02.08.23 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
February 8, 2023
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:05) Approval of the Minutes
II. (6:10) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
III. (6:30) Matters from the Board
A. Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or
public comment (5 min)
B. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiative for Boards and Commissions (15
min)
IV. (6:50) Continuation from 12/14/22: Consideration of a staff recommendation to the
Open Space Board of Trustees on allowing e-biking as a passive recreational use on
open space trails of E-Bikes on Open Space - (Board deliberations and
consideration of a recommendation to council - No further public comment)
V. (9:50) Matters from the Department
A. Director Verbal Updates
VI. (9:55) Adjourn
Written Information
A. Water Service Line Easement request from Craig and Nicole Harrison and Real
Investments, LLC for four Left Hand Water District water lines across Boulder Valley
Farm Open Space
B. Trailheads Update, Condition Assessment and Upcoming Projects
C. Chautauqua Access Management Program Evaluation Process
Open Space Board of
Trustees Members:
Karen Hollweg (2018-2023)
Dave Kuntz (2019-2024)
Caroline Miller (2020-2025)
Michelle Estrella (2021-2026)
Jon Carroll (2022 – 2027)
Open Space Board of Trustees
*TENTATIVE Board Items Calendar
(Updated January 24, 2023)
February 22, 2023 March 8, 2023 April 12, 2023
STUDY SESSION:
Science and Climate Resilience--
Part 1: Update on OSMP’s Climate
Action and Wildland Fire
Resilience Programs (120 minutes)
Action Items:
• Recommendation to enter
into the articles of
designation for the
expansion of two State
Natural Areas (SNA) on
OSMP and the
establishment of a new SNA
at OSMP’s Jewell Mt
property (40 minutes)
• Recommendation and
approval to execute and
convey a Boulder Valley
Farm Water Line Easement
(45 minutes)
Matters from the Department:
• Science and Climate
Resilience Update--Part 2:
Adaptive Management,
funded research &
publications (60 minutes)
• Tribal Relations Update (20
minutes)
• Director Verbal Update (5
minutes)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
minutes)
• Proclamation for Outgoing
Chair (5 minutes)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Volunteer, Service
Learning and Partnerships
Program Update and
National Volunteer Week
Recognition (40 min)
• Update on Flagstaff
Nighttime Parking
Hours/permitting system
(30 min)
• 2024 Budget: 1st of 5
touches with OSBT (45
min)
• Update on efforts to
enhance OSMP staff
Presence on the land (40
min)
• Director Verbal Update (5
minutes)
Matters from the Board:
• Oath of Office for new
OSBT Member
• OSBT Elections (Chair, Vice
Chair and Secretary)
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
minutes)
*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.
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date January 11, 2022
Record of this meeting can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-
meetings (video start times are listed below next to each agenda item).
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Karen Hollweg Dave Kuntz Caroline Miller Michelle Estrella Jon Carroll
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Jeff Haley Jennelle Freeston Lauren Kilcoyne Leah Case
Brian Anacker Heather Swanson Tory Poulton Lisa Goncalo Andy Pelster
Sam Mcqueen Bethany Collins
GUESTS
Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities
Chris Douglass, Civil Engineering Senior Manager
Brandon Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
CALL TO ORDER (08:19)
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (11:40)
Caroline Miller moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to adopt the minutes from December 14, 2022
as amended. Jon Carroll seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Michelle Estrella abstained as she
was absent at the last meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (16:00)
Paula Schuler spoke regarding prairie dog mitigation.
Mike Browning spoke regarding CU South.
Hal Hallstein spoke regarding CU South.
Frances Hartogh spoke regarding CU South.
Lynn Segal spoke regarding city funds and CU South.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Board (34:50)
Under the item, “Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or public
comment”, the Board asked several questions on proposed access and data collection for the Fourth of
July Trailhead. On the Gebhardt ISP, the Board asked about New Zealand mudsnails, community
meetings, trail access and area management.
The Board discussed the study session being held on Feb. 22, 2023. Members from the public will be
welcome to attend virtually.
Agenda Item 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Department (57:23)
Heather Swanson, Ecological Stewardship Senior Manager, and Tory Poulton, Ecologist, presented the
“2022 Annual Prairie Dog Management Update and 2023 Management Plans” item. The Board asked
questions about relocation and concern for southern grassland receiving sites, permitting for relocation,
access to the system maps on the open data portal showing prairie dog colonies, the suggestion to bring
removal and lethal control in-house and have seasonal workers help with treatment, restoration and
barrier placement.
Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities, and Brandon Coleman, Engineering Project Manager, presented the
South Boulder Creek Environmental Mitigation and Floodplain Restoration item. The Board asked about
past resolutions, groundwater and wetland monitoring as well as mitigation. They additionally asked
about location of utility lines, soil and materials to be used, and on possible disposal, next steps and
timeline.
Dan Burke gave an update that Alison Ecklund has left OSMP.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case
Agenda Item 1 Page 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services
Leah Case, Customer Service Supervisor
DATE: February 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiative for Boards and Commissions
________________________________________________________________________
This update serves to notify the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) that the city is examining a
number of processes related to board and commission recruitment, selection, and onboarding as
outlined in information and presentation to City Council on Oct. 27, 2022. At the OSBT business
meeting on Feb. 8, 2023, staff will provide a high-level overview of this work which should be
considered an introductory first touch. The materials from the October 27 City Council packet are
included as Attachment A, however these are provided as reference and will be reviewed in more
depth in future business meetings and as part of the 2023 OSBT retreat.
Background
Staff wish to highlight that the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) has participated
in six, four-hour workshops aimed to prepare project team members, board secretaries, and liaisons to
lead Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) conversations with boards and commissions. Leah Case,
as OSBT secretary, and Lauren Kilcoyne, as Deputy Director of Central Services, have served as the
OSMP representatives in these workshops. The content summary from these workshops is as follows.
Since the spring of 2022, board and commission project team members, secretaries, and liaisons have
been working with iProject LLC, an outside consultant, in a series of workshops to enhance board and
commission diversity, equity, and inclusion/belonging (DEI). The lead consultant, Angela Davis,
worked with city staff to host three two-part workshops toward the goal of creating a DEI Blueprint
for boards and commissions.
Sessions one and two in April focused on Inclusion and Belonging to help liaisons and secretaries
understand the importance of creating an inclusive and belonging climate to encourage maximum
productive participation of board and commission participants, including members, staff and
community. Workshop participants worked together to create shared lists of welcoming, excluding and
dominating behaviors, as well as behaviors that enhance the understanding of differing perspectives.
They also worked in small groups to create their inclusion maps detailing action plans specific to each
board and commission.
In July, sessions three and four focused on creating a diversity blueprint for each board and
commission with a goal of enhancing the development of a valuable and valued service experience for
historically excluded communities. Workshop participants worked on understanding what qualities in
a candidate would add to the culture of their board/commission, rather than the traditional “culture fit”
approach that can lead to a less diverse group. This session also provided the opportunity to strategize
and source topics and information that are currently missing from the board and commission process.
Working with tools such as a social identity wheel and psychological safety principles, staff teams
continued working through their inclusion maps from the previous session to determine actions to
support increased diversity on boards and commissions.
Agenda Item 3B Page 1
The final two sessions in September illuminated past and present of inequities in America, particularly
related to political structures and policies. The recent pilot process improvements of the Human
Relations Commission that are informing current equity needs was lifted up for attendees as a case
study for change. Staff teams worked to finalize their action plans, understanding their individual and
team opportunities to control, influence and challenge existing systems within their own
board/commission. They have been asked to implement innovations and lift any barriers they are
experiencing to the staff committee.
In addition to the pilot actions by the Human Relations Commission, other innovations already
implemented include co-created group agreements with the Landmarks Board and new orientation
practices for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Other new practices are emerging across
several boards and commissions and all groups are expected to continuously improve.
Next Steps
The city is currently working to schedule DEI training for board and commission members. The first
training session will focus on racial equity. OSBT members are invited to join members of other
boards and commissions for these training sessions. Two training sessions are already scheduled
which OSBT members are invited to attend:
•May 15 – HRC and WRAB (6-8:30)
•May 22 – PRAB and TAB (6-8:30)
Alternately, the OSBT may utilize a scheduled OSBT business meeting date for DEI training and may
invite other board and commission members to attend, or staff can work to set up an additional
training time outside of the OSBT business meeting. Staff seeks OSBT feedback around training
preferences and will then reach out to board members to schedule training.
Additionally, staff requests that the 2023 OSBT retreat agenda allow time for presentation of DEI
materials and for board discussion of OSBT DEI goals. Staff will be available during the retreat to
walk through the content of the iProject workshops and to help the OSBT begin the iterative process
of implementing workshop recommendations.
Beyond the work to support boards and commissions around DEI initiatives in 2023, OSMP continues
to support many Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) projects and programs as part of the
2023 work plan to advance department and city racial equity goals. These include but are not limited
to bilingual education and outreach programming, tribal relations initiatives, development of a JEDI
Teams Toolkit to help other departments develop JEDI teams, creation and administration of a
baseline equity condition survey to engage city staff around current state of equity programming, and
development of a template department equity plan which will allow departments to track progress
around citywide racial equity plan goals. Staff intends to provide the OSBT with an update on 2023
equity work either during the OSBT retreat or as part of a future OSBT packet in 2023.
Attachments:
•Attachment A: 10.27.22 City Council Review of Board and Commission Process (pages 40-
104)
Agenda Item 3B Page 2
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 8, 2023
AGENDA TITLE
Consideration of a staff recommendation to the Open Space Board of Trustees on allowing
e-biking as a passive recreational use on open space trails
PRESENTER/S
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Kacey French, Planning and Design Senior Manager
Marni Ratzel, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In spring 2022, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) began an evaluation to consider e-biking on
city open space trails. Staff identified three alternatives to consider where the department would manage
e-biking as a passive recreational use if the current condition/status quo of no e-bikes on open space were
to be changed.
Alternative A All trails that allow biking
Alternative B Plains trails located east of Broadway that allow biking, and the Boulder Canyon Trail
Alternative C Inter-Connected multi-use trails that allow biking
The Nov. 2022 meeting packet and Dec. 2022 meeting packet provide background information,
community input results, the staff analysis used to develop the staff recommendation, and additional
information requested by the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT).
The Analysis section of this memo presents an overview of the information staff considered to develop
the recommendation to allow e-biking on open space trails. It also presents additional information the
OSBT requested at the November and December 2022 meetings in order to consider the staff
recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Open Space Board of Trustees make a motion to:
1) recommend the Boulder City Council allow class 1 and class 2 e-biking as a passive recreational
activity permissible on open space on trails where designated by the City Manager, and
2) recommend the OSMP Department proceed with the staff preferred alternative to implement this policy
by designating and managing the trails in Alternative B - Plains trails located east of Broadway that allow
biking, and the Boulder Canyon Trail for e-biking.
Agenda Item 4 Page 1
OSMP’s recommended approach is for City Council to make a legislative finding that e-biking is a
passive recreational use, and therefore an open space purpose as defined in the City Charter section 170.
This policy change would allow e-biking on certain designated open space trails without requiring
disposal pursuant to Charter section 177, "Disposal of Open Space Land" or section 8-8-11 "Transfer of
Open Space Lands," B.R.C. 1981.
In conjunction with the legislative finding, OSMP recommends the existing ordinance in section 7-5-25
“No Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space,” B.R.C. 1981, which requires disposal of open space land
to allow e-bikes, be repealed and replaced by a new BRC ordinance in chapter 8-8, “Management of
Open Space Lands,” B.R.C. 1981. This new ordinance would allow and regulate class 1 and class 2 e-
biking on city open space trails where designated and posted for this use. The proposed ordinance to
authorize these changes is included as Attachment A.
OSMP also recommends the rulemaking process outlined in chapter 1-4 ,“Rulemaking,” B.R.C. 1981 be
used to implement this policy by designating trails for e-biking. In this process, OSMP staff identifies
trails appropriate for e-biking and proposes a rule to the City Manager. If the City Manager supports
OSMP staff’s designation, the manager adopts a rule that designates open space trails for e-biking. The
process provides assurances of transparency through the requirement to publish the proposed rule and
consider public comments before the rule or amendments become final. The department’s preferred
alternative is Alternative B – Plains trails located east of Broadway that allow biking and the Boulder
Canyon Trail for e-biking activity.
Primary objectives to allowing e-biking on open space trails are to improve access for community
members of more ages and abilities to enjoy open space trails, provide consistent visitor experiences
across interconnected trails with connections between OSMP-managed trails and other city and county
trails, provide more adaptive management approaches by considering alternatives to disposal and support
broader city climate goals (also contained in the OSMP Visitor Master Plan) by reducing the number of
vehicle miles traveled to reach local trails, which would in turn help to preserve the ecosystems and
habitats that make up OSMP.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
On Dec. 14, 2022, the OSBT hosted a public hearing to provide an opportunity for public comment on the
final staff recommendation to the OSBT. A total of 20 community members spoke during the public hearing
expressing their support for allowing e-biking or continuing to prohibit e-biking.
The Nov. 2022 OSBT meeting packet and project web page provide a summary of the public engagement
input which indicates there is majority support for e-biking on city open space. The Compendium of
Community Comments has been updated to include e-mails received through Feb. 1, 2023. It will
continue to be updated monthly with emails received.
ANALYSIS
The Nov. 2022 OSBT meeting packet presented Community Input and Additional Staff Analysis
which staff considered in evaluating e-biking on open space trails. It includes an analysis on:
• Community Input
• City of Boulder Charter Guidance
• Visitor Master Plan Guidance
• Peer Agency Review
• OSMP Experience with Biking
• Approach to Authorize E-biking on Open Space Trails
• Management Approach for Supporting E-biking as an Open Space Activity
Agenda Item 4 Page 2
• Preliminary Staff Recommendation
The Dec. 2022 OSBT meeting packet detailed information related to the proposed approach for allowing
e-biking on OSMP including the proposed ordinance. The memo and presentation provided the following
additional information requested by OSBT at the November meeting:
• Map of interconnected trail connections between OSMP trails and city and county trails
• Comprehensive Demographics: OSMP Surveys and Boulder Census Data
• Rationale for combining Resident Survey content into on-site Visitor Surveys
• Additional crosstabulations for onsite intercept survey results
• Weighting the onsite intercept survey results
• Locations selected for onsite intercept survey
• List of current fines related to e-biking on OSMP
• Quantitative data on how many summonses issued by violation.
• Approach to enforce speed for a management alternative that allows e-biking
• Can anything be done about bikers riding with ear buds?
• OSMP and accessibility
• E-bike Battery Management System (BMS) and potential as an ignition source
• List of unique ideas from the online engagement questionnaire question
Are there any additional comments about e-bikes you would like to share?
• A comparison of the distribution of the response characteristics for primary activities on open
space
The Board also requested additional information including a summary of OSMP trails widths that allow
biking, a comparison of visitation between trails managed by OSMP and agency partners, and
Visitor displacement on trails due to presence of biking. These topics are detailed below. Additionally,
Trustee Kuntz submitted questions in writing to OSMP after the December meeting. These questions
along with staff responses are presented in Attachment B.
Width of OSMP Trails that Allow Bikes
Attachment C is a map of OSMP trails that allow bikes depicted by width of trail. Trails are classified
into three width categories: 1 – 3 feet wide, 3 – 6 feet wide, and 6+ feet wide. The map shows trail widths
as intended widths, based on the trail’s designated classification, known as the trail’s Trail Management
Objective (TMO), which includes desired width standards.
Visitation Patterns of Select OSMP and BCPOS Locations
In response to the request from OSBT for a comparison of visitation and activity distribution on trails,
staff compiled data as a high-level comparison between OSMP and Boulder County Parks & Open Space
(BCPOS). Jefferson County Open Space does not currently have visitation data by trail available.
A summary of the examination of visitation data for select multi-use trails that allow biking is provided in
Attachment D. Key highlights are that OSMP and BCPOS share overlapping average daily visitation
ranges for areas that allow bikes, with BCPOS properties being slightly busier on average. For OSMP
multi-use trails with permanent trail counters, preliminary 2022 data shows that annual average daily
visits range from 79 (East Boulder - White Rocks) to 237 (Foothills South). The proportion of bike visits
range from 13 to 31 percent. For BCPOS, annual average daily visits range from 45 (Mud Lake) to 470
(Pella Crossing), and the proportion of bike visits range from 5 to 62 percent.
Visitor Displacement and Conflict Experience
At the December meeting, the OSBT requested additional information regarding the results of a study
Agenda Item 4 Page 3
conducted following the management action to allow bikers on the Spring Brook Loop area (SBL), where
biking had previously been prohibited. The request was to provide more information on displacement of
pedestrians due to adding biking activity to the trail. Attachment E presents a summary of the SBL
survey results for visitor experience regarding displacement and visitor conflict. A summary of system-
wide data also is included.
As detailed in the summary section of Attachment E, most OSMP visitors do not experience visitor
displacement or visitor conflict. When displacement does occur, the top reported causes are crowding,
parking problems, and dog restrictions/dog presence followed by bikers. When conflict is reported, the
top two reported sources of conflicts are: 1) dogs and dog walkers, and 2) bikers. With respect to the SBL,
activity distribution and the visitation level were not measured in the area prior to the designation and
opening of the newly constructed trail in late 2008. Post opening, annual visits increased from 28,000 in
year one to 31,000 and visitation to the SBL adjacent Eldorado-Mountain HCA (bikes not allowed)
increased 166% during year one and another 11% during year two post designation of the HCA and
construction and opening of the Goshawk Ridge Trail.
NEXT STEPS
The OSBT will consider the final staff recommendation at its Feb. 8, 2023. The Board is scheduled to
make its recommendation to City Council at this meeting regarding the proposed policy change to allow
e-biking. City Council will consider this issue later this winter. OSMP also requests the Board make a
recommendation to the department on proceeding with the staff preferred alternative to implement the e-
biking policy by designating trails in Alternative B for e-biking activity. These include Plains trails
located east of Broadway that allow biking, and the Boulder Canyon Trail.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A – Draft Ordinance
• Attachment B – Responses to clarifying questions received from Trustee Kuntz
• Attachment C – Map of OSMP managed trails by width
• Attachment D – Visitation Patterns
• Attachment E – OSMP Visitor Displacement and Conflict
Agenda Item 4 Page 4
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
https://cityofboulder.sharepoint.com/sites/CCP/Planning_Design/Systemwide Planning/2005 Visitor Master Plan/Vis_pln/Activity Assessment/E-
Bikes/OSBT and CC/2023-2 meeting/MS word/A-2023-1-24_o-xxxx E-Bikes on Open Space.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
26
27
ORDINANCE XXXX
AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ELECTRIC ASSISTED
BICYCLES ON CERTAIN RECREATIONAL PATHS OR
TRAILS ON OPEN SPACE LAND BY AMENDING
DEFINITIONS IN SECTIONS 1-2-1 AND 7-1-1; REPEALING
SECTION 7-5-25, “NO ELECTRIC ASSISTED BICYCLES ON
OPEN SPACE,: AMENDING SECTION 8-3-6, “VEHICLE
REGULATION”, ADDING A NEW SECTION 8-8-12,
“ELECTRIC ASSISTED BICYCLES ON OPEN SPACE”, AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 1-2-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
1-2-1. - Definitions.
(a) The definitions in this chapter apply throughout this code unless a term is defined
differently in a specific title, chapter or section.
(b) The following words used in this code and other ordinances of the cCity have the
following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
…
Electric assisted bicycle means a vehicle having two tandem wheels or two parallel
wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, and an electric motor not exceeding 750
watts of power. Electric assisted bicycles are further required to conform to one of two classes
as follows:
Agenda Item 4 Page 5
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
https://cityofboulder.sharepoint.com/sites/CCP/Planning_Design/Systemwide Planning/2005 Visitor Master Plan/Vis_pln/Activity Assessment/E-
Bikes/OSBT and CC/2023-2 meeting/MS word/A-2023-1-24_o-xxxx E-Bikes on Open Space.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
26
27
(a) Class 1 electric assisted bicycle means an electric assisted bicycle equipped with an
electric motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and that ceases to
provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of twenty miles pe r hour.
(b) Class 2 electric assisted bicycle means an electric assisted bicycle equipped with an
electric motor that provides assistance regardless of whether the rider is pedaling but
ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of twenty miles per hour.
…
Section 2. Section 7-1-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
7-1-1. - Definitions.
Electric assisted bicycle means a vehicle having two tandem wheels or two parallel
wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, and an electric motor not exceeding 750
watts of power rating, and a top motor-powered speed of twenty miles per ho ur. Electric
assisted bicycles are further required to conform to one of two classes as follows:
(a) Class 1 electric assisted bicycle means an electric assisted bicycle equipped
with an electric motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling
and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of twenty
miles per hour.
(b) Class 2 electric assisted bicycle means an electric assisted bicycle equipped
with an electric motor that provides assistance regardless of whether the rider is
Agenda Item 4 Page 6
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
https://cityofboulder.sharepoint.com/sites/CCP/Planning_Design/Systemwide Planning/2005 Visitor Master Plan/Vis_pln/Activity Assessment/E-
Bikes/OSBT and CC/2023-2 meeting/MS word/A-2023-1-24_o-xxxx E-Bikes on Open Space.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
26
27
pedaling but ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of
twenty miles per hour.
Traffic means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and vehicles, either singly or
together, which using any street or path for purposes of travel.
…
Traffic control device means any traffic control sign, signal, marking or device, not
inconsistent with this title , placed or displayed by authority of the traffic engineer or of any
public official or public body having authority over a street, drive, way, path, or parking area for
the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic or the parking of vehicles. Where this title
does not prescribe the meaning of a device, it has the meaning ascribed to it by the state traffic
control manual, and where no such meaning is given, it has the meaning a reasonable person
would give it.
…
Traffic control sign means sign on above, or adjacent to a street or path placed by a
public authority to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.
…
Section 3. Section 7-5-25, “No Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space,” B.R.C. 1981,
is repealed to read as follows:
7-5-25. – RepealedNo Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space.
No person shall activate the motor of an electric assisted bicycle on any recreational
path or trail on open space land as defined in the City Charter Section 170 except where the
Agenda Item 4 Page 7
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
https://cityofboulder.sharepoint.com/sites/CCP/Planning_Design/Systemwide Planning/2005 Visitor Master Plan/Vis_pln/Activity Assessment/E-
Bikes/OSBT and CC/2023-2 meeting/MS word/A-2023-1-24_o-xxxx E-Bikes on Open Space.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
26
27
path or trail has been transferred to a city department pursuant to Charter Section 177,
"Disposal of Open Space Land" or section 8-8-11 "Transfer of Open Space Lands," B.R.C.
1981.
Section 4. Section 8-3-6, “Vehicle Regulation,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as
follows:
8-3-6. -Vehicle Regulation.
(a) No person, other than persons authorized by the city manager, shall:
(1) Fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any park patrol
officer authorized and instructed to direct traffic in any park, parkway, recreation
area, or open space and on the public roads and parkways therein;
(2) Fail to comply with any traffic control device in a park, parkway, recreation area,
or open space regulating the operation of motor vehicles and nonmotorized
vehicles;
(3) Drive a motor vehicle within any park, parkway, recreation area, or open space in
excess of the posted speed limit. If no speed limit is posted, then no person shall
drive a motor vehicle in a park, recreation area, or open space in excess of twenty
fifteen miles per hour.
(4) Drive a motor vehicle within or upon any part of a park, parkway, recreation area,
or open space, except on designated roadways, paths, parking areas, or areas that
the city manager designates as temporary parking areas;
…
Agenda Item 4 Page 8
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
https://cityofboulder.sharepoint.com/sites/CCP/Planning_Design/Systemwide Planning/2005 Visitor Master Plan/Vis_pln/Activity Assessment/E-
Bikes/OSBT and CC/2023-2 meeting/MS word/A-2023-1-24_o-xxxx E-Bikes on Open Space.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
26
27
(6) Drive a nonmotorized vehicle or electric assisted bicycle upon any area in
mountain parks or open space property except a trail or roadway designated and
posted for that use by the city manager or a paved or graveled roadway open to
motorized vehicles.
(7) Drive a bicycle or electric assisted bicycle, on a path where such vehicles are
allowed, between sunset and sunrise or at any other time when, due to insufficient
light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions, persons and the vehicle are clearly
discernable at a distance of one thousand feet ahead, unless the bicycle is
equipped with a lamp mounted on the front of the bicycle and emitting a white
light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front.
(8) Drive a bicycle or electric assisted bicycle, on a path where such vehicles are
allowed, between sunset and sunrise unless it is equipped with a red rear reflector
mounted on the bicycle so located and of sufficient size and reflectivity to be
visible for at least 600 feet to the rear.
Section 5. Section 8-8-12, “Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space,” B.R.C. 1981, is
added to read as follows:
8-8-12. - Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space.
(a) City Council finds that operating a Class 1 or Class 2 electric assisted bicycle as defined
in this code is a passive recreational use of certain open space recreational paths and
trails.
Agenda Item 4 Page 9
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
https://cityofboulder.sharepoint.com/sites/CCP/Planning_Design/Systemwide Planning/2005 Visitor Master Plan/Vis_pln/Activity Assessment/E-
Bikes/OSBT and CC/2023-2 meeting/MS word/A-2023-1-24_o-xxxx E-Bikes on Open Space.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
26
27
(b) A Class 1 or Class 2 electric assisted bicycle may be operated on recreational paths or
trails on open space land as defined in the City Charter Section 170 where designated by
a rule adopted by the city manager in accordance with Chapter 1-4, “Rulemaking,”
B.R.C. 1981 if the city manager also determines that operating an electric assisted bicycle
on the recreational path or trail:
(1) Offers constructive, restorative, and pleasurable human benefits that foster an
appreciation and understanding of open space and its purposes;
(2) Does not significantly impact natural, cultural, scientific, or agricultural values;
(3) Occurs in an open space and mountain parks setting, which is an integral part of
the experience;
(4) Requires only minimal facilities and services directly related to safety and
minimizing passive recreational impacts; and
(5) Is compatible with other passive recreational activities.
Section 6. 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 7. 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.
Agenda Item 4 Page 10
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
https://cityofboulder.sharepoint.com/sites/CCP/Planning_Design/Systemwide Planning/2005 Visitor Master Plan/Vis_pln/Activity Assessment/E-
Bikes/OSBT and CC/2023-2 meeting/MS word/A-2023-1-24_o-xxxx E-Bikes on Open Space.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
26
27
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this ___ day of ___________, 2023.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Elesha Johnson,
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of
___________, 2023.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Elesha Johnson,
City Clerk
Agenda Item 4 Page 11
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
Note: The topics, questions and comments are presented in bold text as submitted by Trustee Kuntz
followed by the staff response.
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS – EBIKES ON OSMP
General Impressions
Rush to Judgment
Sea Change
Major Shift
1.) STAFF DETERMINATION AND LEGISLATIVE FINDING PROCESS
What was the process staff used to determine ebikes were an appropriate use of OSMP?
Why was 55 years of precedent discarded in that process and replaced by bureaucratic
fiat?
What is the LEGISLATIVE FINDING PROCESS that Council uses to declare ebike use is
passive recreation? Passive recreation has always been defined as non-motorized activity.
Staff response:
As described in the Analysis Sections of the Nov. 2022 and Dec. 2022 OSBT e-bikes memos, staff used
the VMP Activity Assessment process. The activity assessment process uses the following set of
considerations, which are based on the VMP definition of passive recreation, to guide decisions on what
recreational activities will be considered passive and allowed, and what conditions should be placed on
activities to minimize their impacts. 1) compatibility with other recreational activities, 2) compatibility
with resource protection, 3) compatibility with existing facilities and services, and 4) their relationship to
the natural setting. The activity assessment of e-biking determined that e-biking does not differ from
biking in relation to these considerations or the VMP criteria for passive recreation.
The VMP defines passive recreation as non-motorized activities that achieve the following set of criteria
• Offer constructive, restorative, and pleasurable human benefits that foster an appreciation and
understanding of Open Space [and Mountain Parks] and its purposes
• Do not significantly impact natural, cultural, scientific, or agricultural values
• Occur in an Open Space and Mountain Parks setting, which is an integral part of the experience
• Require only minimal facilities and services directly related to safety and minimizing passive
recreational impacts
• Are compatible with other passive recreational activities
Staff recognizes there is debate on whether it meets the non-motorized component. In support of the staff
determination that e-biking meets the other criteria included in the VMP for passive recreational
activities, council could make a legislative finding that e-biking, whether or not one considers it to be
motorized, is authorized as a passive recreational activity allowed on open space trails. As detailed in the
Dec. 2022 memo, OSMP’s recommendation is for City Council to make a legislative finding that e-biking
is a passive recreational use, and therefore an open space purpose outlined in the Charter. The legislative
finding would be adopted by City Council as part of the ordinance that also would make changes to the
Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) to 1) repeal the existing regulation in section 7-5-25 “No Electric
Assisted Bicycles on Open Space,” B.R.C. 1981 which requires disposal of open space to allow e-biking
2) add new language in Chapter 8-8 “Management of Open Space Lands” B.R.C. 1981 to allow class 1
and class 2 electric assist bicycles on open space trails where designated and posted for this use, 3) enact
Agenda Item 4 Page 12
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
rulemaking authority by the City Manager to identify which trails would be designated for e-biking
activity, and 4) make definitional code changes that to regulate e-biking on open space by amending
sections 1-2-1, and 7-1-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981.
The intention of the legislative finding and ordinance is (1) for council to specifically find e-biking is a
passive recreational use of open space; and (2) enact regulations for e-biking on open space. The Charter
only allows certain purposes. Charter section 176 says “Open space land shall be acquired, maintained,
preserved, retained, and used only for the following purposes:” One such purpose is preservation of land
for passive recreational use, such as, if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing.
The Charter does not mention or allow for exceptions to those uses when appropriate and necessary.
The ordinance changes alone can allow e-biking without a legislative finding. The benefit of the
legislative finding is that it draws the connection between allowing e-biking and the definition of passive
recreation in the Visitor Master Plan.
All ordinances require at least two readings because the city charter requires ten days’ advance
publication of an ordinance in final form before its passage. Within five days after such final passage, it
shall be again published once in a daily newspaper, and shall not take effect until thirty days after final
passage.
2.) CITY MANAGER RULE DESIGNATING TRAILS
What is the purpose of revising and using the City Manager Rule ordinance in the BRC
1981 to have the city manager designate trails when the usual and longstanding process has
been staff recommendation and OSBT review and approval and recommendation to
Council? Removes one of the actions by the OSBT – What is the role of the OSBT in trail
decisions?
Staff response:
One clarification around the process is that revising the ordinance and using a city manager rule are two
separate but correlated actions. The intent of the first, revising the ordinance, is to allow and regulate e-
biking on open space. In other words, the purpose of revising the ordinance is to amend the policy that
currently prohibits e-biking and requires disposal, and instead create a policy to allow e-biking as a
passive recreational activity. The second action of using the city manager rule is how OSMP would
implement the policy of allowing e-bikes on open space trails by designating where e-bikes (which trails)
would be allowed.
The purpose of this approach is to better distinguish between decision-making processes on policy that
require council approval from that of on the ground management actions that do not. Guidance on policy
decisions is generally more static in nature while implementing the policy, in this case the trails
designated for e-biking, is often more dynamic and might benefit from an ability to more easily
adaptively manage. An example is adaptively managing to allow e-bikes on segments of regional trails as
they are constructed or designated, such as segments along the Andrus to Airport or LOBO trails, and to
do so without having to go back to council.
Another recent example of where the department intentionally separated the policy actions from the on
the ground management actions or specific locations is the management of prairie dogs on OSMP-
managed irrigated agricultural lands. The OSBT recommended policy guidance approved by council on
acceptable management strategies while the decision of what specific properties these strategies would be
implemented are determined by the OSMP department based on current conditions. This intentional
Agenda Item 4 Page 13
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
decoupling is the result of some lessons learned over time where management actions that wouldn’t
normally rise to the level of council interest are imbedded in a council approved plan creating
complexities around processes to adjust management related elements.
In the rulemaking process outlined in chapter 1-4, “Rulemaking,” B.R.C. 1981, OSMP staff identifies
trails appropriate for e-biking, or for prohibiting e-biking, based on the VMP Activity Assessment. Staff
proposes the rule to the City Manager. If the City Manager supports OSMP staff’s designation, the
manager adopts a rule that designates open space trails for e-biking. The Rulemaking process provides
assurances of transparency through the requirement to publish the proposed rule and consider public
comments before the rule or amendments become final. However, it is not necessary to enact rule-making
authority of the City Manager. These duties are delegated to the OSMP department in Charter section 171
“Functions of the department.” (a) and (b).
In response to comments regarding the decision-making process for trail use designations, there has been
variation in the planning processes to finalize these plans. Trail Study Areas (TSAs) or Integrated Site
Plans (ISPs) are examples of planning efforts that also focus on where activities are allowed as well as
changes to the trail system itself. On some occasions, these plans included a board recommendation to
council. At other times, the OSBT made recommendations to staff to proceed with implementation. While
these plans do not require council action to approve or accept them, there have been instances when
council interest was anticipated, such as planning processes with heightened community interest or that
proposed more controversial or a multitude of management decisions. On those occasions, the department
requested the OSBT make a recommendation to council to formally adopt or accept the plan. For
example, council consideration and adoption was sought for the West and North TSAs while the OSBT
made a recommendation to staff to proceed with implementation on other TSAs and the recently finalized
Gunbarrel and Gebhard ISPs because the policy guidance on these management decisions already have
council approval (e.g. VMP, Master Plan).
There is a long-standing departmental practice of seeking board input on trail decisions, and OSMP
intends to continue this practice by requesting a board recommendation to staff prior to implementing and
change in trail use designation. OSMP would continue to engage the Board and community, get guidance
on a potential future change to the trails managed for e-biking activity, and consider this input.
In terms of the board’s role per the Charter:
The Open Space Board of Trustees was created by Charter section 172 to make recommendations to the
City Council and staff on certain matters concerning open space land. The role of the OSBT in trail
decisions is outlined in Charter section 175 (c) (which arguably only applies to the acquisition of open
space land) and (j) below, which states that the open space board
(c)Shall make recommendations to the council concerning any land that is to be placed under
the direction, supervision, or control of the department of open space, including, without
limitation, recommendations concerning use policies on, planned uses of, and restrictions on
uses of, open space land;
(j) May prepare and submit to the council, the city manager, or the open space department
recommendations on any other matter relating to the open space program, and may request
and obtain from the open space department and the city manager information relating thereto.
3.) CRITERIA USED TO ADD USES ON MULTI-USE TRAILS
Agenda Item 4 Page 14
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
What criteria are needed and used to add more uses on multi-use trails where hikers,
runners, bird watchers, horses, bicycles are already allowed?
Staff response:
The VMP includes criteria for assessing new and emerging activities on open space lands. The criteria
were developed to evaluate future recreational activities. The criteria are:
•Offer constructive, restorative, and pleasurable human benefits that foster an appreciation and
understanding of Open Space [and Mountain Parks] and its purposes
•Do not significantly impact natural, cultural, scientific, or agricultural values
•Occur in an Open Space and Mountain Parks setting, which is an integral part of the Experience
•Require only minimal facilities and services directly related to safety and minimizing passive
recreational impacts
•Are compatible with other passive recreational activities
In addition to the VMP criteria staff identified additional and finer scale criteria to evaluate three
alternatives and the status quo for which trails, if any, to consider allowing e-biking on. The criteria used
was:
•Community Support
•Equitable access to open space land
•Consistency with Boulder County and other City inter-connected trails
•(alternative to) Disposal of open space
•Effectiveness of regulations
•Safety/Conflict
•Alignment with City climate initiatives
•Protection of natural resources
•Visitor Displacement
•Trail maintenance
•Visitation
The E-biking Alternatives Evaluation shared at the July OSBT meeting is a matrix detailing the criteria,
considerations and ratings for each alternative.
4.) DISPOSAL OPTION AND ORDINANCE CHANGE
Why is disposal of OSMP lands the only option noted if an ordinance change is not done to
allow ebikes? Charter clearly authorizes certain passive recreation uses where designated
and allows for exceptions to those uses when appropriate and necessary. An ordinance
change is not required for exceptions. Council must be informed and approve exceptions.
Staff response:
Section 7-5-25, “No Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space, B.R.C. 1981 requires disposal of open
space if the purpose is to allow e-biking. This ordinance must be amended or repealed by City Council to
authorize e-biking on open space land.
Charter section 176 says “Open space land shall be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained, and used only
for the following purposes:” One such purpose is preservation of land for passive recreational use, such as, if
specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing. The Charter does not mention or allow for
exceptions to those uses when appropriate and necessary.
Agenda Item 4 Page 15
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
The ordinance could be changed to prohibit e-biking except where designated similar to the regulation for
biking (section 8-3-6 (a) (6), fishing (section 8-8-5) or sledding (section 8-3-11). However, these activities
meet the VMP definition of passive recreation while it can be debated that e-biking does not. Thus, staff
supports the approach to have council make a legislative finding that e-biking is a passive recreational use.
5.) PHASED ROLLOUT AND PILOT APPROACH
Why aren’t we proposing a pilot approach an phased rollout to determine effects and
impacts of new use rather than a sweeping “everything on the eastern plains?”
Staff response:
OSMP staff contacted several peer agencies that allow e-biking including Boulder County Parks and
Open Space (BCPOS), Jefferson County Open Space (JCOS), USFWS, the City and County of Denver
Mountain Parks, and City of Boulder Transportation & Mobility Department. As part of their planning
processes, BCPOS and JCOS conducted a pilot project to gather data and community input on e-biking
and level of support. Key findings from each pilot project are described in the Nov. 2022 OSBT meeting
packet memo under the Peer Agency Review section. The information gathered from peer agency partners
indicated that e-biking did not result in a change in user conflicts or concerns beyond what is typical for
trails that allow biking.
The Nov. 2022 memo also described OSMP’s experience with biking. Overall average daily conflict
between visitors on OSMP trails has ranged between 5-7% for close to two decades (2016-2017 Visitor
Survey). Of all respondents to the 2016-2017 survey, 6% (on average) reported conflict with other users
on the day of the survey, with a third of these indicating conflict was with a biker. This means, on
average, 2% of visitors reported conflict with a biker and 98% did not on the day of the survey. There is
very little difference in average daily conflict between trails that allow cycling and trails that do not.
OSMP collects visitation-related data on a regular basis to develop a quantitative understanding of
system-wide recreation visits to city-managed open space. If e-biking is allowed on some open space
trails, several on-going visitor monitoring studies can be used in the future to inform recreation
management discussions and actions. E-biking would be added as a new activity category in future
visitor surveys, alongside all other allowed activities, to quantify and detect any change in activity
distributions over time as part of systemwide monitoring efforts. This would allow staff to report out
changes, if any, that may be related to e-biking. Enacting rule-making authority would provide flexibility
and discretion to the OSMP department for more nimble decision-making and include a transparent
public process.
Given the findings of pilot projects conducted by other agencies and OSMP’s experience with biking,
OSMP does not think a pilot program would provide additional benefit nor be an efficient use of staff or
community time. A secondary consideration is the challenge of collaborating on regional trail feasibility
studies underway/in the near future by our agency partners regarding e-bike use on trails crossing
jurisdictional boundaries. These include the Boulder to Erie Regional Trail (BERT), Colorado Front
Range Trail (CFRT), and US 36/North Foothills Bikeway. The planning challenges are primarily
associated with not knowing the future status of e-bikes on OSMP lands and therefore not being able to
assess impacts and next steps, for example, determining if disposals would be required. It is time
consuming to work through these challenges at the project level and presents a level of uncertainty around
these collaborative projects. Knowing the future status of e-bikes on OSMP lands will ensure efficient and
effective use of staff time and help staff, the board and council, and community better assess the
implications.
Agenda Item 4 Page 16
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
6.) OMISSION OF ANTICIPATED ADMIJNISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
SPECIFICS
Why were administrative and enforcement specifics and costs omitted from the analysis?
City license requirement, bike evaluation – general statement factored into existing budget
Staff response:
The budget impacts associated with allowing e-biking as a passive recreational activity are supported by
and within the existing OSMP funding in the city’s budget. The department’s annual operating budget
accounts for visitor services provided by OSMP. These include environmental education, public outreach,
law enforcement, emergency response, and trails and facilities. Services are designed to enhance the
visitor experience, provide visitor safety, and protect the natural environment. Implementation costs are
limited to minor infrastructure improvements such as updating regulatory and educational signs. The
activities associated with e-biking will be accommodated through the approved annual budget for
operations and maintenance.
In terms of enforcement specifics, the Analysis section of the Nov. 2022 memo provided the proposed
approach for enforcement and ranger patrol, which is included again below.
If e-biking is allowed on some open space trails, rangers will continue to focus on highly visited
areas and prioritize weekend time on patrols, as outlined in the Ranger Strategic Plan. Targeted
patrols are a tool that can be used to address visitor safety concerns or complaints where e-biking
would be allowed. Rangers will continue engaging with their respective communities to better
understand their unique experiences, concerns, needs and opportunities. Rangers also address
areas of concern when they are personally observed or when they receive calls for service from
Boulder Police Dispatch, OSMP staff or volunteers.
7.) CLIMATE FRIENDLY EBIKES
Why are ebikes considered totally non-polluting and climate friendly? Have any
examination of environmental impacts from mining, manufacturing and disposing of ebike
batteries?
Staff response:
In terms of climate friendliness, e-bikes may help to meet the city’s Climate Commitment goal by
reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to reach local trails, in turn helping to preserve the
ecosystems and habitats that make up OSMP. There also is potential to greenhouse gas emissions. Some
e-bike recreationalists who participated in e-bike surveys indicated that they currently drive to open space
lands managed by agency partners such as Jefferson County or Boulder County that allow e-biking.
With respect to environmental impacts, lithium-ion batteries are widely used in other e-vehicles and
electronic devices including, for example, mobile phones, laptop computers, digital cameras, and health
care devices. There are some environmental benefits and impacts associated with the battery supply chain.
The extraction process to mine minerals used in lithium-ion batteries can be intensive, recycling lithium-
ion batteries requires they be professionally dismantled, and there are few guidelines are currently in
place to keep lithium-ion batteries out of landfills. According to an article published by AZO Cleantech,
researchers are working on eco-friendly alternatives to lithium-ion batteries. However, the manufacturing
process of e-bikes is not a relevant criterion for evaluating whether to allow e-biking activity on open
space lands.
Agenda Item 4 Page 17
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
8.) WILDLIFE IMPACTS FROM LIGHTS
Why aren’t impacts of ebike lights shining at least 500-600 feet at night on wildlife
accounted for? We should be bending over backwards trying to reduce and minimize
impacts from powerful lights on OSMP at night when many wildlife are most active.
Staff response:
Currently, there are approximately 52 miles of city open space managed trails that allow biking after
sunset and before dawn. Section 7-5-11, “Lights and Reflectors Required,” B.R.C. 1981, requires
sufficient light and reflectivity mounted on a bicycle or e-bike. The purpose is for the biker to be visible
by other trail users from a distance and reduce the potential for conflict between trail users.
9.) WILDFIRE RISKS
Why haven’t risks of wildfire from ebike use been adequately evaluated? Most data from
developed urban areas and battery charging. Some ebike batteries spark, although
anecdotally noted as uncommon, and when ridden in natural areas result can be
catastrophic, only takes once.
The e-biking Alternatives Evaluation criterion for Safety/Conflict included an evaluation of lightweight
lithium-ion batteries, which have become the norm for e-bikes. The evaluation is based on best information
available. As indicated, there is little data on the frequency or risk of the battery catching on fire.
In response to the request from the OSBT at the Nov. 2022 meeting, staff provided additional information
on the e-bike Battery Management System (BMS) and potential as an ignition source in the Dec. 2022
e-bike memo. While a potential hazard is leaving the battery too long on the charger, research conducted
by OSMP staff did not find a correlation or account of e-bike batteries being attributed to the cause of a
wildfire. Several articles were cited and referenced in Dec. memo including a Consumer Reports article
that suggests fires involving recreational e-bikes are either not occurring or far less common. “The e-bikes
people are buying now are probably a lot newer and better technology than some of the older stuff that
delivery riders in the city have been using and abusing for years,” says Adam Vale Da Serra, manager of
Cutting Edge bike shop in Berlin, Conn. “I’ve heard nothing locally about e-bike fires among mountain
bikes and road bikes.” The article also publicizes fire prevention tips. Other news articles have shared
similar tips.”
10.) ADJACENT AGENCY MANAGEMENT
Why is OSMP management driven by adjacent agencies’ management rather than vice
versa?
Staff response:
OSMP has a collaborative relationship with adjacent partner agencies. In Nov. 2019, the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) approved allowing class 1 and class 2 e-bikes on Boulder County open space
trails on the plains where regular bikes are allowed, including regional trails and trails on open space
parks with certain exceptions, which were in response to the request of OSMP. Specifically, Boulder
County agreed to continue prohibiting e-bikes on select BCPOS plains trails that cross jurisdictional
boundary with City of Boulder Open Space managed trails until OSMP re-evaluates its e-bike policy.
These trails include the Coalton, Mayhoffer-Singletree, and Boulder Canyon trails. A few years after the
city of Boulder first allowed e-bikes on certain hard surface multi-use trails in 2013 (to be managed by
city Transportation Department), which prohibited e-biking on city of Boulder open space trails, OSMP
committed to a re-evaluation of the policy prohibiting e-biking on city open space in response to the
evolution of issues around e-bikes and increased community interest in e-biking on natural surface trails.
Agenda Item 4 Page 18
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
OSMP collaboration with BCPOS allows for both the continuation of the status quo as well as a change to
allow e-biking in an effort to provide a more consistent visitor experience across the local region.
11.) DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE
Why the references to “recreational paths or trails”? Should be changed to “OSMP
designated paths or trails.” (Recreation paths or trails is not an official name and not how
OSMP trails are identified.) Why the reference to “park patrol officer” in conjunction with
OSMP? Reference should be “Open Space and Mountain Parks ranger”. (Rangers are not
identified as park patrol officers.)
Staff response:
The section 8-8-12, “Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space,” proposed language can be changed to
“OSMP designated paths” if desired.
The phrase “recreational path or trail” is language that was adopted by city council in section 7-5-25 as
detailed below.
7-5-25. No Electric Assisted Bicycles on Open Space.
No person shall activate the motor of an electric assisted bicycle on any recreational path or
trail on open space land as defined in the City Charter Section 170 except where the path or trail has
been transferred to a city department pursuant to Charter Section 177, "Disposal of Open Space
Land" or section 8-8-11 "Transfer of Open Space Lands," B.R.C. 1981.
Ordinance Nos. 7941 (2013); 7965 (2014); 8007 (2014); 8447 (2021)
There are 24 references to “trails” in the Boulder Revised Code. The City Attorney’s Office has no
objection to changing the reference in the proposed ordinance from “recreational paths or trails” to
“trails” or “mountain park trails”.
It is important that the Boulder Revised Code and charter use consistent language. Because the OSMP
rangers are classified and commissioned as “park patrol officers,” the proposed amendment uses that
terminology.
OSMP rangers are park patrol officers. There is no reference in the Boulder Revised Code or the charter
to “Open Space and Mountain Parks ranger”. Conversely, there are 4 references in the B.R.C. and charter
to “park patrol officer.” In 2008 the city was successful in requesting the Peace Officer Standards and
Training (“P.O.S.T.”) Board of the State of Colorado Department of Law to recognize rangers as “peace
officers” so they could continue the practice of carrying firearms, conduct arrests, and enforce the laws of
the City of Boulder. A basis for this recognition is B.R.C. section 1-2-1, “Definitions,” which includes in
its definition of “police officer” “Any city park patrol officer commissioned by the city manager”.
Rangers are certified by the city manager as “park patrol officers.”
Section 8-3-12, “Authority of Park Patrol Officers,” B.R.C. 1981 sets forth the authority of “park patrol
officers,” and is drafted to identify officers who enforce the law on open space as “park patrol officers”:
8-3-12. Authority of Park Patrol Officers.
(a)Park patrol officers are authorized to enforce all provisions of this code, other ordinances of the
city, and rules issued thereunder regulating conduct in any city park, parkway, recreation area,
or open space and to perform other duties delegated to them by the city manager.
Agenda Item 4 Page 19
Attachment B
Responses to Clarifying Questions Received by Trustee Kuntz
(b)After satisfactorily completing a training course approved by the Colorado Law Enforcement
Training Academy, park patrol officers shall be commissioned with authority to enforce such
laws and rules, protect park patrons and property, and carry firearms.
(c)A park patrol officer may stop any person who the officer reasonably suspects is committing,
has committed, or is about to commit in a city park, parkway, recreation area, or open space a
violation of this code, other ordinance of the city, or regulation issued thereunder. The officer
may require that person to give his or her name and address and an explanation of his or her
actions.
(d)When an officer has so detained a person and reasonably suspects that the officer's personal
safety requires it, the officer may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
Agenda Item 4 Page 20
ATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 4 Page 21
Attachment D
Visitation Patterns of select OSMP and BCPOS locations
Key Highlights
• OSMP and BCPOS share overlapping average daily visitation ranges for areas that allow bikes,
with BCPOS being slightly busier on average.
• For OSMP multi-use trails with permanent trail counter counters, preliminary 2022 data show
o annual average daily visits range from 79 (East Boulder - White Rocks) to 237 (Foothills
South).
o the proportion of bike visits range from 13 to 31 percent.
o peak visitation days ranged from 247 (Boulder Valley Ranch) to 574 (Foothills South)
visits
• For BCPOS properties that allow bikes
o annual average daily visits range from 45 (Mud Lake) to 470 (Pella Crossing)
o the proportion of bike visits range from 5 to 62 percent
o peak visitation days ranged from 146 (Bald Mountain Scenic Area) to 989 (Carolyn
Holmberg Preserve) visits
Introduction
This examination of visitation data is for select multi-use trails that allow biking within the context of
mixed pedestrian and bicycle use to provide context for comparing visitation patterns for OSMP and
Boulder County Parks & Open Space (BCPOS).
Currently, there are 54 miles of multi-use trails that allow biking on OSMP lands which are primarily
located in the south, north, and east portions of our trail system. The most recent data for examining bike
and pedestrian proportions for multi-use trails comes from 2022 trail counter data.
BCPOS divides their trails into two different categories. The first category is Parks, which are primarily
made up of distinct geographic units that are serviced by one or a few trailheads, but which are otherwise
self-contained units. BCPOS collects both visitation counts and visitor surveys for their Parks. There
are12 park units that allow bikes and have recently available visitation data. The second category is
Regional and Neighborhood trails, which serve as regional routes between communities and often connect
to trails managed by adjacent partner agencies. For most BCPOS regional trails, only visitor surveys are
collected, not counts (Boulder Canyon Trail being the exception). BCPOS collected visitation data for
Parks in 2021 and for Regional and Neighborhood Trails in 2022.
The geographic layouts of open space properties and trail systems for two agencies differ, which makes it
difficult to objectively compare one specific property or region from one agency to a specific property or
region at the other agency. Since a one-for-one comparison cannot be made, we compiled the most recent
data across the range of properties and trails from each agency to provide insight into the characteristics
of bike and pedestrian visitation volumes and patterns across the two agencies.
Seasonal Visitation patterns
2022 OSMP visitation data
For OSMP properties, there are currently 9 permanent trail counters installed on multi-use trails. Five of
these locations (Boulder Valley Ranch, Doudy Draw, Eagle, Flatirons Vista, and Foothills South) have
inductive sensor loops that detect and classify bikes separately from pedestrians.
Agenda Item 4 Page 22
Attachment D
Visitation Patterns of select OSMP and BCPOS locations
As shown in Figure 1, each location exhibits a slightly different seasonal pattern. For example, Foothills
South shows a pronounced peak visitation in June and East Boulder – Gunbarrel shows relatively little
variation across the year. However, for all locations with bike classification capabilities, biking visits tend
to be low during the winter months of November, December, January, and February.
Figure 1 Average daily visits by month for 2022 permanent monitoring locations on OSMP multi-use trails.
2021 BCPOS visitation data
BCPOS collects visitation counts via automated trail and vehicle counters at trailheads. These units do
not distinguish by activity type or classify bikes and pedestrians directly. BCPOS collects activity
percentages via intercept/visitation surveys and other site collection methods which is presented in the
next section. The current comparison of seasonal distribution presents visitation in aggregate rather than
by activity types.
Agenda Item 4 Page 23
Attachment D
Visitation Patterns of select OSMP and BCPOS locations
Figure 2 Average daily visits by month for 2021 monitored BCPOS properties that allow bikes. (Marotti, 2021)
Agenda Item 4 Page 24
Attachment D
Visitation Patterns of select OSMP and BCPOS locations
Peak Visitation and Proportion of bikes
In response to a request from OSBT at the Nov. meeting, a comparison of peak visitation day and
proportion of bikes between OSMP and BCPOS trails is provided. For this analysis, peak visitation is
defined as the highest visitation day observed for a location in the given year. Data for the highest/ busiest
day is readily available by both agencies.
The analysis used the most recently available data for peak visitation and bike proportions from each
agency. For BCPOS, this is 2021 data. OSMP compiled preliminary data from 2022. Since OSMP data
are preliminary and have not yet gone through a full data review cycle, these figures may be updated
slightly in subsequent visitation reports.
2022 OSMP visitation data
The following table shows 2022 visitation for the five multi-use trail counter locations. Visitation data
have been summarized into annual figures to show the average number of daily visits for bikes,
pedestrians, and combined, along with the proportion of visits that originate from bikes (as classified by
the trail counters). The table also includes the peak visitation day recorded in 2022.
These data indicate that the average bike proportion on monitored multi-use trails ranges from around
13% (Foothills South) to 31% (Eagle Trailhead) with an overall bike proportion of 21%. Since these are
annual averages, the actual proportion of bikes on any given month may be slightly higher (summer
months) or slightly lower (winter months) as shown in the charts in Figure 1. Peak visitation ranged
between 247 (Boulder Valley Ranch) to 574 (Foothills South) visits and occurred between March 20th
(Eagle) and October 30th (Marshall Mesa).
Table 1 Average daily visits and bike proportions for multi-use monitoring locations on OSMP lands, summarized as an annual
average.
Average Daily
Visits
Proportion
Bikes
Peak Day (2022)
Location Bike Pedestrian Total Counter Visits Date
Boulder Valley Ranch 19 78 97 19% 247 Apr 2
Doudy Draw 27 72 99 27% 386 Jul 3
Eagle 42 91 133 31% 365 Mar 20
East Boulder - Gunbarrel - - 111 - 236 Aug 24
East Boulder - Teller
Farm
- - 103 - 250 Jul 12
East Boulder - White
Rocks
- - 79 - 266 Aug 8
Flatirons Vista 21 72 94 23% 306 May 8
Foothills South 31 206 237 13% 574 Jun 19
Marshall Mesa - - 236 - 548 Oct 30
Agenda Item 4 Page 25
Attachment D
Visitation Patterns of select OSMP and BCPOS locations
2021 BCPOS Parks visitation data
BCPOS collected visitation data for park properties in 2021, including field observations to estimate the
distribution of activities for each property. In contrast to the counters highlighted above for OSMP multi-
use trails, BCPOS counting equipment does not classify bikes directly. BCPOS conducts summer
observations and collects visitor surveys, which they use to estimate the percentage of activities at each
property. The percentages reported below in
Table 2 come from survey data as reported in the most recent Five-Year Visitor Study completed by
BCPOS in 2021 (Marotti & Guesman, 2021).
BCPOS estimates of daily visits come from year-round monitoring and therefore share a similar
methodology with OSMP data collection methods (Marotti, 2021).
Table 2 shows that BCPOS properties that allow bikes share an overlapping average daily visits range
with OSMP monitored multi-use trails presented in Table 1. However, BCPOS properties in
Table 2 are on average slightly busier than OSMP multi-use trails, with eight locations exceeding 200
average daily visits.
Bike proportions for BCPOS properties range from 4% to 60%, with an overall bike proportion of 21%
(personal communication with BCPOS)1. Peak visitation days ranged from 146 (Bald Mountain Scenic
Area) to 989 (Carolyn Holmberg Preserve) visits and occurred between February 8th (Walden Ponds
Wildlife Habitat) and November 7th (Betasso Preserve).
Table 2 Average daily visits and bike proportions for BCPOS properties that allow bikes, summarized as an annual average.
Average Daily
Visits
Proportion
Bikes
Peak Day (2021)
Location Bike Pedestrian Total Survey Visits Date
Bald Mountain Scenic Area - - 45 - 146 Jun 20
Betasso Preserve* 135 125 260 52% 691 Nov 7
Carolyn Holmberg Preserve* 126 181 68 41% 989 Apr 25
Coalton 64 66 307 49% 789 Aug 21
Hall Ranch* 117 117 234 50% 789 Apr 3
Heil Valley Ranch Picture Rock 62 42 104 60% 541 Apr 10
Lagerman Agricultural Preserve* 23 205 228 10% 584 Apr 25
Mud Lake 13 148 161 8% 955 Oct 3
Pella Crossing 19 452 470 4% 985 Apr 18
Ron Stewart Preserve 8 204 212 4% 756 Mar 7
Walden Ponds Wildlife Habitat* - - 390 - 803 Feb 8
Walker Ranch* 30 202 232 13% 914 Apr 25
*These properties include multiple count locations
1 Bald Mountain Scenic Area and Walden Ponds Wildlife Habitat both allow bikes, but no surveys were completed
by bikers during the sampling time frame.
Agenda Item 4 Page 26
Attachment D
Visitation Patterns of select OSMP and BCPOS locations
Agenda Item 4 Page 27
Attachment D
Visitation Patterns of select OSMP and BCPOS locations
2022 BCPOS Regional and Neighborhood trails visitation data
BCPOS conducted a Regional and Neighborhood Trails Visitor Study in spring and summer 2022, which
is designed to complement Five Year Visitor Studies (5YS) conducted at BCPOS park properties. Since
these trails are largely part of an interconnected network of regional routes between communities, BCPOS
does not estimate visitation numbers on most of these trails. They conduct surveys that include questions
about primary activity, which provide insight into bike proportions for some of the properties/trails that
connect directly to OSMP trails.
Table 3 Bike proportions from BCPOS Neighborhood and Regional trails 2022 visitor survey that connect to OSMP trails.
Property/Trail Average Daily Visits Proportion Bikes
Boulder Canyon Trail 193 41%
Longmont-to-Boulder (LoBo) Trail Not monitored 62%
References
Marotti, M. (2021) Parks Visitation, 2021 Annual Report, Boulder County Parks & Open Space
Marotti, M. Guesman, T. (2021) Five Year Visitor Study, Boulder County Parks & Open Space
Agenda Item 4 Page 28
Attachment E
OSMP Visitor Displacement and Conflict Experience
Overview
OSMP has a long history of conducting public surveys, dating back several decades. The 2005 Visitor
Master Plan identified public surveys as a monitoring tool to cyclically obtain representative data on
various topics. An objective for survey data is to use the information for informed decision making and
plan implementation by gathering public opinions of OSMP services and facilities, experiences with
others, perceptions regarding OSMP management, and level of visitor satisfaction among other topics of
interest.
Spring Brook Loop Area Visitor Conditions Before and After Designation
and Opening
In 2008, OSMP completed trail improvements to designate and open newly constructed multi-use trails in
the Spring Brook Loop Area (SBL). Both the SBL-North and SBL-South trails allow hikers, bikers, and
horses. Dogs are only allowed on SBL-North. Prior to 2008, the SBL area was not managed as designated
trail infrastructure. At the time, all trails in the area were undesignated (unplanned) and not managed for
sustainable recreation travel.
Before designation of the SBL trails, visitation levels and distribution of visitors by activity type were not
measured. Additionally, biking was prohibited as this activity is only allowed on designated trails. SBL
annual visitation year one after opening (2008-2009) was ~28,000 visits and year two after opening
(2009-2010) was ~31,000 visits.
Visitor Conflict and Activity Distribution
During summer 2009, OSMP conducted an on-site visitor conflict survey along the Spring Brook Loop
Trail (SBL). Visitors were engaged at two locations as they were exiting. A total of 766 respondents were
surveyed, which resulted in a 91% response rate. They were asked to complete a self-administered written
questionnaire. The SBL survey did not measure visitor displacement from the SBL area because it was an
on-site survey and displaced visitors would not have been there to participate. OSMP most recently
assessed displacement in a system-wide on-site survey conducted in 2016-2017. Zero respondents
reported being displaced from the SBL area. During a previous system-wide on-site survey effort
conducted in 2010-2011, nine (9) out of 2,552 respondents reported being displaced from the SBL area.
This suggests minimal displacement did occur shortly after the SBL opened but was no longer detected in
2016-2017.
During Summer 2009, the average daily conflict rate along SBL was 6%. Cyclists and dogs were the
number one and two top sources of conflict respectively. Hikers were more likely than any other activity
group to report a conflict. Primary activity distribution was bikers (68%), hikers (18%), runners (13%),
and horseback riders (<1%). Three percent of respondents had one or more dogs with them on the day of
the survey (City of Boulder, 2010).
Eldorado-Mountain Habitat Conservation Area Pre/Post Designation Visitation Monitoring
In 2009, OSMP formally designated the Eldorado-Mountain Habitat Conservation Area (EM-HCA), as
well as designated and opened the Goshawk Ridge Trail (GRT), which allows hiking/pedestrians and
horses. OSMP conducted visitation monitoring within the EM-HCA for three years including one year
prior, and for two years after designation of the HCA (2008-2011). As a pedestrian only trail system
directly adjacent to Spring Brook Loop, this visitation data serves as a reasonable proxy for interpreting
hiking activity in the area during the period before and after the opening of Spring Brook Loop.
Agenda Item 4 Page 29
Attachment E
OSMP Visitor Displacement and Conflict Experience
Annual visits to the EM-HCA were 4,125 in the year prior to HCA activation and GRT construction and
designation (2008-2009). Year one annual visits post HCA activation and GRT opening (2009-2010)
were 10,970 and year two annual visits were 12,170. Annual visitation to the EM-HCA increased by
166% during the first-year post designation of the HCA and opening of the newly constructed GRT, and
by 11% the following year. As bikes are not allowed on the GRT, we can assume these visits can be
largely attributed to pedestrians (hikers and runners) along with a small number of equestrians.
System-wide OSMP Visitor Displacement Summary
Displacement can be defined as people deciding to change where, when, or how frequently they visit a
recreation location to avoid unwanted conditions caused by changes in the character or attributes of the
area. Crowding and conflict are often cited as drivers of displacement. However, crowding is a subjective
evaluation of on-site conditions experienced, can occur across a range of visitation levels, and is not
necessarily directly associated with increased visitation or heavily visited areas.
The most recently completed on-site survey effort that assessed displacement was conducted in 2016-
2017 in which 14% of respondents indicated that there is an OSMP area they no longer visit (276 out of
1,964 respondents) (VanderWoude & Kellogg, 2018).
Of the 14% of respondents who indicated they no longer visit an OSMP area in 2016-2017:
•Chautauqua and Sanitas were mentioned most frequently accounting for 23% and 22% of
responses, respectively. This was followed by Marshall Mesa which accounted for 6% of
responses.
•Dog walkers most frequently indicated there is an area they no longer visit (17%), followed by
hikers (16%), bikers (13%), and runners (10%).
•The most common reason listed for no longer visiting a place was crowding, representing about a
third (32%) of responses. This was followed by parking, dog restrictions (e.g., dogs not allowed,
dogs not allowed off-leash), and dog presence (e.g., too many dogs, too much dog waste), each
representing 12% of responses.
•Reference to bikers/bikes accounted for 9% of the responses for not visiting.
A previous on-site survey was conducted in 2010-2011 in which 9% of respondents indicated they
visited less often or stopped visiting entirely (Giolitto, 2012).
Of the 9% of respondents who indicated they modified their visit to an OSMP area in 2010-2011:
•The most frequently listed places were Sanitas (21%), Doudy Draw (9%), and Marshall Mesa
(7%).
•Dogs were the most common reason cited for Sanitas.
•Bikes were the most common for Doudy Draw and Marshall Mesa.
The 14% who reported they no longer visit an OSMP area from the 2016-2017 on-site survey is fairly
consistent with past resident surveys at 13% in 2016 (National Research Center Inc, 2017) and 14% who
visited less often or stopped using entirely in 2010 (National Research Center Inc., 2010). Chautauqua and
Sanitas were the two most frequently listed locations in both resident surveys. Crowding and dogs were
the most common reasons listed in 2016; crowding and parking were the most common in 2010.
Agenda Item 4 Page 30
Attachment E
OSMP Visitor Displacement and Conflict Experience
Comparisons of trend data should be made cautiously as sample sizes for individual locations and reasons
are relatively small, and over time there were variations in question wording and open-ended response
coding procedures.
System-wide OSMP Visitor Conflict Summary
OSMP has conducted three system-wide on-site visitor intercept surveys – in 2004-2005, 2010-2011, and
2016-2017. Each iteration asked respondents to share their perceptions of visitor conflict experienced on
the day they completed the survey. OSMP uses the Jacob and Schreyer interpersonal model of visitor
conflict which defines conflict as “goal interference attributed to the behavior of others” (Jacob and
Schreyer, 1980). This means a visitor that reported conflict on the day of the survey was interrupted in
what they wanted to do on a given visit because another visitor’s behavior caused a negative encounter.
Respondents represented visitors participating in all open space activity types including for example
hikers, runners, dog-walkers, bikers, horseback riders, and climbers.
The Analysis Section of the Nov. 2022 memo provided a summary of overall average daily conflict
between visitors on OSMP trails, which is included below for reference.
Overall average daily conflict between visitors on OSMP trails has ranged between 5-7% for close to
two decades (2016-2017 Visitor Survey). Of all respondents to the 2016-2017 survey, 6% (on
average) reported conflict with other users on the day of the survey, with a third of these indicating
conflict was with a biker. This means, on average, 2% of visitors reported conflict with a biker and
98% did not on the day of the survey. There is very little difference in average daily conflict between
trails that allow cycling and trails that do not. Multi-use trails that allow cycling are designed to a
standard that minimizes impacts on soils, plants, and water quality. Off-trail bicycling activity is not
allowed on OSMP lands. Observations indicate that bikers generally stay on trail, which tends to
minimize possible negative effects on natural resources.
A 95% majority of encounters between bikers and other users on open space trails are positive (69%)
or neutral (26%) (2016-2017 Visitor Survey). During the 2016-2017 Visitor Survey, 14% of
respondents reported being displaced. Of those 14%, ten percent reported biking as a reason why they
no longer visit an area. This means 1% of visitors reported displacement due to biking and 99% did
not. The two primary areas no longer visited were Marshall Mesa and Doudy Draw. Of the 14% of
respondents that reported displacement, the two most frequently mentioned OSMP areas that
respondents no longer visit are Chautauqua (22%) and Sanitas (22%), due to perceived crowding,
dogs, and parking issues (not bikes).
Comparisons of trend data should be made cautiously as over time there were variations in question
wording and open-ended response coding procedures.
Summary
Most OSMP visitors do not experience visitor displacement or visitor conflict. When displacement does
occur, the top reported causes are crowding, parking problems, and dog restrictions/ dog presence
followed by bikers. When conflict is reported, the top two reported sources of conflicts are: 1) dogs and
dog walkers, and 2) bikers.
•Activity distribution and the visitation level were not measured in the Spring Brook Loop area
prior to the designation and opening of the newly constructed trail in late 2008
Agenda Item 4 Page 31
Attachment E
OSMP Visitor Displacement and Conflict Experience
•Average daily visitor conflict along Spring Brook Loop was 6% in summer 2009
•Visitation along Spring Brook Loop was ~28,000 annual visits year one post opening and
~31,000 annual visits year two post opening
•Activity distribution along Spring Brook Loop in summer 2009 was bikers (68%), hikers (18%),
runners (13%), and horseback riders (<1%)
•Visitation to the Spring Brook Loop adjacent Eldorado-Mountain HCA (bikes not allowed)
increased 166% during year one and another 11% during year two post designation of the HCA
and construction and opening of the Goshawk Ridge Trail
•Average system-wide daily visitor conflict rates have ranged between 5-7% between 2004 and
2017
•Average system-wide visitor displacement rates have ranged between 9-14% between 2010 and
2017
Additional data regarding visitor perceptions and experiences are currently being collected through the
on-site Public Opinion and Visitor Experience Survey (POVES), which will continue through August
2023. Results from the first year of this effort are expected to be shared with OSBT in the coming
months.
References
City of Boulder. (2005). City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Master Plan. City of
Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. Boulder, Colorado.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/2428/download?inline
City of Boulder. (2011). Spring Brook Loop Visitation Monitoring Summary. The City of Boulder,
Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks. Boulder, Colorado.
City of Boulder. (2011). Goshawk Ridge Trail Area Visitation Monitoring Summary. The City of Boulder,
Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks. Boulder, Colorado.
Giolitto, M. (2012). City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department 2010-2011 Visitor
Survey Report ver. 1.0. City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. Boulder,
Colorado. https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/2774/download?inline
Jacob, G. R. & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of
Leisure Research, 12, 368-380.
National Research Center Inc. (2010). Open Space and Mountain Parks 2010 Resident Survey Report of
Results. Boulder, Colorado.
National Research Center Inc. (2017). Open Space and Mountain Parks 2016 Resident Survey Report of
Results. Boulder, Colorado. https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/2780/download?inline
VanderWoude, D. (2010). Spring Brook Loop Visitor Conflict Monitoring Report. The City of Boulder,
Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks. Boulder, Colorado.
VanderWoude, D. and Kellogg, A. (2018). 2016-2017 Visitor Survey Report. City of Boulder Open Space
and Mountain Parks Department. Boulder, Colorado.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/2783/download?inline
Agenda Item 4 Page 32
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director
Bethany Collins, Real Estate Sr. Manager
DATE: February 8, 2022
SUBJECT: Written Information: Water Service Line Easement request from Craig
and Nicole Harrison and Real Investments, LLC for four Left Hand
Water District water lines across Boulder Valley Farm Open Space
________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memo is to provide written information around the upcoming request by Craig
and Nicole Harrison and Real Investments, LLC (“Lot Owners”) for a water service line easement
to install four water lines across the city-owned Boulder Valley Farm Open Space (the “OSMP
Property”, shown on Attachment A), which is managed by the Open Space and Mountain Parks
department (OSMP), to obtain domestic water from Left Hand Water District (LHWD). The
easement, as generally depicted on Attachment B, would parallel existing underground electric,
gas and telecommunications utilities and would be 10’-wide except for an area adjacent to the 95th
Street right-of-way where it would be 15-feet to accommodate the meter pit. The water lines
would be installed within a 2’-wide-by-5’-deep trench via open cutting. Open cutting would
minimize the impacts and future maintenance need versus directional boring at this location.
The OSMP Property is a portion of the 962-acre Farm in Boulder Valley Non-Urban Planned Unit
Development previously owned by Don and Rosalee Culver which was platted in 1992 and
included six clustered subdivision blocks with 56 planned or existing residential lots. The county
subdivision and LHWD service agreements at the time included 54 water taps (two existing units
already had LHWD water service).
From 1992-2018, the City of Boulder acquired more than 850 acres of the Farm in Boulder
Valley, including 34 of the residential lots (two of which are developed and served by LHWD
water service at the farm headquarters and the others remain undeveloped). After acquiring the
618-acre Property in 2018, however, it was discovered that no clear easements for the LHWD
service lines were in place to serve the four privately-owned lots in Block 3 (LHWD and the City
disagree on interpretation of some of the plat language). The Lot Owners each own two lots in
Block 3 and are surrounded by the OSMP Property. Two of the lots have existing residences and
domestic wells, however the Lot Owners have been advised by the State Division of Water
Resources that additional wells (or expansion of the current wells) are not possible without an
augmentation agreement due to their location above the Leggett Ditch, and the Lot Owners have
not been successful in locating an augmentation opportunity.
OSMP Real Estate staff believe this matter should have been resolved prior to acquisition of the
OSMP Property by the city but do recognize there was intent by the Culvers to have all these
residential lots connected to LHWD service. Additionally, because LHWD holds other easements
on the OSMP Property and is a water district organized under state statute, the district is asserting
condemnation authority to construct a water main to connect the four lots to domestic water.
Written Information - Item A - Page 1
Defending or litigating a condemnation or other legal action would be costly and if OSMP were
unsuccessful, installation of a large water main would be more impactful to the OSMP Property
than the proposed service lines. Instead, working with the Lot Owners to select a location
preferred by OSMP (co-located with other utilities) and mitigate disturbance would be preferrable.
The proposed location is dryland agricultural land along a fence line, with no anticipated
disturbance to natural resources. OSMP staff will provide further natural and cultural resource
assessments prior to finalizing the easement location and an invasive Russian olive tree would
likely be removed during construction. The Lot Owners will also pay OSMP $1,000, for the water
line easement interest in the OSMP Property (0.16-acre easement x $12,500/acre fee value x 50%
of fee).
Article XII, Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter requires an OSBT approval and recommendation
to City Council to dispose of any open space land interests under Section 177 of the Boulder City
Charter. If recommended and approved by OSBT and approved by City Council, OSMP staff will
work with CAO to finalize the water service line easement and will monitor and enforce its terms
which will include provisions related to construction/reconstruction disturbance, restoration (including
revegetation and weed control), and ongoing maintenance access.
This matter will be brought forward at a future meeting for a board recommendation and decision.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Boulder Valley Farm Open Space Map
• Attachment B: Water Service Line Easement Depiction
Written Information - Item A - Page 2
Culver
Boulder Valley Farm
Sudan CE
Ertl II
Marble
Martinson
Dexter - Life Estate
Warner I - Open Space
Warner I - CE
Kennedy CE
Teller Lake (1/3 Hartnagle)
Ertl III - North East
N 107th St£¤287
£¤287N 95th StIsabelle Rd
Valmont Rd
Jasper RdLeggettDitch
B o u l der Cre e kLow e r Bou l d e r D itc h
L e yn e r C ottonw oodC onsolidate d Ditch
Bo
u
l
d
erand
W
hite
Rock
Ditch
User: cassidyj Date: 1/30/2023 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\Boulder Valley Farm\Location_BVF.mxd
Location MapBoulder Valley Farm
I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Miles
Legend
OSMP Ownership
OSMP Joint Easement
OSMP Easement
Boulder Valley Farm
Approximate Waterline Easement
Parcels - Boulder County
Waterline Easement
Block 3
ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item A - Page 3
ATTACHMENT BWritten Information - Item A - Page 4
Memorandum
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jeff Haley, Trails and Facilities Deputy Director
Chad Brotherton, Visitor Infrastructure Senior Manager
Ben Verrill, Trailheads Supervisor
Ilene Flax, Senior Landscape Architect
DATE: February 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Trailheads Update, Condition Assessment and Upcoming Projects
________________________________________________________________________
Introduction and Background
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) an update of
the Trailheads program, with a specific focus on current and upcoming trailhead related projects and
efforts since the staff presented to the board in December 2021.
The City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land system contains 37 trailheads and 76
official access points that provide visitors access to over 150 miles of designated trails and recreational
facilities. These trailheads and access points are the gateway to OSMP publicly accessible lands and are
the first aspect visitors experience when coming to the system. Functional, aesthetically pleasing, and
clean trailheads and access points set a standard for visitors to also take care of the lands they are
visiting. The infrastructure the trailhead program installs and maintains provides essential value, with
6.25 million annual visits funneled through these locations.
In accordance with the Master Plan outcomes and strategies, the Trailhead group aims to provide
Welcoming, Accessible Trailheads (Master Plan Outcome RRSE.C) that encourage Enjoyable, and
Responsible Recreation (Master Plan Outcome RRSE.B)1 through efforts to Provide Welcoming and
Inspiring Visitor Facilities and Services (Master Plan Strategy RRSE 8)2 and Encourage Multimodal Access
to Trailheads (Master Plan Strategy RRSE 4). This is accomplished through high standards for core duties
such as trailhead design and construction, innovation in materials and maintenance programs,
collaboration with all staff across the department and continuous improvements. Through innovation
and forward-thinking practices, the Trailheads program aims to be a leader in this industry for years to
come.
Trailhead Condition Assessments
As outlined to the OSBT in December 2021, the Trailheads program has a vast scope of work ranging
from minor cyclic maintenance to large scale trailhead redesigns. To help plan and prioritize this work,
staff contracted a design expert to assess the condition of all our trailheads in 2021 and was the primary
focus of the December 2021 agenda item. Prior to the assessment, the Trailheads program worked with
1 https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp-plans-and-reports
2 https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp-plans-and-reports
Written Information - Item B - Page 1
the consultant to create metrics on what would be assessed to produce consistent data. In addition to
assessing all OSMP trailheads, Confluent Design assessed 10 trailheads from nearby peer agencies to
have an external comparison. The categories assessed at each trailhead are parking lots, fences/barriers,
restrooms, signage, accessibility, and a catchall of other assets (picnic tables, grills, bike racks,
vegetation, etc.). Additionally, each trailhead was viewed from a wider perspective and scored overall
on design, functionality, and appearance.
As a reminder of the assessment, below is Confluent’s written summary of their assessment of OSMP
trailheads:
“In conclusion, trailheads within the OSMP system are heavily used by many visitors each year, and
collectively their condition has deteriorated over time, to the point that they now score unfavorably
relative to the assessed trailheads at peer agencies (some of which were constructed more recently).
Additionally, many OSMP trailheads appear to lack the thoughtful planning and design provided by
licensed professionals (e.g., Professional Engineers and Landscape Architects) to adequately address
issues such as drainage, vehicular circulation, and wayfinding (e.g., signage). A combination of
strategies, including improved maintenance protocols and capital investments, is recommended to
elevate the OSMP trailhead system to a higher level of physical condition while sustaining the natural
values of the land for current and future generations.” (p. 9)
The report also states that “it should be noted that all trailheads in the OSMP system were clearly
receiving regular attention and care by the Trailheads staff at the time of assessment, and many
residents and tourists were observed enjoying the City’s wonderful system. Several visitors expressed
their appreciation of the OSMP system to the author of this report.” (p. 5)
The results produced by the report indicate that OSMP scored worse than nearby peer agencies in every
category. Overall trailhead condition scoring based on design, functionality and appearance show this
result as OSMP scored higher (which is less favorable) than peer agency trailheads.
(OSMP Trailhead Condition Assessment p. 52)
Written Information - Item B - Page 2
Irrespective of comparison to peer agency trailheads, OSMP trailheads scored the worst in the parking
lot and accessibility categories. As the charts below show, 62% of OSMP’s parking lot conditions were
rated as “fair” or poor” for their overall condition and thus “in need of moderate to significant repairs or
maintenance” (OSMP Trailhead Condition Assessment p. 11).
For accessibility, 80.2% of trailheads rate as “fair” or “poor” “and in need of moderate to significant
repairs, maintenance, or modification to meet accessibility standards.” (OSMP Trailhead Condition
Assessment p. 43):
Written Information - Item B - Page 3
This report has helped the Trailheads program plan and prioritize work for years to come. However, it
also clearly demonstrates that significant investment is needed to bring OSMP trailheads up to standard,
replacing aging infrastructure and outdated design so that these gateways to the system match the
iconic natural lands they lead to.
Since the report was completed in November 2021 and shared with the OSBT, staff have worked on
creating cost estimates that will indicate what it will take to bring trailheads and access points up to
standard. That will allow staff to prioritize this work by type of infrastructure or by location, in
accordance with planning guidance. Here is a spreadsheet summarizing the condition and estimated
backlog costs to update and standardize all trailheads across the system. The current replacement value
of each trailhead is based on its classification. The backlog cost is a percentage of that value based on
it’s condition.
Written Information - Item B - Page 4
Current and Upcoming Trailhead Projects
As mentioned previously, in addition to cyclic maintenance, the Trailheads group now directly manages
larger scale projects to bring our infrastructure up to standards, reduce ongoing maintenance costs, and
manage increasing visitation. This section of the memorandum will highlight some current and
upcoming projects that the Trailheads program is excited to be leading.
Marshall Mesa Trailhead Redesign and Rebuilding
The Marshall Mesa trailhead was impacted by the 2021 Marshall fire, which destroyed the vault
restroom, accessible trail, various infrastructure, and fencing. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) will provide funding for vault restroom replacement. The Colorado Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) will provide mitigation for underground coal seam burning
through mass excavations. Boulder County Transportation has been working with the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) and OSMP to address safety concerns between the park and ride
shuttle stop on the west side of Eldorado Springs Drive (170) and the trailhead. Trailhead renovation
design will leverage these adjacent projects to include consideration of the following elements:
• Vehicular Improvements: New driveway that allows for left turns in and out of the trailhead; Shuttle
access, circulation, and staging; and Parking renovations in relation to the new driveway.
• Trail design: Connection to the park and ride crosswalk; New accessible route; Re-routes in relation to
vehicular circulation changes.
• Site furnishings: Replacement vault restroom; Shade shelter as a safety feature in our increasingly hot
climate; Tables and benches to support visitors; Bike facilities; Fencing.
• Education and Outreach elements: Implementation of some components of CU Boulder’s Eco-healing
studio projects; Nature discovery elements; Acknowledgement of the Marshall Fire, interpretation
opportunities.
• Signage to support wayfinding and interpretation.
Recreational Gate Standardization
In 2020, the Trailhead program was tasked with managing the installation and maintenance of
recreational gates on the OSMP system. The primary focus of this effort was to develop and implement
standard gate hardware to provide a consistent, functional, and durable experience for trail users when
encountering gates. Recreational gates allow hikers, bikers, dogs, and horses to access and share lands
that also serve an agricultural need. Gates are necessary to contain cattle on certain properties while
still allowing trail users through. This also necessitates the gates to be closed while not in use. To
accomplish this, the Trailheads team spent 2020 looking for and testing various self-closing gate hinges.
Self-closing hinges guarantee that gates remain closed while not in use, keeping cattle on the
appropriate property. After trying out several types of self-closing hinges, one was found that proved to
be the most durable and provide consistent function. It did require custom modifications from a local
metal worker to be compatible with OSMP fence and gate standards. The hinge is simple and minimal in
design, using gravity to close reliably after every use. It is pictured below.
Written Information - Item B - Page 5
2021 was spent piloting the use of this hinge around the system to test it in real world conditions. We
are pleased with its durability and functionality, and in 2022 staff worked with a contractor to install
these hinges all over the system.
2023 Update: the contractor has been busy updating gates around the system throughout 2022 and will
continue this work in 2023.
Centennial Trailhead Outhouse
The outhouse at Centennial Trailhead was one of two identical models (also at Flatirons Vista) installed
on OSMP in the early 2000s. At the time, it was an innovative new design that included a solar powered
evaporative system. In theory, this system evaporates liquid waste over time and requires a smaller
storage vault. In practice, the system relies heavily on consistent sunlight and moving parts, leading to
maintenance issues and a persistent unpleasant odor. It has become a priority to replace these
outhouses, starting with Centennial, to provide a better visitor experience, and reduce maintenance
costs and time. In 2023, the Trailheads group will be replacing the Centennial outhouse with a simpler
and more durable style from CXT, Inc. This model is 100% pre-cast concrete that eliminates mold, rot,
and other maintenance issues. It also includes a larger storage vault, reducing pumping requirements
and costs. It also provides a more pleasant experience for visitors. This will be a pilot of this model of
outhouse and will hopefully become the standard going forward.
2023 Update:
Most of 2022 was spent sorting through various complications and delays surrounding site constraints,
cultural resource concerns, and design considerations. Those have all been addressed and we are ready
to move ahead with installation this year. We have updated the model and location on site:
Written Information - Item B - Page 6
Fourmile Trailhead Parking Lot Resurfacing
Fourmile Trailhead is one of the few asphalt-surfaced parking lots on OSMP. The asphalt surface of the
parking lot is nearing the end of its life cycle and is heavily damaged.
To maintain a functional standard, and provide welcoming, accessible trailheads in accordance with the
Master Plan, the parking lot surface was replaced in 2022. In 2020 and 2021, the Trailheads group
worked with planners, landscape architects, and engineers at OSMP and Otak, Inc. to produce a new
design and grading plan that fits entirely in the existing footprint and improves traffic flow and back-out
angles for vehicles. The surface is newly laid asphalt, and the sub-grade was improved to reduce
drainage issues and increase the longevity of the asphalt.
Written Information - Item B - Page 7
2023 Update:
This project was successfully completed in the summer of 2022 and the trailhead has been open and
functioning well since then. The Trailheads team has done some initial planting and seeding of native
vegetation in the parking lot islands and perimeter. That work will continue in 2023 as we look to
establish high value and resilient native vegetation at the trailhead.
Chapman Drive Trailhead Re-Design
Chapman Drive Trailhead was built in 2011 as a short-term solution to accommodate increased parking
when Chapman Drive trail was finished. The intention had been to develop a permanent trailhead with
standardized infrastructure once the Boulder Canyon Trail extension was finished. The Schnell Property
acquisition memo to the OSBT stated that the property was purchased with the intent to have a trail
connection from Boulder Canyon Drive to the top of Flagstaff Mountain (identified as a priority in the
WTSA), a new trailhead, and to preserve a property contiguous to the Western Mountain Parks Habitat
Conservation area. Now that the Boulder Canyon Trail has been completed and ends at the trailhead,
staff has decided it is time to develop the permanent trailhead, aligning infrastructure to current
standards and guidelines. The goal is to build a trailhead to best service the two connecting trails
(Boulder Canyon and Chapman Drive) and associated open space-related activities allowed in the area,
while providing infrastructure that manages and directs visitors to designated trails and away from the
important surrounding habitat.
2023 Update:
While still in development, the new design will increase parking efficiency, include a horse trailer/large
vehicle parking spot, add a picnic area. OSMP is partnering with Boulder County to include construction
of a pedestrian bridge connection from the Boulder Canyon Trail across Boulder Creek to the Chapman
Written Information - Item B - Page 8
Drive trailhead. The goal is to complete design and permitting in 2023 and begin construction later in
2023 or early in 2024.
Doudy Draw Trailhead Redesign
For years, Doudy Draw Trailhead has had ongoing issue with the large-vehicle parking. During high
visitation periods, cars and other smaller vehicles often park in the spaces reserved for horse-trailers
and large vehicles. OSMP has received many complaints related to this issue over the last few years.
OSMP Ranger staff designated this as a high priority to address as soon as possible. This situation was
outlined in a memorandum to the OSBT on July 14 of this year 3(p.47-48). The Trailhead group worked
with landscape architects within OSMP to produce a simple redesign to solve this problem. The new
design relocates the large vehicle parking farther from the trail access and allows it to be gated off and
reserved for these vehicles. It also relocates the entrance to improve one-way traffic through the
trailhead. The grade and drainage of the parking lot function well and will remain in place, making this
project straight-forward and relatively easy to accomplish.
3 https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=176428&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2&cr=1
Written Information - Item B - Page 9
2023 Update:
This project was successfully completed in November 2022 and has received positive feedback from
both the public and staff. Due to the timing of construction the majority of the planting, seeding and
restoration efforts have been delayed until this upcoming spring. This work will take place in
accordance with the newly created Trailheads Planting program.
South Mesa Trailhead Re-Design
South Mesa Trailhead is one of OSMP’s signature trailheads, with access to many miles of scenic trail
among the foothills. It is also one of our older trailheads and contains aging infrastructure and poor
drainage. The parking lot requires grading and repairs 3-4 times annually, utilizing 150-200 tons of road
base to complete. This incurs heavy material and labor costs. Given the high visibility and visitation of
this location, the Trailheads program has identified this as our highest priority for a future re-design. CIP
funds are included in 2023 for the design phase with anticipated future CIP requests to implement this
design in 2024. The goal of this redesign is to reduce maintenance costs and problems, and upgrade and
standardize infrastructure to provide a more welcoming, functioning, and accessible trailhead for
visitors. Design is currently underway.
Climate Assessment of Trailhead Construction and Maintenance
OSMP is about to begin a project with Lotus Engineering and Sustainability, LLC to provide an
assessment of trailhead infrastructure and maintenance activities, and a visitor behavior change
analysis. The assessment will provide useful information about greenhouse gas emissions associated
with trailhead construction and maintenance to inform decision-making. The visitor behavior change
work will analyze trailhead infrastructure strategies for reducing visitor-related emissions. These efforts
will support the department’s commitment to reducing emissions from operations and will explore the
effectiveness of various policies and initiatives to help reduce the emissions impact of visitor travel.
Written Information - Item B - Page 10
Trailhead Planting
As a transition between the built environment and the OSMP system, trailheads are a kind of ecotone.
They cue leave no trace behaviors and set people up for success on the system by modelling
stewardship, providing wayfinding, and creating a welcoming environment. The landscapes there
support safety and respond to the harsh environment of a paved parking lot. They are also an
opportunity to model vibrant landscapes—places for natural processes to happen play an important role
in reconnecting fragmented and marginalized natural areas. Trailhead planting can cultivate a sense of
beauty in ecologically functional landscapes; model stewardship and care for vibrant landscapes; engage
the community in understanding ecological functions; and provide beautiful models of vibrant
landscapes.
The trailhead planting program focuses on native cosmopolitans--native plants that thrive in the built
environment. Strategies for these plantings include extremely hearty plant selections, beautiful plant
combinations, and demonstration plantings. Trailhead planting will play an important role as trailheads
are renovated.
Written Information - Item B - Page 11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jennelle Freeston, Interim Deputy Director of Community Connections and
Partnerships
Frances Boulding, Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Manager
DATE: February 8, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Information: Chautauqua Access Management Program Evaluation Process
________________________________________________________________________
The Chautauqua Access Management Program (CAMP) began in 2017 to address parking, access, and
livability issues at the historic park and in the surrounding residential area. After a successful pilot in
2017, CAMP was extended to operate until the end of 2023 under BRC 2-2-21. As part of the 2023
work plan, city staff will conduct a formal evaluation of the CAMP program and update and provide
recommendations to boards and council regarding the future of the program. Attached is an
Information Item being sent to City Council as part of the Feb. 2, 2023 council meeting packet. The
purpose of the attached Information Item is to update council on the methodology and schedule for
this evaluation. As noted in this memo, staff will be updating and seeking feedback and
recommendations from the Open Space Board of Trustees later this year.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: City Council Information Item: Chautauqua Access Management Program
Evaluation Process
Written Information - Item C - Page 1
INFORMATION ITEM
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director of Transportation & Mobility
Cris Jones, Interim Director of Community Vitality
Dan Burke, Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks
Valerie Watson, Transportation Planning Manager
Chris Hagelin, Principal Planner, Transportation & Mobility
Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer, Transportation & Mobility
Samantha Bromberg, Senior Project Manager, Community Vitality
Frances Boulding, Recreation and Cultural Stewardship Manager, Open Space and
Mountain Parks
Date: February 2, 2023
Subject: Information Item: Chautauqua Access Management Program Evaluation
Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Chautauqua Access Management Program (CAMP) began in 2017 to address parking,
access, and livability issues at the historic park and in the surrounding residential area. After a
successful pilot in 2017, CAMP was extended to operate until the end of 2023 under BRC 2-2-
21. As part of the 2023 work plan, staff will conduct a formal evaluation the CAMP program
and provide recommendations to boards and council the future of the program. The purpose of
this Information Item is to update council on the methodology and schedule for this evaluation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Any modifications to CAMP services, program elements, or duration could have a financial
impact on the city which specifically funds, for example, parking and demand management
operations and the free shuttle service from remote parking lots. The CAMP evaluation is being
conducted without any additional funding outside of staff time.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
•Economic: Chautauqua, as destination for both residents and visitors, and provider of a wide
range of activities and programs, is a cultural icon and an important contributor to the local
economy. Providing multi-modal access and managing parking demand is important part of
ensuring its on-going economic benefit to the community and visitors to the park.
OSBT ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item C - Page 2
• Environmental: By managing demand through paid parking and providing multi-modal
options, the program aims to reduce vehicle trips to the park, unnecessary vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) produced when searching for parking, and the related greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG). The free shuttle system from remote parking lots and nearby transit stops,
provides a key first and final mile solution for residents and visitors. Staff is also seeking to
find a balance between providing access to open spaces as a community benefit and
protecting open spaces from the impacts of exceeding carrying capacity.
• Social: By providing improved access and multimodal options, the program aims to ensure
that all members of our diverse community can take advantage of all the community benefits
Chautauqua offers. Free shuttle service from remote lots served by transit is one example of
how the program expands accessibility. CAMP also works with employers on the
Chautauqua property to implement transportation demand management (TDM) programs to
help many lower-wage employees with work commute issues or barriers.
BACKGROUND
CAMP was designed and implemented as a pilot in 2017 to manage parking demand at and
around the park, address livability issues for the adjacent neighborhood, and increase access for
residents, employees, and visitors. After a successful pilot, CAMP was renewed through 2023
by ordinance 2-2-21 in the BRC. Before the ordinance expires, council directed staff to conduct
an evaluation of the program to determine whether to continue the program and identify possible
modifications to improve the effectiveness of the program.
Program Elements
On weekends and holidays between Memorial and Labor Day, CAMP features managed and
paid parking, a parking permit program for the neighborhood to the north, free shuttle service
from remote lots and downtown Boulder provided by Via Mobility, an ambassador program
sponsored by the Boulder Convention and Visitor Bureau (now Visit Boulder), and TDM
programs for employers and employees. For a brief period, subsidized ride-hailing in
partnership with Lyft was also included but ended due to lack of use and unsustainable per ride
costs.
Partners
CAMP is a multidepartment effort that includes Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP),
Community Vitality (CV), and Transportation & Mobility (T&M) staff. The success of CAMP
has also depended significantly on partnerships with local stakeholders and service providers.
These stakeholders include Via Mobility, the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA), Visit
Boulder, the Chautauqua Dining Hall, the Colorado Music Festival, University of Colorado
(CU), the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD), residents, and the park visitors.
ANALYSIS
CAMP Evaluation Purpose
The purpose of the evaluation is to:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the CAMP program compared to the original goals and
objectives of the program,
OSBT ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item C - Page 3
• Develop staff recommendations based on data analysis and stakeholder input for
boards and council to consider for the future of the CAMP program,
• Inform the crafting and adoption of necessary ordinances related to Council direction,
• Inform the development of an implementation framework based on Council guidance,
and
• Set a foundation for future Trail Access Management Programs and evaluation of
effectiveness.
CAMP Evaluation Project Team
The CAMP Evaluation Project will be managed by Chris Hagelin, Principal Planner with the
Transportation Planning Division. The project management team also includes department leads
who will oversee specific tasks assigned to department staff with Samantha Bromberg (CV),
Devin Joslin (T&M), and Frances Boulding (OSMP) filling the department lead roles. The
project management team will manage the work performed by city staff members and work
extensively with representatives of the stakeholders to evaluate the program and develop
recommendations on the future of CAMP to be delivered to boards and council for their
consideration.
CAMP Evaluation Methodology
The project management team has identified 6 major tasks of the evaluation.
1. Project Management Planning
Development of the project management plan, project charter, evaluation methodology
and schedule, assignment of city staff roles and responsibilities, internal meetings, and
managerial processes to organize the effort.
2. Data Collection and Analysis
Data to be analyzed includes parking demand and revenue at Chautauqua, average daily
traffic, shuttle ridership, service hours and costs, Neighborhood Parking Permit
participation, demand and revenue, park visitor frequency and demographics, and
commuter travel behavior. Throughout the six years of the CAMP program (2017-2022),
staff have collected quantitative and qualitative data through counts, surveys, and
technology. After the initial analysis, staff will determine if any additional data
collection is needed in the early weeks of this 2023 season.
3. Stakeholder and Community Engagement
The evaluation project team will develop a stakeholder and community engagement plan
to gather input, feedback, and recommendations from a variety of stakeholders including
the CCA, Visit Boulder, Via Mobility, CU, BVSD, park visitors, nearby residents, and
the Boulder community at large. Stakeholder and community engagement will use a
variety of methodologies to gather input including but not limited to social media
outreach, strategic workshops, Be Heard Boulder online surveys, targeted surveys, and
focus groups. Community engagement will also focus on any social and racial equity
issues that need to be addressed to increase equitable park access to all members of our
diverse community.
OSBT ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item C - Page 4
4. Staff Recommendation Development
Based on the data analysis, the results of the community engagement, and input from
boards and council, staff will develop a recommendation on the future of CAMP. The
recommendation will be submitted through the public process, including the possibility of
adoption or update to any related ordinances.
5. Public Process with Boards and Council
Through presentations, information items, and public hearings, the project team will keep
the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT),
and council informed on the progress of the evaluation. Advice and direction will be
solicited until staff recommendations are formulated. If council directs staff to continue
CAMP, ordinances will need to be updated before the end of 2023 when the current
ordinance sunsets.
Tentative Board and Council Dates
• April/May: Findings and Options for TAB, OSBT
• May: Information Item: Evaluation Update to Council following Board input
• August: Final Recommendations to TAB, OSBT
• September: Final Recommendations to Council
• November/December: Ordinance changes, if necessary
6. Development of Implementation Plan for 2024 and beyond
The final task, if council directs staff to continue the program, will be to design an
implementation plan to guide future CAMP management and operations including on-
going funding and resource needs, and agreements with Via Mobility, CU, BVSD and
Visit Boulder.
CAMP Evaluation Schedule
TASK Project
Management
Data
Collection
Stakeholder
Engagement
Staff
Recommendations
Public
Process
Implementation
Plan
January
February Council IP
March
April Boards
May Boards
June
July
August Boards
September Council
October
November Council
December Council
2024
OSBT ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item C - Page 5
NEXT STEPS
1. Staff will proceed with implementing the CAMP Evaluation Project Management Plan
using the outlined methodology and schedule.
2. Staff will finalize public process dates with boards and council
3. Following the completion of the data analysis and engagement process, staff will present
findings and options to Boards and summarize input in an IP to Council.
4. Staff return to Council in September with final program recommendations for their
consideration.
OSBT ATTACHMENT A
Written Information - Item C - Page 6