following pilot Park to Park shuttle and parking options
were you aware of before your first weekend visit this summer?
Please select all that apply.
Free shuttle Free satellite parking Paid parking in and
near Chautauqua
Discounted Lyft rides I didn't know about
any of these before
my first weekend
visit
Free shuttle
Free satellite parking
Paid parking in and near Chautauqua
Discounted Lyft rides
I didn't know about any of these before my first
weekend visit
Value Percent Count
Free shuttle 79.6%211
Free satellite parking 56.6%150
Paid parking in and near Chautauqua 64.2%170
Discounted Lyft rides 11.3%30
I didn't know about any of these before my first
weekend visit
13.6%36City Council Study Session Page 30 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Did the paid parking in and around Chautauqua on Saturdays and
Sundays, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., make you more likely to ride the
free shuttle from free satellite parking (operating 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)?
42%
19%
9%
30%
Yes, the paid parking made the shuttle option more
attractive.
I would have ridden the shuttle even if there was
free parking.
No, I would pay to park regardless.
Other -Write In
Value Percent Count
Yes, the paid parking made the shuttle option more
attractive.
41.5%110
I would have ridden the shuttle even if there was
free parking.
19.2%51
No, I would pay to park regardless.9.4%25
Other -Write In 29.8%79
Totals 265City Council Study Session Page 31 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
[If answered “No” to question #3] Did the Park to Park pilot program
contribute to your decision not to visit Chautauqua?
48%52%
Yes
No
Value Percent Count
Yes 47.7%41
No 52.3%45
Totals 86
City Council Study Session Page 32 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Did the additional travel and parking options (satellite parking, free
shuttle service, paid parking) make you more or less likely to visit
Chautauqua on the weekends?
36%
29%
35%More likely
Less likely
No change
Value Percent Count
More likely 36.1%121
Less likely 28.7%96
No change 35.2%118
Totals 335City Council Study Session Page 33 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Overall, what was your experience with the Park to Park pilot? This
includes satellite parking, free shuttle service or paid parking at
Chautauqua.
41%
17%
15%
13%
14%
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Value Percent Count
Very good 41.4%126
Good 16.8%51
Fair 15.1%46
Poor 12.5%38
Very Poor 14.1%43
Totals 304City Council Study Session Page 34 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Where do you currently reside?
55%
23%
19%
1%2%0%
Location in the City of Boulder
Location in Boulder County but not in City of
Boulder
The Denver Metro area/Front Range
Colorado, but outside the Denver metro area/Front
Range
Elsewhere in the U.S.
Elsewhere in the world
Value Percent Count
Location in the City of Boulder 54.5%182
Location in Boulder County but not in City of
Boulder
23.4%78
The Denver Metro area/Front Range 18.9%63
Colorado, but outside the Denver metro area/Front
Range
1.2%4
Elsewhere in the U.S.1.8%6
Elsewhere in the world 0.3%1
Totals 334
City Council Study Session Page 35 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
What is your age?
1%
38%
28%
30%
2%1%
Under 20
20 to 39
40 to 54
55 to 74
Over 74
Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Count
Under 20 1.2%4
20 to 39 37.4%125
40 to 54 28.4%95
55 to 74 29.6%99
Over 74 2.1%7
Prefer not to answer 1.2%4
Totals 334
City Council Study Session Page 36 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
What is your gender?
58%
38%
0%4%
Female
Male
Self-identify:
Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Count
Female 57.7%191
Male 38.4%127
Self-identify:0.3%1
Prefer not to answer 3.6%12
Totals 331
City Council Study Session Page 37 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Open-Ended Response Analysis
City Council Study Session Page 38 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
City Council Study Session Page 39 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment B - Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) 2017 Pilot
2017 Revenue and Expense Budget and Actuals
Component of Project Budget after ATB1 2017
Actual Revenue/Expenses as
of Oct. 11, 2017*
*Incl. encumbrances
Consultant Support for process, data
collection and evaluation for Pilot Program 121,000$ 121,000$
Consultant Support for Fall 2017 public
process to develop DRAFT CAMP (2017
funding only)20,000$ 22,650$
City staff data collection, printing, mailing
and questionnaire advertising 10,000$ -
Lease Shuttles and Drivers
Transit (7 Days 7a-7p/ Jun-Aug / 15 min
headways)80,000$ 62,073$
Ride-sharing Subsidy program 15,000$ 5,000$
Wrap/Unwrap Transit buses 0 -
Design Wrap for CAMP buses 0 -
Access to Parking facilities for shuttle
CU surface lots 3,000$ 20,000$ Expected but not encumbered
New Vista HS parking lot 12,000$ 15,000$ Expected but not encumbered
Installation of parking regulation signing 60,000$ 36,840$
Four parking kiosks placed upon the south
side of Baseline Road adjacent to
Chautauqua property 42,000$ 37,690$
Overtime budget for Parking Enforcement 10,000$ 3,545$
Contracted Ambassadors for Parking 30,000$ 28,575$
Marketing Program for Access Changes
(including website 50,000$ 50,055$
Additional LPR unit -$ -
One Variable Message board in advance of
Shuttle parking opportunities (Lease)3,000$
Permit Program administration and
materials 1,500$
Visitor's Bureau Funding (50,000)$ (52,024)$
Pay for Parking Revenue (90,000)$ (119,967)$
Total Cost of Pilot Program 457,500$ 402,428$ 88%
Revenue offset (140,000)$ (171,991)$ 123%
Data collection/evaluation
Transit and Ride-Sharing
Parking Management
Other components
City Council Study Session Page 40 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP)
City Council –Study Session
2017 CAMP Summer Pilot Program Results
and
Preliminary Recommendations for Future Summer Programs
October 24, 2017
City Council Study Session Page 41 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
CAMP Context and Process
Incorporate lessons
learned from pilot
Gather additional
input from the
public, boards and
council
Develop long-term
ACCESS strategies
for Chautauqua
area
“Finalize" Plan
in 2018
Respond promptly
to neighbor
concerns and lease
requirements
Engage with public
to communicate
changes and ways
to provide
feedback
Pilot to see what
works and what
doesn’t
Summer 2017
Pilot
2 public open
houses
5 meetings with
Community
Working Group
Online public
questionnaire
(~2,400 responses)
Input from boards
Meetings with CCA,
CMF CDH and
neighbors
Public Input
Transportation data
OSMP data
CCA data
Key findings
Key issues
identified
2016 Data
Collection
2016 lease with city
and CCA
Neighbors request
neighborhood
parking permit
Complaints from
neighbors re: buses
and parking
Council Direction
2016 Study Session
Driving Forces
City Council Study Session Page 42 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
The Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) will
explore ways to manage existing demand for access to and
from the Chautauqua area in ways that minimize impacts to
surrounding neighbors, visitors and the area’s natural and
cultural resources.
CAMP Vision Statement
City Council Study Session Page 43 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Operated June 3 –August 27 on Saturday and Sundays
•Free Park to Park shuttle with free satellite parking
•Managed (paid) parking in Chautauqua area
•Permit parking only in the leasehold area
•Temporary Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) zone
•Employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
•Subsidized Transportation Network Company (TNC) rides
•Onsite and on-shuttle ambassador program
•Focused marketing and communications
CAMP 2017 Pilot Components
City Council Study Session Page 44 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Park-to-Park Shuttle + TNCs
City Council Study Session Page 45 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Summer 2017 Parking Zones
North Neighborhood
CCA
Leasehold
NPP
Baseline
The
Green
Ranger
Lot
City Council Study Session Page 46 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
North CAMP NPP Zone
Revised Proposal –4/18/2017
Columbine NPP
Uni-Hill NPP
North CAMP
NPP Pilot Zone
Proposed,
Not
Included
City Council Study Session Page 47 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Employee Transportation
Coordinators for CCA, CDH, and CMF
•Encourage use of shuttle
•Free, but limited, parking pass
access in leasehold area
•CCA Program
•Limited parking pass access
•$3/day parking cash out benefit
•Free Uber rides before and after
shuttle hours
•New Bike racks (35 bikes)
Employee (TDM) program
•CMF Program
•Limited parking pass access
•Encourage carpooling
•CDH Program
•Meal credit program
•Prize drawingsCity Council Study Session Page 48 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pilot Program Goals
Reduce automobile and pedestrian conflicts
Reduce automobile mode share
Reduce parking demand in adjacent neighborhoods
City Council Study Session Page 49 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Metrics
Transit Shuttle Boardings
Parking Utilization –All Zones
Traffic Counts/Speed Data on Baseline Road
Crosswalk Compliance on Baseline Road
Parking Enforcement
Parking Payment Activity
Trailhead Counts
City Council Study Session Page 50 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pilot Program Results
City Council Study Session Page 51 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Reduce automobile mode share
Transit Shuttle Ridership
Employee TDM
TNC Subsidy
City Council Study Session Page 52 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Park-to-Park Transit
Avg. Daily Boardings: 882
Total Pilot Boardings: 22,933
Daily Boardings Ranged From:
558 on Sunday, Aug. 27
1,483 on Saturday, July 8th
City Council Study Session Page 53 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Average Daily Boardings by Stop Location
Summer 2017
10%,
91
31%,
275
43%,
382
1%,
12
14%,
123
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CU Regent New Vista Baseline & 10th 9th & College Downtown Stops
City Council Study Session Page 54 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Inbound and Outbound Average Daily Boardings
Summer 2017
25 34
78 75 76
49 41 40
26 23 14 16
1
2
6 12
43
65
57 60
55
38
26 1826
36
84 87
119 114
98 100
82
62
39 35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Boardings
Hour of Day
Inbound (all
other stops)
Outbound (10th
& Baseline)
City Council Study Session Page 55 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Employer TDM Pilot Program Results
Pre-and Post Pilot Surveys of
Employees Results
14% decrease in SOV on
weekends
10% used the shuttle
regularly
City Council Study Session Page 56 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
TNC subsidy was $1.25
first half of Pilot, $2.50
second half of Pilot
➢66 Lyft rides taken
using this method
during Pilot
Transportation Network
Companies (TNCs)
City Council Study Session Page 57 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Reduce parking demand on adjacent
neighborhood and CCA leasehold streets
Parking Utilization
Paid Parking
Parking Enforcement
City Council Study Session Page 58 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Study Results
Summer 2017 –study areas
North Neighborhood
CCA
Leasehold
NPP
Baseline
The
Green
Ranger
Lot1,262 parking
spaces studied
City Council Study Session Page 59 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Change in Observed Parked Cars by Zone
2017 compared to 2016 (9am to 5pm)
Average
Weekday
per Hour
Average
Weekend
per Hour
Leasehold -8 -46
Green -9 -11
Ranger Lot -4 -1
Baseline -10 -2
NPP -21 -52
North
Neighborhood +16 +65
TOTAL -36 -48
•Fewer cars were parked
in the study area in 2017
•~ 36 less cars per hour
observed on weekdays
•~ 48 less cars per hour
observed on weekends
•On weekends, some
Leasehold and NPP
demand moved to the
North Neighborhood
City Council Study Session Page 60 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Weekend Parking Study Results
9am –5pm 2016
City Council Study Session Page 61 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
2017Weekend Parking Study Results
9am –5pm
City Council Study Session Page 62 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
NPP and North Neighborhood
Weekend Parking Utilization
Average Peak Utilization 9am –2pm
2016
NPP
CCA:
<=45%
46 -60%
61 -74%
>=75%
City Council Study Session Page 63 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
NPP and North Neighborhood
Weekend Parking Utilization
Average Peak Utilization 9am –2pm
2017
<=45%
46 -60%
61 -74%
>=75%CCA:
NPP
City Council Study Session Page 64 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Enforcement
336 Spaces
21 Violations
86 Spaces
1 Violation
50 Spaces
6 Violations
72 Spaces
8 Violations
10 Spaces
3 Violations
236 Spaces
9 Violations
0
5
10
15
20
25
North NPP Baseline Ranger Lot Chautauqua
Green
McClintock CCA LeaseholdNumber of ViolationsTotal Parking Supply and Average Daily
Violations by Zone (August 2017)
49 average daily violations
City Council Study Session Page 65 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•1,271 parking citations issued in the Chautauqua area
•84% of the citations were for lack of payment or lack of permit
•Less than 20% of the Violations remain unpaid (10/9/2017) –
Similar to unpaid violation rates across the City.
Parking Enforcement
City Council Study Session Page 66 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Reduce automobile and pedestrian conflicts
Crosswalk Yield Compliance
Baseline Volume & Speed
City Council Study Session Page 67 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pedestrian Crosswalk Volume & Yield
Compliance: Baseline & Kings Gate
45% increase in pedestrian crossing
volume
30% of pedestrians observed crossing
were transit users in 2017
Observed driver compliance has
increased from 74% in 2016 to 95% in
2017
City Council Study Session Page 68 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Baseline Volume and Speed
No significant change in traffic
volume 2016 to 2017
➢8,900 -9,100 daily vehicles
Speeds somewhat higher in 2017
➢25 mph in 2016, 28 mph in 2017*
Speed limit Evaluation for Baseline from Broadway to City Limits resulted
in the limit being reduced from 30 mph to 25 mph. This occurred after
completion of the CAMP data collection this summer.
*85th percentile speedCity Council Study Session Page 69 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
No substantial impact on Open Space trail use
Trail Visitation
City Council Study Session Page 70 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Avg. Daily Visits: 2015 vs 2017
OSMP Trailhead Counts –Preliminary Results
August
2015 2017 20172015
Weekday Weekend
~8%
~11%
3
City Council Study Session Page 71 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Local Visitation
Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau
City Council Study Session Page 72 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
*Includes encumbrances
Budget
Budget (through ATB1)Actual* (as of
10/9/17)Variance Percent
Pilot Revenue $130,000 $171,991 + $41,991 132%
Pilot Expense $457,500 $396,722 -$60,777 87%
City Council Study Session Page 73 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Suggestions for
Improvement
Comments received during and after the 2017 pilot:
•Some residents of/near 9th street said they experienced loud bus noise,
perception of bus speed above speed limit, and buses with no riders
•Some visitors experienced difficulty reaching a payment kiosk from the
accessible parking spots around the Chautauqua Green
•Some visitors had feedback about signage clarity regarding the need to
enter license plate information at the payment kiosks
•Some visitors had difficulty downloading the ParkMobile smart phone
application
•Some concern from visitors about having to pay to park at Chautauqua
City Council Study Session Page 74 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Preliminary Recommendation for 2018 Overview
Process to develop preliminary
recommendations
•Data Collection and Analysis
•Community Questionnaire
•Stakeholder Debriefs
•Public Email Feedback
•Charrette with CCA to Develop
Recommendations
•“What’s Up Boulder” Open House
City Council Study Session Page 75 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pilot Results = Success!
City Council Study Session Page 76 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
CAMP Preliminary Recommendation
Program Element 2017 Pilot 2018 Recommendation
Program Dates •June 1 to August 31
•13 weekends
•26 days
•Saturday, Memorial Day Weekend to
Monday, Labor Day Weekend + July 4th
•15 weekends
•33 days
Transit Hours •7am to 7pm •8am to 8pm
Transportation Network
Companies (TNC)
•Lyft subsidy $2.50 per ride •Free rides before/after shuttle hours
to/from the CU Regent Lot
•Subsidy during shuttle hours
NPP Zone Management •Permit or Paid Parking Only
•Residents issued free permits
•Residents charged for permits, price
TBD through NPP program update
Payment System •5 Kiosks
•Paymobile smartphone
application
•Two (2) kiosks added
•Cradlepoints added to improve
connectivity
Accessible Parking Spaces
Along Chautauqua Green
•Payment at kiosks or
Paymobile
•Accessible smart meters installed
•Need for additional accessible spaces
and meters assessed
Staff recommends the program for the next 5 years.City Council Study Session Page 77 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Next Steps
10/24 –City Council Study Session •2017 pilot review
•Preliminary recommendations
11/8 –OSBT meeting
•2017 pilot review
•Present recommendations for feedback
11/13 –TAB meeting
11/13 –CCA meeting
11/27 –PRAB meeting
12/6 –Landmarks Board meeting
Q1 2018 –Board meetings for
ordinance changes
–City Council ordinance
readings
•Return to OSBT and TAB for ordinance readings
•LAC application and process
•Return to City Council with board feedback and
final recommendations/ordinance changes
City Council Study Session Page 78 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
1.Does City Council have any questions about the CAMP Summer
2017 Pilot program implementation or results?
2.Does City Council have any feedback on the preliminary
recommendations for ongoing 5-year Summer CAMP program?
Questions for Council
City Council Study Session Page 79 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Discussion
City Council Study Session Page 80 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Extra Slides for Questions
City Council Study Session Page 81 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
The distribution of boardings
by stop & hour was
consistent each month
Saturday 950
Sunday 815
June 830
July 995
August 790
Average Daily Boardings
Park-to-Park Transit
City Council Study Session Page 82 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Daily 24.5
Saturday 26.4
Sunday 22.6
June 23.1
July 27.7
August 22.0
Boardings per Shuttle
Service Hour
936 total hours of service during the CAMP Pilot
Park-to-Park Transit
City Council Study Session Page 83 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Daily Total Boardings
Summer 2017
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
3-Jun4-Jun10-Jun11-Jun17-Jun18-Jun24-Jun25-Jun1-Jul2-Jul8-Jul9-Jul15-Jul16-Jul22-Jul23-Jul29-Jul30-Jul5-Aug6-Aug12-Aug13-Aug19-Aug20-Aug26-Aug27-AugDaily Boardings44
City Council Study Session Page 84 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Average Daily Boardings by Hour
Summer 2017
3%
26
4%
36
10%
84
10%
87
14%
119 13%
114
11%
98
11%
100
9%
82
7%
62
4%
39 4%
35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Boardings
Hour of Day
City Council Study Session Page 85 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Average Hourly Boardings by Stop
Summer 2017
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Average BoardingsHour of Day
CU Regent
New Vista
Baseline & 9th
9th & College
Pearl & 10th
Walnut & 14th
Spruce & Broadway
City Council Study Session Page 86 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Leasehold: Weekday vs Weekend 236 spaces
132
151 151
138 133 124
110 115121
144 149
130
119 115
107 101
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekday
2016 2017
150
170 165
141
115 118 119 112103
113 108
88 78 78 76 76
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekend
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 87 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
NPP: Weekday vs Weekend 336 spaces
100
129
149 147
127
97 85 7686
103 114 125
102
81
67 60
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekday
2016 2017
191
224 226
196
161
137
107 108
88
125
155 155
136
112
89 76
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekend
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 88 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
North Neighborhood:
Weekday vs Weekend 490 spaces
143 136 151 157 150 147 138 138
162 169 175 173 157 154 150 144
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekday
2016 2017
136 152 164 159 148 139 124 126
203
229 237 226 209 195 188 178
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekend
2016 2017 9
City Council Study Session Page 89 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
The Green: Weekday vs Weekend 72 spaces
66 69 67 68
65 65
54
50
61 63 64
59
64
58
34 33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekday
2016 2017
66 68 68 66 67 67 66 65
54
62 63 62 62
54
50
37
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekend
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 90 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Ranger Lot: Weekday vs Weekend 50 spaces
51 51 50 50 49 51
46 46
50 50 50 50 48 49
38
31
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weekday
2016 2017
50 51 50 49 50 51
48 4849494948494949
43
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weekend
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 91 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Baseline: Weekday vs Weekend
47
57 56
51 49
36
29
18
28
46
56 58
30
19 18
11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekday
2016 2017
2016: 86 spaces
2017: 78 spaces
65 66 65
49
45 46 47
38
51
68 70
66
47 44
35
24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekend
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 92 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Weekday Parking Study Results
9am –5pm 2016
City Council Study Session Page 93 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Weekday Parking Study Results
9am –5pm 2017
City Council Study Session Page 94 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Grant Place: Weekday
19
33
38 39
34
31
24
2121
25
31 30
23
19
16
13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 Grant Place
2016 2017
18
21 21 21
24 22
20 1819
22 22 23
19 18 19
16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
800 Grant Place
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 95 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Grant Place: Weekend
44 43
40
36 34
31
22
31
22
33
39
34
27
22
16 14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 Grant Place
2016 2017
21
25 25 26 24 22
12
16
32
36 34
31 29
27 26
24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
800 Grant Place
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 96 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
9th Street: Weekday
15
26 24 25
27
16
13
1010
16
18
21
17
11 12
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 9th Street
2016 2017
8
13
11 10 11 11 11
8
19 20
22 24 23 22 21 20
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
800 9th Street
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 97 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
9th Street: Weekend
31
33
27
30
27
23
14 1413
20
25
27
24
21
15
13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 9th Street
2016 2017
13
15 15
19
15 14
11
15
28 27 28 28
26
23 21 20
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
800 9th Street
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 98 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Lincoln Place: Weekday
18 18
20 21 21 20 19
17
12
14 16
21
18
16
13 14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 Lincoln Place
2016 2017
14 15 14
16 16
13 14
12
18
21
18 19 18
21
18 17
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
800 Lincoln Place
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 99 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Lincoln Place: Weekend
29
35 34
31
23
18 18 1716
25
27 29
25
20 19
14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 Lincoln Place
2016 2017
9 11
13 15 13
11 10
12
14
20 20
17
15 16 17 15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
800 Lincoln Place
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 100 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10th Street: Weekday
17 15 16
22 22
20 19 20
32 31
36 35
31
28 26
29
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 10th Street
2016 2017
20
23 24 24 24 24
21
18
30 28
30
27 26 28
24 24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%800 10th Street
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 101 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10th Street: Weekend
22
28
33
29
27
20 21 20
40
47 46 46
39 40 39
33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
700 10th Street
2016 2017
19 20 21 19 19 20 20 191819191717171617
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
800 10th Street
2016 2017
City Council Study Session Page 102 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
OSMP Visitation Data
Preliminary Results
August 2017 average
daily visitation was
lower than August 2015
August 2017 average
daily visitation was
lower than June 2017
2017 Trail Monitor Locations
City Council Study Session Page 103 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
2017 Average Daily Visitation
OSMP Trailhead Counts –Preliminary Results
2017
WeekdayWeekendJune July August
~13%
June to Aug.
~18%
June to Aug.
City Council Study Session Page 104 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pedestrian Crosswalk Volume:
Baseline & Kings Gate
45% increase in pedestrian crossing
volume
30% of pedestrians observed crossing
were transit users in 2017
Saturday, July 25, 2017:
344 total crossing pedestrians
108 exited NB bus and crossed
City Council Study Session Page 105 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pedestrian Crosswalk Compliance:
Baseline & Kings Gate
Observed driver compliance has increased
from 74% in 2016 to 95% in 2017.
Recent improvements enhanced
visibility for pedestrians and shortened
crossing distance (south side curb
extension)
Compliance generally improves with
higher pedestrian volumes
City Council Study Session Page 106 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pedestrian Crosswalk Compliance:
Baseline & Grant Place
Observed driver yield compliance has increased
from 64% in 2014 to 85% in 2016 to 90% in 2017.
Recent improvements
shortened crossing distances
(east crossing curb extensions
and west crossing median
refuge)
NB peds on east leg are more
visible to eastbound drivers
(esp. when NBRT is queued)
Previous Condition
City Council Study Session Page 107 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Enforcement
49 Average Daily Violations
51 49 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
June July AugustNumber of EnforcementsAverage Daily Warnings, Violations, and Voids by Month
WARNINGS VIOLATIONS VOIDS
City Council Study Session Page 108 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pilot Evaluation
Collect the following for comparison
to 2016 data:
•Arrival mode
•Transit and TNC ridership
•Traffic patterns (speed and volume)
•Parking location and utilization
Trail counters
•Use levels
•Distribution across time/day/month
Online users questionnaire
•Visitor demographics
•Customer satisfaction and visitor
experience
•Did visitors go elsewhere? Where? Why?
City Council Study Session Page 109 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Preliminary Recommendation
Program Element 2017 Pilot 2018 Recommendation
Program Dates •June 1 to August 31
•13 weekends
•26 days
Modify •Saturday, Memorial Day Weekend to
Monday, Labor Day Weekend, and
July 4th
•Equates to 15 weekends (33 days)
Transit Hours •7am to 7pm Modify •8am to 8pm
Transit Route and Stops •Bi-directional route
connecting Chautauqua and
free parking:
•Downtown, New Vista, and
University of Colorado
Same
Shuttle Frequency •Every 15 minutes Same
Shuttle Price •Free Same
Transportation Network
Companies (TNC)
•Lyft subsidy $2.50 per ride Modify •Free rides before/after shuttle hours
•Subsidy during shuttle hours
Employee Transportation
Demand Management
(TDM) Program
•Employees offered
incentives to ride shuttle
Same
Transit
City Council Study Session Page 110 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Preliminary Recommendation
Program Element 2017 Pilot 2018 Recommendation
Parking Management Hours •8am to 5pm Same
Colorado Chautauqua
Association (CCA) Leasehold
Area
•Permit Parking Only Same, with
improvement
•Permit management transferred to
CCA with paid permits for employees
and residents
•Clematis Cottages parking permit for
Chautauqua Green (NPP price)
Baseline, Green, Ranger Lot,
McClintock Trailhead
•Paid Parking Only Same
Neighborhood Parking
Permit (NPP) Zone
•6th St. to Lincoln Pl.,
one block north to
Cascade Ave.
Same
NPP Zone Management •Permit or Paid
Parking Only
•Residents issued
free permits
Modify •Residents charged for permits, price
TBD through NPP program update
Paid Parking Price •$2.50/hr Same
Payment System •5 Kiosks
•Paymobile
smartphone app
Modify •Two (2) kiosks added
•Wifi cradlepoints added to improve
connectivity
Accessible Parking Spaces
Along Chautauqua Green
•Payment at kiosks or
Paymobile
Modify •Accessible smart meters installed
•Need for additional accessible
spaces and meters assessed
Parking
Management
City Council Study Session Page 111 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Initial Community Engagement
Initial feedback from community (open houses, CAMP Working Group)
suggested the need for change in both parking management and providing
transit service.
These initial outreach efforts largely reached people living and working in the
area and not the people who come to the park and open space.
City Council Study Session Page 112 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Public Questionnaire: Highlights
The online questionnaire (January-February) was our best
outreach tool to reach the larger community. (2,358)
27%: It already is so difficult to access Chautauqua that they
rarely do so.
22 to 52%: They would no longer come to Chautauqua if there
were time restrictions or if they had to pay to park.
18 to 31%: They would use other modes of transportation like
the shuttle to access Chautauqua if there were time restrictions
or if they had to pay to park
City Council Study Session Page 113 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Boards Feedback
Presentations made to four city boards:
-Parkmobile / need to have smart phone to park;
-Time limit of 2 hours / concern that turnover will bring more cars
to the area;
-Aesthetics and character impacts of signing in Landmark area and
that Pay Stations inappropriate for the area;
-High fee for this trailhead / Precedent for paying for access to open
space;
Boards expressed concerns but willing to try an experiment.
City Council Study Session Page 114 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Engagement with CCA
Multiple CAMP staff meetings with CCA ED 4/26/16 -2/7/17 in addition to monthly CSF meetings
4/26/16 CAMP update memo for 5/2/16 CCA BOD meeting –presentation declined
CCA board member selected to CAMP Working Group. Other CCA board members attended the final four working
group meetings along with CCA ED and other CCA staff.
12/19/16 CAMP summer 2016 data “deeper dive” meeting with CCA ED
1/6/17 CAMP summer 2016 data presentation to CCA board reps, many CCA staff and Lenny Martinelli and Jerry
Manning of the Chautauqua Dining Hall
1/20/17 and 2/7/17 -CAMP staff, consultant charrettes with CCA ED and staff
2/8/17 CAMP staff met with Chautauqua Dining Hall general manager Jerry Manning and CCA ED -overview pilot
direction, discuss CDH needs and interests
2/13/17 Chautauqua leasehold permitting meeting with CCA ED and three staff
2/14/17 CAMP staff met with Colorado Music Festival Executive Director, CCA ED, CCA staff -overview pilot
direction, discuss CMF needs and interests
2/16/17 CAMP staff spoke with CCA staff re: potential time restrictions impacting silent films. Staff thereafter
changed 7 a.m. –7 p.m. in favor of 5 p.m. end in leasehold zone.City Council Study Session Page 115 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Recent Public Feedback
More recent public feedback has been questioning the need
for action and concern that the solution is worse than the
problem.
-Not necessary on weekdays (weekends are the problem)
-Signing is ugly and inappropriate in neighborhoods and
historic areas
-Concern about paying for access to open space
-Concern about 2 hour time limits being too short
-Parking management –start later / end earlier
City Council Study Session Page 116 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Other Pilot Program Options
1.Parking Management and Transit service Friday through Sunday or only on
Weekends.
2.Parking management from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in all zones.
3.Three or four hour time restriction in neighborhood zones.
4.Do not allow any non-permit parking in the leasehold. Permits allocated by
the city and managed by the CCA.
5.Do not charge for parking. Instead have unrestricted parking in the Green,
Ranger lot and Baseline and have time restricted parking (with permits) on
the neighborhood streets.
6.Voluntary TDM for Chautauqua area employees.
7.Higher parking rates to incent transit use and to seek more cost recovery.
City Council Study Session Page 117 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pilot Program Summary
Pilot Recommendations developed using:
•CAMP Guiding Principles from the 2016 Lease,
•Technical analyses / Key Findings, and
•Community engagement
Summary Pilot Recommendations:
1.Free transit from satellite parking lots
2.Parking management
3.Employee TDM
City Council Study Session Page 118 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Timeline / Next Steps
Ordinance / Regulation changes
-1st Reading on April 4th
-2nd Reading and public hearing on April 18th
Budget / Adjustment to Base
-Council action on May 16th
If approved and funded:
-Remaining implementation steps
-Summer Pilot –June 1st through August 31st
City Council Study Session Page 119 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pilot Implementation Steps
1.Finalize administration of Chautauqua Permit Program
2.Finalize administration of Neighborhood Permit Program
3.RFP and contracts for transit components and satellite parking (CU
and BVSD)
4.Complete project cost and revenue estimates for Adjustment to
Base submittal
5.Work with vendors to finalize plans for communicating the
changes to the public
6.Order and install parking pay stations and regulatory signing
7.Hire and train parking ambassadors
City Council Study Session Page 120 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
CAMP Guiding Principles –1
Chautauqua is a unique shared resource requiring unique solutions.
Chautauqua is a National Historic Landmark.
The needs of all stakeholders, including the Association, cottage owners, park
users, open space users, and neighbors should be considered.
A mix of uses must be accommodated.
Pedestrians must be given priority on the narrow streets without sidewalks.
Traffic circulation should be minimized in the interests of pedestrian safety and
user experience.
Parking demand is seasonal and solutions need not address time periods during
which access is readily available.
During peak periods, the parking needs of the users in the historic core should be
prioritized, but not exclusive. (CONTINUED)
City Council Study Session Page 121 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
CAMP Guiding Principles -2
A seasonal transportation demand management (TDM) plan for employees should
be implemented.
The right of public access should not be restricted except for good cause with such
restrictions minimized as appropriate.
The interests of the surrounding neighbors should be addressed.
Any plan should be flexible to address changing circumstances.
Access management should be consistent with the Guiding Principles for Place
Management and Fiscal Sustainability.
Consistent with the City’s climate commitment and sustainability and resiliency
goals, any plan should support public transit, alternative modes of transportation,
a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and a reduction in visits in single occupant
vehicles.
City Council Study Session Page 122 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Key Pilot Program Considerations
1.Ordinance changes are required to allow NPP zones near
Chautauqua; NPP on Sundays and change in parking
requirements for OSMP trailheads
2.Cost of pilot program (Costs exceed revenue by $380K).
Will require an Adjustment to Base.
3.Regulatory signing required for parking management in
the historic district.
4.Pay for parking in most zones will be dependent upon
“Park Mobile” application (Pay stations available on
Baseline) and aided by parking ambassadors.
City Council Study Session Page 123 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Communications Plan
City communications staff will continue to provide core
support to the pilots, should they move ahead
Leveraging city resources: community-wide newsletter,
Channel8, social media accounts, open houses, website,
CAMP email listserv, coordination with partners, etc.
Staff has identified a need to work with an external vendor(s)
to ensure broad community communication regarding the
pilots, including an intensive outreach campaign on parking
and transit changes -budgeted
Will include ads (bus wraps or other), ambassadors and more
City Council Study Session Page 124 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Pay for Parking and Park mobile signing
City Council Study Session Page 125 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Pay Station
City Council Study Session Page 126 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Chautauqua Access Key Findings
During the Summer, average visitation to Chautauqua is 2,570/day.
Visitation here has more than doubled in the past 10 years.
Between 75 and 85 percent of visitors arrive at the Chautauqua site by
Motor Vehicle.
About 1/3 of visitors are Boulder residents. All others live outside the city.
5 blocks in the Neighborhood to the North and most of the leasehold
streets meet the City’s 75% parking utilization threshold for 4 or more
hours per day.
Less than 1/3 of survey respondents found it difficult to find parking.
City Council Study Session Page 127 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Study Results
Summer 2016 –All days
88
City Council Study Session Page 128 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Study Results
Summer 2016 –Monday to Friday
89
City Council Study Session Page 129 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Study Results
Summer 2016 –Saturday and Sunday
90
City Council Study Session Page 130 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Management
Proposed North Neighborhood NPP boundaries
Columbine NPP
Uni-Hill NPP
PROPOSED:
North CAMP
NPP Pilot Zone
94
City Council Study Session Page 131 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Chautauqua NPP Zone
Proposed Chautauqua Leasehold Boundaries
Chautauqua
NPP
95
City Council Study Session Page 132 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Neighborhood Permit Parking
(NPP) Summer 2017 Pilot
RESIDENT permit for each vehicle registered at address (max. 4)
2 VISITOR permits per address (re-usable)
2 GUEST permits (overnight) available –date-specific (max.
21 days)
NO CHARGE FOR PERMITS during pilot
No commuter permits
All non-permitted vehicles would pay to park AND be restricted
to two hours/once per day to provide turnover and more
availability for residents’ uses
City Council Study Session Page 133 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Public Feedback
Feedback from Community Workshops and meetings with
CWG have suggested the need for change in both parking
management and providing transit service.
These outreach efforts have largely reached people living and
working in the area and not the people who come to the park
and open space.
The Questionnaire we released in February has been our best
outreach tool to the larger community.
City Council Study Session Page 134 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
2.Transit service from remote parking
•Segment A+B that connects
to 330 remote free and paid
parking locations
•15 minute headways
weekdays and weekends
•Vehicles would
accommodate dogs and
climbing equipment
•Integrated with
Transportation Network
Company (TNC) discounts
City Council Study Session Page 135 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
CAMP Pilot Budget
7 Days 3 Days Weekend
Total Cost $855 K $548 K $454 K
Revenue -$360 K -$190 K -$150 K
Existing -$113 K -$113 K -$113 K
New 2017 +$382 K +$244 K +$191 K
Transit Only $486 K $233 K $190 K
City Council Study Session Page 136 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
CAMP Pilot Budget Components
•Transit -
•Shuttles and drivers (contract with operator)
•Ride-sharing subsidy
•Branded wrap –design, wrap, unwrap
•Parking Management -
•Signage, kiosks –purchase, installation, removal
•Overtime for parking enforcement
•Data Collection and Evaluation
•Other -
•Parking ambassadors, marketing, permit admin, offsite signage, LPR equip.
City Council Study Session Page 137 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Town of Breckenridge
DOWNTOWN TROLLEY
City Council Study Session Page 138 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Town of Breckenridge Free Downtown “Trolley”
Start Date: September 2016
Length of Route: 3 miles, Downtown Transit Center to Ice
Rink
Service Span: All year, every day, 9 am –11 pm
Frequency: Every 30 minutes (will increase to 15-min in
2018)
Ridership: Jan 1 to Mar 31, 2017 -18,306 total riders
Vehicle Cost: $488,000 for bus with custom trolley facade
Vehicle Specs: 30’ Gillig Bus, with trolley facade installed by
Cable Car Classics
City Council Study Session Page 139 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Additional notes from Breckenridge Transit
Manager
ToB used actual trolleys until 2007, but they were old and
unsafe for drivers and passengers
Drivers like the new “trolley” because it is exactly like driving a
bus
ToB has ordered another and it will arrive in 2018
Will be used to increase frequency
Operating trolleys only on Main Street
Ridership increase from 2016 to 2017 attributed to new
parking management strategy and new trolley vehicle type
City Council Study Session Page 140 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Summer 2017 CAMP Pilot
Staff Recommendations
1.FREE transit service from FREE
satellite parking
2.Paid parking in all zones
3.2 hour time-restriction and permit
systems ONLY in neighborhoods
4.NO TIME RESTRICTIONS on Baseline,
in Ranger Cottage lot or around The
Green
5.Employee Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
City Council Study Session Page 141 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
CPP = Chautauqua Permit Program
NPP = Neighborhood Permit Program
#1: Adjacent
Neighborhood
#2: Baseline
Road
#3: Green and
Ranger Lot
#4:Leasehold
Neighborhood
Time Restrictions 2 hr max once per
day but TBD with
neighborhood at
upcoming meeting
None None except no
overnight parking
(no change)
2hr max once a day
Parking Rates $2.50 per hour for
2hr max
$2.50 per hour with
no time restriction
$2.50 per hour with
no time restriction
$2.50 per hour for
2hr max
Permits Allowed Standard NPP
groups
None None Special CPP user
groups
Parking
Restrictions
7am –7pm, 7 days
a week with LPR
technology
7am –5pm,
7 days a week with
LPR technology
7am –7pm, 7 days
a week with LPR
technology
7am –5pm,
7 days a week with
LPR technology
Equipment
required for
Summer 2017
Pilot
New signs on each
block face and
mobile parking app
(TBD)
Pay Stations and
new signs on all
block faces and
mobile parking app
New signs at
entrances &
elsewhere and
mobile parking app
New signs on each
block and mobile
parking app
2.Parking Management by zones
LPR = License Plate Recognition 105
City Council Study Session Page 142 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
C ITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
MEETING DATE:
October 24, 2017
AGENDA TITLE
Urban Forest Management Update (1 Hour)
PRIMARY STAFF CONTACT
Jeff Haley, Parks Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo and attachments
Presentation - EAB and UFSP
City Council Study Session Page 143 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Mary Ann Weideman, Deputy City Manager
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation
Jeff Haley, Parks Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester
DATE: October 24, 2017
SUBJECT: Urban Forest Management Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Parks and Recreation Department manages Boulder’s urban forest through the forestry
workgroup and extensive coordination with the community to ensure the long-term sustainability
of the urban canopy. While Boulder has one of the most successful forestry programs along the
Front Range, many threats exist with Boulder’s trees which require careful management
strategies and effective long-term planning. One of the most recent threats involves the Emerald
Ash Borer (EAB). In 2015, Council provided unanimous approval of the department’s EAB
Strategy, since then, staff have been implementing the management actions included in that
document, to successfully respond to EAB. Despite these efforts, the reality is that Boulder is
now entering the phase of the infestation where many trees are dying, becoming unsightly and,
more importantly, safety risks to our community. Additionally, staff continue efforts to ensure
the community is informed of the impact of EAB on Boulder’s trees and the reality of losing
thousands of trees in the coming years on private and publicly-owned parcels. Similarly, to be
prepared and plan for future threats and resource impacts, staff are currently developing an
Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) that will outline long-term goals, and action plans to
effectively and sustainably managing Boulder’s urban forest. The purpose of the study session is
to discuss with City Council the progress to date on the implementation of the Emerald Ash
Borer (EAB) Long Term Strategy through public education, planting, tree removals, limited
pesticide applications, innovative biocontrol and collaborative research projects. This session
will also allow staff to provide City Council with an overview of the UFSP process key findings
and next steps. Specifics related to Boulder’s EAB response may be found in this document on
pages 3-14 while the Urban Forestry Strategic Plan developments can be found on pages 15-20.
City Council Study Session Page 144 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Questions for Council
Emerald Ash Borer Strategy
1.Does council have any comments or questions related to the status of the EAB response,
outcomes to date or strategy moving forward?
2. Does council support the scope and extent of community engagement to ensure the
public’s awareness and involvement in the EAB impacts on Boulder’s trees?
Urban Forest Strategic Plan
1. Does council have any questions or comments related to the UFSP process to date and
key findings through the planning process?
2. Does Council support staff's recommendation to finalize the UFSP through PRAB
approval?
IV. FEEDBACK FROM ADVISORY BOARDS
Staff has provided periodic updates to both the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)
and the Environmental Advisory Board (EnvAB) since our community’s original EAB detection
in 2013. The role of the boards is not to approve each phase of the strategy but rather to provide
overall feedback and guidance on the aspects of the strategy and the outcomes. Staff will
continue to engage the boards through the EAB response to ensure alignment with the various
response strategies and other city policy/practices.
Related to the draft UFSP, staff have engaged PRAB and EnvAB throughout the planning
process and will provide a comprehensive overview of the process to the boards this month,
October 2017. Feedback on pertinent topics will also be solicited from Planning Board, the
Downtown Management Commission and the Water Resources Advisory Board throughout late
2017 and early 2018.
BACKGROUND
Forestry staff directly maintains a total of 50,725 public trees; 13,013 in city parks and 37,712 in
street rights-of-way with a total appraised value of over $110 million 1. The workgroup
administers the following programs for public trees: tree planting, tree safety inspections,
commercial tree program, rotational pruning for trees in city parks and along public street rights-
of-way, tree removal, integrated pest management, arborist licensing, tree-related emergency
response, enforcement for tree protection codes, and development review for parks,
transportation and private projects. The workgroup indirectly manages the estimated 600,000
trees on private property through the enforcement of diseased and dangerous tree codes and the
arborist licensing program. Urban forestry staff includes seven FTEs: one city forester, one
forestry field operations supervisor, three assistant foresters and two forestry field technicians
supplemented by qualified nonstandard employees and contractors as appropriate. This figure
reflects a transition of number of non-standards to standard positions implemented in 2017.
1 Urban Forest Resource Analysis, Boulder, Colorado, 2015; Davey Resource Group
City Council Study Session Page 145 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Boulder’s extensive urban forest reflects a legacy largely created by the tree planting and
stewardship efforts of previous generations. Except for trees native to the streamside corridors,
Boulder’s trees were planted and tended by residents who valued the trees shade and beauty.
The city’s urban forest is one of the few city assets that appreciate over time. Trees are not just a
luxury for the City of Boulder; they are part of the city infrastructure. Boulder’s urban forest
provides nearly $5.2 million in annual environmental, economic, and social services benefits
($50.39 per capita, an average of $102.48/tree). These beneficial services include air quality
improvements, energy savings, stormwater runoff reduction, atmospheric CO2 reduction, and
aesthetic contributions to the social and economic health of the community. With an established
tree population in overall good condition, a high percentage of young trees, and authorized
diversification tree canopy (including 237 different species), the community’s urban forest will
continue to be a vital asset to the city and neighboring communities.
Boulder’s urban forest reduces electric energy consumption by 3,909 MWh and annual natural gas
consumption by 137,736 therms, for a combined value of $442,432 annually. In addition, these trees
are removing 17.2 tons of pollutants from the air, including ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulates (PM10) for an overall annual air quality benefit of $66,282.
The urban tree canopy from the public tree population covers 651 acres. This canopy reduces annual
stormwater runoff by more than 30.6 million gallons and protects local water resources by reducing
sediment and pollution loading. To date, community trees have sequestered 36,892 tons of carbon
(CO2). They continue to sequester an additional 2,254 tons of CO2 each year for an annual net benefit
valued at $43,084.2
The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is the driving force behind the urban forest’s
ability to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al, 1997). As canopy cover increases, so
do the environmental services and socio-economic benefits. Urban tree canopy (UTC) is the
layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground when
viewed from above. Understanding the location and extent of tree canopy is critical to
developing and implementing sound management strategies that will promote the smart growth
and resiliency of Boulder’s urban forest and the invaluable services it provides.
The City of Boulder encompasses 27.3 square miles (17,473 acres). Tree canopy covers
approximately 4.3 square miles (2,773 acres) for an average canopy cover of approximately
15.9%. As a comparison, the UTC in Portland, OR is 30%, Denver is 16%, Fort Collins is 10%,
Longmont is 9% and Broomfield is 8%.
The annual investment (cost) to maintain publicly-owned trees is approximately $1.17 million.
For every $1 invested in the community urban forest, Boulder receives $4.46 in benefits. The
fact that Boulder’s benefit–cost ratio of 4.46 exceeds ratios reported for five comparable cities
(3.09 in Bismarck, ND, 2.41 in Glendale, AZ, 2.18 in Fort Collins, 2.09 in Cheyenne, WY, and
1.37 in Berkeley, CA) indicates that the program is not only operationally efficient, but
capitalizing on the functional services its trees can produce.3
2 Urban Forest Resource Analysis, Boulder, Colorado, 2015; Davey Resource Group
3 City of Boulder, Colorado Municipal Tree Resource Analysis, US Forest Service, 2005
City Council Study Session Page 146 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Threats to the Urban Tree Canopy
The three largest threats to urban forests across the country are: 1) invasive insect and disease
pests, 2) climate change and individual severe weather events and 3) development.
Invasive Pests
The impacts from invasive pests can be both environmentally and economically devastating.
Invasive pests are not new to the Boulder landscape. Dutch elm disease (DED) was introduced
into Colorado in the 1970’s and first discovered in Boulder in 1978. Over the past 40 years, more
than 1,000 American elms have been removed in the city and approximately 30,000 elms across
the state have been eradicated due to the disease. Other pests that have caused tree mortality in
Boulder over the past ten years, or are expected to cause tree mortality, include: thousand
cankers disease of walnut, drippy blight of northern red oak, Japanese beetle, pine wilt nematode,
Douglas-fir tussock moth, ips beetle in spruce and mountain pine beetle.
Emerald ash borer was most likely introduced to the U.S. in the mid-to late 1990’s through
wooden shipping or packaging materials originating in China. It was first detected in 2002 and
since then, has moved across the country to 31 states and two Canadian provinces. Although
EAB spreads short distances (.5 to 6 miles) annually through the flight of adult beetles, long
distance spread occurs mainly through the movement of infested material. North American ash
trees have shown little resistance to EAB and hundreds of millions of ashes trees across the
Midwest have died from this pest since the initial introduction.
It is assumed that EAB was brought to Boulder in infested firewood approximately 6-7 years
ago. In late September 2013, City Forestry staff discovered an EAB infestation within the city.
The beetles were detected by staff when sampling a dead ash tree prior to its removal. This was
the first detection of this insect in Colorado and is the western-most occurrence of this invasive
pest in North America. The subsequent delimitation survey showed EAB was well established at
the time of discovery within a corridor in central Boulder.
In terms of invasive forest pests, EAB may well represent the worst-case scenario. EAB
management primarily differs from other invasive tree pest management strategies in four ways:
1.Mortality of susceptible hosts: There is very little resistance to EAB in North American ash
species. Researchers have found almost 100% mortality in most species of ash especially
green ash which is the prevalent ash species across Colorado. EAB also kills ash trees
quickly; at high EAB populations EAB can kill mature trees in 1-2 years.
2.Scale of infestation: There are more trees susceptible to EAB than any other invasive pest to
date. Dutch elm disease in Colorado killed approximately 30,000 American elm trees over a
40-year period and threatened 200 million elms across the U.S. EAB threatens 1.45 million
ash trees in the metro Denver area alone and threatens an estimated 7.5 billion ash trees
across the U.S.
Ash is one of the most abundant tree species in Colorado comprising approximately 15% of
all deciduous trees in many urban areas and approximately 12% in the City of Boulder.4
4 Urban Forest Resource Analysis, Boulder, Colorado, 2015; Davey Resource Group
City Council Study Session Page 147 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
There are an estimated 1.45 million ash trees in the Denver metro area alone. The 2013 U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) Metro Denver Urban Forest Assessment Report estimates there are
656,000 trees in the City of Boulder with an appraised value of $1.2 billion.5 The 2015
inventory update indicated there are 50,725 total city park and public street rights-of-way
trees; 6,016 (11.9%) are either green or white ash trees with an appraised value of $14.6
million. Assuming a similar percent of ash on private property, the estimated number of
public, private, and naturalized ash in Boulder is over 70,000 trees.
3.Difficulty in detection: Dendrochronological evidence indicates EAB is typically
established in an area for 3-8 years before discovery. The difficulty is because beetles attack
in the upper canopies first; at low beetle populations, trees often do not show symptoms until
several years after initial infestation; there is no available pheromone for trapping purposes;
and EAB symptoms are like those of other insect pests and environmental problems.
4.Speed of infestation within community: EAB populations expand exponentially. Mated
female beetles produce 40-70 eggs on average but can produce more than 200 eggs.
Populations can therefore expand quickly before detection. Midwest cities report that without
the use of pesticides, all ash within a community are dying after just 10-12 years after
introduction.
Climate Change
Urban forests can help mitigate for the impacts of climate change yet urban forests are also at
risk from a changing climate.
Boulder’s extreme weather will continue to impact the species of trees that can successfully
establish and thrive in Boulder. Climate change will continue to be a factor due to changes in
precipitation seasons and type (rain, ice, or snow), temperature fluctuations outside historic
patterns, and changes in regional temperature norms. These changes blur the lines of established
plant hardiness zones and the species that can be grown in each region.
Research indicates that healthy trees can mitigate a range of environmental impacts, including
stormwater runoff, poor air quality and temperature extremes. Trees also provide significant
energy use reductions associated with both cooling and heating. The density and placement of
trees in an urban environment is typically measured by the percentage of area covered by the
trees during full foliage—the UTC). Cities with higher UTCs are typically able to reduce
temperature extremes—often referred to as the “urban heat island” effect. These reductions can
be significant.
Climate change is beginning to exacerbate the stresses urban trees are already facing, including
temperature extremes, drought stress, infestation and disease, adding to the urgency to create
effective protection and restoration strategies. Effects of climate change include:
•Hotter summers are stressing young trees and increasing external watering needs.
•Prolonged drought can cause summer defoliation and tree mortality;
•Milder winters enable a proliferation of pests and increase susceptibility to premature
budburst and subsequent freeze damage to new growth.
5 2013 Metro Denver Urban Forest Assessment Report, US Forest Service
City Council Study Session Page 148 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Extreme temperature fluctuations can stress or kill trees. During 2014, a November
temperature drop from 64° to -11° in 48 hours created substantial local damage and tree
mortality.
•Increased water stress will also make trees more susceptible to a wide range of insects
and disease that attack low vigor trees.
•Snow buildup on branches during early fall or late spring snowstorms can cause excess
weight on branches, which break or form internal cracks that further weaken branches
•Warmer winter temperatures may alter dormancy requirements.
Development
In many communities across the US, land development threatens urban tree canopy, especially
when parcels include high-quality established trees. One of the biggest challenges to tree
preservation is site management on construction projects. Tree preservation of private mature
trees, although a priority for city staff is not necessarily a priority for private developers. As a
result, long term survival for these trees is often not attained. When trees of appropriate species
are found in good health and condition, developers are encouraged to retain them. However,
barriers to tree preservation exist, including:
•clearly defining trees as an asset;
•early inclusion in the inventory and analysis design phase;
•adequate and timely installation of tree protection fencing on construction sites;
•coordination and understanding of grading impacts to tree roots and soil volume
requirements;
•consistent irrigation throughout the planning and construction process; and
•general lack of site management and communication of standards.
Undeveloped lots without trees or lots with trees that are in poor condition, or with unsuitable
species provide an opportunity to enhance the urban forest. Development and the irrigated
landscapes that accompany new structures can contribute to an increase in the healthy, long-lived
trees that make up a sustainable urban forest. This is often the case in Boulder where developments
include a mix of removal and preservation. However, there are problems such as:
•Improper placing of young trees on development sites;
•Lack of specialized care for young, newly planted trees;
•No requirements for on-going maintenance to ensure private trees reach a mature size and
structure;
•Irrigation systems are not maintained; or
•Dead trees are not replaced.
ANALYSIS
Forestry staff collaborated with multiple state and federal agencies and with leading EAB experts
from across the U.S. and Canada to develop a short-term emergency response to EAB.
Informational memos outlining the emergency response were submitted to City Council in
February and April 2014. An Interdepartmental EAB Strategic Team was formed and developed
the long-term strategies presented in this memo to manage EAB on a citywide scale and ensure
consistency across departments. The long term EAB Strategy was presented to City Council and
received unanimous support in September 2015.
City Council Study Session Page 149 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
The Forestry Division has six main themes for EAB management in Boulder:
•Protect public safety and minimize liability;
•Maintain a healthy, diverse and sustainable urban forest;
•Maintain or increase the urban tree canopy to maximize the environmental, social and
economic services provided to Boulder;
•Minimize risks to non-target organisms from pesticide applications;
•Minimize costs; and
•Minimize disruption to other forestry operations.
The strategy includes the following response measures further described below:
A.EAB Multi Agency Response
B.Quarantine
C.Public Education / Outreach
D.Tree Plantings
E.Tree Removals
F.Pesticide Applications
G.Biocontrol
H.Wood Utilization
I.Enforcement
J.Collaborative Research Projects
A.EAB Multi Agency Response
After the initial discovery of EAB in Boulder, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), the agency responsible for the federal EAB quarantine, declared EAB in
Colorado as an “incident” similar to a wildfire and instituted the Incident Command System
(ICS). The ICS allowed all affected agencies to share communication while developing
mitigation and management strategies and outreach materials for EAB in Colorado.
Goal presented to City Council: Continue staff participation in the inter-agency EAB working
group. Continue dialogue with leading national EAB researchers and the interdepartmental EAB
Strategic Team.
2014 - 2017: The EAB ICS was in place from September 2013 through April 2015, when it
transitioned to the Colorado EAB Response Team. Agencies participating in the EAB ICS and in
the Colorado EAB Response team include: APHIS, Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA),
City of Boulder, Boulder County, University of Colorado (CU), Colorado State Forest Service
(CSFS), and Colorado State University (CSU). Boulder Forestry staff has participated, assisted
with development of outreach material and hosted multiple EAB tours to teach green industry
staff from six states about EAB.
2018 and beyond: Boulder Forestry will continue participation in the Colorado EAB Response
Team.
City Council Study Session Page 150 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
B.Quarantine
Exotic and native forest pests such as EAB and Asian long horned beetle disperse various
distances through multiple pathways including movement of nursery stock and firewood. EAB is
a federally quarantined pest. There are federal and state quarantines in effect that prohibit the
movement of firewood and other ash wood materials outside quarantined areas.
Goal presented to City Council: Collaborate with state and federal agencies on the EAB
quarantine and adhere to all restrictions.
2014 - 2017:
The CDA imposed a quarantine on the movement of all ash tree products and hardwood
firewood out of Boulder County. Small portions of Jefferson and Weld Counties were also
included to gain access to two landfills within the quarantine area to allow disposal of some
infested material. The state quarantine took effect on November 12, 2013 and a federal
quarantine was enacted in April 2014. Enforcement capabilities by CDA are limited however.
2018 and beyond:
Once EAB is detected within the Denver metro area, the entire six county region at a minimum
will be quarantined. CDA will continue to regulate movement of materials between counties
through compliance agreements. Eventually, a large enough portion of the state will be
considered infested and if the federal EAB quarantine is still in place, the entire state will be
quarantined and APHIS will then regulate movement of materials between Colorado and other
states. APHIS is however considering “delisting” EAB and ending the federal quarantine
completely due to lack of success in stopping this pest. Such an action may end quarantine
restrictions in Colorado.
C.Public Education / Outreach / Engagement
Education and outreach are critical components of response to an invasive tree pest.
Emerging Pests in Colorado (EPIC) statewide working group was formed in 2009. Participants
included staff from the CDA, CSFS, CSU, APHIS, and foresters from several cities including
Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins. Since 2009, the agencies have collaborated to raise industry
and public awareness about the threat of EAB and other invasive pests.
2014 – 2017:
Efforts include those as part of the CO EAB Response team and as the city of Boulder.
Highlights of the multi-agency efforts include:
•Websites: CDA has posted educational material about EAB on their website:
www.EABColorado.com.
•News Releases: The CO EAB Response Team and City of Boulder have distributed over
25 news releases since the initial detection.
•EAB Workshops: City Forestry hosted a series of EAB Identification and branch peeling
workshops in 2013, 2014 and 2015 then a series of EAB Van Tours in 2016 and 2017.
The interagency group has trained over 550 foresters, arborists, and landscape
professionals from six states on EAB symptoms and branch peeling techniques.
•Educational material produced included: Emerald Ash Borer Quick Guide, EAB Decision
Matrix, Revised Edition of Insecticide Options for Protecting Ash Trees from Emerald
City Council Study Session Page 151 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Ash Borer, Colorado specific EAB FAQ’s, EAB identification cards, utility billing
inserts, and RTD bus advertisements.
•Launch TreeOpp program –Community awareness/engagement wood utilization program
repurposing ash wood into lumber, art, furniture in partnership with BLDG 61, Bridge
House and ReSource.
•HOA Meetings: Meeting with over 20 local HOA groups to discuss EAB management;
•Hosting three open houses for the public in 2014 and staffing information tables at
Farmers Market and McGuckin’s.
•Websites: A website was created for Boulder specific EAB information at:
www.EABBoulder.org and a hub to engage the community specifically on EAB and
resiliency was created at www.resilienttogether.org/emerald-ash-borer.
•News Releases: Collaboration on the CO EAB Response team news releases since the
initial detection and response to over 75 media requests since the EAB discovery.
•EAB presentations to Parks and Recreation and Environmental Advisory boards and the
Downtown Management Commission.
•Reaching out to individual downtown commercial business owners as opportunities arise
to replace declining public ash trees.
•Launched first annual Boulder Tree Recovery Program with support from National Arbor
Day Foundation – gave away ~250 1-5gallon trees to residents to plant on private
property.
•Seedlings for BVSD 5th graders: Each spring Boulder Forestry provides a short
educational presentation to BVSD 5th graders on the importance of our urban tree
canopy, the potential impacts of EAB and explains how they can make a difference. Each
student also receives a seedling tree to plant for future generations to enjoy.
•Hosted 5 community volunteer planting events at locations around city.
•Partner with the PLAY Boulder Foundation to launch a Tree Trust.
2018 and beyond:
Consistent with the Master Plan themes, the department will continue to implement strategies
that ‘Take Care of What We Have’ and proactively engage in ‘Community Building’ as methods
of addressing the sustainability of Boulder’s Urban Tree Canopy. Initiatives explored by the
department will include additional awareness efforts, community-collaborative tree plantings,
environmentally sensitive methods of dealing with wood debris, and efforts that create
investments in tree care and/or replacement over time.
To be proactive and prepare the public for the increasing tree removals, Parks & Recreation
Forestry staff has developed an outreach plan that will align with similar efforts through the
Urban Forest Strategic Plan. Steps to date include:
•Developed an online pesticide notification form so the public can easily request
authorization for pesticide applications to street trees;
•Updated all information on the Urban Forestry website; and
•Developed an EAB Story Map to tell the city EAB story including upcoming plans for
EAB removals.
In 2018, staff will:
City Council Study Session Page 152 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Notify via postcard those property owners whose trees will be removed within the next
few years; provide option for them to notify Forestry via on-line form if they are treating
the tree(s);
•Continue presentations and seedling giveaway to BVSD 5th graders about importance of
the UTC and impacts from EAB; and
•Collaborate with the Climate Commitment team on a spring “Tree Festival” for the Year
of the Ecosystems.
•“Trees Across Boulder “Tree Sale planned for 2018: Longmont Forestry hosted a
successful “Tree Sale” in spring 2017. The city sold 120 - 15-gallon trees to residents for
$60/tree in a diversity of species for a discounted cost. The tree cost was subsidized
through a grant. Boulder Forestry plans to sell 150 trees total of 16 different species in
spring 2018.
•Continue to provide milled ash wood to ReSource for public purchase
•Host 2nd Arbor Day Foundation Tree Recovery program - will give away 300+ trees to
Boulder residents to encourage planting and tree diversity
D.Tree Plantings
To adequately maintain the urban tree canopy, it is imperative that new trees are planted in
anticipation of losses. Newly planted trees are significantly smaller than most removed trees and
contribute less environmental services on a per tree basis than mature trees. Therefore, trees
should be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (trees planted: trees removed). It has been difficult
however to maintain a 1:1 ratio in some years due to a high number of tree removals from
various factors and constraints on tree planting due to budget, staffing, and irrigation limitations.
The following chart in represents only those trees planted through city Forestry and through
parks development projects since 2000. This chart does not reflect those trees planted through
development or transportation projects during the same period.
City Council Study Session Page 153 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
As pests and severe weather events continue to impact trees, maintaining and increasing tree
diversity over time is key to a resilient urban tree canopy. Boulder is fortunate to have better
soils than most other Front Range cities and can therefore grow a larger diversity of tree species.
The latest tree inventory shows there are 237 distinct tree species on public property in Boulder.
Goal presented to City Council: Plant 500 trees annually by city Forestry; it is expected however
that as the number of ash removals increases, the number of trees planted may decrease as staff
remains focused on safety-related, priority removals.
2014 - 2017: Forestry staff planted an average of 480 trees annually in city parks and along street
rights-of-way. Additional trees were planted on public property through Parks, Transportation
and private development projects. Each year, a minimum of thirty-five species were represented
with over 85% large maturing tree species to maximize environmental services provided.
2018 and beyond: The goal for 2018 is to plant 500 trees. The current inventory analysis will
help identify species distribution across the city and help achieve future diversification goals.
One goal of the upcoming urban tree canopy assessment and Urban Forest Strategic Plan is to
identify areas in need of additional tree planting heighten tree planting prioritization.
City Council Study Session Page 154 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
E.Tree Removals
Goal presented to City Council: The approximately 4,500 untreated public ash trees will be
removed as they decline. There are additional public ash in natural areas that are not included in
the above number. It is recommended the city proactively remove ash trees that have been
identified as being in poor or very poor condition. Phase out ash trees when possible through
private development, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and UHGID capital improvement
projects.
2014 - 2017: Over 1300 public ash trees have been removed to date. Forestry staff has fallen
slightly behind on ash removals however due to the need to remove dead Siberian elms impacted
by the 2014 November freeze (over 500 dead public Siberian elms removed since spring 2015)
and the emergency response to the two snowstorms in spring 2016. Hundreds of private ash trees
were symptomatic during surveys in 2014-2017; many have been removed but exact numbers are
not known.
2018 and beyond: Staff has detected heavily infested, symptomatic ash throughout Boulder.
Observations indicate it takes approximately 3 years to progress from only a few dead ash trees
in an area to the point where all ash trees were dead, dying or removed. Because EAB
populations expand exponentially, the number of annual public ash tree removals is not expected
to remain constant or predictable. In the absence of pesticide use, cities in the Midwest, for
example, have lost most of their ash trees within 5-6 years of detection.
Boulder Parks & Recreations’ Forestry group has observed that ash trees killed by EAB dry out,
become brittle and start to fail within 1 year after mortality. This is consistent with observations
across the Midwest. Allowing trees to reach the point of failure is unacceptable from the
standpoint of public safety.
Staff will survey each July and create a list of ash trees to be removed. Larger removals and
stump grinding will then be contracted during the winter months when costs are typically lower.
Forestry staff will continue to remove smaller diameter ash trees.
The central Boulder neighborhoods (East Boulder, Table Mesa, Keewaydin) are at or beyond the
peak of the EAB “death curve” and EAB populations and the number of dying ash in several of
the older neighborhoods (Whittier, Goss/Grove, University Hill) increased significantly in 2016-
2017. As untreated public ash trees start to decline in an area, all untreated ash along the street
will be removed at the same time to reduce tree removal and traffic control costs and minimize
community inconvenience.
F.Pesticide Applications
EAB infestation is almost 100 percent fatal to North American species of ash trees, therefore
pesticides are an important component of EAB management programs as they can:
•Preserve ash trees long term;
•Reduce community-wide EAB populations and therefore slow the progression of EAB;
•Spread the tree removal and replacement costs over a longer time;
•Lower risk and public safety concerns associated with large numbers of dying trees; and
City Council Study Session Page 155 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Spread the loss of the urban tree canopy and the subsequent loss of the environmental and
economic services provided by the urban tree canopy over a longer period.
Goal presented to City Council: Treat approximately 25% of public ash long term with the trunk
injected in TREE-äge (emamectin benzoate) to slow the progression and preserve healthy public
ash trees. Forestry staff is currently treating 1339 public ash (22%) predominantly with trunk
injections of TREE-äge on a 3-year rotation.
2014 - 2017: Forestry staff evaluated thousands of park and public street right-of-way ash trees
and chose 1,339 (22%) ash trees that met the criteria for long term preservation. Those trees were
treated on a 3-year rotation with TREE-äge (emamectin benzoate). A few trees in
environmentally sensitive areas are being treated annually with TREEAzin.
To meet the criteria, trees must be:
•In good health
•Free from any major structural defects
•At least 10” in diameter
•In a good location (e.g. not under power lines, causing significant hardscape damage)
•Irrigated (systemic pesticides require water to be taken up internally within the tree).
Based on the criteria for treatment, ash trees on the Pearl Street Mall were not good candidates
for treatment. A short term, phased replacement plan is in place for the mall.
More than 25% of Boulder’s public ash trees meet the criteria for EAB treatment. Some property
owners have requested to treat public street right-of-way ash trees not treated by the city. Per
B.R.C. Chapter 6 Protection of Trees and Plants, 6-6-5 Spraying and Pruning, homeowners are
only allowed to treat public street right-of-way trees adjacent to their property with the
permission of the City Manager. This authority has been delegated to Forestry staff. Permission
shall be granted if the:
•Public ash tree is worthy of long term preservation;
•Applicator is a state licensed pesticide applicator;
•Tree care company is a city licensed certified arborist; and
•Only TREE-äge or TreeAzin is applied.
All requests for pesticide applications are being tracked by Forestry staff.
In 2015, city staff collaborated with Bee Safe Boulder members on a resolution banning the use
of neonicotinoid pesticides on city owned properties. This resolution was later adopted
(Resolution 1159) by City Council. The resolution requires a formal exemption process if any
neonicotinoid is used for either research studies or application to control a tree pest.
2018 and beyond: Continue pesticide application on a 3-year rotation. In 2018 the pesticide
application rates will be decreased following recommendations from EAB researchers in the
Midwest. It is anticipated the number of ash trees treated each cycle will decrease due to factors
other than EAB (i.e. storm damage, vandalism, etc.).
City Council Study Session Page 156 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
G.Biocontrol
EAB’s native range is Asia where several predators, pathogens, and host tree defenses keep it
from becoming a major pest. Although the ability of Asian trees to resist infestation provides
protection from EAB, there are numerous natural enemies, notably various species of parasitic
wasps, and together this combination effectively limits EAB so that it rarely causes serious
damage in Asia. Current research has and continues to be conducted by federal agencies to
identify Asian parasites of the EAB. Four of these have been found suitable for introduction and
were released in EAB outbreak areas in the Midwest and in many cases, have proven capable of
establishing and reproducing.
Goal presented to City Council: Release 4 species of non-stinging, parasitic wasp on-going;
USDA APHIS rears the EAB biocontrol at their Michigan facility and provides the biocontrol at
no cost to cities. Local APHIS staff applied for the permits necessary to release four biocontrol
in Boulder.
2014 - 2017: Forestry staff collaborated with CO Department of Agriculture (CDA) and APHIS
to release all 4 species of wasp in multiple locations along Boulder Creek Path and on OSMP
property south of Chautauqua Park. CDA branch peeling and trapping indicates at least two of
the species are successfully reproducing. The wasp species, number of releases and number of
wasps is as follows:
•Tetrastarches planipennisi: 108 releases, 10,606 wasps
•Oobius agrili: 74 releases, 5,600 wasps
•Spathius agrili: 41 releases, 2,235 wasps
•Spathius galinae: 21 releases, 1,718 wasps
2018 and beyond: Continue wasp releases per APHIS guidelines.
H.Wood Utilization
Throughout the U.S. large amounts of urban forest residues (UFR) including wood chips, brush,
logs and leaves, are generated by homeowners, municipal tree care operations, landscape
maintenance, and tree care companies because of managing urban forests. The utilization and/or
disposal or UFRs has been problematic across the country even prior to the introduction of
emerald ash borer (EAB). There are obstacles to the utilization of UFRs including wood quality,
wood quantity, utilization plans, and community support. Within urban settings, trees tend to
grow around nails, fences, and cables, potentially decreasing the wood quality and damaging
wood processing equipment. Many urban trees also lean over homes and other hardscapes,
posing safety concerns during tree removal operations prompting tree care companies to remove
smaller (and less marketable) sections of wood.
A 2008 Colorado State University (CSU) study found that 60% of UFR from Fort Collins,
Greeley, and Loveland was used to create mulch while the remaining 40% was most likely
deposited into landfills. With a resource that is 100% recoverable if markets are established,
there is great potential to utilize UFR in a more sustainable manner and to extend the life of
nearby landfills.
City Council Study Session Page 157 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Most cities across the Midwest have realized there is no one long term solution for this issue due
to the volume created and supply and demand from various markets. Multiple options must
therefore be developed to utilize the product sustainably and to minimize costs. All UFRs
generated from Boulder Forestry pruning and removal operations are brought back to the city’s
Forestry log yard. Forestry strives to conduct wood utilization efforts in a sustainable and
community appropriate way toward minimizing UFR entering landfills. Since 2000, only two
truckloads of wood infected with Dutch elm disease were diverted to the Erie landfill. All other
UFR was successfully diverted utilizing a variety of options.
Goal presented to City Council: Collaborate with other agencies on options for finding
sustainable options for wood debris moving forward. Continue to divert all wood debris from the
landfill.
2014 - 2017: Identified several options for wood debris but obstacles still exist. The amount of
wood debris will increase as the number of ash removals increase over the next several years.
Options currently being utilized:
a.Launch TreeOpp program utilizing EAB affected ash wood to create high-end
furniture and art products to sell and educate the public in partnership with BLDG
61 Boulder Library Makerspace and Bridge House.
b. Pilot partnership with ReSource to test market viability and financial
sustainability of ongoing milling through sale of milled lumber.
c.MOU with Boulder County for biomass to heat two of their county buildings
d. Confluence Energy turning logs into wood pellets for BBQ grills
e. OSMP utilizing logs that meet their size requirements for bank stabilization
projects
f.Grind remaining wood into chips; trucked to A-1 Organics to be utilized as
compost
g.Utilize trunks as park improvement infrastructure and some mulch for new tree
plantings in city parks
2018 and beyond: Continue considering all available and appropriate options.
I. Enforcement
Research indicates that ash trees killed by EAB dry out and start to fail within a few years after
tree mortality posing a public safety risk. Discussions with the City Attorney’s office (CAO),
Risk Management, and Boulder Police Department (BPD), indicate the city has a duty to enforce
city regulations for dead ash trees located on private property but have the potential to threaten
public property. The city is not proposing to implement enforce efforts on private property where
the trees only pose a threat to neighboring private property.
Goal presented to City Council: Enforce as needed for private trees that threaten public property.
2014 - 2017: Forestry staff, in cooperation with BPD and CAO, has enforced removal of dead
ash trees as needed. As expected, the numbers are increasing as EAB spreads through the city:
•2014 – 13
•2015 – 9
City Council Study Session Page 158 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•2016 – 85
•2017 - 118 (as of 9/30/2017)
The ordinance used for enforcement is B.R.C. 6-6-2(b) Removal of Dead, Diseased or
Dangerous Trees which reads: “If the city manager finds that there exists on any private property
in the city dead trees or overhanging limbs that pose a danger to persons or property, the
manager will notify the owner, lessee, agent, occupant, or other person in possession or control
of the property upon which the condition exists of the duty to remedy the condition within fifteen
days from the date of the notice or such shorter time as the manager finds appropriate in view of
the nature and extent of the condition.”
Recently, local tree care companies have also experienced significant increases in requests for
work, they have also been unable to remove trees within the 15 days required by ordinance. In
many cases, it has taken 30+ days to get these dying/dead ash trees removed increasing public
safety concerns.
2018 and beyond: It is anticipated that current staffing levels, even as supplemented by
contractors, will not be sufficient to support enforcement efforts as EAB reaches its peak.
To prevent further public safety issues, Forestry staff will enforce on private property ash trees
with less than 50% crown symptoms. Removing symptomatic ash while still green should also
lower costs as ash trees that exhibit >50% crown symptoms must be removed with specialized
equipment that further increases removal costs.
Ash trees along Greenways pose another concern. Green ash is naturalized (to various degrees)
along all creeks and ditches in Boulder. Due to the proximity of bike paths, tree removal or
enforcement should be expected (depending upon whether public or private property) as these
trees die.
J.Collaborative Research Projects
Colorado is the westernmost state with EAB. Here, the weather patterns and ash tree growth
differ from the Midwest where most EAB research has occurred to date. Several research
projects are underway in Boulder. Some were initiated by Forestry staff while others are in
collaboration with CSU, APHIS or the CFS. Current and past EAB projects include:
•In 2014, assisted the CFS with a project to test a new EAB pheromone.
•In 2014, assisted APHIS with testing new EAB trapping protocols.
•Each year, Forestry staff is tracking emergence of EAB adults to track first and peak
emergence of EAB.
•Research into effects of wounding from trunk injected pesticides on ash trees in Colorado
at Columbia Cemetery (ash trees grow more slowly in Colorado and receive less rainfall
than in Midwest so wounding may have bigger impact than elsewhere in US).
•Research to determine feasibility of multi-year control with TreeAzin.
•Research to determine feasibility of longer term control with different formulations of
emamectin benzoate pesticide products (at Flatirons Golf Course).
City Council Study Session Page 159 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP)
Staff are working with Davey Resource Group and Two Forks Collective on a comprehensive
Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) that will outline a long-term approach to ensure the
sustainability of Boulder’s urban tree canopy.
The UFSP has provided a comprehensive community-wide discussion of the following topics:
•Establishment of a baseline figure for urban tree canopy and long-term canopy goals;
•Tree diversification goals;
•Urban heat island mitigation;
•Prioritization of tree planting, maintenance and pruning activities;
•Pesticide use guidelines for public trees and Appropriate pesticide use guidelines for
private property owners treating public street trees;
•Placement and selection of tree species that are compatible with optimizing rooftop solar
capture capacity;
•Coordination with vegetation management
•Public outreach and education regarding the benefits of the urban canopy.
Steps to develop the Urban Forest Strategic Plan include:
Community Engagement
The team developed a phased outreach process to determine residents’ views about current
needs, trends and attitudes about urban forestry programs as well as assist in the development of
relationships for long-term stewardship of Boulder’s urban forest. The public engagement
process included qualitative methods such as stakeholder interviews, tree story stations and
working group sessions coupled with a quantitative survey. The complete list of engagement
activities includes:
1.Stakeholder Long Form Survey
2.Interviews with stakeholders, forestry experts and city officials
3.Tree story stations
4.Community Short Form Survey
5.Public Open House (1)
6.Working Group Meetings (2)
7.Feedback from the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB).
8.Young children tree preferences from Growing up Boulder, Boulder County Head Start
and Boulder Journey School.
These outreach activities follow an evolution of engagement that begins with expanding the
public’s awareness and understanding of the urban forest and the role of Boulder’s forestry
department, and moves towards encouraging the public to become advocates, acting to help
preserve and maintain their urban forest. The results from these activities will help inform the
recommendations, priorities and implementation strategies for the Boulder Urban Forest
Strategic Plan (UFSP) and will also inform a marketing plan focused on cultivating long-term
stewardship of Boulder’s urban forest. For a complete summary of the outreach and outcomes,
see (Appendix A – Summary of UFSP Community Engagement).
City Council Study Session Page 160 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Public Tree Inventory (completed)
The first step towards an UFSP was to identify the existing public tree resource. In winter 2014 -
2015, Forestry staff contracted with Davey Resource Group to update the tree inventory. The
data was imported into tree inventory and asset management software to track not only EAB
related maintenance moving forward, but all tree maintenance for public trees in city parks and
in street rights-of-way. Tree benefit and value information in the background section of this
memo is from the draft 2015 Urban Forest Resource Analysis report from Davey Resource
Group.
Emerald Ash Borer long term strategy (implementation on-going)
Forestry staff collaborated with multiple state and federal agencies and with leading EAB experts
from across the U.S. and Canada to develop a short-term emergency response to EAB.
Informational memos outlining the emergency response were submitted to City Council in
February and April 2014. An Interdepartmental EAB Strategic Team was formed and developed
the long-term strategies presented in this memo to manage EAB on a citywide scale and ensure
consistency across departments. The long term EAB Strategy was presented to City Council and
received unanimous support in September 2015.
Urban Forest Resource Analysis (completed)
In fall 2015, Forestry staff contracted with Davey Resource Group to analyze Boulder’s urban
forest resources. Davey’s analysis describes the current structural characteristics of Boulder’s
community urban forest resource, using established tree sampling, numerical modeling, and
statistical methods to provide a general accounting of the benefits. The analysis provides a
“snapshot” of this resource at its current population, structure, and condition. The analysis
provides baseline data to better understand the status of the urban forest population and is a
starting point for determining new maintenance and management policies and procedures, as
well as future budgetary needs.
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (completed)
To establish baseline figures for urban tree canopy and assist in long term planning, the city
participated in a collaborative Urban Tree Analysis project with Digital Globe and Trimble,
partners of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) initiative. The analysis
showed Boulder had an UTC of approximately 4.3 square miles (2,773 acres) for an average
canopy cover of 15.9% in 2013. This was prior to much die-off from EAB and the November
2014 freeze that killed hundreds of trees across the city.
Consultant On-Boarding and Background Review (completed)
Phase I of the process included a comprehensive review of the history of Boulder’s urban forest
including establishment, management and regulatory policies, as well as interviews with key
internal and external stakeholders. In addition, DRG examined organizational structure along
with staffing, equipment and funding resources. The information gathered in Phase I helps
inform the development of the UFSP, specifically identifying and discussing the existing urban
forest resource and management structure, including:
•Structure and condition of urban forest resources;
•Environmental and socio-economic benefits of the urban forest;
City Council Study Session Page 161 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Ordinances, regulations and policies,
•Community vision and priorities;
•Staffing and funding; and
•Stakeholder input.
Conclusions reached throughout the Phase I analysis determined that Boulder has a robust City
Forestry program with proactive pruning cycles, annual tree inspections, tree risk evaluation and
integrated pest management. The report indicated that staff has a high level of expertise and are
supported in their ongoing education and professional development. In recent years, cost of
living increases, mounting service delivery expectations and limited organizational budgets have
created some gaps between public expectations and service capacity. Changes in climate,
emerging urban forest threats and community growth are obstacles to maintaining the high level
of service expected by Boulder residents. In many cases, these challenges can be viewed as
opportunities for development and increased efficiency. Ongoing adaptive management and
monitoring success are cornerstones to building a more resilient urban forest for future
generations.
Staff and the consultant team continue to develop the long-term strategy and road map for
managing the city’s urban tree canopy. The development of the UFSP requires an understanding
of the shared community vision for the urban forest combined with technical data and best
practices. Boulder’s urban forest includes approximately 50,800 inventoried street and park trees
managed by Boulder Parks & Recreation’s Forestry group. These trees are a subset of the overall
urban forest that also includes tens of thousands of trees on public and private property and
naturalized along the creeks and ditches. As the urban forest has grown, challenges and
opportunities have emerged that require a proactive management approach and a long-term
planning strategy to preserve the health, sustainability and benefits of trees and canopy cover. In
2016, the city contracted with the Davey Resource Group (DRG) to develop a strategic plan to
specifically address the unique challenges and opportunities Boulder’s urban forest will face over
the next twenty years.
Developing the Plan
Upon review of the current forestry program and input from the community and other stakeholders,
the UFSP team established five keystones of sustainable urban forestry to communicate the goals
to guide the management of the urban forest, including both public and private trees.
Connect
The Boulder community places a high value on environmental stewardship. Connecting with and
educating the community with the most current information on the urban forest will mobilize
activists and facilitate policy implementation.
Specific priorities include:
•Connect Boulder Forestry partners through a single vision.
•Utilize latest urban forestry research and assist with pertinent CSU and CU research
projects to further advance urban forestry operations.
•Update the Boulder Forestry website and develop outreach material for the public and
contractors such as updated door hangers.
City Council Study Session Page 162 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Develop specific outreach materials for new plan components (drought, landscaping, EAB)
Engage
In the development of the UFSP, many stakeholders expressed a desire for a community-based
urban forest advocacy group to promote, protect, and enhance Boulder’s urban forest.
Priorities to engage the community are:
•Communicate UFSP goals.
•Establish a partner non-profit urban forest foundation (already established as a PLAY
Boulder Foundation priority).
•Encourage public and private participation in urban forest management through
volunteerism.
•Diversify funding sources and partners.
•Implement a coordinated and comprehensive outreach and education campaign.
•Facilitate private property tree plantings and maintenance.
•Continue to pursue maximized wood utilization (potentially through continuation of
ReSource coordinated efforts or TreeOpp programming beyond grants-funded pilot
program period)
•Explore opportunities for local food forests.
•Expand youth education and engagement.
Manage
Boulder has an exceptional Forestry program and already implements many industry best
management practices.
Management priorities for the UFSP explore:
•Match funding levels to desired level of service for urban forestry management.
•Consolidate urban forestry responsibilities within city.
•Provide a more consistent, efficient contracting operating procedure.
•Improve and streamline asset management.
•Provide method for public to easily request authorization to perform appropriate tree care,
such as pesticide applications, to public trees.
•Update tree risk program to ensure sustainability long term.
•Update public tree inventory and urban tree canopy analysis every 10 years.
•Ensure urban forestry environmental, social and economic services for future generations
through a sustainable public tree planting program.
Plan
Urban forestry is an important part of Boulder’s resilience strategy. Increasing the resilience and
sustainability of the urban forest directly supports the resilience of the community.
The priorities of this goal include:
•Achieve a no-net-loss canopy goal in 20 years.
•Develop planting initiatives to increase trees on public and private property.
•Increase species diversity on both public and private property through planning and
planting efforts to further improve resiliency.
•Update codes to improve site preparation, growing conditions and on-going maintenance
for urban trees to improve and ensure long term achievement of tree canopy goals.
City Council Study Session Page 163 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Develop a Green Infrastructure Management Plan to integrate and align urban forestry
practices and stormwater management efforts.
•Develop specific Emergency Response and Drought resiliency plans and continue
implementation of EAB strategy.
•Develop Parks Design and Construction Standards (DCS) ensuring alignment with City
DCS.
•Continue and expand integration of urban forestry management and stewardship into all
city project planning.
•Integrate urban forestry goals into other City guiding documents.
Protect
The urban forest represents an asset, one which must be nurtured and protected. This is
accomplished through municipal code, policies, and design and construction standards that support
tree planting and longevity.
The priorities of this goal include:
•Align code with community vision for protection of both public and private trees to achieve
urban tree canopy goals and ensure environmental, social and economic services long term.
•Continue proactive urban forest pest monitoring to maximize control options if needed.
•Ensure tree preservation during all projects is a high priority.
•Explore alternative funding options to provide for tree planting and maintenance long term
(i.e. expanding options for tree mitigation).
•Update Arborist Licensing requirements to better protect the urban tree canopy.
•Develop assistance program for private property owners for tree removal.
BUDGET AND STAFFING
The Parks and Recreation Department’s approved 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Budget included $220,000 for EAB response. Additionally, the department’s proposed 2018-
2022 CIP Budget includes:
•2018 - $350,000
•2019 - $500,000
•2020 - $500,000
•2021 - $500,000
•2022 - $500,000
TOTAL = $2,350,000
The EAB CIP funding provides for a variety of measures including:
1.Tree Planting
The Forestry Division’s goal is to plant 500 trees annually. Some trees will be planted by in-
house Forestry staff and the remaining trees by contracted services. Funding for tree plantings is
allocated from three sources:
•Tree Planting account
•Tree Mitigation Funding
•EAB Parks and Recreation CIP
City Council Study Session Page 164 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
2.Tree Removals
Using tree removal cost averages from the past 10 years, the estimated contracted removal costs
for the 4,500 untreated public ash trees (per 2015 inventory numbers) is expected to equal
approximately $1.64 million. Costs may be reduced if private property owners choose to treat
additional significant public trees and if the Forestry crew is able to perform more ash removals
(versus priority service request pruning, storm response, etc.)
3.Pesticide Applications
Pesticide applications are only needed every three years; the strategy is to treat 1/3 of the 22% of
public trees annually with TREE-äge:
•Total cost = $150,000
•Annual cost = $50,000
4. Wood Disposal
Wood disposal costs are variable depending upon success of the existing biomass agreement
with Boulder County and viability of other utilization options.
Staffing
Staff must prioritize EAB over other forestry related work due to the large number of trees that
will be impacted over the next decade, the documented rate at which EAB populations build and
kill trees, and the potential liability from the large number of standing dead ash trees. Since the
EAB detection in 2013, city Forestry services have been impacted significantly and deferred
maintenance will become an issue as staff time is further directed to EAB management and
control.
While funding has remained somewhat stable since 2014, EAB response and recent weather
events have also required managers to reallocate maintenance budgets to respond to these
emergencies and reduce their impacts on public safety. As a result, pruning rotations have been
extended beyond the previous interval of eight years (park trees) to ten years (street trees). Costs
for contracted tree work have also risen significantly since 2013 further contributing to the
increase in pruning rotation. For example, tree removal costs for trees < 15” diameter have risen
an average of 75% and 36% for trees > 16” diameter since the EAB detection. As more money is
allocated towards higher priority tree removals and storm damaged trees, less is available for
pruning trees. Finally, Boulder Parks & Recreation transitioned two prior nonstandard positions
in its Forestry group to full-time standard positions in 2017.
NEXT STEPS
•Staff will continue to respond to the EAB challenge through the many ongoing strategies
as outlined within this memo and provide regular updates to the community, PRAB and
City Council.
•Throughout the remainder of 2017, staff will work with the community, various advisory
boards and the Technical Working Group to review the draft UFSP and focus on the
goals, recommendations and implementation priorities to ensure alignment of the draft
plan.
City Council Study Session Page 165 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
•Based upon the outcomes from the late 2017 engagement, the team will prepare the final
UFSP in early 2018 and seek review and consideration from the community and advisory
boards with PRAB having final acceptance of the plan likely in the first quarter of 2018.
•Within the second quarter of 2018, staff will provide a comprehensive information packet
to City Council outlining the full process and outcomes of the UFSP and include the final
plan.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The City of Boulder’s urban forest and ecosystems are an integral part of its infrastructure. The
city has over 650,000 trees, approximately seven trees per capita. However, given the significant
open space in the community, this results in a canopy cover of approximately 16 percent. The
city has also recently been impacted by a combination of factors that have dramatically impacted
the city’s trees. Extreme weather events including huge temperature swings, floods, late
snowstorms and the expected loss of approximately 25 percent of the canopy due to the Emerald
Ash Borer, all contribute to a loss of canopy closure that the city must recover from over the next
decades. Returning to current levels of canopy cover will require enormous action—both public
and private. The current levels of tree planting—approximately 500 per year—will need to more
than double to restore and increase urban tree cover. This will take unprecedented levels of
collaboration between public land managers, private landowners and planners working on how
we will respond and adapt to a climate change. For example, all untreated ash trees on both
public and private property and naturalized areas along the creeks and ditches will likely die
from EAB in the short term. Ash trees contribute more to the urban tree canopy on an individual
tree basis than many other tree species as ash trees are large maturing, long-lived, and have large
canopies. EAB will cause a loss of approximately 12% of Boulder’s trees (equal to
approximately 25% of the urban tree canopy) over the next few years and will have a significant
impact on the many environmental, aesthetic, and economic services provided by the urban tree
canopy. However, EAB is not the only threat to Boulder’s urban forest. Other invasive insect
and disease pests threaten the urban tree canopy as do individual severe weather events, overall
climate change and development.
The inevitable loss of ash trees also provides an opportunity to replace impacted trees with
species that will be well suited to the hotter local conditions now expected due to climate change.
Many EAB-related impact factors such as tree diversity, pesticide use, and wood utilization are
also not unique to the current infestation and are applicable for other tree species and pests. To
turn this loss into an opportunity to engage the public,
Over the next few years, EAB management, including tree removal, tree replacement, wood
disposal, and pesticide treatments is anticipated to have a significant direct budgetary impact to
the City of Boulder and private residents. Additionally, the transforming tree canopy will have
considerable economic, social, and environmental impacts for decades. EAB and the inevitable
loss of many of the community’s ash trees has provided the city with an opportunity to create a
more diverse urban forest over the long term through the development of a broader scope Urban
Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP). The good news is that UFSP has allowed staff and the community
to strategically create a path forward that will allow for a long-term sustainable urban forest by
outlining many recommendations and implementation strategies that allow staff and the
community to work together in these solutions.
City Council Study Session Page 166 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A – Summary of UFSP Community Engagement
City Council Study Session Page 167 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT1
The City of Boulder Urban Forestry in collaboration with the
consultant team developed a phased outreach process to determine
residents’ views about current needs, trends and attitudes about
urban forestry programs as well as assist in the development of
relationships for long-term stewardship of Boulder’s urban forest.
The public engagement process included qualitative methods such
as stakeholder interviews, tree story stations and working group
sessions coupled with a quantitative survey. The complete list of
engagement activities includes:
1.Stakeholder Long Form Survey
2.Interviews with stakeholders, forestry experts and city
officials
3.Tree story stations
4.Community Short Form Survey
5.Public Open House (1)
6.Working Group Meetings (2)
7.Feedback from the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board
(YOAB).
8.Young children tree preferences from Growig up Boulder,
BoulderCounty Head Start and Boulder Journey School.
These outreach activities follow an evolution of engagement that
begins with expanding the public’s awareness and understanding
of the urban forest and the role of Boulder’s forestry department,
and moves towards encouraging the public to become advocates,
taking action to help preserve and maintain their urban forest. The
results from these activities will help inform the recommendations,
priorities and implementation strategies for the Boulder Urban
Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) and will also inform a marketing plan
focused on cultivating long-term stewardship of Boulder’s urban
forest.
The first step in the outreach process entailed creating a name and
identity for the outreach campaign. A strong identity and name
provided a foundation for the outreach plan that could effectively
rally the internal team stakeholders, and attract interest from the
public for feedback on the Strategic Plan. The team landed on the
name “Branching Out”, underscoring the mission with the tagline,
“Our Trees. Our Legacy.” We hope to build on its recognition
throughout future marketing efforts.
Long-Form Survey
For the long-form survey, the consultant team and City Forestry
identified key stakeholder groups that were important to get
feedback from on current forestry issues. These groups included
representatives from local businesses, neighborhood associations,
local arborists, youth and community groups, non-profits, and
education. The survey was sent out via email from City Forestry
to key contacts from these stakeholder groups after an initial
phone call to describe the project. The email included a brief
description of the project and a link to the survey. All responses
were anonymous, though participants were given the option to
include contact information in a separate, unlinked survey if they
were interested in being contacted further about the project. The
survey was conducted in the fall of 2016 and resulted in sixty-two
responses total. While the survey is not a randomized sample, and
therefore generalizations about the responses are limited, the
use of validated questions in larger community surveys allows for
comparisons of these responses to the general population.
The survey asked a combination of questions to better understand
stakeholder’s beliefs, values, knowledge and attitudes about the
urban forest, Boulder City Forestry and their activities, their views
about their community, the environment, current issues in urban
forestry, and demographic information. The survey also included
questions on current environmental behavior and their willingness
to engage in tree stewardship. The survey used a combination of
multiple-choice, open-ended, and validated measures from other
Boulder surveys to allow for comparison (see Appendix A- Boulder
Forestry Survey Variables).
The long-form survey has five main goals:
1. To understand what stakeholders thinks and feel about the urban
forest in Boulder.
2. To understand what stakeholders know, think, and feel about
City Forestry’s activities, responsibilities, and goals.
3. To determine what groups are the most or least concerned about
issues around the urban forest, including attitudes and values.
4. To determine if knowledge of City Forestry’s activities is
influenced by certain variables, such as demographics, residency,
and values.
5. To understand stakeholder willingness to engage in tree
Our Trees. Our Legacy.
Branching Out
Community Input
City Council Study Session Page 168 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT2
stewardship activities, and which factors may influence this
willingness, including identifying groups most and least willing
to engage in tree stewardship.
Short-Form Survey
As City Forestry expressed the desire for the survey to reach a
larger selection of residents, a short version of the survey was
developed that only included questions on residents’ attitudes and
knowledge about Boulder’s urban forest, City Forestry activities, and
their willingness to engage in tree stewardship. No demographic,
current environmental activities, or current attitudes and level of
engagement in city issues were included. The goal of the survey
was to get a general snapshot of attitudes and values around these
questions from a slightly larger sample, but without identifying
which groups to target in order to reduce the length of the survey
and increase the response rate. The short-form survey resulted in
290 responses.
This survey analysis looks at findings from the five goals of the long-
form stakeholder survey to help inform the development of the
UFSP, findings from the short-form survey and how they compare
to the long-form survey, initial themes that emerged from the
tree storytelling workshops held in the fall of 2016, and themes
from the Davey key informant surveys and interviews. This report
also compares the findings from the surveys to larger, statistically-
significant surveys conducted recently in Boulder: the 2014 Boulder
Community Survey (BCS), the 2015 Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan (BVCP) Community Survey and Focus Group Summary Results,
and the 2014 Boulder Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan
(BPRMP). Lastly, this report offers recommendations for who to
target, and how, for marketing and outreach for the UFSP and tree
stewardship. Due to the ability to link responses to demographics
and thus target marketing and outreach for the UFSP, this report
will focus on the results of the long-form survey, and comment on
how it compares to the short-form survey where applicable and
other larger Boulder surveys.
Appendix B- Long Form Survey results; Appendix C- Short Form Survey results
Given research that has linked residency to increased likelihood of
community involvement and attachment, the long-form survey also
asked respondents about their residency. For those who answered
(50/62), 92% of respondents were residents of Boulder, and over
50% (62%) have lived in Boulder for over 20 years. Being a resident
of Boulder from between 2-20 years was evenly divided around 12-
14%. The vast majority of respondents also owned their residence
(88%). For those who answered (48/62), 50% did not have children
living at home, which is not surprising given the older age of the
majority of respondents, while roughly a quarter had children aged
12 or younger or adults over 65 living with them. When compared
to Boulder’s population, this sample has a slightly longer residency
rate (20 years or more versus an average of 17 years), and a higher
rate of home ownership (88% versus the 53% in the BVCP). The
household composition of the respondents roughly correlates
with Boulder’s household composition, with roughly a quarter of
respondents having either children under 12 or seniors (over 65)
living with them (BVCP).
CONTACTED FURTHER
Lastly, just under half of the respondents (48%) were willing to be
contacted further to participate in a focus group.
1. What stakeholders think and feel about the urban forest in Boulder
(questions 1-7).
URBAN FOREST: DEFINITION
When asked about what they defined as the urban forest, almost
60% of survey respondents felt that it included all trees and woody
shrubs in the city, with 20% defining it as street and park trees. This
is encouraging in terms of stakeholders understanding that trees are
part of a larger ecosystem, and is reflected in almost 70% perceiving
an association between the urban forest and open space. However,
it also reflects public confusion about City Forestry responsibilities
and tools to address tree health on public and private property. As
only street and park trees are considered part of the community
urban forest in Boulder (and under it’s jurisdiction), this presents
an opportunity for City Forestry to clarify roles and responsibilities
with the public, as well as use this general concern as a starting
point for tree stewardship (see below).
URBAN FOREST: ASSOCIATIONS AND VALUES
A: Who answered the long-form survey? How does this compare to
Boulder’s population?
ORGANIZATION
For those who answered (43/62), 42% came from a neighborhood
association, 23% from a commercial or business organization,
21% from the education community, and 9% from a non-profit/
environmental organization. Only 2% answered the survey from
government.
AGE
For those who answered (49/62), over 50% of the respondents were
over 50; 29% were 55-64 and 27% were 65-74 years old. The next
highest age categories were 45-54 years old at 18%, and 35-44 years
old at 14%. There were very few respondents at either end of the
age spectrum- around 4% for 25-34 years old and 75 or older. There
were no respondents 18-24 years old, which may be a reflection
of the organizations targeted. The high level of responses for
older respondents may also be a reflection of more time available
for community involvement, especially as over one third of the
respondents were from a neighborhood organization, and is typical
in community outreach efforts. This sample is older than Boulder’s
demographics; for the BVCP 50% of respondents were between 20
and 39 years old, and only 26% were over 55.
GENDER AND ETHNICITY
For those who answered (49/62), almost twice as many women
answered the survey as men (61% versus 35%). While this does not
correlate with Boulder’s population, which is 51% female (BVCP),
this is also typical of community outreach efforts that are not
aiming for, or able to get, a randomized sample. In other words,
women are more likely to answer surveys.
For those who answered (48/62), 98% of the respondents self-
identified as White. This correlates with Boulder’s population; 95%
of the respondents in the BVCP self-identified as white.
EDUCATION
For those who answered (48/62), respondents were evenly divided
into thirds between having a bachelor, masters, or doctoral degree,
with slightly more having a bachelor’s degree.
RESIDENCY
City Council Study Session Page 169 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT3
Respondents were also asked to identify up to three words to
describe Boulder’s urban forest. By far the most common response
was centered on beauty, with serene/relaxing, dynamic/vital,
shade, quality of life, maintenance and threatened, nature,
diverse, health and love following as primary themes. Secondary
themes include references to the seasons, open space, and the
threat of development, which is not surprising given the priority of
the preservation of Open Space seen in the 2015 BVCP. Respondents
were also asked if they associated Boulder’s urban forest with the
nature surrounding Boulder. This is important since research shows
that urbanites do not always associate urban nature with ‘nature’,
and thus value it’s preservation and creation less than ‘nature out
there’. The majority of respondents associated Boulder’s urban
forest with surrounding nature and open space (76%). While the
association between urban nature and bigger ‘outside, untouched’
nature is not always positive-i.e. urban nature is considered ‘weak’
nature- (Hough, 2004), previous surveys in Boulder have indicated
that there is a strong identification with and values around
environmental stewardship and the preservation of Open Space
(BVCP and parks MP) among Boulder residents (City of Boulder &
County, 2015). Furthermore, in the 2014 Boulder Community Survey
nearly all the respondents reported visiting both Open Space and
neighborhood parks (City of Boulder, 2014), which traditionally
is indicative of a higher personal valuation of these spaces. In
addition, Boulder residents have prioritized a unique identity and
sense of place and this has been linked to the quality of both Open
Space and neighborhood and public spaces (City of Boulder Parks
and Recreation, 2014). As trees have traditionally been associated
with a high level of symbolism and personal attachment (versus
grasses for example) (Pearce, Davison, & Kirkpatrick, 2015), this
may explain why they are highly valued and associated with larger
nature outside the city.
A majority of respondents also somewhat or strongly associated
Boulder’s urban forest with climate change (44% and 41%). This
association again shows that for these respondents they recognize,
at some level, the link between Boulder’s urban forest and larger
environmental issues. This also reflects one of the 2015 Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plans’ key values, which is environmental
stewardship and action on climate change.
URBAN FOREST: BENEFITS
Most respondents understood that the urban forest provides
multiple benefits, and many used the open-ended ‘other’ option
to list these benefits out. Personally experienced benefits of trees,
such as positively impacting quality of life (33%) and providing
shade and amenity space (24%), were more highly rated than
larger, more abstract environmental benefits such as cooling the
city (14%) and sense of place (11%). This reflects the personal and
emotional relationship many people have with trees and which was
a key theme from the storytelling stations, as well as a majority of
respondents associating the urban forest with their neighborhood
quality (81%). The results of the short-form were very similar, only
differing in a slightly lower percentage valuing shade and amenity
space (14% versus 24%). Tapping into this personal connection with
trees, in particular childhood memories, trees as habitat, and trees
as a metaphor and point of contact for reflection, care and respect
for the environment, and wonder, may be useful in encouraging
more awareness of and care for the urban forest.
This question also included an ‘other’ category. For the long-form
survey, the most common comment was that all of the benefits
were interconnected, with sub-category mentions of connection to
nature, aesthetics, recreation, and the importance of the urban
forest against the threat of development.
The survey also asked if respondents associated Boulder’s urban
forest with their neighborhood quality. Neighborhood quality came
up in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan surveys as a strong
priority, and the vast majority of residents rated their neighborhood
quality as either very good (50%) or good (44%). Neighborhood
quality is also linked to neighborhood attachment and residential
satisfaction. These are important since neighborhood attachment
has been linked to environmental behavior such as recycling, and
therefore potentially tree stewardship (Takahashi & Selfa, 2015),
while residential satisfaction has been linked to health and well-
being and the quality of nearby greenspace (Hofmann, Westermann,
Kowarik, & van der Meer, 2012). These links between neighborhood
attachment and environmental behavior is supported by a very high
rate of recycling in Boulder- 98% of residents reported engaging
in recycling behavior in the Boulder 2014 Community Survey.
Feelings about community are also linked to neighborhood quality
City Council Study Session Page 170 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT4
satisfaction, and almost 70% of residents reported that they have
a good sense of community, while 66% informed themselves about
issues in Boulder. This bodes well for resident engagement on
potential environmental action such as a Tree Stewardship program.
URBAN FOREST: THREATS
Almost 80% of respondents felt that pests and disease were a threat
to Boulder’s urban forest. This likely reflects recent efforts by City
Forestry to educate Boulder residents about the threat of pests
and disease, and in particular EAB, to the urban forest. However,
only 51% of respondents felt that climate change was threat to
the urban forest, closely followed by lack of maintenance (44%).
This was mirrored in the short-form survey. However, the short-
form survey also included lack of funding for maintenance as an
additional question, and 50% of respondents chose this option
as a threat to Boulder’s urban forest. As the sample population
for the short-form survey was drawn from City Forestry’s listserv,
this indicates that messaging about a lack of funding has been
somewhat well received by at least half of those on the listserv.
As mentioned above, while most respondents felt that there was
a relationship between climate change and the urban forest, they
may not recognize how much, or at what scale, climate change is
threatening Boulder’s urban forest.
This question also included an ‘other’ category. For the long-
form survey, 50% of respondents indicated that development
and construction was a threat to Boulder’s urban forest, with
maintenance, City Forestry and Boulder’s government also
mentioned as primary themes. Secondary themes included a lack
of awareness of the interconnectedness of ecosystem services and
benefits, pests, pollution, and sprawl/increasing population.
URBAN FOREST AND LARGER BOULDER POLICY
Respondents’ ambiguity about the impact of climate change on
the urban forest is reflected in respondents’ ambiguity on whether
current Boulder policy documents on climate change, resiliency, and
comprehensive planning had any relationship to the urban forest.
While most respondents felt there was some association between
the urban forest and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP),
with 75% feeling that they were or somewhat related, almost equal
numbers did or did not see any relationship between the urban
the analysis is a lack of concern over fast-growing trees to replace
current trees (40%), as well as concern over maintenance and the
health of current trees (almost 30%). Short-form survey respondents
also indicated that drought-tolerant trees were important (30%).
This might reflect a lack of awareness or understanding about the
scale and timing of the threats to the urban forest as indicated
by forestry staff, as well as increased frustration with current
maintenance of the urban forest.
This question also included an open-ended response option for
both the long and short form surveys. For the long-form survey,
respondents indicated that education, maintenance, and pests were
key responsibilities they thought City Forestry should be responsible
for, with some unsure about current responsibilities or adequacy
of services. Secondary themes included clarifying homeowner
versus City Forestry responsibilities, issues around drought and
tree watering, inventorying and increasing bushes and shrubs along
street frontage and in parks, and uncertainty or dissatisfaction with
current levels of maintenance and outsourcing.
SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT CITY FORESTRY ACTIVITIES
When asked specifically about their satisfaction with City Forestry
activities and direction, most respondents were neutral: 43% for
current maintenance, 49% with the current direction City Forestry
is taking, and 53% that City Forestry reflects larger Boulder values,
with between 25-32% agreeing or being satisfied. While there is
room for improvement, this also speaks to an opportunity for City
Forestry to focus on targeted, clear goals and messaging, public
engagement, and alignment with larger Boulder goals and values
more explicitly through the UFSP process and marketing. It also
means that current opposition may be from a vocal minority, not
the larger population (at least from this sample). Similarly, when
educated (in the phrasing of the question) with the reasoning
behind the removal of trees, the vast majority did not like it but
understood that it was sometimes necessary (95%). This is also
seen in the respondent’s feelings about insecticide use; given the
introduction about why it is sometimes necessary in the survey
question, 80% were okay with it if necessary. This speaks to the
importance of messaging and education for City Forestry, and the
potential for insecticide use to be more acceptable with education.
forest and the climate change plan (32% and 37% respectively).
However, City Forestry messaging about climate change seems
to have gotten through to a higher percentage of their listserv
respondents than the short survey with almost 80% of the short
form respondents associating Boulder’s urban forest with Boulder’s
climate change plan. The resiliency plan was also more associated
with the urban forest, with 68% perceiving some relationship, but a
sizable percentage (31%) did not see any relationship. This ambiguity
speaks to the need, also identified by City Forestry staff, for better
coordination and collaboration between Boulder departments on
initiatives and messaging around the role of the urban forest. This
should be helped if City Forestry receives more sustainable funding
and in-house expertise to help them deal with current and upcoming
forestry issues. It might also be helped by directly linking the urban
forest to neighborhood quality of life issues. Lastly, the short-form
survey included a question that linked Boulder’s urban forest with
quality of life in Boulder, which a vast majority (92%) did, which is
not surprising given their assumed higher level of engagement with
City Forestry if they are on their listserv.
2. What stakeholders know, think and feel about City Forestry
activities, goals, and responsibilities (questions 8-15).
Most respondents were somewhat familiar or had heard of most
of City Forestry’s responsibilities, with the exception of 34% not
knowing about code enforcement, inventory counts, planning and
licensing and 43% not knowing about their emergency response
role. However more long-form survey respondents were familiar
with City Forestry’s planting programs and tree removals (52% and
60%) versus City Forestry’s listserv respondents (40% and 43%).
This is interesting given the assumed higher level of knowledge
and interest about City Forestry activities for their listserv, and
may indicate a need for better marketing and outreach. Given the
wide variety of respondent knowledge about these responsibilities
it may help to have a more targeted message about key roles that
City Forestry deems essential for Boulder residents to know about
and that support the UFSP. Similarly, there was a wide variety in
respondent responses about what the top goals of City Forestry
should be, possibly reflecting a lack of knowledge about what is
needed for the health of the urban forest. What did emerge from
City Council Study Session Page 171 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT5
TREE STEWARDSHIP
For the long-form survey, roughly 50% of respondents were
interested in potentially being a tree steward, with 25% neutral.
This is promising in terms of the goals of City Forestry to increase
public tree stewardship as part of the UFSP and to deal with threats
to the urban forest. Most were interested in moderate maintenance
(50%), with 34% not interested on only interested in one-off help
such as tree planting. While the short-form survey had a slightly
higher percentage that was interested in tree stewardship (61%),
this is not surprising given the assumed higher level of interest
and engagement with City Forestry activities for their listserv.
Also not surprising is a higher percentage of the long-form survey
respondents who felt that City Forestry should be responsible for
maintenance rather than City Forestry listserv respondents in the
short-form survey (17% versus 7%). With further targeted outreach
and messaging (which will be included in marketing strategy) City
Forestry may be able to either increase the percentage of residents
interested in tree stewardship or actively engage those interested
in future programs.
The next three sections examine whether or not it is possible to
identify groups that are most or least likely to be concerned about
Boulder’s urban forest, which factors may influence their knowledge
and interest in City Forestry, and which factors may influence their
willingness and degree of participation for tree stewardship. While
the survey is not a randomized sample, and therefore cannot be
considered representative or predictive, we can compare their
responses to the existing Boulder surveys mentioned above to get a
better idea of how closely they align and implications for outreach
and marketing of the UFSP. Given that only the long-form survey
contained demographic and other identifying variable questions,
only the long-form survey was examined for this section of the
analysis.
3. Which groups are the most or least concerned about issues around
the urban forest, including attitudes and values (questions 5-7).
Understanding what factors may predict concern over urban
forestry in respondents can be important in order to tailor
messaging and marketing for the UFSP. For question 5, which asked
about respondents’ association between Boulder’s urban forest and
the association of residential attachment with concern for urban
forestry discussed above can help with marketing and outreach in
terms of associating, through values and imagery, urban trees with
placemaking and home, attachment and quality of life. This last
quality in particular may be useful as it has been highlighted as a
key value for Boulder in the 2014 Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Is respondents’ knowledge and feelings about City Forestry’s
activities influenced by certain variables or characteristics?
Another way of asking if Boulder residents are concerned with the
urban forest is to determine how much they know and feel about
City Forestry activities, since a lack of interest would correlate with
a lack of action or initiative to find out more about City Forestry
activities. It is also helpful to know which groups are more likely to
know about, and feel good about, City Forestry activities in order
to identify populations that might be ‘low hanging fruit’ to start
with for outreach and marketing for the UFSP.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYNOPSIS
To do this, a model comparison approach was used to identify key
indicators for respondents’ knowledge and feelings about City
Forestry and their activities. First, a single response variable was
created by averaging responses to two questions: Q8, ‘How familiar
are you with the City Forestry responsibilities below?’, and Q11C,
how well respondents agreed or disagreed with ‘City Forestry’s
policies reflect the values of the Boulder Community’ to create
a single new metric called ‘Knowledge.’ All possible explanatory
variables were then defined, including the demographic battery
from the end of the survey, as well as other values and attitudes
around the urban forest.
A linear regression model was created with every combination of
six or fewer variables. This resulted in more than 35,000 potential
models. Each model was then ranked based on its performance
and complexity. If any two models had the same performance, the
one with fewer explanatory variables was deemed preferable. This
ranking was quantified using Akaike’s information criterion (AIC).
RESULTS
The resulting best-fit model had only two explanatory variables;
surrounding nature and open space, respondents who had lived
in Boulder for a long time, as well as those who felt at home in
their community, were more likely to associate the urban forest
with larger nature. This is supported by research that shows that
length of residency can be linked to attachment (Hofmann et al.,
2012; Takahashi & Selfa, 2015), as can feeling at home in one’s
neighborhood and community (Kalevi M. Korpela, Ylen, Tyrvainen,
& Silvennoinen, 2009), both of which have been linked to sense of
place (K. M. Korpela, Ylen, Tyrvainen, & Silvennoinen, 2008; Kalevi
M. Korpela et al., 2009). Sense of place itself has been linked to
quality greenspace, and some of residents’ favorite greenspace
includes trees (Arnberger & Eder, 2012; Choudhry et al., 2015;
Clemens, 2015). Trees themselves, even street trees, are also
often associated with strong emotional and personal connections
for residents. This is supported by the associations with the urban
forest and open comments from the survey addressed above, as well
as the Tree Story outreach. For questions 6 and 7, those who were
willing to be part of a focus group, and their level of knowledge and
feelings about City Forestry, were also somewhat linked to their
level of concern about Boulder’s urban forest.
Given that the majority of respondents indicated that they were
concerned about urban forestry and associated it with larger
environmental issues, an analysis was also undertaken to determine
if there were any characteristics that could be identified for those
who did not identify urban forestry as important. In other words,
is there a single variable or characteristic to explain their lack
of interest, and how could this be used in outreach strategies?
For question 5, there was no single variable that could explain
respondents’ lack of concern for the urban forest.
Similarly, there was no single variable that could explain
respondents’ who did not associate Boulder’s urban forest with
climate change, nor those who did not associate it with their
neighborhood quality. As there was a fairly small percentage who
did not show concern for Boulder’s urban forest (as framed through
these questions), this may help to explain the lack of a single
variable or characteristic to identify these respondents. A larger
sample, or a more representative sample (especially for traditionally
under-represented survey groups, such as low-income, non-white,
and younger demographics), may yield different results. However,
City Council Study Session Page 172 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT6
‘TimeRecycled’ and ‘FocusGroup’, which correspond to Q17A
and Q30. Additionally, all of the top-performing models contain
these to explanatory variables, and in every model these two
indicators have the strongest explanatory effect. When examined
more closely, both of these predictors have a significant positive
relationship with the variable Knowledge. In other words, the more
times per year a person recycles, the more likely they are to be
knowledgeable and agree with City Forestry activities. Similarly,
those willing to participate in a focus group about urban forest
issues are more likely to be knowledgeable and agree with City
Forestry activities. This is supported by research that shows that
current environmental behavior is associated with a higher level
of knowledge about environmental issues (Stern, 2000) and pro-
environmental values (Liuna, Jingke, Lijuan, Wenjun, & Kexin,
2015). Given the high rate of recycling in Boulder, this may be a
good place to start in terms of targeted marketing outreach.
5. Which factors influence a person’s willingness and degree of
participation in a potential tree stewardship program?
The last analysis focused on identifying what factors may influence
a person’s willingness, and degree of participation, in a potential
tree stewardship program. This goal was identified in collaboration
with City Forestry given current budgetary constraints, the backlog
of maintenance, and upcoming increased maintenance with climate
change and pests. While the program is still under discussion and
has not been developed yet, understanding respondent’s willingness
to potentially participate, as well as who might be the most willing,
can be very helpful in marketing and outreach efforts.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYNOPSIS
For this analysis two questions were asked: 1) What factors indicate
a willingness to participate in a potential tree stewardship program
Q14, and 2) To what degree would respondents be willing to
participate (i.e. level of tree stewardship) Q15. For both questions
a similar approach was used as for the above analysis.
For Q14, the explanatory variables included the demographic
variables, the new knowledge metric, and questions 3, 7, and 11,
which asked about threats to the urban forest, associations between
the urban forest and neighborhood quality, and feelings about City
Forestry’s current activities. These explanatory variables were
workplace; 5) I would be willing to water and maintain a tree
outside my business/residence/workplace; 6) I would participate
in tree planting; 7) I would participate in youth education.
The most likely response is to not participate (2), which indicates
a bit of an uphill battle to get residents to participate in a tree
stewardship program. However, comments from the ‘other’
response category in the long-form survey shed some light on this
reluctance. Many indicated that age and health issues are a barrier
to increased participation, as well as time limitations and a lack of
specific information on specific trees. This is not surprising given
the older age of this sample population, but can also be expected
from residents aged 30-45 who are more likely to be in the crunch
years of working and raising children. However, since the tree
stewardship program does not exist yes, and would likely include
more specific information on tree watering and responsibilities,
this may increase potential willingness to participate. There were
also comments about trees in the right of way; some were already
watering the tree on their right of way since they deemed City
Forestry maintenance inadequate, which may reduce their desire
to increase their participation, and many indicated a desire for
a more comprehensive and clearer stewardship and enforcement
program between property owners, managers, and the city. As
confusion over responsibility for trees in the right of way are known
to City Forestry as on-going issues, it would be helpful for this to
be part of the outreach and marketing for the UFSP. Comments
over the desire to see a comprehensive, public, and integrated
tree inventory and maintenance program online further support the
need for integrated outreach and education.
For those willing to engage in some level of tree stewardship, the
results show that the best models all identify a) participating in
a focus group, b) the knowledge variable developed above, and
c) Feeling at home (Q18) as key explanatory variables. This is
not surprising given that those who are more willing to educate
themselves about City Forestry activities, who agree with them,
and who are willing to participate in a focus group, are more
likely to ‘help out’ through tree stewardship. Similarly, Feeling at
home, which is linked to attachment to one’s community, has been
linked to an increased likelihood of environment action (Takahashi
& Selfa, 2015). Given the priority in the 2015 BVCP over quality
included given their insight into respondents’ feelings about how
much threat Boulder’s urban forest is under (and therefore Because
of the increased number of variables the number of combinations
that could be explored was reduced, which created a logistic
regression model for all combinations of five or fewer explanatory
variables. This resulted in over 16,000 models.
For Q15, the same approach was taken, with the same explanatory
variables. Because responses to Q15 have multiple levels, a
multinomial logistic regression was used. Again, a regression was
compared for every combination of five or fewer explanatory
variables, producing 16,000 models.
RESULTS
For Q14, the results show that the key variables associated with
their level of interest in participating in a tree stewardship program
are a) Time spent gardening (either at home or in the community),
b) Education, and c) Time spent in Boulder (residency). Specifically,
those with a bachelor or master’s degree, who have lived in Boulder
2-5 years, or 16 plus years, and those who engaged in gardening
activities, were more likely to interested in participating in tree
stewardship. It is unclear why those who have lived in Boulder
between 11-15 years were not as likely, but this could be due
to time crunches, age, and other factors, or just the sample for
this survey. While due to a large standard error for each estimate
no one variable can be assumed to be significantly indicative of
participating in a tree stewardship program, the best models all
contained these explanatory variables. This means that it is highly
likely that outreach and marketing for residents who engage in
gardening activities (and are thus more likely to be comfortable
taking care of trees and other plants), who have a moderate level of
education, and who are residents of Boulder will be more effective.
It is also likely that these explanatory variables are linked, but the
current data is too messy to be able to determine their relationship.
For Q15, explanatory variables were added to the model and
ranked on its probability that it explains respondents’ level of
participation to the question. These levels of participation are: 1)
No response; 2) None of them. This is the responsibility of City
Forestry and should be covered by current taxes; 3) I would like
to help out but am unable/it’s not feasible to do so; 4) I would be
willing to occasionally water a tree outside my business/residence/
City Council Study Session Page 173 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT7
of life and sense of place, as well as links above between trees
and neighborhood quality, it would be prudent to link City Forestry
activities to supporting and enhancing the quality and sense of place
for residents’ neighborhoods as one aspect of the marketing and
outreach campaign. This is particularly true given the emotional
and personal connection many residents expressed to trees in the
Tree Story outreach and comments in the survey.
Tree Stories
At the same time the long and short form surveys were underway
a broader outreach activity was taking place in a more creative
form. In an effort to get the community thinking about “trees”,
we developed “Tree Story Stations.” A series of wood boards were
created and temporarily placed in the Main Library, recreation
centers and at local events. People were given information about
the development of the Strategic Plan and asked to submit stories,
photos, drawings or poems on-site or online, illustrating their
connection to trees. As an added incentive each submission would
automatically enroll you in a monthly drawing for a variety of prizes
from Boulder Parks and Recreation.
Over 100 submissions were shared at the stations and online by a wide
range of community members including children. The submissions
were very moving and reflected how deeply connected the Boulder
community is to trees. A selection of stories were also shared in a
special display at the public meeting for other community members
to enjoy. A few of these submissions are included in the appendix
for your enjoyment.
of tactics that would help achieve a net neutral or net canopy gain.
Below are the community preferences for the tactics outlined.
How do we take care of it?
1. Tree Planting Requirements for Private Projects 21%
Increase the minimum requirements for tree planting and
on-going care for private development or re-development
projects.
2. Tree Planting for Public Property 15.6%
The city should plant additional trees on public lands, in
parks and on street rights-of-way.
3. Subsidized Tree Planting for Private Property 14.5%
The city should host a program to help subsidize the cost of
Tree Speak Open House
The initial public meeting hosted at a local public gathering
space, was designed to provide the community an opportunity
to learn about the role of Boulder’s Urban Forestry Department,
an overview of the strategic plan process, summary of the initial
analysis and bring awareness to the vast number of programs and
resources forestry provides. In addition the event hoped to capture
the community’s response to recommendations on maintaining
and growing Boulder’s urban canopy and what types of outreach
activities that would be most effective.
Multiple stations featuring specific topics allowed attendees to
either learn individually or engage with members of the forestry
department. Two stations sought to capture the community’s
preference on maintaining or growing the urban canopy over
the next 30 years, providing options on how to achieve proposed
canopy goals. There were also individual stations devoted to EAB
Awareness, the TreeOpp program, Tree Story submissions and a
demonstration on interactive mapping tools.
The event was well attended, with a wide variety of participants.
Approximately 130 people RSVP’d to the event, however it was
estimated that close to 200 people attended.
Station Responses
Canopy Scenarios
Participants were given a graphic overview of Boulder’s current
urban canopy along with information on current threats and their
impact on the canopy over the next 20 years. Community members
were then presented with three scenarios and the requirements to
achieve each outcome presented. Community members presented
their preference for a scenario by voting with a sticker. The three
scenarios presented were canopy loss, net neutral-no loss in canopy,
and net gain-a small growth in canopy over the next 20 years. 89%
of those who voted preferred canopy growth over the other two
options.
The community was then asked to provide their preference on a list
City Council Study Session Page 174 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT8
Working Groups
Working Group 1
In an effort to collect more in depth insights from the community
and initiate relationships for long-term stewardship, City Forestry
and the consultant teams, identified eight key stakeholders to
participate in a series of working group sessions. These individuals
included a representative from a local nursery, practicing certified
arborists, neighborhood association members, a member from a
local tree related non-profit, and a member of Boulder Community
Hospital. The working group participants attended two facilitated
discussion sessions.
The first working group session was designed to familiarize working
group participants of City Forestry activities and work to date
regarding Boulder’s public trees. This was followed by a presentation
of the baseline urban tree canopy analysis for Boulder, canopy over
the next 20 years including EAB and other invasive pests, climate
change, severe weather events and development.
The group was then presented with three scenarios that take into
consideration the gap in existing resources for maintaining canopy
given known threats.
•Scenario 1: a 28% canopy loss by 2037
•Scenario 2: Net Neutral Canopy by 2037
•Scenario 3: 6% canopy growth by 2037.
Working group participants reviewed the scenarios and provided
feedback on how they thought the community would react to
tree planting on private property. This could include passing
on bulk pricing for trees and/or support in planting trees.
4. Tree Planting Requirements for City Projects 14%
Increase the minimum requirements for tree planting on city
development or re-development projects.
5. Increased Tree Protection Standards for Private Projects
12.6%
Tree protection standards exist for public trees. Add
defined requirements for acceptable tree removals and tree
protection during construction for private property trees on
private development projects.
6. Create a Foundation 11%
The community should create a foundation to solicit private/
corporate funding to supplement tree planting, maintenance
and/or education.
7. Mitigation Funding for Tree Removal 6%
Mitigation is required by code for public trees removed on any
development project. Add a requirement for trees removed
on private property for development projects. Funding could
be ear-marked to support community tree planting projects.
8. Increased Tree Protection Standards for City Projects 5%
City development or re-development projects should have
defined requirements for acceptable tree removals and increased
tree protection standards during construction.
9. Other Ideas (comments):
•More diversity in tree species
•Full time staff devoted to planting and young tree care and
maintenance
•CSU Master Arborist Program (similar to Master Gardeners
(plus 3 votes)
•Outreach volunteers to help homeowners plant and care for
trees (plus 3 votes)
•More budget money for Forestry
•Plant more female trees to reduce woes of allergy sufferers.
Worth it for diversity.
•Don’t let developers remove trees
“We need to communicate how long it takes to properly
replace canopy in addition to the loss that is inevitable,
and how taking care of trees can help maintain the
canopy.” -working group participant
1
1,997
-776
Canopy Acres
Acre loss
$634,439
CANOPY LOSS 2037
28% Canopy loss*
Annual Average
Environmental Benefit
PRIVATE
1,960 trees
PUBLIC
10,000 trees
Planting
(trees)
500 ANNUAL
10,000
Planting Investment
$187,500 ANNUAL
$3,750,000
City of Boulder
Planting
Next 20 yrs.
Private: 1500
canopy loss
Public: 497
28% CANOPY LOSS
PublicPrivate
NET NEUTRAL 2037
0% Canopy Growth*
2
CANOPY GROWTH 2037
6% Canopy Growth*
3
2,773
0Canopy Acres
Acre loss
$876,155
Annual Average
Environmental Benefit
PRIVATE
40,500 trees
PUBLIC12,000 trees
Planting
(trees)
600 ANNUAL
12,000
Planting Investment
$225,000 ANNUAL
$4,500,000
City of Boulder
Planting
Next 20 yrs.
Private: 2121
Public: 652
0 % CANOPY LOSS
2,939
166
Canopy Acres
Acre gain
$931,296
Annual Average
Environmental Benefit
PRIVATE
50,500 trees
PUBLIC
14,000 trees
Planting
(trees)
700 ANNUAL
14,000
Planting
Investment
$262,500 ANNUAL
$5,250,000
City of Boulder
Planting
Next 20 yrs.
Private: 2,204
Public: 735
6% CANOPY GAIN
CANOPY GAIN
PublicPrivate
PublicPrivate
Tree Speak Open House | March 9, 2017 | Boulder Urban Forest Strategic Plan | Project lead: Kathleen Alexander, 303-441-4406 9
89%
11%
0%
Canopy Scenarios
City Council Study Session Page 175 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT9
impending canopy loss and what their preference would be regarding
the three scenarios presented. All working group participants agreed
that establishing a goal to grow the urban canopy was optimal.
The discussion followed three basic themes:
•Messaging: Improve the City’s messaging regarding our current
canopy, strongly emphasizing impending threats and their overall
impact over the next 20 years.
•Awareness: Education on the importance of trees should be
presented in the context of tree’s impact on human health.
•Additional Information: Provide detailed information to the
community on the maintenance costs associated with each canopy
scenario and how this fits within the City’s priorities and budget.
The working group was then asked to provide their thoughts around
community wide solutions to preserve Boulder’s urban tree canopy.
Below are the opportunities the working group identified.
•Using the Boulder Arts community as a model, the community needs
to present to the City their desire for an additional tax that can be
applied toward efforts to preserve and grow Boulder’s tree canopy.
•Identify effective tree related non-profits and emulate their tactics.
•Have the City emphasize the gap that exists between what is
needed to maintain and grow Boulder’s urban canopy and what can
be accomplished with the existing budget.
Working Group 2
In the course of reviewing the feedback from the initial working
group session, comparisons were made to other communities with
VOLUNTEER ENGAGEMENT:
•Focus on the issue of EAB and other critical threats to the
urban forest to provide a “call to action” in the community.
•Clearly and effectively communicate the consequences of EAB
and its impact on the forest.
•Encourage community participation through volunteerism,
promotions, fundraising, and partnership.
•Focus on more “close to home” initiatives such as working
with neighborhood groups, schools, churches or commercial
centers manage and care for their trees through planting,
pruning, treating, etc.
•Consider innovative and effective marketing strategies such
as leaving dead trees in place temporarily, illustrating future
view corridors without Ash, etc.
TREE PLANTING INITIATIVES:
•The working group recomended that an advocacy group outside
of City staff needs to champion an initiative to educate,
inspire, mentor and train community members on planting
initiatives, protecting and caring for trees on private property
and how to ensure sustainability of the urban forest.
•An advocacy group should also consider funding programs
and incentives for tree protection, planting and maintenance
in the form of grants, discounted nurseries, or consider tax
initiatives to fund forest initiatives similar to other designated
taxes for resource conservation.
experience implementing desired programs and strategies. Davey
Resource Group reviewed over 25 different programs considered to
be successful urban forest strategies. Working group participants
were provided these real-world examples of successful programs
across the following topics: volunteer engagement, resilience and
sustainability; tree planting initiatives, City-non-profit partnership
and tree protection. In the second session the working group was
divided into three smaller groups and given one of the following
topics and questions to focus on:
VOLUNTEER ENGAGEMENT
•How does this get started and who should be responsible for
management and funding?
•What type of program would be most effective in Boulder?
•Tree Planting Initiatives
•What challenges and opportunities do you see for engaging
residents and encouraging tree planting (and care) on private
property?
•Should taxpayers subsidize or facilitate tree planting and care
for private property? How?
TREE PLANTING INITIATIVES:
•What challenges and opportunities do you see for engaging
residents and encouraging tree planting (and care) on private
property?
•Should taxpayers subsidize or facilitate tree planting and care
for private property? How?
TREE PROTECTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
•Do you support some level of tree preservation requirement
for private property?
•Would you support a tree removal permit process separate
from the development process?
•Should mitigation (in lieu of preservation) for private tree
removals be allowed?
The outcomes of these smaller focused discussions echoed may of the
recommendations from the first session while identifying some key
components that were seen as necessary for success. Below is a summary
of key findings for each topic covered.
“It (a community based non-profit or group that supports
trees) hasn’t started in Boulder because of Open Space;
there is so much focus on open space instead of the city
parks and trees. If we didn’t have open space we wouldn’t
have that problem. Boulder’s open space has great brand
recognition.”-working group participant
“Trees are directly associated to human health. Clean air
is one of the most valued resources. Messaging should be
focused around health, (trees are) critical for the health
of our children, creating a healthy environment for our
children. It is critical for human life for trees to exist in
our community.” -working group participant
City Council Study Session Page 176 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY INPUT10
•Trees are a critical component of public health, economic
vitality and livability in a community. They should be prioritized
and funded similar to any other critical infrastructure especially
with the resiliency and sustainability in mind.
•Also consider a long term approach through changes to
development codes to increase planting or preservation and
care of existing trees on private property.
•Consider an attractive and effective marketing campaign to
increase public awareness through social media, professional
groups, youth engagement and digital interactive tools that
allow the community to interact with forest management.
•Work collaboratively with all other sustainability and resiliency
initiatives that focuses on climate action, conservation and
livable communities.
TREE PROTECTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY:
•The working group supports the idea of exploring tree
protection on private property and recognizes that many
communities along the Front Range currently have some form
of this within the city.
•The group understands that tree canopy goals can’t be met
just from planting, we need to effectively manage and protect
existing trees.
•Need to initiate a systematic methodology for exploring an
option for this in Boulder that is based on science, criteria and
evaluation metrics.
•Could start small with a pilot program and work towards a
comprehensive approach that would result in smart regs,
incentives instead of penalties.
•Need rigorous engagement and buy-in from community with
an understanding that the urban canopy doesn’t see property
lines and is a community resource.
Working group participants agreed to continue to be part of
Boulder’s Urban Forest Strategic Plan process by reviewing the draft
plan providing feedback and recommendations on the strategies
outlined.
Young Children’s Tree Preferences:Young Chilren’s Tree Preferences
City Forestry coordinated with Growing Up Boulder, Boulder Journey
School, and Boulder County Head Start in an effort to collect
insights and generate awareness amoung young children. Growing
Up Boulder is Boulder’s Child-and Youth-Friendly City Initiative and
is based out of the Community Engagement Design and Research
Center at the University of Colorado Boulder; its mission is to
empower Boulder’s young people with opportunities for inclusion,
influence, and deliberation on local issues that affect their lives.
Through a series of activities that included outdoor exploration,
discussion video and drawing, children were able to express their
preferences and expand their understanding of trees in their natural
environment. The following summurizes young children’s thoughts
about trees.
•Provide shade.
•Have berries, seed pods, and acorns to squish and use for
imaginative play.
•Encourage wildlife (squirrels and chipmunks).
•Are deciduous, so they can play in the leaves.
•Bear fruit, because they can eat the fruit and climb these
trees more easily.
The results of these activities were communicated through a brief
video and poster which was shared at the public meeting.
YOAB
In an effort to encourage Boulder’s youth to become more civically
engaged, Boulder has established a Youth Opportunities Advisory
Board (YOAB). YOAB is a group of 16 City of Boulder resident high
school students, who work to promote the youth voice in the
community, provide opportunities for youth across the city and
advise the municipal government on youth-related policies and
issues. In addition to monthly meetings, each year students are
involved in an Alternative Team Project, (ATP). ATP’s are semester-
long projects comprised of 3-4 students who select their own topics
based on the opportunities available and what is meaningful to
them.
City Forestry coordinated with YOAB to present the Boulder Urban
Forestry’s Strategic Plan process in an effort to see if the students
identified an element of the plan they felt their peers would be
interested in as a topic for their 2017 Fall ATP.
John Marlin, a member of the City Forestry department, gave an
overview of the plan, the role of City Forestry and impact of pests
such as the emerald ash borer. As a whole students were most
interested in the large loss of canopy due to emerald ash borer and
how they could be part of the solution. With this topic in mind the
group split into 4 smaller groups to discuss specific ideas on what a
future ATP project would entail. As a result a semester long project
will be co-developed with the students, allowing them to take
their creative ideas and help educate the public around threats to
Boulder’s Urban canopy.
City Council Study Session Page 177 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Urban Forest
Management Update
10/24/17
City Council Study Session Page 178 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Boulder’s Urban Tree Canopy (UTC)
10/24/17
What is UTC?
The layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees
and shrubs that cover the ground when viewed
from above
Boulder Average UTC = Approx. 16%
How do we compare?
Urban Tree Canopy ownership:
25% -Public –City, CU, Federal, BVSD
75% -Private Property (+/-52% are
rental property)
City Current UTC Goal
Austin, TX 32%40%
Portland, OR 30%33%
Seattle, WA 23%30%
Boulder, CO 16%TBD
Denver, CO 16%31%
Indianapolis, IN 14%19%
Phoenix, AZ 10%25%
City Council Study Session Page 179 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Threats / Impacts To Our Canopy
Largely due to:
•Invasive Pests
•Climate Change
•Weather events
•Development
•City projects
•Private development
Canopy loss varies 6% -28% among
neighborhoods
•Species composition
•Size class
10/24/17
City Council Study Session Page 180 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
•EAB populations expand
exponentially
•Detection VERY difficult
•All ash will eventually die without
pesticide treatment
•Ash trees are long lived, large
maturing trees with large canopies
10/24/17
12% of Public trees are ash,
equates to approximately 24% of
overall UTC
City Council Study Session Page 181 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
EAB is Becoming More Obvious In Boulder…
55th South of BaselineBaseline and Broadway
Boulder
Reservoir
27th Way between Baseline and Broadway
10/24/17
City Council Study Session Page 182 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
September, 2016
September, 2017 October, 2017
(16th St. University Hill Elementary)
10/24/17
EAB Progression In 1 Year
EAB infested trees die quickly and start to
fail immediately.
•Pose immediate threat to public
safety
•Requires aggressive removal
schedule at earliest detection
City Council Study Session Page 183 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/1710/24/17
EAB Removals To Date
2014 -2017:
•1353 public ash removed
•EAB now impacting historic
neighborhoods
•Creek corridors including high-
profile Boulder Creek
Long Term:
•Need to remove / replace
untreated public trees (~4,000)
•Expect removals to occur within
next 5 years
City Council Study Session Page 184 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
Tree Planting
Diversity in Tree Species is Key for
Resiliency
Since 2014…….
•Planted 1935 trees
•Average of 480 trees annually
•Minimum of 35 species/year
•85% large maturing
City Council Study Session Page 185 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Public Tree Planting to Removals (all species)
10/24/17
City Council Study Session Page 186 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
(Private) Tree Planting –Helping the Community
2016:
•1000 seedlings for BVSD 5th graders
2017:
•900 seedlings for BVSD 5th graders
•Partnership with National Arbor Day Foundation
(NADF)
•Natural Disaster Recovery Effort
•250 –1 gallon seedlings distributed
2018:
•1000 seedlings for BVSD 5th graders
•NADF -1000 seedlings to be given away throughout
Boulder County
•Tree Sale
•150 –15 gallon trees (16 different species)
•Subsidized cost to property owners
City Council Study Session Page 187 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
Pesticide Treatment
Goals:
•Slow the spread of EAB within
Boulder and to other
communities
•Stage removals to spread out
costs
•Maintain urban tree canopy
•Preserve significant trees
Criteria for public ash
treatments:
•Ash trees >10” diameter
•Good health
•Good location
Long Term Plan:
•Treating 22% (1,339) public ash
trees on a 3-year rotation with
TREE-äge
TreatedUntreated
City Council Study Session Page 188 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
Biocontrols
•Collaborative effort
•3 release sites
•Boulder Creek corridor
•McClintock trail area south of Chautauqua Park
•Arrowwood Park
•4 species non-stinging parasitic
wasps released
City Council Study Session Page 189 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
Ensuring Public Safety
•City has “duty” to enforce for private
trees that threaten public property
•B.R.C. 6-6-2. -Removal of Dead,
Diseased, or Dangerous Trees: “…remedy
the condition within fifteen days from the date
of the notice or such shorter time as the
manager finds appropriate…”
•Earlier notification to assist property
owners.
•Enforcement notices increasing:
•2014 –13
•2015 –9
•2016 –82
•2017 –118 (to date)
City Council Study Session Page 190 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
Sustainability and Wood Utilization
TreeOpp
•16 Bridge House crew members
•Public workshops now offered (10/24)
•Over 800 products sold, ranging from cutting
boards, chopping blocks, butterflies, ornaments
and coasters
•Over $6,000 (gross revenue) from sales
•Support from PLAY Boulder and local business
(i.e. McGuckin Hardware, ReSource)
•20+ ash trees milled with another round of
milling to come this fall
•On Dec 8th we will host an exhibition in the
library to sell products
City Council Study Session Page 191 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
10/24/17
Education / Outreach
•Digital Outreach (Apps/Websites):
•EABBoulder.org
•ResilientTogether.org
•CH 8 Updates
•Open Houses / Markets
•Doorhangers and HOA Meetings
•Outreach material in coordination with
CO EAB Response Team
•Workshops for industry professionals
•Support from PLAY Foundation and
local businesses (i.e. McGuckin and
ReSource)
City Council Study Session Page 192 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Urban Forest Strategic Plan
Purpose
•Identify the community’s vision,
opportunities, needs
•Identify the threats to the urban forest
•Organize to ensure a vibrant and
sustainable forest
10/24/17
City Council Study Session Page 193 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Urban Forest Strategic Plan -Phases
Project Phases and Approach
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Background Research
and Analysis
Technical Needs Assessment and Analysis
of Information and Goal Establishment
Action Plan -Recommendations,
Priorities and Implementation
Strategies
Draft and Final Plan Development and
Adoption by PRAB
10/24/17
City Council Study Session Page 194 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Community Outreach
10/24/17
Who
•Residents / Neighborhoods
•Youth / Children
•Youth Opp. Advisory Board
•BOCO Head Start
•Local arborists
•Boulder Community Hospital
•CU: Campus Arborist & Educators in
Sustainability / Design
•Advocacy Groups (i.e. Falling Fruit,
Harlequin Gardens)
City Council Study Session Page 195 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Emerging Key Themes
10/24/17
•Realign Responsibility for Urban
Forest Resources and
Infrastructure
•Conduct Resource and Canopy
Analysis Every 10 Years
•Promote Integrated Pest
Management (IPM)
•Conduct Annual Survey/Review of
UFSP Goals
City Council Study Session Page 196 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Emerging Key Themes
10/24/17
•Refine City Forestry Website
•Develop Outreach Strategy About
Programs and Services Including
Print Materials
•Develop EAB Management Plan
and Continue Outreach and
Education
•Communicate Recommendations
and Tree Requirements For
Watering Trees During Drought
Periods
•Diversify Funding Sources
•Facilitate Tree Planting On Private
Property
•Explore Establishment of a Partner
Non-Profit Forest Foundation
•Train Volunteers To Assist With
Forestry Maintenance and Support
City Council Study Session Page 197 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
Questions and Feedback
10/24/17
Emerald Ash Borer Strategy
•Does council support the scope and extent of community engagement to ensure
the public’s awareness and involvement in the EAB impacts on Boulder’s trees?
Urban Forest Strategic Plan
•Does council have any questions or comments related to the UFSP process to date
and key findings through the planning process?
•Does Council support staff's recommendation to finalize the UFSP through PRAB
acceptance?
City Council Study Session Page 198 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
What Can We Do?
Tree Planting for Public Property
The city should plant additional trees on public lands, in parks and on street rights-of-way.
Subsidized Tree Planting for Private Property
The city should host a program to help subsidize the cost of tree planting on private
property. This could include passing on bulk pricing for trees and/or support in planting
trees.
Tree Planting Requirements for City Projects
Increase the minimum requirements for tree planting on city development or re-
development projects..
Tree Planting Requirements for Private Projects
Increase the minimum requirements for tree planting and on-going care for private
development or re-development projects..
Tree Protection Standards for Private Projects
Tree protection standards exist for public trees. Add defined requirements for acceptable
tree removals and tree protection during construction for private property trees on private
development projects.
Mitigation Funding for Tree Removal
Mitigation is required by code for public trees removed on any development project. Add a
requirement for trees removed on private property for development projects. Funding
could be ear-marked to support community tree planting projects.
Create a Foundation
The community should create a foundation to solicit private/corporate funding to
supplement tree planting, maintenance and/or education.
10/24/17
City Council Study Session Page 199 of 199
ATTACHMENT A
This page is intentionally left blank.
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2017
AGENDA TITLE: Third reading and consideration of a motion to adopt and order
published by title only Ordinance 8179 creating a Chautauqua Access Management
Plan Summer 2017 Pilot by amending Chapter 2-2, 4-20, 4-24, 7-6, and Title 4, B.R.C.
1981, related to the establishment of a parking management area, related fees, and
setting forth related details.
PRESENTERS:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Mary Ann Weideman, Deputy City Manager
Tom Carr, City Attorney
Sandra Llanes, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Molly Winter, Executive Director, Community Vitality Department
Mike Gardner-Sweeney, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Bill Cowern, Principal Traffic Engineer, Public Works-Transportation Division
Kathleen Bracke, GO Boulder Manager, Public Works-Transportation Division
Susan Connelly, Deputy Director, Community Vitality Department
Deryn Wagner, Environmental Planner II, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Natalie Stiffler, Transportation Planner II, GO Boulder, Public Works-Transportation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 18, 2017, council approved a Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP)
pilot program for summer 2017 designed to test various mitigation measures to assess
effectiveness in minimizing vehicular and parking impacts to surrounding neighbors,
visitors and the area’s natural and cultural resources and to inform development of a
CAMP for implementation in future summers. At that time, Council also approved on
second reading an alternative Ordinance 8179 reflecting changes to Ordinance 8179 as
approved on first reading on April 4, 2018. Because of the changes made since first
reading, a third reading of Ordinance 8179 is required prior to approval.
ATTACHMENT B
On April 4, 2017 staff presented recommendations for a CAMP summer 2017 pilot that
were developed based on data collected in summer 2016, as well as community and
board input. The April 4, 2017 agenda memo
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/141608/Electronic.aspx provided
background on the effort and presented staff considerations related to the recommended
pilot strategies, identified potential modifications and described how success of the
mitigation experiments would be measured. Council provided feedback to inform
potential modification of the staff recommendations. Staff subsequently met with and had
other communications with the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) board and staff
regarding the council feedback and reviewed other community inputs. The April 18, 2017
agenda memo \\boulder.local\share\CMO\DUHMDPS\Chautauqua\CAMP 2015-
2016\Chautauqua PILOT NPP Zone - 2017\CAMP Council Memo_041817 Final.pdf
detailed staff considerations regarding each potential modification. On April 18, 2017
staff presented potential alternatives to the original staff recommendations. Council
approved the following components of a summer 2017 pilot:
1.Saturdays and Sundays, only between June 1 and August 31 (vs. seven
days/week)
2.Free transit service 7 a.m. – 7 p.m.
3.Parking management in effect 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (vs. 7 a.m. – 7 p.m.) on Saturdays
and Sundays during the pilot period with city of Boulder parking enforcement
4.No time limits (i.e., no restriction on duration of parking) in any part of the pilot
area
5.Paid parking on Baseline Road, and around the Chautauqua Green and in the
Ranger Cottage Lot – $2.50/hour parking fee for all parkers, using four parking
pay stations to be installed temporarily along Baseline or the ParkMobile smart
phone application
6. Neighborhood North of Baseline –
a)Create temporary Neighborhood Parking Permit (NPP) zone in the area from
and including 6th Street to and including Lincoln Place from Baseline Road
north to and including Cascade
b)Resident permits (vehicles registered at the address, limited to two per person;
two-day visitor passes per residence; two overnight guest passes available
upon request) issued by city at no charge during the pilot
c)$2.50/hour parking fee for non-permitted vehicles, no time/duration
restriction, using parking app or payment kiosks along Baseline
7.CCA Leasehold Area –
a)The city issues a certain number of permits to CCA for its administration and
distribution among its residents, lodging guests, Community House users,
employees of all three organizations within the leasehold (CCA, Colorado
Music Festival and Chautauqua Dining Hall) and volunteers.
b)An employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program will be
organized and managed for each set of employees within its leasehold.
ATTACHMENT B
c)Access will be managed by CCA at two entries into leasehold area
(Kinnikinic/Clematis and west of the trailhead parking for the McClintock
Trail) using signage, with no other parking regulatory signage required within
the leasehold area.
d)Parking within the leasehold on the Saturdays and Sundays during the pilot
period will be by permit-only past the two signed entry points, with public
(paid) parking on the Clematis and McClintock Trailhead portions of the CCA
leasehold.
8.Bicycle Parking – OSMP and CCA will seek to add.
Council on April 18, 2017 approved on second reading the alternative Ordinance 8179
presented as Attachment B in the April 18 agenda memo, reflecting the modifications to
the original pilot proposal and accompanying temporary ordinance amendments
necessary to implement the CAMP pilot program as approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
1.Motion to adopt on third reading and order published by title only Ordinance 8179
creating a Chautauqua Area Management Plan by amending Chapters 2-2, 4-20, 4-24,
7-6, and Title 4, B.R.C. 198, related to the establishment of a Parking Management
Area, related fees and setting forth related details. Attachment A.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
The Community Sustainability Assessments and Impacts remain as presented in the April
4, 2017 Agenda Memo.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Impact remains as presented in the April 18, 2017 Agenda Memo.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
There has been no new feedback from boards and commissions since Council
consideration on April 4, 2017.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
All public comments received following Council consideration on April 18th can be reviewed
at https://tinyurl.com/jt69h5q.
BACKGROUND:
Please see the material presented in the April 18, 2017 agenda memo.
ATTACHMENT B
ANALYSIS:
Council directed staff to develop a tailored access management strategy to balance the
variety of users and modes while also maintaining the natural, built and historic
environments. The pilot program approved by council on April 18, 2017 includes various
measures to mitigate a variety of impacts, including: high automobile mode share;
parking demand exceeding supply, causing neighborhood streets to be used as overflow
parking; and concerns about automobile/pedestrian conflict in high-traffic residential
areas.
Necessary ordinance amendments for the duration of the pilot, only - As noted in the
previous agenda memos, several Boulder Revised Code sections must be added or
amended – all for the duration of the pilot, only -- in order to implement the
recommended mitigation measures, including:
Council approval of amendments to Chapter 4-24 “Parks and Open Space Parking
Permits,” Chapter 7-6 “Parking Infractions,” B.R.C. 1981 relating to parking and
charging for parking around the Chautauqua Green and at the parking lot north of the
Ranger Cottage to allow for implementation of the CAMP summer 2017 pilot;
Council approval of additions to Chapter 2-2 and Chapter 4-30 to add new sections
for the creation of a parking plan and management in the Chautauqua leasehold area
“Chautauqua Parking Management Plan,” “Chautauqua Parking Permit Fee” and
“Chautauqua Parking Zone Permits”
Council approved the proposed Ordinance 8179 on first reading (consent agenda) on
April 4, 2017. The April 18, 2017 agenda memo included both the version of Ordinance
8179 approved on first reading and an alternative version responding to council direction
on April 4. On April 18, Council approved on second reading the alternative Ordinance
8179 reflecting changes to Ordinance 8179 as approved on first reading on April 4, 2018.
Because of the changes made since first reading, a third reading of Ordinance 8179 is
required prior to approval.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A: Ordinance 8179 as amended and as passed on second reading April 18, 2017
recommendation
ATTACHMENT B
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8179
AN ORDINANCE CREATING A CHAUTAUQUA ACCESS
MANAGEMENT PLAN BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 2-2, 4-20,
4-24, 7-6, AND TITLE 4, B.R.C. 1981, RELATED TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING MANAGEMENT AREA,
RELATED FEES, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 2-2-15, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
2-2-15 - Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones.
(a)Restricting parking on streets in certain areas zoned for residential uses primarily to
persons residing within such areas will reduce hazardous traffic conditions, promote
traffic safety, and preserve the safety of children and other pedestrians in those areas;
protect those areas from polluted air, excessive noise, trash, and refuse; protect
residents of those areas from unreasonable burdens in gaining access to their
residences; preserve the character of those areas as residential; promote efficiency in
the maintenance of those streets in a clean and safe condition; preserve the value of
the property in those areas; and protect the peace, good order, comfort, convenience,
and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. The city council also finds that, in some
cases, residential streets serve an important parking function for nonresidents in the
public and commercial life of the city. Some accommodation for parking by others
may be appropriate in these cases.
(b)Upon receipt of a request by twenty-five adult residents of a neighborhood proposing
a neighborhood permit parking zone, the city manager will conduct studies to
determine if a neighborhood permit parking permit zone should be established in that
neighborhood, and what its boundaries should be. The manager may, if the manager
concludes it is in the public interest to do so, initiate this process without any request.
The manager may consider, without limitation, the extent to which parking spaces are
occupied during working or other hours, the extent to which parked vehicles are
registered to persons not apparently residing within the neighborhood, the impact that
businesses and facilities located within or without the neighborhood have upon
neighborhood parking within the neighborhood, such other factors as the manager
deems relevant to determine whether parking by nonresidents of the neighborhood
substantially impacts the ability of residents of the proposed parking permit zone to
park their vehicles on the streets of the proposed zone with reasonable convenience,
and the extent to which a neighborhood permit parking zone would significantly
reduce this impact. The manager shall also determine the need for reasonable public
access to parking in the area, and the manner and extent that it should be provided,
along with the hours and days on which parking restrictions should apply. No such
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
parking restrictions shall apply on Sundays or holidays unless exempted by regulation
promulgated by the city manager pursuant to Chapter 1-4, “Rulemaking,” B.R.C.
1981.
…
(f) The city manager shall monitor the program on a regular basis and annually provide
the city council with a report on the neighborhood permit parking program generally,
including its relationship to parking supply and demand in adjacent areas of the city
and the status of zone block faces under sSubsection 4-23-2(j), B.R.C. 1981. The
details of the monitoring effort shall be contained in administrative regulations
promulgated by the city manager pursuant to cChapter 1-4, “Rulemaking,” B.R.C.
1981.
(g)This Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” shall not apply to the
area as defined by Section 2-2-20, “Chautauqua Parking Management Plan,” B.R.C.
1981.
Section 2. Chapter 2-2, “General Administration,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended by the
addition of Section 2-2-20, as follows:
2-2-20 - Chautauqua Parking Management Plan.
(a) The city and the Colorado Chautauqua Association have a long-standing mutually
beneficial relationship in which the city leases property, recognized as the leasehold
area, to Colorado Chautauqua Association. The popularity of this area, from a variety
of users such as cottage residents, cottage renters, employees located in the area, and
the public have created significant competing access demands that peak seasonally.
Therefore, the city council finds that it is in the public interest to establish a seasonal
Chautauqua Parking Management Plan specific to the leasehold area and in
conjunction with parking management in adjacent areas. Within the leasehold area,
the city council intends to provide a balance of access and convenience to the area
through a combination of free transit service from satellite parking lots; a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for employees of Colorado
Chautauqua Association, Colorado Music Festival, Chautauqua Dining Hall and
Open Space Ranger Cottage, permitted parking for residents and lodging guests
located in the area, and time-limited paid public parking. The seasonal Chautauqua
Parking Management Plan shall be effective June through August of each year.
(b) The city council intends that the seasonal Chautauqua Parking Management Plan will
reduce hazardous traffic conditions, promote traffic safety, protect pedestrians, reduce
air pollution and excessive noise, protect residents of this area from unreasonable
burdens in gaining access to their residences, provide the public with access to the
many amenities of the area, and protect the peace, good order, comfort, convenience,
and welfare of the inhabitants of the city.
(c) The city manager shall monitor the seasonal Chautauqua Parking Management Plan
to assess its impacts and may consider subsequent changes to the seasonal
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Chautauqua Parking Management Plan, to promote the goals set forth in this Section.
Any changes to the seasonal Chautauqua Parking Management Plan shall be
governed by Chapter 1-4, “Rulemaking,” B.R.C. 1981. The city manager may
consider, without limitation, the extent to which parking spaces are occupied during
working, weekend, or other hours, and such other factors as the city manager deems
relevant to determine the appropriate balance of access between different users.
(d) Upon establishment of a seasonal Chautauqua Parking Management Plan, the city
manager shall, subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the purpose, install
the necessary traffic control devices within the area, and unless delegated by
regulation to the Colorado Chautauqua Association, issue parking zone permits
pursuant to Chapter 4-30, “Chautauqua Parking Zone Permits,” B.R.C. 1981.
(e) The city manager may issue regulations governing the issuance and use of permits not
inconsistent with Chapter 4-30, “Chautauqua Parking Zone Permits,” B.R.C. 1981.
(f) The city manager shall monitor the program on a regular basis and annually provide
the city council with a report on the seasonal Chautauqua Parking Management Plan,
generally, including its relationship to parking supply and demand in adjacent areas
of the city.
(g) The city shall manage the Chautauqua Parking Management Plan in all aspects
including, and not limited to, enforcement, permit issuance, and administration. The
city manager shall have discretion to allow for limited administration of permits by
the Colorado Chautauqua Association and employers located in the area as set forth
by regulation.
Section 3. Section 4-20-49 “Neighborhood Parking Permit Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, is
amended to read:
4-20-49 - Neighborhood Parking Permit Fee.
(a) A zone resident applying for a neighborhood parking permit shall pay $17 for each
permit or renewal thereof.
(b) A business applying for a neighborhood parking permit for employees shall pay $75
for each permit or renewal thereof.
(c) An individual who does not reside within the zone applying for a neighborhood
parking permit, if permitted in the zone, shall pay $100 for each quarterly permit or
renewal thereof.
(d) This Section shall not apply to Section 2-2-20 “Chautauqua Parking Management
Plan,” Chapter 4-30, “Chautauqua Parking Zone Permits,” B.R.C. 1981 or the
Neighborhood Permit Parking zone created by rule located just north of Chautauqua.
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 4. Section 4-20-54 “Parks and Open Space Parking Permit Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, is
amended to read:
4-20-54 - Parks and Open Space Parking Permit Fee.
The fees for parking permits issued under Chapter 4-24, “Parks and Open Space Parking
Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be:
Permit Fee
Daily Permit: $ 5.00
Annual Permit: $25.00
Hourly Permit $ 2.50
Section 5. Section 4-24-3 “Permit Issuance,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
4-24-3 - Permit Issuance
(1) The city manager shall, upon payment of the fee specified in Section 4-20-54,
“Parks and Open Space Parking Permit Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, issue a parks or open
space parking permit. This permit is valid only for the period specified, which
shall be either hourly, for a day or a calendar year, and for the vehicle for which
issued. The manager may provide for issuance of such permits at such places and
times as the manager finds expedient, and may provide for unattended issuance in
which the applicant pays with a mobile device or places the fee in an envelope,
writes the license plate number of the vehicle and the current date on the envelope
and deposits the envelope and fee as written instructions direct, and retains and
displays the specified portion of the envelope as a permit. No permit is valid
without prepayment of the specified fee and display of the permit in a place
within the vehicle where its number and any other information required to be
placed upon it is clearly visible to a peace officer from outside the vehicle, and is
in the location specified by the manager in the permit instructions. Payment with
a mobile device will be enforced using mobile technology and does not require
the display of a permit.
(2) No parks or open space parking permit for daily or calendar year shall be valid at
the parking area located around the Chautauqua Green, defined as the area
bordered by Clematis Drive to the south, Kinnikinic Road to the west and Sumac
Drive to the north and east, and the parking lot north of the Ranger Cottage.
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 6. Section 4-24-4 “Exemption From Permit,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
4-24-4 - Exemption From Permit
A valid, current license plate indicating that the vehicle is registered in Boulder County,
Colorado, shall be deemed a permit under this chapter, and no fee is required before such a
vehicle may be parked in areas governed by this chapter. If the vehicle is properly registered in
Boulder County, Colorado, but still legally bears a current license plate indicating registration in
a different Colorado county, then the city manager may issue, at no cost, an annual permit under
this chapter to the owner or some other person legally in possession of the vehicle.
This exemption shall not apply to any vehicle parked around the Chautauqua Green,
described in Section 4-24-4, “Permit Issuance,” B.R.C. 1981, or the parking lot north of the
Ranger Cottage.
Section 7. Chapter 4-24, “Parks and Open Space Parking Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, is
amended by the addition of Section 4-24-5, as follows:
4-24-5. – Seasonal Chautauqua Parking Permit
Notwithstanding Sections 4-24-3 “Permit Issuance,” 4-24-4 “Exemption from Permit”,
and 4-20-54 “Parks and Open Space Parking Permit Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, parking restrictions
located around the Chautauqua Green and the parking lot north of the Ranger Cottage shall be
effective June through August of each year.
Section 8. Title 4 “Licenses and Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended by the addition of a
new Chapter 4-30, as follows:
Chapter 4-30 - Chautauqua Parking Zone Permits
4-30-1 - Legislative Intent.
The purpose of this Chapter is to set the standards for issuance and administration of
Chautauqua parking zone permits.
4-30-2 - Definitions.
The following terms used in this Chapter and Section 2-2-20 “Chautauqua Parking Permit
Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
“Business” means the Colorado Chautauqua Association, Colorado Music Festival, and
Chautauqua Dining Hall.
“Guest permit” means a permit available to residents for use by their overnight guests for
a specific period of time not to exceed two weeks during the season.
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
“Leasehold area” means city property that is leased to the Colorado Chautauqua
Association as defined in the lease agreement between the city and the Colorado Chautauqua
Association.
“Lodger” means a person who rents a cottage or room from a Colorado Chautauqua
Association lodge located within the city owned Chautauqua leasehold area.
“Resident” means an owner or lessee of a cottage located within the city owned
Chautauqua leasehold area.
“Resident permit” means a permit for residents that do not have off-street parking or have
off-street parking for one vehicle and require a permit for their second vehicle.
“Season” means June 1 through August 31 of each year.
4-30-3 - Permit Issuance
(a) Pursuant to Section 2-2-20, “Chautauqua Parking Management Plan,” B.R.C. 1981
and unless delegated by regulation to Colorado Chautauqua Association, the city
manager shall issue parking permits for vehicles owned by or in the custody of and
regularly used by residents and lodgers of such zone, by persons employed by a
business located within such zone, and if available as determined by the city manager,
by resident guests upon receipt of a completed application. The permits shall be
effective during the Season each year.
(b) A vehicle displaying a valid permit issued pursuant to this Section, may be parked in
the zone specified in the permit without regard to the time limits prescribed for the
zone. The city manager may provide for a mobile device system which does not
require display of a permit.
(c) The permit requirement shall begin during the Season each year. Permits issued
based on new applications submitted during the last month of a permit period, shall
also be valid for the succeeding permit year. Otherwise there shall be no proration of
the fee.
(d) Resident Permits. No more than two resident permits shall be in effect at any time for
any cottage. No person shall be deemed a resident of more than one parking zone, and
no more than one permit may be issued for any one vehicle, even if persons residing
in different zones share ownership or use.
In considering applications for resident permits, the city manager may require proof
that the applicant has a legal right to possession of the premises claimed as a
residence. If the city manager has probable cause to believe that the occupancy
limitations of Subsection 9-8-5(a), B.R.C. 1981, are being violated, no further permits
shall be issued under this Section for the residence in question until the occupancy
thereof is brought into compliance.
(e) Guest Permits. Residents may obtain a guest permit for use by their overnight guests.
The permit shall be indelibly marked in the space provided, indicating dates of the
visit and the license plate number of the guest vehicle, which shall not exceed two
weeks. A guest permit shall not be used by a resident for their own vehicle. Such
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
permit shall be issued to a resident demonstrating proof of residency who shall ensure
that its use is consistent with the terms set forth in this Chapter and any other relevant
rules or regulations. The number of available guest permits shall be determined by
the city manager.
(f) Lodger Permits. Lodger permits are only available to lodgers who rent cottages
without off-street parking or rooms at lodges owned by Colorado Chautauqua
Association.
(g) Business Permits. Business permits are only available to businesses for issuance to
their employees. The number of available business permits shall be determined by
the city manager.
(h) No person shall use or display any permit issued under this Section in violation of any
provision of this code or associated rule or regulation.
4-30-4 - Revocation.
The city manager, after notice and a hearing as set forth in Section 4-1-10, “Revocation
of Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981, may revoke any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter for any of the
grounds set forth in this Chapter, in the permit, in any rule or regulation, or on the ground that it
has been misused. Revocation shall bar the permittee from holding any permit under this Chapter
for a period of two years thereafter.
Section 9. Section 7-6-14, “Unauthorized Parking Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended
to read:
7-6-14. - Unauthorized Parking Prohibited.
(a) No vehicle shall be parked upon any public or private property without the express or
implied consent of the owner, lessee or occupant of the property or for a time period
in excess of or in a manner other than that for which consent was given by such
person.
(b) For the purposes of this section, there is an implied consent to park in areas set aside
for parking on any private or public property except on property used as a single-
family residence, but such implied consent is deemed revoked with respect to any
person who has parked a vehicle or has allowed a vehicle to remain parked in
disregard of or contrary to the direction or intended function of any of the following:
(1) A parking attendant, a card or coin-operated gate or any other means calculated to
bar or otherwise control entrance onto or use of the property by unauthorized
vehicles;
(2) Parking meters or pay stations located on the property;
(3) Signs or pavement markings located on the property indicating a limitation or
prohibition on parking thereupon or that a parking fee must be paid, if the signs or
markings:
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(A) Clearly indicate, in not less than one-inch-high lettering on a sign or twelve-
inch-high lettering or symbols on the pavement, the limitation, prohibition or
fee schedule and method of payment;
(B) Are located in or near the area where the limitation, prohibition or fee applies;
and
(C) Are located so as to be seen by an ordinarily observant person; or
(4) Any other method of express revocation of implied consent communicated
directly to the owner or driver of the vehicle by the owner of the property or the
owner's authorized agent.
(c) No complaint shall issue for a violation of this section unless signed by the owner or
lessee of the entire real property or any agent authorized by the owner or lessee.
(d) This section does not apply to parking on public streets or to parking regulated by
Section 7-6-13, “Stopping or Parking Prohibited in Specified Places,” 7-6-15,
“Overtime Parking, Signs,” 7-6-16, “Overtime Parking, Meters,” 7-6-17, “Time
Limit, Meter Parking,” 7-6-18, “Parking in Space Required,” 7-6-22, “Parking in
Handicapped Space Prohibited,” or 7-6-25, “Parking in City Employee Lot
Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981, unless located in the Chautauqua leasehold area as defined
in Section 4-30-2, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981.
Section 10. Section 7-6-15, “Overtime Parking, Signs,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
7-6-15. - Overtime Parking, Signs.
(a) When a traffic control sign is in place giving notice thereof, or a parking attendant, a
card or coin-operated gate or any other means calculated to bar or otherwise control
entrance onto or use of the property by unauthorized vehicles is in place with a sign
giving notice thereof, no vehicle shall remain parked for longer than the time
designated thereon on any day except Sundays and holidays unless Sunday and
holiday restrictions are required by regulation promulgated by the city manager
pursuant to Chapter 1-4, “Rulemaking,” B.R.C. 1981.
(b) When a traffic control sign is in place giving notice thereof, or a parking attendant, a
card or coin-operated gate or any other means calculated to bar or otherwise control
entrance onto or use of the property by unauthorized vehicles is in place with a sign
giving notice thereof, within a neighborhood permit parking zone established
pursuant to Section 2-2-15, “Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,” or 2-2-20
“Chautauqua Parking Management Plan,” B.R.C. 1981, no vehicle shall remain
parked for longer than the time specified unless a valid permit for that zone, issued
pursuant to Chapter 4-23, “Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits,” or 4-30,
“Chautauqua Parking Zone Permits” B.R.C. 1981, is continuously displayed in the
proper position on such vehicle. In addition:
(1) If the noticesign limits parking within the zone to no more than a specified length
of time within the zone during any specified period of time, then no vehicle shall
be parked anywhere within the zone in violation of that restriction without a
proper permit properly displayed.
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(2) If the noticesign prohibits parking within the zone, then no vehicle shall be parked
within the zone without a proper permit properly displayed.
(c)Notwithstanding Subsection (b), the city manager may provide for the enforcement of
overtime parking and permits with technology that does not require the display of a
permit.
Section 11. Section 7-6-27 “Special Regulations for Parking in Parks and Open Space,”
B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
7-6-27. - Special Regulations for Parking in Parks and Open Space
No vehicle shall be parked in any park, parkway, recreation area, or open space:
(a) In a manner that blocks or impedes travel on or into a designated fire road or other
emergency access;
(b) Contrary to posted signs;
(c) Between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. in open space and mountain parks or 12 midnight and 5
a.m. in other parks, parkways, recreation areas, and the Panorama Point or Halfway
House parking lots; or
(d) In an area for which a parking permit or fee is required without properly displaying a
valid permit in accordance with Chapter 4-24, “Parks and Open Space Parking
Permits,” B.R.C. 1981.
Section 12. Sunset Date. This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect on
December 31, 2017, unless action is taken by the city council to extend or make permanent the
amendments enacted by this ordinance. The program will be monitored and an analysis will be
conducted to assess its impacts. On or before December 31, 2017, the city manager shall report
to the city council the effectiveness of the amendments enacted by this ordinance.
Section 13. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 14. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
K:\cmad\o-8179-3rd-1150.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 4th day of April, 2017.
____________________________________
Suzanne Jones, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Lynnette Beck, City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, AMENDED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 18th day of April, 2017.
____________________________________
Suzanne Jones, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Lynnette Beck, City Clerk
READ ON THIRD READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this 2nd day of May, 2017.
____________________________________
Suzanne Jones, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Lynnette Beck, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager
Don D’Amico, Ecological Stewardship Supervisor
Heather Swanson, Senior Wildlife Ecologist
DATE: November 8, 2017
SUBJECT: Mule Deer Study in Collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Background
In much of OSMP-managed foothills, forests, and grasslands, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are the primary
large herbivore. As a result, this species plays an important role in the local ecosystem, as well as being a familiar
and cherished sight for people visiting open space. From 2005 to 2008, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), formerly known as Colorado Division of Wildlife, jointly undertook a
study in an area west of Broadway between Flagstaff Road and Eldorado Springs Drive to examine Chronic
Wasting Disease (CWD) prevalence, impacts to deer survival, interaction with mountain lions, and general deer
population trends. During the three years of this study, 115 adult mule deer were captured, tested for CWD, fitted
with radio collars, and released and monitored. Key findings from this initial study included very high rates of
CWD infection (20% in does, 41% in bucks), a pronounced impact of CWD status on survival, a decline in study
area deer populations of nearly 40% from the late 1980s, and a dramatic relationship between mountain lion prey
selection and CWD-positive deer. The findings of this study are published at:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004019.
Today, ten years since the original study, staff is exploring the possibility of undertaking a new, collaborative,
ecological study with CPW on mule deer to better understand the longer-term dynamics of disease; habitat selection
and use; population trajectory; and relationship to other species in the ecosystem (primarily predator-prey dynamics
with mountain lions). OSMP lands provide a unique opportunity to study long-term dynamics of CWD infection in
a non-managed (i.e., not hunted) deer population and to better understand how these dynamics influence the
persistence, behavior, interspecies interactions, and influence of this key, large ungulate.
Study Plan
Study planning is still in initial phases, but a final study plan will be prepared in collaboration with researchers at
CPW in early 2018. Field work, data collection, analysis and reporting would all be done by OSMP and CPW staff
working collaboratively. Anticipated capture of animals would occur in fall 2018, and monitoring of collared or
marked individuals would continue throughout 2019. It is anticipated that the data collected would further inform
our understanding of mule deer population dynamics, long-term CWD impacts, habitat use, and predator-prey
interactions with mountain lions. The opportunity to re-evaluate population data 30 years after baseline collection
(i.e., the late 1980s), as well as CWD, habitat use, and mountain lion interactions 10 years after baseline data
collection for those factors, is a unique and valuable opportunity. It would contribute to our body of knowledge on
local ecosystems, providing potential management insights and interpretive opportunities for the public. The
collaborative partnership with CPW would allow OSMP staff to undertake valuable research that would not
otherwise be feasible from a cost or logistics perspective.
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 1
Once the study plan and other details are finalized, staff from OSMP and CPW would plan to return to the Open
Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) to provide an update and additional details about the research.
AGENDA ITEM 3B PAGE 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Mark Davison, Community and Partnerships Manager
Mark Gershman, Planning Supervisor
Deryn Wagner, Senior Planner
DATE: November 8, 2017
SUBJECT: Master Plan Study Session
After the regular business meeting adjourns for the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) on
November 8, OSBT is scheduled to begin a study session to discuss the Open Space and Mountain
Parks (OSMP) Master Plan project. While no there is no public hearing during study sessions,
members of the public can offer comment during the general public participation section of the
board’s regular meeting.
Overview
Primary discussion items for the study session include the outline of the forthcoming System
Overview Report (scheduled to be released in February) and the draft Project Management Plan
(PMP) for the Master Plan process. OSBT will be asked to formally support the PMP at the December
OSBT meeting and recommend that City Council accept the final PMP in January 2018. The public
process will commence once council has formally accepted the proposed planning and engagement
process laid out in the PMP.
Background
In 2017, staff and consultants have been preparing to kick-off the Master Plan process in early 2018.
Work to date has included:
•Hiring a consultant team, led by Design Workshop, to support staff;
•Creating a structure for staff engagement;
•Establishing a process committee to guide development and implementation of the planning
and engagement processes (3 meetings have been held to date);
•Coordinating with citywide efforts to improve engagement;
•Drafting a project management plan to lay out a clear approach to the project and build a
shared understanding of what to expect; and
•Drafting a System Overview Report to describe the current state of the system to the
community.
Purpose of Study Session
Since forming the Process Committee in August, staff and consultants have worked with committee
members to refine the proposed process. The purpose of this upcoming study session with the full
board is to build on these conversations and gain broader agreement and support for the Project
Management Plan and, specifically, the public engagement process. Trustees will also get to preview
the outline for the System Overview Report and hear staff’s approach to data-driven decision-making
as it relates to the Master Plan process.
STUDY SESSION - PAGE 1
Specific questions for the OSBT are:
• Do board members have questions about the proposed planning and engagement process?
• What, if any, process refinements would board members suggest to improve the PMP?
• Does the board have recommendations regarding the staff’s approach to addressing data gaps
during the Master Plan process?
Building a Foundation of Information
The Master Plan process will be founded on a shared set of information in the following ways:
• The forthcoming System Overview Report will present current conditions across all chartered
purposes of OSMP;
• After an initial phase of community input, additional data and information will be presented to
the community that anticipate future trends and respond to community values;
• Data from these two stages will complement input from staff and the community to inform the
development of focus areas or themes to guide OSMP management over the next decade;
• Decision-makers will help confirm these focus areas;
• Strategies will be developed in response to best available data and research;
• Key data findings will be included in the draft plan to support recommendations;
• Staff will provide OSBT, the Planning Board and City Council with additional inputs to
support decision-making such as community input and staff/consultant expertise.
As described in the graphic below and consistent with other city master planning efforts, staff
proposes that closing data gaps confirmed through the process be included as strategies in the master
plan. For example, if best available data and research are not adequate for making policy-level
decisions, staff recommend including amended data and research approaches as implementation steps
for the approved Master Plan.
*If available data and research are not adequate for making policy -level decisions, recommendations to close
data gaps will be included as strategies in the Master Plan.
STUDY SESSION - PAGE 2
Next Steps
Staff will revise the Project Management Plan in response to study session feedback, and prepare an
agenda item requesting board approval at the December 13 OSBT meeting. A council discussion
(under matters from staff/council) is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 4, 2018, with action by City
Council planned for January 16. Staff will then return to the OSBT on February 14 for an update
before the planned mid-February public kick off for the OSMP Master Plan. The project website
www.OSMPMasterPlan.org provides a way to get on the mailing list and learn about the background
for the Master Plan. Additional web content will be available as the public kick off draws near in the
first quarter of 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Study Session Agenda
• Attachment B: Draft Project Management Plan for OSBT Review
STUDY SESSION - PAGE 3
This page is intentionally left blank.
STUDY SESSION - PAGE 4
agenda
OSMP Master Plan – Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) Study Session
11/8/2017; After regular business meeting adjourns; roughly 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the study session is to:
•Build a shared understanding of what the planning and engagement process will look like
•Give OSBT members an opportunity to influence process refinements before recommending the Project Management
Plan
•Preview the System Overview Report outline
•Establish expectations about how to address data gaps in the Master Plan process
15 minutes Process Overview
Intro to draft Project Management Plan (PMP)
Highlights from Process Committee
20 minutes System Overview Report
Sneak peek into report outline
Additional analysis in 2018
Approach to data gaps
45 minutes Process and Public Engagement Discussion
Windows of engagement
Public Participation Working Group recommendations
Measures of success
10 minutes Wrap Up and Next Steps
-Staff revisions to Project Management Plan per OSBT feedback
-OSBT action on PMP (December 13)
-Council discussion (tentatively January 4)
-Council action on process (January 16)
-OSBT staff update (February 14)
-Public kick-off (tentatively mid-February)
ATTACHMENT A
STUDY SESSION - PAGE 5
OPEN SPACE &
MOUNTAIN PARKS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Review Draft for Open Space Board of Trustees
October 27, 2017
MASTERPLAN
City of Boulder, CO Brand Guidelines 4CIT
YOF BO U LDEROPTIONAL DEPARTMENT LOGOS
L
IBRARY &A R TSCO
MMUN I C A T IO NOPE
N S
P
ACE & M O U N T A IN PARKSThese logos may be used in graphic applications at each department’s discretion for department-
specific applications such as posters, flyers, documents or reports.COM
MUNIT Y V IT A LITYCIT Y O F BOUL
DE
R
ATTACHMENT B
22 REVIEW DRAFT FOR OSBT
The year 2017 marks 50 years since Boulder residents passed the nation’s first city
tax to fund open space. The city now stewards more than 45,000 acres of public land
for the community, visitors, wildlife, and plants. What is the vision for these
beloved lands over the next 50 years? What should guide future decisions
about how best to manage these precious resources and build on the community’s legacy of
enjoyment and stewardship?
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) has resource and area plans and policies in place,
but no system-wide plan that connects the dots for staff and the community. This inclusive,
community-based effort will establish an integrated, strategic approach to OSMP
management over the next decade and beyond.
Why do we need an OSMP Master Plan?
What do we hope to achieve?
•Articulate staff and community values to help focus OSMP operations around
key management topics and measures of success.
•Provide clarity for staff and the community about OSMP priorities.
•Build understanding and agreement around existing and future policy questions, data
needs, trends and opportunities.
•Define and prioritize a range of strategies that addresses all OSMP purposes in the City
Charter.
•Develop financial scenarios to anticipate future funding and staffing needs.
•Support the development of realistic, coordinated work plans and budgets.
•Build excitement and establish commitments around future projects.
What’s in it for the community?
These lands are your lands. City staff need to know what’s important to you and what
you’d like to see in the future. How would you like staff to manage your beloved public
lands now and into the future?
ATTACHMENT B
33 REVIEW DRAFT FOR OSBT
What guides OSMP? The City Charter.
The plan will take a balanced approach to achieving all open space purposes defined in
the City Charter. The values inherent in the charter purposes will be incorporated into
the development of strategic focus areas or themes in the master plan to guide OSMP
management over the next decade. The OSMP Master Plan will not recommend changes to
the City Charter.
According to Section 176 of the charter, open space land shall be acquired, maintained,
preserved, retained, and used only for the following purposes:
CHARTER PURPOSE SUMMARY TITLE
(a) Preservation or restoration of natural areas characterized by or
including terrain, geologic formations, flora, or fauna that are unusual,
spectacular, historically important, scientifically valuable, or unique, or
that represent outstanding or rare examples of native species
Natural features or species of
special value
(b) Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state,
scenic areas or vistas, wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems
Water, landscapes and
ecosystems
(c) Preservation of land for passive recreational use, such as hiking,
photography or nature studies, and, if specifically designated, bicycling,
horseback riding, or fishing
Passive recreation
(d) Preservation of agricultural uses and land suitable for agricultural
production
Agriculture
(e) Utilization of land for shaping the development of the city, limiting
urban sprawl, and disciplining growth
Limiting sprawl
(f) Utilization of non-urban land for spatial definition of urban areas Urban shaping
(g) Utilization of land to prevent encroachment on floodplains Floodplain protection
(h) Preservation of land for its aesthetic or passive recreational value
and its contribution to the quality of life of the community.
Aesthetics and quality of life
ATTACHMENT B
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2Q1 Q3Q2 Q4
2017 2018 2019 2020 Open Space & Mountain Parks
Master Plan
Overview
PREP MASTER PLAN PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT PLANNING
OSMP and a consultant team draft a project management
plan to guide the Master Plan process. Decision-makers
get engaged early on to refi ne and confi rm the approach
to planning and community engagement.
SYSTEM OVERVIEW & COMMUNITY VALUES
The Master Plan is founded upon a shared set of
information that provides a broad overview of OSMP
lands and services. The System Overview Report will
share progress achieved over the last 50 years and set
the stage for idea generation on the next 50.
Building on the City Charter and emerging ideas from
staff , broad and inclusive community engagement begins
by exploring the values and ideas that will defi ne OSMP
into the future.
FUTURE TRENDS & FOCUS AREAS
Data from the System Overview Report and other sources
for trends analysis will complement input from staff and
the community and inform the development of strategic
focus areas or themes to guide OSMP management over
the next decade. Decision-makers will help confi rm these
focus areas before related strategies are drafted and
prioritized with the community.
STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES
Once broad focus areas are confi rmed, the associated
strategies to achieve them must be developed and
prioritized based on available funding and other criteria.
DRAFT PLAN
The OSMP Master Plan will begin to take shape as the
Draft Plan is developed. Clear visual communication will
take precedence over lengthy and dense narrative text.
FINAL PLAN
The fi nal version of the Master Plan will integrate
feedback gathered throughout the entire process. The
Master Plan is intended to be a useful, living document
with measurable outcomes for the community to track
progress over time.
PHASE 3
OSMP will use the Master Plan to guide development of
annual work plans and collaborate with the community
and agency partners during implementation.
Engagement
Window
Public Kick-Off
Engagement windows will include a range of opportunties to provide input and feedback for members
of the public, Open Space Board of Trustees, Planning Board and City Council. After a certain point, each
engagement window will close and input will not be considered until the next window opens, so that staff
has time to analyze and incorporate ideas.
Engagement
Window
Engagement
Windows
Incorporate
Feedback
Incorporate
Feedback
Incorporate
Feedback
Engagement
Window
Incorporate
Feedback DRAFT
System
Overview &
Community
Values, Ideas
Strategies &
Priorities
Project Planning
Draft Plan
Final
Plan
PHASE 3PHASE1PHASE 2
Implementation
Planning
Future
Trends
& Focus
Areas
Action
ATTACHMENT B
55 REVIEW DRAFT FOR OSBT
What Will Be Included
•Integration with existing citywide and OSMP plans and policies;
•Current conditions and future trends;
•Overarching topics of community and council interest over the last 5 to 10 years;
•Focus areas (plan themes) that are tied to the City Charter, staff and community values, as well
as current and future trends;
•An OSMP-specific dashboard of broad metrics that relate to the focus areas as well as the city’s
Sustainability Framework;
•Strategic priorities that tie to focus areas or themes and provide direction for the department;
•General estimates for up-front and ongoing costs including staffing needs and long-term
operation and maintenance costs; and
•Economic analysis and financial scenarios to guide prioritization,
After the Master Plan has been approved, staff will develop an implementation plan to guide short-,
mid-, and long-term actions that help implement the Master Plan. This framework would include:
•An enhanced approach to planning and acquisition, including updates to existing plans as
well as new planning/design studies;
•A mix of on-going programs and one-time projects that advance master plan strategies,
including capital improvements, operations, maintenance, research and monitoring;
•Consideration of life cycle costs; and
•Integrated operations, work-planning and budgeting across service areas and workgroups.
The Master Plan will NOT include:
•Recommendations to change the voter-approved City Charter, including sections that define
open space purposes; or
•Site-specific recommendations such as:
•changes to management area designations for certain properties;
•the exact placement of trails or other facilities;
•allowable activities or visitor use levels for specific locations; or
•specific desired conditions for ecological systems or visitor experience.
What will the OSMP Master Plan include?
The OSMP Master Plan will provide high-level, strategic policy guidance for the department, so the
amount of detail will be kept broad. Updated or new plans that emerge after the Master Plan will
provide more specific, on-the-ground guidance.
ATTACHMENT B
66 REVIEW DRAFT FOR OSBT
The engagement strategy for the OSMP Master Plan focuses on building or enhancing long-
term relationships with a diverse cross-section of our residents and visitors both during and
beyond the master planning process. Staff intends the engagement process to be:
•Democratic and fair
•Inclusive and welcoming
•Creative and fun
•Predictable and structured
How will the public be involved?
Enhancing Citywide
Engagement Processes
To help enhance public processes across
the city, City Council formed the Public
Participation Working Group (PPWG) in
2016. City staff have begun incorporating
recommendations from PPWG into
citywide guidance for engagement. The
OSMP Master Plan process will pilot
this emerging approach, and staff will
work closely with the City of Boulder’s
Engagement Manager to adapt as needed
so that the OSMP planning process
will align with the citywide planning
and engagement process. The diagram
on page 7 illustrates alignment with
the nine step engagement process the
PPWG recommended; however, OSMP
will remain flexible as citywide guidance
evolves.
ATTACHMENT B
77 REVIEW DRAFT FOR OSBT
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
Aligning with
City of Boulder’s
Civic Engagement
Process*
Step 1:
Define the
Why Before
Embarking
Step 2:
Determine Who
is Affected
Step 3:
Create a Public
Engagement Plan
Step 4:
Share a
Foundation
of Information
and InquiryStep 5:
Identity
Options
Step 6:
Evaluate
Ideas
Step 7:
Make a
Decision
Step 8:
Communicate
Decision
and Rationale
Develop purpose
statement in consultation
with decision makers
Community network analysis,
with input from staff and
Process Committee
Develop Project
Management Plan,
including public
engagement strategy
Seek OSBT and City
Council support
for Project
Management Plan
Develop three financial scenarios to help
prioritize strategies:
1. Expected funding (fiscally constrained)
2. Some increase in funding
3. Unlimited funding
Phase 1:
Planning to Plan
Phase 4:
Evaluate Process
Phase 3:
Develop and
Evaluate Options
Step 9:
Reflect and
Evaluate
System Overview Report: Past
and current conditions
Community values and ideas
Additional data (as available)
to anticipate future conditions
Establish focus areas or themes
and measures of success based
on values, data, ideas
Draft strategies
to accomplish each focus
area/theme
Distribute graphics,
handouts and other
materials to share
decisions, rationale
and next steps
Document lessons learned
Evaluate measures
of success
Document potential changes
to be addressed in first
Master Plan update
1. OSBT recommends
Draft Plan
2. Planning Board
recommends
Draft Plan
3. City Council
accepts Final Plan
Phase 2:
Start the
Conversation*The steps in this process may evolve as the
city’s engagement framework emerges.
What will this process look like?
*The steps in this process may change as the citywide engagement framework evolves.
ATTACHMENT B
88 REVIEW DRAFT FOR OSBT
What will make this process successful?
OSMP staff will integrate several engagement principles and strategies to help the city learn
and evolve its citywide engagement process. These include:
Defining a clear purpose
Staff drafted this purpose statement on page 1 of this project management plan:
•This inclusive, community-based effort will establish an integrated, strategic approach
to OSMP management over the next decade and beyond.
Planning for thoughtful, respectful engagement
•The City Manager’s Office established a Process Committee to engage decision-
makers in developing, supporting and ensuring best practices for the overall planning
and engagement process for the OSMP Master Plan. It consists of two members of City
Council and two members of the Open Space Board of Trustees.
•Staff has begun working with the Process Committee to set up guiding principles and
parameters for engagement, described in this document.
•Staff has also begun developing a youth engagement strategy. For example, past work
with OSMP’s Junior Ranger Program has yielded respectful dialogue among teens.
Inviting all voices to the table
Staff intend to engage members of the public where they typically go, in addition to inviting
them to join more traditional public meetings. This inclusive strategy involves:
•Fostering relationships with underrepresented groups;
•Attending festivals, events, and trailheads;
•Partnering with Growing Up Boulder and the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board;
•Using digital engagement platforms when available; and
•Making translation services and assistive devices available as needed.
Implementing a trustworthy, transparent process
•Structuring clear windows of engagement for the public, and analysis periods when staff
is working to incorporate feedback between engagement periods (see page 4);
•Demonstrating feedback loops and clear decision-making (see page 9); and
•Offering participants ways to evaluate engagement efforts.
ATTACHMENT B
99 REVIEW DRAFT FOR OSBT
How will decisions be made?
Where can I get more information?
Throughout the process, staff will engage members of the public, the Open Space Board
of Trustees (OSBT), Planning Board and City Council at key milestones to gather input and
provide guidance. As the process draws to a close, the following steps will produce a final
OSMP Master Plan.
The project website is under development at this address: www.OSMPMasterPlan.org.
At this time, you can sign up for the email list there and find some additional background
information. Please continue to check back for more updates as the public kick-off draws
near in the first quarter of 2018.
Step 1:
Staff develops
Draft Plan
Step 2:
OSBT recommends
Draft Plan
to City Council
Step 3:
Planning Board
recommends
Draft Plan
to City Council
City Council approves
Final OSMP Master Plan
Best available data
and research*
Staff and
consultant
expertise
City Charter and
other laws,
policies, plans
Community values,
ideas and feedback
Available funding
and staff resources
Inputs to decision making
Recommendations
Final decision
*If available data and research are not adequate for making policy-level decisions, recommendations to close data gaps will be
included as strategies in the Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT B