Loading...
01.22.24 PRAB PacketAGENDA All agenda times are approximate I.APPROVAL OF AGENDA (2 minutes) II.FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (2 minutes) III.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (15-30 minutes) A.This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers are limited to three minutes. Depending on the nature of your matter, you may or may not receive a response from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to and appreciative of community feedback. IV.CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes) A.Approval of Minutes from December 18, 2023 B.Parks and Recreation Planning, Design and Construction Updates C.Parks and Recreation Operations Updates V.ACTION ITEMS A.None VI.MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION A.Proposed Civic Area Historic District (45 min) VII.MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT A.Court System Plan (15 min) B.Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment (15 min) C.BPR 2024 Action Plan (Verbal) (10 min) VIII.MATTERS FROM THE BOARD A.March Regular Meeting Date (5 min) B.Board Membership (5 min) C.PRAB Matters (Verbal) (5 min) IX.NEXT BOARD MEETING: A.February 26, 2024 X.ADJOURN Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Landmarks Board Joint Study Session Hybrid Meeting 6:00 p.m., January 22, 2024 Boulder Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Members 2023 Andrew Bernstein Charles Brock Elliott Hood Anna Segur Anita Speirs Jason Unger Sarah van der Star Mission Statement BPRD will promote the health and well- being of the entire Boulder community by collaboratively providing high-quality parks, facilities and programs. Vision Statement We envision a community where every member’s health and well- being is founded on unparalleled parks, facilities and programs. Goals of the Master Plan 1.Community Health and Wellness 2.Taking Care of What We Have 3.Financial Sustainability 4.Building Community 5.Youth Engagement 6.Organizational Readiness 1 PRAB Future Board Items Agenda January 22 February 26 March 25 Hybrid for members & staff. Public Comment remains Virtual. Hybrid for members & staff. Public Comment remains Virtual. Hybrid for members & staff. Public Comment remains Virtual. Regular Mtg (c) •Summary of Civic Area Study Session with City Council •Scoping Universal Access Plan Regular Mtg (a) •None •None •None Regular Mtg (d/i) •Proposed Civic Area Historic District •2023 Year End Financial Review •Pleasantview: Schematic Design •Park on Violet: Planning Analysis with Vision and Value •Civic Area: Planning Analysis with Vision and Values •Fee Policy Updates Regular Mtg (md) •Court System Plan •Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment •BPR 2024 Action Plan (Verbal) •BPR Climate Emissions reporting/alignment •Court System Plan: Conceptual Design Alts with Preferred Alterative •Natural Lands System Plan Kick- Off •1st Touch: 2025 Budget Development (Rev, Exp, Fee Policy Updates, Fee Schedule, CIP) Regular Mtg (mb) •March Regular Meeting Date •PRAB Recruitment, Orientation and Departing Board members •May 27 is Memorial Day. New May meeting date needed Other Mtgs or Topics •Jan 29: B&C application deadline •Feb 5 PRAB Study Session: -BPR Equity Work, including Water Safety Access -B&C Report Debrief and Discussion -PRAB Handbook deep dive -PRABs role and authority -PRAB process •Feb 12-Feb23: B&C applicant interviews Dept Events & Items of Interest TBD: Pleasantview Public Meeting Feb 19: COB President’s Day closure Feb TBD: Court System Plan Public Meeting March 7: City Council makes B&C appointments March 23-31: SBRC Shut down AGENDA SETTING The PRAB Chair, PRAB Vice Chair and BPR staff set the agenda for the next month on Thursday directly following the regular PRAB meeting. PRAB members can submit agenda requests to the Chair and Vice Chair by Wednesday following the PRAB regular meeting for consideration. If time-sensitive matters arise, PRAB Chair and Vice Chair may amend the agenda as needed. LEGEND Action Item (a): A public hearing item to be voted on by the Board (public comment period provided). Procedural Item: (p): An item requiring procedural attention. Consent Item (c): An item provided in written form for consent, not discussion by the Board; any consent item may be called up by any Board member for discussion following the consent agenda. Discussion/Information Item(d/i): An item likely to be a future action item (or council item) and/or that benefits from an in-depth discussion. Matters from the Department (md): Items that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring as much in-depth analysis. Matters from the Board (mb): Items initiated by the Board that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring as much in-depth analysis. City Council Item (cc) Other Boards and Commissions (obc) Community Engagement and/or Events (e) 2 TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation Bryan Beary, Senior Manager, Community Building and Partnerships Mark Davison, Senior Manager, Planning Regina Elsner, Senior Manager, Natural Resources Jackson Hite, Senior Manager, Business Services Megann Lohman, Senior Manager, Recreation Stephanie Munro, Senior Manager, Regional Facilities Scott Schuttenberg, Deputy Director Dennis Warrington, Senior Manager, Urban Parks SUBJECT: Consent Agenda DATE: January 22, 2024 A.Approval of Minutes December 18, 2023 3 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Landmarks Board Study Session Date of Meeting: December 18, 2023 Contact Information Preparing Summary: Rosa Kougl; 303-413-7223 PRAB Board Members Present: Charles (Chuck) Brock, Elliott Hood, Jason Unger, Andrew (Bernie) Bernstein, Sunny van der Star, Anna Segur Landmarks Board Members Present: Ronnie Pelusio, Renee Golobic, Chelsea Castellano, John Decker, Abby Daniels, PRAB Board Members Absent: Anita Speirs Staff Present: Ali Rhodes, Scott Schuttenberg, Rosa Kougl, Mark Davison, Bryan Beary, Jackson Hite, Regina Elsner, Jonathan Thornton, Jill Sobol-Kertz, David Choate, Tina Briggs, Shihomi Kuriyagawa, Marcy Gerwing, Kristofer Johnson, Brad Mueller, Lucas Markley, Amanda Cusworth, Clare Brandt Guests Present: Angie Jeffords, PLAY Boulder Type of Meeting: Joint Study Session Agenda Item 1: Approval of Agenda The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A PRAB quorum was present for the conduct of business. A Landmarks quorum was present for the conduct of business. Motion to approve agenda. First motion by Brock, second by Hood. The motion passed 6-0. Agenda Item 2: Joint Study Session: • PRAB and Landmarks Board Joint Study Session Markley, Gerwing, Johnson, Kuriyagawa presented this item. The purpose of the Dec. 18, 2023, Joint study session and presentation was to provide an update on the process for the Proposed Civic Area Historic District, provide feedback on the draft design guideline framework and review the Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA) process and findings for Central Park. The Proposed Civic Area Historic District application is a proposal to designate a portion of the Civic Area as a local historic district. Reference the Dec. 18, 2023 PRAB Packet. Mueller offered opening remarks. Markley presented the roles of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Landmarks Board and the quasi-judicial process. Johnson presented group agreements and the meeting purpose. Gerwing presented an overview of the proposed historic district, including a project update and draft design guideline framework. Kuriyagawa presented the Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA) process and findings. Discussion Questions 1. Do board members have questions on the designation process? 4 2. Do board members have feedback on the draft design guideline framework (intent, table of contents, guiding principles)? 3. Do board members have questions on the CLA process or findings? PRAB and Landmarks Board had the following clarifying questions and feedback as noted in the recording here: Board Members asked for clarification on: • Analysis of the Bandshell separately from the other landmarks within the proposed boundary. • The meaning of integrity in the context of historic district designation. • Timing of the development of the design guidelines within the quasi-judicial process. • What method PRAB’s recommendation will be conveyed to City Council (i.e. written resolution, letter, verbal vote) • The date of the last designation of parkland. • Role of the applicant groups (Historic Boulder, Inc., Friends of the Bandshell, Friends of the Teahouse) in the designation process. • Clarification on “urban trees, park design standards, transportation networks, and maintenance components” in guiding principle #1.     • How historic planting plans might apply to current and future selections. • How designation impacts the management of the park, including costs to maintain designated property. • Role of the irrigation ditches related to historic district designation. • The date the Broadway Underpass was created and how designation would impact its location and status. • Whether Boulder Creek is included within the proposed boundary. • Who funds maintenance costs for designated properties, i.e. the Bandshell. • The historic uses of the area, i.e. the Farmers’ Market and camping. • The land use implications of historic district designation. • Whether any part of the park has been considered to be “contributing restorable.” Board member feedback included: • If something is designated or landmarked, changes are permitted.  • Often it is very difficult to make changes to historic property, so we do not want to give this false sense that it's easy to change things if it is landmarked, because based on a year and a half on this board, that is not true. • The guidelines should recognize the critical importance of the maintenance and work for life safety elements.   • Regarding boundaries around 13th Street, the boundary might want to span all of 13th from Arapahoe to Canyon.  • In the event of flooding and catastrophic change, are there any contingency guidelines to deal with that? • I am not prepared to respond to the CLA findings. I think I am more likely to really look at the completed project because that is where we are going to see the substance and the heart and soul. • Regarding the fourth guiding principle around social and political history, it is very important the full inclusive history is represented throughout the storytelling of the Park, and even through some educational pieces that could be stood within the park, if this does 5 not go forward with historic designation at any point throughout the process, is that still possible to include in the park design as it goes through renovation.  • I have not been given the information to make me understand the full history. I just want to make sure as a community, we try to integrate this more into not just the external policies and processes, but also the internal processes, so that we all have a baseline level of knowledge and understanding of who and what we're talking about. • I want to applaud everybody for the efforts that have been put in place for the community outreach component, it does appear to me that it was a very robust effort. • No formal vote or action was taken. Next Steps The historic district application will be reviewed by Boards and the City Council in early 2024. The anticipated schedule includes: • January 22, 2024 - Parks & Recreation Advisory Board • February 7, 2024 – Landmarks Board Designation Hearing • March 2024 – Planning Board (Land Use) • March 2024 – City Council, 1st Reading • April 2024 – City Council, 2nd Reading and Public Hearing Adjourn 7:25pm First motion by Castellano, second by Pelusio. Amendment to Agenda: Event at Boulder Recreation Center, December 17 Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation shared a timeline of events. PRAB follow up questions or comments. • How long the lockdown lasted before people were allowed to leave? • Where in the building are people allowed during a lockdown? Agenda Item 3: Future Board Items and Tours: Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed upcoming agenda items and events. PRAB follow up questions or comments. • The appropriate avenue for providing feedback to City Council on the Historic District application. Agenda Item 4: Public Participation • Fran Mandel Sheets shared her history as a Landmarks Board member on proposed Historic District in the Civic Area. • Leonard Segel spoke on behalf of the preservation organization, Historic Boulder, as its executive director. • Patrick O’Rourke shared his thoughts on the proposed Historic District. • Larry McKeogh shared his appreciation for BPR services and amenities. • Emily Gonyou shared concern about the events that occurred on December 17 outside of the North Boulder Recreation Center. 6 PRAB follow up questions or comments. • One of the commenters suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department is somehow working against the proposed historical distirct; is that accurate? • We have never seen any indication from city staff in any of our prior discussions or meetings about this suggesting that there is any such motivation on the part of staff or this board. This is a transparent process and what we saw tonight is indicative of the kind of public discussion we want to have about the proposed Historic District. Agenda Item 5: Consent Agenda • Approval of Minutes from November 27, 2023, Business Meeting Motion to approve the minutes from the November 27, 2023, Regular PRAB meeting. First motion by Hood, second by van der Star. The motion passed 6-0. B, C, D. Updates from the Director, Project Updates, Operations & Development PRAB had follow up questions or comments. • The two photos, the before and after, of the reservoir related to ANS are alarming. What is a high-level update on the control of this and what are our prospects? • What is the effect on our water intake and quality. • Would like to have more information on this, a full segment of our meeting should be dedicated to addressing this. • Are there other nearby towns in Colorado that are dealing with this? • This increases concern in our aquatic nuisance species, mitigation protocols. • Would like more details about what the danger is, both in terms of to the ecology of local ecosystem, but also in terms of the drinking water. Agenda Item 6: Items for Action • No items Agenda Item 7: Matters for Discussion • No items Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Department • PLAY Boulder Foundation Guest Angie Jeffords presented this item. PRAB had the following questions/comments: • As a philanthropic organization, PLAY can go after money that the Parks and Recreation Department itself cannot and they can also serve people who are not within the city limits of Boulder. It expands the reach of some of the programs beyond just the city borders. • This is a great organization and Angie has done a great job of re-energizing it after Covid had strong impacts. 7 • Play Pass is a is a resource that a lot of families really appreciate. • Are there any options or opportunities for the swim programs. • Thank you to Angie for what she is doing, the programs are super exciting, and it is nice to hear what is going on and feel the passion behind it. Agenda Item 9: Matters from the Board Members a. View of Final PRAB Handbook PRAB had the following questions or comment: • Change Chuck Brock to Chair from President on Cover Letter b. PRAB Matters PRAB had the following questions or comment: • What happened to the portable restroom outside of Pleasantview? • What are the hours of the bathrooms when Scott Carpenter is open to the public for those who are at the playground? • What is at the construction site from the Arboretum on the bike path as you approach the creek on the south bank, there is a new chain link fence with signage that says, “open excavation”. Agenda Item 10: Next Board Meeting Next Board meeting: Monday, January 22, 2024, Hybrid Agenda Item 11: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Approved by: Attested: ___________________ _____________________ Chuck Brock Rosa Kougl Board Member BPR Staff Date: ______________ Date: _________________ 8 B. Parks and Recreation Planning, Design and Construction Updates • The following information is intended to provide the PRAB with relevant updates on specific projects as they reach major milestones. This section is not all inclusive of all current projects and only illustrates major project updates. For a complete list of all current projects and details, please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org. • Overview of Project Status Staff or contractors continue to work on the following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved. Project Status Civic Area – Phase 2 Contracting Civic Historic District Evaluation Planning Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment Final Recommendations Court System Plan Planning Future of Recreation Centers Scoping North Boulder Park Contracting Flatirons Golf Course Facility Construction Pleasantview Access Design Park on Violet Design Boulder Creek Safety Plan Anticipated Start 2024 East Boulder Community Park Anticipated Start 2024 Universal Access Plan Anticipated Start 2024 Pearl Street Place Making Anticipated Start 2025 Bouder Junction Pocket Park Anticipated Start 2025 Boulder Creek Management Plan Anticipated Start 2025 Planning • Summary of Civic Area Study Session with City Council The Civic Area Phase 2 Study Session with City Council on December 14th can be found here (link) and the full summary with key takeaways council addressed and that the team will incorporate into the project process moving forward with the design team can be found here (link). An overview of the key topics council raised during the study session for the Civic Area Phase 2 were: 1. Prioritize equity, diversity, inclusion, and access in the engagement process to ensure effective public engagement 2. Prioritize the SER Framework in parallel to the seven Guiding Principles to ensure Boulder’s goals for a resilient, sustainable, and viable future 9 3. Prioritize multi-modal and universal access to, through and in the Civic Area. Pedestrian, bike, other mobility devises, ADA requirements, universal access and multimodal transportation will be studied in the Civic Area to create a welcoming, accessible and community-oriented Heart of Boulder, including connectivity to adjacent sites 4. Ensure and demonstrate how guiding plans and policies will inform the project as it moves towards a final design (and how they intersect) to ensure accountability to the city’s vision, values, and goals. 5. Work to provide clarity around the engagement process (including outreach, roles, input, decision making, etc.), with each stakeholder, partner, and community-based organizations. 6. Develop a process by which acceptable social behaviors are identified to reflect common community goals for the Civic Area that ensure the space is viewed as welcoming and safe for all members of the community. C. Parks and Recreation Operations Update Recreation Centers and Aquatics Recreation Center hours have expanded in the new year as staffing levels and facility usage continue to grow. • North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC) Hours Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday & Sunday 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. • East Boulder Community Center (EBCC) Hours Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Saturday & Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. • South Boulder Recreation Center (SBRC) Hours Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday & Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The lap pool hours at the NBRC and EBCC are aligned with all open facility hours with pool closure occurring 30 minutes before facility closure. The lap pool at the SBRC continues to open at 11:00 a.m. Daytime leisure pool hours, between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., during the week rotate between NBRC and EBCC with all leisure pools open after 5:00 p.m. Leisure pools remain open on weekends after 10:00 a.m. Facility usage is gaining traction; usage per operational hour in December 2023 nearly matched pre-pandemic levels at 33.5 visits per hour. 10 A 6,000-visitation gap remains in total facility usage across the three recreation centers for December. EXPAND Internship Program The EXPAND program welcomes up to nine student interns from around the country each year, studying undergraduate Therapeutic Recreation, to work with BPR’s staff of Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists (CTRS) and participants with disabilities to facilitate recreation and leisure based activities that assist participants in learning and practicing: - Social and communication skills - Physical fitness and sports 11 - Independence and self-confidence - Building community - Safety within programs and in the community - Emotional well-being and appropriate expression of emotions - Cognition skill such as decision making, understanding rules and sustained attention - Leisure awareness, leisure education and having fun EXPAND’s internship program meets all National Council for Therapeutic Recreation Certification standards so students will be better prepared to earn a CTRS accreditation in the future. Two to three student interns typically participate in each semester (fall, winter/spring, and summer) and travel from colleges and universities across the country. In addition to the valuable experience of the program participation and college credits earned, interns are provided a $1,500 stipend and a recreation facility pass. This month, staff welcomed interns Alison Miller (Texas State University) and Samantha Thiele (Arkansas Tech University) who look forward to assisting/leading programs and getting to know participants. EXPAND’s service delivery model relies heavily on volunteers and interns to provide appropriate support to participants and has a long history of building therapeutic recreation practices across the county. Notable past interns include current EXPAND supervisor, Lori Goldman, who began her tenure with BPR as an EXPAND intern over 20 years ago, and the current Executive Director of the Colorado Parks and Recreation Association. 12 MEMORANDUM To: Parks & Recreation Advisory Board From: Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director (P&DS) Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager (P&DS) Teresa Tate, City Attorney’s Office Marcy Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner (P&DS) Clare Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner (P&DS) Date: January 22, 2024 Subject: Proposed Civic Area Historic District EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) the latest update on processing of an historic district application, with the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Civic Area Historic District. The application was submitted by three historic preservation organizations as allowed by Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, in May 2023. The Landmarks Board voted to initiate the designation process at their meeting on July 12, 2023. The historic district process, including department and agency coordination, community engagement, racial equity strategies, development of a draft design guideline framework, and the preparation of a Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA), is described in the Dec. 18, 2023 LB-PRAB Joint Study Session Memo (link). The City Charter outlines PRAB’s role, which includes making recommendations on the disposal of park land and expenditures from the parks and recreation fund, granting or denial of licenses or permits on park lands, and reviewing the annual budget. Additionally, the Parks & Recreation department (BPR) may request a recommendation from PRAB on other park and recreation matters. Historic district designation of the Civic Area, including Central Park, would introduce a new review requirement by the city’s Historic Preservation staff and Landmarks Board (as appropriate) of most physical changes within the district boundary. As such, Planning & Development Services staff is requesting PRAB’s comments on the proposed historic district, which will be included in the Landmarks Board, Planning Board and City Council memos. After continued city stakeholder input, P&DS staff’s preliminarily determination is that the proposed Civic Area Historic District meets the criteria for designation as a local historic district. Furthermore, through evaluation of the significance, integrity, and best practices for establishing historic district boundaries based on the city’s code and guidance from the National Park Service, staff additionally recommends a modified boundary from what is submitted in the 13 2 application. Specifically, the boundary preliminarily recommended by staff includes the five existing landmark structures, the length of 13th Street between Canyon and Arapahoe, and the entirety of Central Park up to Boulder Creek (See Figure 7). The proposed revised boundary considers the entire Civic Area’s larger history, beyond just the park and parkland, and its geography in Boulder as a central city feature that connects that entire area. It therefore takes into consideration the broader citywide context of the proposed historic district. PRELIMINARY LANDMARKS BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning & Development Services’ preliminary staff recommendation to the Landmarks Board, includes that the proposed district meets the criteria for local designation based on the Boulder Revised Code, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and Significance Criteria for District Landmarks, and recommends a revised boundary as described in the analysis below. This recommendation will be finalized in advance of the Landmarks Board hearing on February 7, 2024, upon final stakeholder input, including that of PRAB. POSSIBLE BOARD DISCUSSION TOPICS 1. Do PRAB members have comments on the proposed designation? 2. Would PRAB like to identify particular features within the proposed district that should be preserved or identify alterations that would have a significant impact or be potentially detrimental to the district for consideration to include in the designation ordinance? (See Effects of Historic Designation section below). BACKGROUND • On August 27, 2021, the Landmarks Board received a letter from the Friends of the Bandshell (link) requesting Landmarks Board consider an expansion of the landmark boundary of the Glen Huntington Bandshell, an individual local landmark (Ordinance 5751), to include the entirety of Block 13 (1236 Canyon Blvd.). • In November 2021, the Landmarks Board initiated the process to expand the boundary and in April 2022, the Landmarks Board voted to recommend expansion of the boundary. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) requested that the decision be postponed in order to allow time for additional review and coordination with the forthcoming Civic Area Phase 2 planning and design process. • On June 14, 2022, City Council held a public hearing to consider expanding the designation boundary of the Glen Huntington Bandshell. The City Council gave a Nod of Five to “have Landmarks staff investigate and explore the creation of a downtown area historic district that would include this area, saying they would work with the Landmarks Board and Parks Board moving forward.” See June 14, 2022 City Council recording (link). • Following Council’s direction at the June 14, 2022 meeting (item 4B, page 70), Historic Preservation and Parks and Recreation staff jointly established an approach to evaluate a Historic District in the Civic Area that included developing a Cultural Landscape Assessment (“CLA”), which has been used in the analysis of the proposed district, and will also be 14 3 integrated into the Civic Area Phase 2 process and timeline, to inform the next phase of park design for the Civic Area. See the April 24, 2023 PRAB Packet (link), the April 12, 2023 Landmarks Board Meeting (link) and the May 18, 2023 City Council Information Packet item (link). • On May 30, 2023, the Planning & Development Services Department accepted a complete application for a proposed historic district in the Civic Area from Historic Boulder Inc., Friends of the Teahouse and Friends of the Bandshell. • On July 12, 2023, the Landmarks Board voted (3-1, C. Castellano dissenting) to initiate the historic district process with the understanding that the applicants would extend the timeline defined in sections 9-11-4 and 9-11-5, BRC 1981. See July 12, 2023 Landmarks Board Minutes (link). • On August 23, 2023, the applicant group and city signed an agreement to extend the public process and hold the Landmarks Board designation hearing on February 7, 2024. • On December 18, 2023, the Landmarks Board and Parks & Recreation Advisory Board held a joint study session and reviewed the process to date, provided feedback on the draft design guidelines, and reviewed the draft CLA findings. See December 18, 2023 LB-PRAB Joint Study Session memo (link). • The final CLA report is anticipated to be provided to staff the week of January 15, 2024. • This January 22, 2024, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting provides the board with the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed designation. • The Landmarks Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council on February 7, 2024. • In February, Planning Board will review the proposal and provide feedback on potential land use implications of the designation (currently scheduled for February 20th) • The City Council designation hearing is anticipated to occur in April 2024. The code requires a City Council designation hearing be held within 100 days of the Landmarks Board designation hearing (and, therefore, prior to May 17, 2024). BOARD & COUNCIL ROLES Roles of the city’s various boards and commission are outlined in the City Charter and Boulder Revised Code. As it relates to historic designation: • The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board does not have a formal role in the historic district designation process as outlined in Chapter 9-11 Historic Preservation. Per the City Charter, one of the PRAB’s functions is to make recommendations to City Council regarding the protection and maintenance of park lands; the PRAB’s input will be included in the Landmarks Board, Planning Board and City Council memos. • The Landmarks Board’s role is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed designation and to adopt design guidelines. As stated in Section 9-11-5 Landmarks Board Designation Public Hearing, the criteria for the Landmarks Board’s review is to determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the purposes and 15 4 standards in sections 9-11-1 Legislative Intent and 9-11-2 City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts. • As provided in Section 9-11-5(e) Planning Board Review, the Planning Board’s role is to review the proposed designation and report to the City Council on its land use implications. • City Council designates landmarks and historic districts by ordinance. The criteria for City Council’s review are to determine whether the proposed designation meets the purposes and standards in Subsection 9-11-1(a) and Section 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981, in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The City Council may approve by ordinance, modify and approve by ordinance, or disapprove the proposed designation. EFFECT OF HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION Local historic designation recognizes and protects areas significant to Boulder’s history, “to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage” (Subsection 9-11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981). Historic district signs and landmark plaques identify designated areas recognized for their historic, architectural or environmental significance. The program shares the history of these places through its website and walking tours. Benefits of local designation include: • Qualification for a 20% Federal Tax Credit for income-producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. • Qualification for a 20% Colorado State Income Tax credit for individually landmarked properties and those in a historic district. • Exemption from city sales tax on construction materials when applying for a building permit, as long as at least 30% of the material value is for the building's exterior. • Access to grants through the State Historical Fund, with projects needing to show a public benefit to be eligible. • Possible exceptions or variances to certain building, energy and zoning standards, like floodplain, height, solar, and residential growth management requirements in specific circumstances, allowances for historic buildings related to floodplain, height, solar, energy requirements. • Newly-designated landmarks receive a bronze plaque in a public ceremony. • Staff assistance for applicants going through development review, Landmark Alteration Certificate, and building permit processes. Physical changes within historic districts and on individually landmarked properties require design review by the historic preservation program to ensure the changes are compatible with the site’s historic character and designation. In 2023, 88% of Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) applications were approved, 11% are still in review, and only 1% were denied. Of the approved LAC applications, 90% were approved within two weeks. (Note, that very few applications are ‘denied,’ but rather applicants work with staff to resolve conflicts with the design guidelines, or the application is withdrawn and resubmitted with changes.) In the rare case 16 5 the Landmarks Board denies an application, the decision is subject to review by City Council. There is no application fee, and there are three levels of review: • Administrative: Small-scale changes are reviewed by Historic Preservation staff on an ongoing basis (average review time and approval rate in 2023: 12 days, 99%). • Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC): A committee consisting of two Landmarks Board members and a historic preservation staff member meets weekly to review the majority of applications (average review time and approval rate in 2023: 3 weeks, 92%). • Landmarks Board: The five-member board meets monthly to review applications for demolition, new construction over 340 sq. ft., and applications referred by the LDRC (average review time and approval rate in 2023: 3 months, 8 applications approved, 1 withdrawn)." The criteria for review can be found in Section 9-11-18 Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications, B.R.C., 1981. The Landmarks Board has also adopted design guidelines to help facilitate the review of proposed improvements within a district. If the Civic Area Historic District is designated, specific design guidelines would be developed to recognize the unique character of the area. These guidelines can be different for different parts of the district based on contributing and non-contributing features. The designation ordinance would also identify important aspects of the district. Section 9-11-6 (c) provides the following guidance on the landmarks ordinance: Ordinance Designating Landmark or District: In each ordinance designating a landmark or historic district, the city council shall include a description of characteristics of the landmark or district justifying its designation, a description of the particular features that should be preserved, and the location and boundaries of the landmark site or district. The council may also indicate alterations that would have a significant impact upon or be potentially detrimental to the landmark site or the district. Prior to City Council review, staff will draft an ordinance describing particular features within the district that should be preserved and identify alterations that would have a significant impact or be potentially detrimental to the district. Boulder has ten historic districts, and four of them include parkland: Chautauqua Park Historic District (with Chautauqua Green, tennis courts, and a playground), Downtown Historic District (Pearl Street Mall), Mapleton Hill (Campbell Robertson Park), and West Pearl (Fortune Park). The city owns and manages seven out of the 215 individual landmarks that are managed by the Parks & Recreation Department, including Columbia Cemetery, Harbeck-Bergheim House, Fire Station No. 2, Roney Farmhouse, Platt Farmhouse, Boyd Smelter, and the Glen Huntington Bandshell. Additionally, the Penfield Tate Municipal Building landmark boundary includes part of the Boulder Creek Path, which is managed by the Parks & Recreation Department. PRAB accepted the Historic Places Plan (HiPP) in July 2022 to serve as a guide in the management of 17 6 the 12 historic resources owned and managed by BPR. Reference the project website, https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/historic-places-plan, for more information. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED DISTRICT The proposed boundary of the historic district as submitted in the application (Figure 1) includes Central Park, the 13th Street and Sister Cities plazas, five individually designated landmarks, and portions of Broadway, 13th Street, the Boulder Slough and Smith and Goss Ditch, and Boulder Creek. The boundary extends from the west side of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building (1777 Broadway) to 14th Street, and from Canyon Boulevard to Arapahoe Avenue. The privately owned parcels on the northeast corner of Arapahoe and Broadway (1201 Arapahoe Ave. and 1724 Broadway) are not included in the proposed boundary. Figure 1. Map of Proposed Historic District. Shaded areas indicate currently designated individual landmarks. History The following section summarizes the area’s history. Explore the interactive StoryMap (link) to learn more. The history of the area extends much beyond the earliest constructed feature that remains today, the 1871 Boulder Slough. The creek side land is a sacred and essential part of the ancestral 18 7 homelands of Indigenous Peoples who have lived on and travelled through them since time immemorial. Boulder has an archival silence, or gap, in its historical record, for the Native American/Indigenous perspective of history. Staff acknowledges that a majority of archival materials focus on the perspective of the white and European settlers of the Boulder Valley. The City of Boulder has recently embarked on an ethnographic study in collaboration with tribal nations to better document the history of indigenous peoples in this area. From the arrival of the train in about 1873, early industry in the area was predominately rail- based. Residences (no longer extant) were clustered within a two-block area between 10th and Broadway with a few scattered outside that area. The City Storage and Transfer Building (1906) was constructed during this period as a warehouse for moving goods in and out of the city. Land acquisition and development of Central Park was guided by the Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA), a community group whose state purpose was “the improvements of Boulder in health, growth, cleanliness, prosperity and attractiveness through individual effort as well as through cooperation with other organizations engaged in similar work” and the Park Commission Board (later the Boulder Parks and Planning Commission), a City Council committee formed in 1918. The BCIA received advice from Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., in particular on flood control measures in the area, but also on plantings and general design. The establishment of Boulder’s municipal center included the removal of two blocks of buildings by 1928, leading to the displacement of people and businesses. The design for parkland along Boulder Creek was refined in plans developed by the Olmsted Brothers firm between 1917-1923 and published in 1923 1 in The Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado.2 A number of failed attempts at municipal funding resulted in reducing the scope of the “Improvements of Boulder Creek” to grading of the area between Broadway (12th Street) and 13th Street from Boulder Creek to Canyon Blvd. (Water Street), completed by 1925. BCIA volunteers attempted to complete additional improvements suggested by Olmsted, including planting trees and perimeter vegetation, and grading paths through the park. The park was used informally by city residents with a few formal events planned, including an annual picnic held by the Girl Reserves from 1934 to 1937 for incoming students to the Preparatory School.3 A second phase of municipal area and park planning began in 1938, influenced by Saco DeBoer. DeBoer suggested Central Park as “the only suitable location for a bandshell” (Glen Huntington Bandshell, constructed in 1938) and a new city hall (Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, constructed in 1951) as part of a “city building group with flood protection, parking areas and 1 Olmsted Plans and Drawings Collection “Olmsted Job #3300 Boulder, Colorado Improvement Association Boulder, CO Plan #3300-63 City of Boulder Preliminary Plan of Proposed Park Improvements Along Boulder Creek OBLA, October 1923.” National Park Service, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site. https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/35378272173/in/album-72157683458369472/ 2 Olmsted Brothers. The Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado. Brookline, Mass., 1923. Files; 3302; Boulder Creek; Boulder, Colo., 1917-1924. Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, 1863-1971. Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Page 76-86: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571-02-186_0383_0484/?sp=76&st=image 3 “One Hundred Girls At G.R. Big-Sister Picnic.” September 20, 1935. The Prep Owl - BHS, Volume 23. 19 8 farmer’s market.” The intent was to create a focal point for municipal activity. The Boulder Lions Club funded the construction of the bandshell and gifted it to the city as the first permanent place for outdoor band concerts in Boulder. The bandshell was “dedicated to the enjoyment of citizens of Boulder and to the advancement of music.” 4 Between 1938 and 1974, the Municipal Building and Central Park were the site of a variety of political events, musical concerts, cultural programs, educational presentations, and civic gatherings. Events in the park were organized by different Boulder clubs, including the Optimists, Elks, Woman’s Club, American Legion, Pow Wow and Rodeo, Soroptimists, Lions, Rotary and Kiwanas Club.5 The Archuleta Family History recorded as part of the Boulder County Latino History Project provides an account of the daily use of the park: “A popular place to hang out was the band shell at Central Park. A group of kids would get together and put on shows and plays for each other. Exploring Mackey Auditory and Chautauqua Park were always options. Although off limits, per Mom, playing in Boulder Creek always seemed to happen. A chewing out by Mom was guaranteed after a day at the creek, but that didn’t stop the fun.” 6 From 1961, the area was the center of municipal government with the construction of the public library near 9th Street (Boulder Public Library, 1961), an expansion of the Municipal Building and a “mall” designed to connect them. The construction of the Midland Federal Savings and Loan bank branch (Atrium Building, 1969) utilized a pavilion design compatible with its setting across from Central Park. As the downtown area “decayed” and counterculture advocates confronted “the establishment,” the municipal area was the site of political protests and civic discourse. In 1969, the large gatherings of people led the City to ban “Rock Concerts” in the park, which the police enforced as the use of any instrument. When that failed to disperse the groups of people, the City Manager closed Central Park for two weeks due to sanitary concerns and passed laws to prevent camping and gathering in Central Park. The same year, Boulder Tomorrow hosted a design competition for the Civic Area.7 The connection between the public spaces and surrounding buildings continued into the 1970s with the adaptive reuse of the Larson Brother’s warehouse building (City Storage and Transfer Building, 1906) into a public arts center and future museum. In 1987, the city was gifted the Dushanbe Teahouse, which was constructed in Tajikistan and shipped in crates overseas. After a decade of deliberation, the Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse was reconstructed south of the Civic Park Plaza and alongside the 13th Street Community Plaza. A public plaza dedicated to Boulder’s six sister cities was added east of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building in 2007. The area continues its public function as the site of the farmers’ market, festivals, concerts, and other planned community activities, and spontaneous gatherings in response to local, state, and national events throughout the year. STAFF ANALYSIS OF PURPOSE AND CRITERIA 4 Front Range Research Associates, Inc. Boulder Bandshell Historical Study, p.6-9. 1995. 5 Front Range Research Associates, Inc. Boulder Bandshell Historical Study, p.11. 1995. 6 The Archuleta Family History, 1932-2012, p.5. https://bocolatinohistory.colorado.edu/document/the-archuleta-family-history- 1932-2012-p5. Boulder County Latino History. 7 Taylor, Carol. “Design Competition in 1969 envisioned a Boulder Civic Center.” Oct. 12, 2014. https://www.dailycamera.com/2014/10/12/design-competition-in-1969-envisioned-a-boulder-civic-center/. Daily Camera. 20 9 The Landmarks Board and City Council will determine whether the proposed designation meets the purposes and standards in Subsection 9-11-1(a) and Section 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. City Council additionally considers the balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The Significance Criteria for Historic Districts was adopted by the Landmarks Board in 1975 to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner. 9-11–1 - Purpose and Legislative Intent (a) The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by protecting, enhancing and perpetuating buildings, sites and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events and persons important in local, state or national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage. 9-11–2 - City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts (a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the city council may by ordinance: (1) (Not listed -- this criterion relates to individual landmark designation and does not apply to this application.) (2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the city; (3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings, structures or features which are contained in two or more geographically separate areas, having a special character and historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value that are united together by historical, architectural or aesthetic characteristics; and (4) (Not listed -- this criterion relates to amending designations and does not apply to this application.) (b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city. Staff Analysis – Code Criteria A. Would the designation protect, enhance, and perpetuate an area reminiscent of past era(s), event(s), and person(s) important in local, state, or national history or provide significant examples of architecture of the past? Section 9-11-1(a) Historic district designation of this area would protect an area historically, architecturally and environmentally significant to Boulder’s history. The proposed district includes an area with a history that precedes the 1871 founding of Boulder; had documented residential and commercial uses from the 1870s until the 1920s; includes Central Park, an urban park 21 10 formally established in 1924 which include the five surrounding municipal buildings constructed between 1906 and 1998; and represents a progression of architectural styles. Furthermore, as described in the analysis below, the area retains integrity to a 1938-1974 period of significance, extending from the DeBoer/Huntington period of park design and the construction of the Glen Huntington Bandshell, to a point 50 years in the past to recognize the historic significance of the area’s social, cultural and political use. The proposed district is historically significant for its continued public function as the symbolic, political and municipal center of Boulder’s local government; as the site of numerous social, cultural and political events; for its significance in the history of Boulder’s park system development; and its contribution to the social and cultural life of the city for over a century. The proposed district possesses architectural significance for its notable examples of architectural styles of the past, including a 19th century commercial building, Art Deco bandshell, International style municipal building, a Rustic Modern bank building adaptively reused for city offices, and the Central Asian/Tajik teahouse. The district includes significant works by notable architects, landscape designers, builders, and urban planners representing a progression of styles; The proposed district is environmentally significant for its location at the historic center of Boulder, as an established and prominent visual feature of the community at the intersection of major transportation routes and adjacent to Boulder Creek, and for its planned and natural site characteristics that have resulted in its distinct character as an open urban park space surrounded by municipal buildings. B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage? Designation of the area will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the historic area, enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage. Furthermore, if the proposed boundary is modified to exclude the non-historic parking lots along 14th Street and expanded to include the length of 13th Street between Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue, and the area between the Atrium Building and Canyon Boulevard, the district will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the historic area. See Boundary Analysis section below. Colorado Preservation, Inc.’s report, “Economic Benefits of Preservation 2017” (link) studies the direct and indirect economic impacts of historic designation. Key findings related to this proposed designation include: 22 11 • Heritage tourism accounted for approximately half of tourist spending ($7.2 billion of a total $14.1 billion) spent in 2015. • The report provides five case studies on the impact of local historic district designation on property values, summarizing “the results of the analysis show that, for the most part, the values of properties located within a local historic district increased a similar or higher rate than in the comparison areas. Moreover, there is no evidence that local historic district designation has had a negative effect on either property values or sales prices within the five case study areas. In all cases, property values increased following designation mirroring the results of similar studies from other states.”8 • In a chapter on Effective Placemaking, the report states, “From small towns to big cities, preserving historic buildings provides a foundation for creating and sustaining memorable places.” BVCP policy 5.09 Role of Tourism in the Economy states that “the city recognizes the importance of tourism (e.g. heritage, cultural, sports and open space) to the Boulder economy.” While less than 3% of properties in Boulder are locally designated, they are among the most iconic in the community. Seven out of the nine activities featured in the Boulder Convention & Visitors Bureau’s current list of must-see things to do in Boulder (link) are in and around historic places: • Pearl Street Mall (located in the Downtown Historic District designated as a National Register historic district in 1980 and as a local historic district in 1999) • The Flatirons from Chautauqua (designated as a local historic district in 1976, as a National Register historic district in 1978, and as a National Historic Landmark in 2006) • Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse (designated as a local landmark in 2020) • Boulder Theater (designated as a local landmark in 1980 and as part of the Downtown Historic District in 1980 and 1999) • University of Colorado (Norlin Quadrangle designated as a National Register historic district in 1980) • The Museum of Boulder (designed as a local landmark in 2013) The list also includes the Boulder County Farmers’ Market, which is located on 13th Street adjacent to four locally designated landmarks and within the proposed historic district. The design review process stabilizes neighborhoods as physical changes are reviewed to ensure compatibility with the area’s historic character. Historic district designation anticipates change over time, and if designated, an effort would begin to develop district- specific design guidelines that recognize the unique character and features of the area and facilitate the review of proposed improvements. Use and function of a site is not regulated through historic district designation; only the physical, exterior changes related to use are reviewed. The proposed historic district highlights the value of urban parkland at the heart of 8 Colorado Preservation, Inc. Economic Benefits of Preservation 2017. https://issuu.com/coloradopreservation/docs/final_- _econ_study_preservation. 23 12 the city, and its contribution to the social, environmental, and economic activity in the area. If designated, the district design guidelines will anticipate changes to the immediately surrounding land uses over time to yield new opportunities for the district to serve the community in novel ways, while still maintaining its historic value and role in the on-going story of Boulder’s heritage. Historic designation fosters knowledge of the city’s living history through research and sharing stories of Boulder’s history through virtual and in-person activities. This designation process provided an opportunity to fill research gaps in the history of the area, in particular the history of displaced residents. Staff accessed recently digitized information from the Library of Congress and National Park Service, and other state and local sources. The research was shared with community members through in-person walking tours, events, and an interactive StoryMap (link). Historic Boulder, Inc. translated the walking tour script into a free app-based tour on PocketSights: Proposed Civic Area Historic District - Boulder (link). Community members and visitors learn about history of designated sites through the wayfinding signs and plaques, interpretive panels (e.g. Pearl Street Mall, Chautauqua and the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building), the city’s website and engagement events, such as walking tours during Historic Preservation and Archeology Month in May. STAFF ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT BVCP POLICIES City Council will evaluate and consider whether local historic district designations are “in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan” (Subsection 9- 11-6 (b), B.R.C. 1981). The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) provides a general statement of the community’s desires for future development and preservation of the Boulder Valley. BVCP policies guide decisions about growth, development, preservation, environmental protection, economic development, affordable housing, culture and arts, urban design, neighborhood character and transportation. The following BVCP policies related to historic preservation are relevant to this application (emphasis added): • 2.27 Preservation of Historic & Cultural Resources – The city and county will identify, evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites and natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance with input from the community. The city and county will seek protection of significant historic and cultural resources through local designation when a proposal by the private sector is subject to discretionary development review. • 2.30 Eligible Historic Districts & Landmarks – The city has identified areas that may have the potential to be designated as historic districts. The Designated and Identified Potentially Eligible Historic Districts map shows areas with designation potential as well as areas that are already designated as historic districts (see Figure 6-1 on page 132). These potential historic areas and historic survey information will continue to be assessed and updated. There are also many individual resources of landmark quality both within and outside of these eligible areas. Additional historic district and landmark designations will be encouraged in accordance with the Plan for Boulder’s Historic Preservation Program. Such resources may contribute to cultural and heritage tourism values. 24 13 • 2.28 Leadership in Preservation: City-& County Owned Resources – The city and county will evaluate their publicly owned properties to determine their historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. Eligible resources will be protected through local designation, including secondary buildings or elements that are part of and convey the cultural significance of a site, such as a farm complex and alley buildings. • 2.32 Preservation of Archaeological Sites & Cultural Landscapes – The city will develop a plan and processes for identification, designation and protection of archaeological and cultural landscape resources, such as open ditches (where practicable and in coordination with the irrigation ditch company), street and alley-scapes, railroad rights-of-way and designed landscapes. Additionally, the following BVCP policies are relevant to the proposed designation of this specific area of Boulder. Further analysis will be completed prior to Council’s review of the application to address its balance with the goals and policies of the BVCP. o 2.14 Mix of Complementary Land Uses o 2.15 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses o 2.20 Role of the Central Area o 2.33 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment o 2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects o 5.09 Role of Tourism in the Economy o 5.10 Role of Arts, Cultural, Historic & Parks & Recreation Amenities STAFF ANALYSIS OF DESIGNATION CRITERIA Significance – Local Criteria The Landmarks Board adopted the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks (link) in 1975 to assist in the review of historic district applications. Three potential areas of significance are established by the Significance Criteria including (emphasis added): 1) Historical Significance: The district, as an entity, should show character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state, or nation; be the site of historic or prehistoric event(s) that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community. 2) Architectural Significance: The district should portray an environment in an era of history characterized by distinctive architectural period(s)/style(s); embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a good example of the common; include the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or include a fine example of the uncommon. 3) Environmental Significance: The district should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the protection of the unique natural and man- made environments. 25 14 The following is a brief summary of the area’s significance as a local historic district based on local regulations. See Attachment A: Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks for detailed analysis that will be part of the Landmarks Board memo. The proposed historic district is significant for: 1) Its historic significance for the public function of the area as the symbolic, political and municipal center of Boulder’s local government, and as the site of numerous social, cultural and political events, for its significance in the history of Boulder’s park system development and its contribution to the social and cultural life of the city for over a century. 2) Its architectural significance includes multiple significant works by notable architects, landscape designers, builders, and urban planners representing a progression of styles. 3) Its environmental significance for its planned and natural site characteristics, its distinct character, and its prominence as an established and visual feature of the community. Significance – Cultural Landscape Assessment Report As noted above, the CLA is a tool to assist in the analysis of the potential creation of a district, particularly regarding the considerations of historic significance and integrity of a designed landscape. The CLA was developed using the 1998 National Parks Service Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports (link) and its findings are included in the Dec. 18 Joint Study Session Memo (link). The CLA found Central Park to have four periods of physical development: • Historic Period 1: 1903-1922 Acquiring Land for Central Park • Historic Period 2: 1923-1936 Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park • Historic Period 3: 1937-1973 Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Bandshell Seating • Historic Period 4: 1970-2023 Modern Updates To evaluate the significance of these periods of development, the CLA utilized the National Register Significance Criteria:9 A) Association with historic events or activities, B) Association with important persons, C) Distinctive design or physical characteristics, or D) Potential to provide important information about prehistory or history. The CLA determined two of the periods to be historically significant: the 1923-1936 Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park and the 1937-1973 Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Bandshell Seating. The CLA found the Olmsted, Jr. period to be significant under Criterion C (design), “as the work of a recognized master, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.” The CLA acknowledges the previous determination in the 1995 Bandshell study, and concurred the Huntington and DeBoer period is significant under “Criteria A (Events) and C (Design) for its 9 PART 60—NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, Fed. Reg. (Nov. 16, 1981) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 60). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/part-60 26 15 role in the social and cultural life of Boulder and the design improvements implemented between 1938 and 1950 by Glen Huntington and Saco Rienk DeBoer, including the bandshell, the amphitheater, and the associated vegetation and grading. Staff agree that the park has significance for its design and association with prominent designers, and for its role in the social and cultural life of Boulder. P&DS staff also believe the period of development prior to 1924 has historic significance, including its potential to provide important information about prehistory or history. The CLA focused on the development of the park, and research prior to 1903 was out of scope of the assessment. Integrity The historic integrity of an area relates to the ability of the landscape, buildings, sites and features to convey their historical significance. Where the CLA and city’s local historic preservation code differ on the criteria used to identify significance, both utilize the National Park Service Seven Aspects of Integrity 10 in its assessment: 1. Location 2. Design 3. Setting 4. Materials 5. Workmanship 6. Feeling 7. Association The CLA additionally evaluated Central Park’s landscape characteristics, including: • Topography • Vegetation • Circulation • Buildings and Structures • Views and Viewsheds • Land Use • Spatial Organization • Small-Scale Features (for the Huntington/DeBoer Period only) Methodology P&DS staff’s approach to the integrity analysis included: • Researching the history of the area and assessing its historic, architectural and environmental significance; • Review of the CLA findings; • Multiple site visits; 10 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf 27 16 • Comparison of historic and current aerials, plans and photographs; • Use of NPS guidance to assess the area’s integrity, based on its local historic, architectural and environmental significance. • Consultation with the State and National Register Historians at History Colorado to review our application of the guidance for determining integrity and boundaries. Integrity Findings – CLA The CLA summary of findings related to integrity includes: Over the past century the Central Park landscape has experienced changes that include: • Physical changes to the landscape, such as the realignment and redesign of the vegetation and circulation systems, and substantial regrading of the topography. • A change in use through the construction of the bandshell and its evolution as an activated space for entertainment and performance. These changes have resulted in a lack of historical integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, which are needed for Central Park to convey its 1923- 1924 design and association with Olmsted Jr. The character of Central Park relating to the Olmsted Jr.-era has been altered to the point where it is no longer visible in the landscape. Both historic significance and historical integrity are required to meet eligibility thresholds for listing in the National Register. While Central Park has its origins in the 1920s and the Olmsteds’ recommendations and designs for a park system in Boulder, it is no longer able to tell that story through the existing landscape. As such, while the park’s history is significant the lack of integrity in the landscape disqualifies the park as a whole for listing in the National Register as the work of master landscape architect Olmsted Jr. However, the northern portion of park is still able to convey its historic significance and association with the 1938-1950 era of park development associated with Huntington and DeBoer. Therefore, Central Park remains eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C for the period in which the bandshell and associated amphitheater seating were designed and built (1938-1950). The area associated with these improvements is roughly outlined in yellow in the graphic on page 3 of this memo; it does not constitute the full park boundary as no evidence exists linking the southern portion of the park to the Huntington- DeBoer improvements. Integrity Assessment -- Proposed Historic District (1923-1937 Period) P&DS staff agree with the CLA findings that the Olmsted, Jr. design of the park (1924-1937) does not retain historic integrity due to the extent of changes over time. The following is an assessment utilizing the National Park Service’s Seven Aspects of Integrity: 28 17 The location of Central Park has not changed. The design of the park was substantially changed by the introduction of the bandshell in 1938 and its seating in 1950, which interrupted the distinctive circulation pattern of diagonal walks that form a central green. The paths no longer cross at the northern end of the park and the interior paths curving from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the park no longer exist. The Boulder Creek path introduced pavement north of the Boulder Slough that reinforces the bisected condition of the park and altered the paths along Boulder Creek at the southern end of the park to create the Arapahoe underpass. While many mature trees date to this period, and the overall vegetation pattern remains with mature trees along the perimeter and concentrated on the northeast, north and eastern boundaries of the site, some of the trees have been removed or replaced with trees of a different species. Shrub plantings have been planted around the Bandshell and its seating to help define the space and create screening from outside of the park looking into the event venue. While viewsheds toward the Flatirons are visible across the park green and along the perimeter of the park, the Bandshell is a prominent visual feature constructed outside of the 1924-1937 period. Trees along the Boulder Slough partially obstruct the view between the northern and southern portions of the park. Little material remains from the 1924-1937 period, except for the Boulder Slough infrastructure and the light pilasters (reportedly part of the 1920s Broadway Bridge repurposed as park light fixtures when the bridge was replaced in the early 2000s). The date of construction of the stone walls on the western edge of the park along Boulder Creek is unknown and may date to the 1924-1937 period. The paths have been repaved. Little remains related to the workmanship of Central Park dating to the 1924-1937 period. The Art Deco Bandshell has significantly altered the feeling of Central Park, as it is a prominent feature visible both within the park and from the surrounding area. Its distinct 1930s design, combined with the alteration of the original pattern of pathways, convey the sense of a later period of time. Central Park’s 1924 design is significant for its association with prominent landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., however, as described above, the park today does not retain the physical features to convey retain the integrity of association. 29 18 Figure 2. Comparison of March 1924 planting plan 11 (left) with 1938 12 (middle) and 2023 (right) Aerial Photographs of Central Park. City of Boulder. Integrity Assessment -- Proposed Historic District (1938-1974 Period) Planning & Development Services staff agree with the CLA finding that Central Park is significant under criterion A (events) and C (design) for the 1938-1973 period of development. In addition, based on consideration of the local criteria, the area as a whole meets local designation criteria for its architectural, historic and environmental significance. Staff considers that historic integrity is represented across the entire park, and not only the northernmost portion, for this period, for the following reasons: • DeBoer was commissioned to recommend the site of the bandshell and planned its landscaping. In April 1937, he wrote “This is in regard to the matter of the location of a band stand. I have checked over every possible site in the city, and I believe that Central Park is the only location at the present time. With the location of the proposed City Hall in the [east] end of the park, I would suggest that the band stand be located on the north line against the railroad right of way, approximately in the middle of the park. If this site meets with your approval, I shall draw up a sketch showing my ideas in regard to the treatment of the band stand and the grounds around it.” • As described in the 1995 Bandshell Historical Report13 prepared by Front Range Research, Associates, the bandshell was “specifically designed to be compatible with its site. As a component of the central urban park, the Band Shell was situated to provide passersby with a glimpse of the intriguing figures to be found within the park and 11 Courtesy of the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site. https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/29558307807/in/album-72157683458369472/ 12 United States Forest Service. Aerial Photographs of Colorado. Boulder. May 8, 1938. Photograph. https://cudl.colorado.edu//luna/servlet/detail/UCBOULDERCB1~17~17~33252~102550 13 Front Range Research. Bandshell Historical Study, 1995. City of Boulder 30 19 encourage them to park their cars and walk into the site. The Band Shell faces south toward Boulder Creek and away from traffic on the thoroughfare on the northern edge of the park. The scope of the Band Shell and its associated seating area is in keeping with the size of the park and provides a comfortable gathering space for concerts and other cultural entertainment and is and open air amenity allowing users to enjoy the natural beauty of the park while attending the Band Shell programs.” • Central Park maintains its original boundary from its formal establishment in 1924 to encompass a roughly four-acre area bound by Canyon Boulevard, Arapahoe Avenue, Broadway and 13th Street. The bandshell was designed for its setting within Central Park, and features of the full park in DeBoer’s sketches have similar characteristics to the Olmsted Jr. 1924 plan with perimeter trees, contiguous circulation located on the outside of the park and open lawn. • The public function of Central Park and the surrounding municipal buildings and public spaces is historically significant and reflects the changing social, cultural and political activities of the Boulder community. Following the construction of the bandshell in 1938, Central Park became a focal point for social activities, typically based around musical or religious activities. During the 1950s and early 1960s, events in Central Park became more nostalgic, including singalongs, the community-funded purchase of railcars as a memorial to “Boulder Pioneers”, an annual “Huck Finn Day,” and Christmas programs. Events in the late 1960s and early 1970s included experimental theater groups that presented live performances in the bandshell that incorporated ambient and spontaneous noises of Central Park and surrounding streets 14, protests and vigils including a Chicano rally protesting police brutality and racism in 1969;15 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Vigil in 1971;16 a candle-light march commemorating the 17th Anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan in 1972;17 and bicycle rallies to demand safer bicycling.18 Consideration of the area’s eligibility for designation as a local historic district, the assessment of its integrity is based on its historic, architectural and environmental significance. The proposed historic district retains integrity to the 1938-1974 period of development as described below: The location of Central Park and the five landmarked structures has not moved since their establishment and therefore retains excellent integrity of location. The setting of the Civic Area is integral to its significance. Located at the prominent intersections of Broadway, Canyon, 13th and Arapahoe, the area is centrally located and is a prominent and visual feature of the community. The view of the Flatirons directly influenced its landscape and 14 Kaiser, Kathy. “Free plays held in Central Park.” June 17, 1974. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 23, Number 8. 15 “Chicanos Rally at Fountain March to Police Station.” September 8, 1969. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 18, Number 6. 16 “Storm chills King vigil, cuts turnout.” April 5, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 124. 17 “Nagasaki memorial plans” August 9, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 20, Number 172. 18 Ham, Richard G. “Bikeways.” April 23, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 138. 31 20 architectural designs and provides a mountain backdrop to the urban park, municipal structures, and the public spaces in between. Two waterways remain prominent features of the area: Boulder Creek creates the southwesterly edge of the park and runs south of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, and the Boulder Slough bisects the central green of the park and runs north of the Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse. Additionally, the integrity of the five landmarked structures within the proposed boundary remain high and contributes to the area’s integrity of setting. Staff considers the changes to the park and public spaces, including the introduction of and improvements to the Boulder Creek Path and the realignment of paths within Central Park do not detract from the overall setting and feeling associated with the district’s historic significance. The spatial relationship between Central Park and the surrounding municipal buildings retains a high degree of integrity of design. Defining design characteristics of the district include but are not limited to the urban street grid of Broadway, Canyon Boulevard, Arapahoe Avenue and 13th Street; the park with its central green with trees planted in groves and along the perimeter of the park; Boulder Creek and Boulder Slough as prominent water features; five architecturally distinct structures in and adjacent to the park, many of which were designed and sited in relation to their park setting. The district’s historic workmanship is evident in the integration of art and architecture in the Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse, the high quality of masonry in the construction of the Atrium Building and the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, and the construction of the bandshell and its seating. The district retains its integrity of materials. The five existing landmarks retain their historic material, with the exception of the Bandshell, which was rebuilt in 1995 using the same materials. However, that alteration does not diminish the structure’s historic integrity. The district retains sufficient integrity to convey its feeling of a historic urban park surrounded by unique structures representing distinct architectural styles and periods. As a result of the area’s historic physical features described above, the district retains historic integrity to convey its association with the design of the park during the 1937-1974 period, and the numerous social, cultural and political activities that occurred within the park and the surrounding public spaces. 32 21 Figure 3. Aerial Photograph, 1958. City of Boulder. Figure 4. Aerial Photographs, 1972 and 2023. City of Boulder. Summary of Integrity Assessment – Local Criteria In conclusion, P&DS staff agree with the CLA findings that the Olmsted, Jr. design of the park (1924-1937) does not retain historic integrity due to the extent of changes over time. P&DS staff considers the proposed historic district retains its historic integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association from the 1938-1974 period of development. Boundary The Boulder Revised Code describes a contiguous historic district as an “area containing a number of sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the city.” Section 9-11-2(a)(2) B.R.C. 1981. P&DS staff additionally utilize the guidance in National Register Bulletin 16: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties (link) in the analysis for determining historic district boundaries. The bulletin provides the following summary: 33 22 Select boundaries that encompass the single area of land containing the significant concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects making up the district. The district's significance and historic integrity should help determine the boundaries. Consider the following factors: • Visual barriers that mark a change in the historic character of the area or that break the continuity of the district, such as new construction, highways, or development of a different character. • Visual changes in the character of the area due to different architectural styles, types or periods, or to a decline in the concentration of contributing resources. • Boundaries at a specific time in history, such as the original city limits or the legally recorded boundaries of a housing subdivision, estate, or ranch. • Clearly differentiated patterns of historic development, such as commercial versus residential or industrial. Boundary Proposed in Current Application The application received on May 30, 2023 requested the designation boundary encompass the area west of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building (1777 Broadway) to the west side of 14th Street, and from the south side of Canyon Blvd. to the north side of Arapahoe Avenue, excluding the privately owned buildings at 1201 Arapahoe Ave. and 1724 Broadway (Yocom Building); and the buildings on 13th Street south of the City Storage and Transfer Building (a combination of city-owned and privately-owned parcels). Figure 5. Historic District Boundary Proposed by the Applicants The applicants provided the following boundary justification in their application: “This boundary incorporates five landmarked city-owned properties, the full extent of the historic Central Park, and the plaza between the Teahouse and the Atrium Building. The proposed historic district provides area integrity by combining these significant properties in a 34 23 cohesive whole and celebrates the sense of place. The proposed boundary intentionally includes the parking lots to the east of the Atrium Building, Teahouse, and the City Storage and Transfer buildings. Proposed development on these properties should be reviewed for potential impact on the historic structures and features. The applicants do support change here that is sympathetic and respectful to the adjacent historic buildings, especially as the city begins to repurpose their buildings.” Boundary Proposed in Cultural Landscape Assessment The CLA finds Central Park is significant for two periods (1923-1936 Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park and 1937-1973 Huntington DeBoer Design) but that only the northern portion of the site (currently designated as a local landmark), retains integrity. The Peer Review Draft Central Park CLA Report, states the area associated with the 1938-1950 improvements “does not constitute the full park boundary as no evidence exists linking the southern portion of the park to the Huntington-DeBoer improvements. Therefore, a boundary encompassing only the northern 170 feet of Central Park is recommended to be included as part of a historic district. Figure 6. Boundary Related to Central Park Recommended in the CLA. Boundary Recommended by P&DS Staff P&DS staff recommend the historic district boundary encompass the area west of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building (1777 Broadway) to the east edge of the landmark boundaries for the Atrium Building (1300 Canyon Blvd.), Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse (1770 13th St.) and the Storage & Transfer Building (1750 13th St.), including the 13th Street Plaza, and from the south side of Canyon Blvd. to the north side of Arapahoe Avenue, excluding the privately owned buildings at 1201 Arapahoe Ave. and 1724 Broadway (Yocom Building) and the buildings on the east side of 13th Street south of the City Storage and Transfer Building (a combination of city-owned and privately-owned parcels). The recommended boundary includes the extent of 13th Street between Canyon and Arapahoe Avenue, and the parking area between the Atrium 35 24 Building and Canyon Boulevard. The proposed boundary would follow the midline of Boulder Creek. Staff considers this boundary to meet the NPS guidance, in that it: • Contains the significant concentration of contributing buildings and sites: the five designated landmarks and Central Park. • Central Park retains its original boundary from its formal establishment in 1924, and the full extent of the park is historically significant for its social, cultural and political use within the 1938-1974 period of significance. • Utilizes Canyon and Arapahoe as visual barriers that break the continuity of the district (note, Broadway has historically bisected Boulder’s civic center); • Includes portion of 13th Street • Includes the parking area between the Atrium and Canyon • Follows the rear of the existing landmark boundaries of the contributing buildings along 13th to recognize the decline of concentration in the contributing resources. • No buildings or features within the period of significance exist today, and the parking lot itself is not historic. Inclusion of the parking lot as a “buffer” is discouraged by NPS guidance. • The southern boundary follows the mid-line of Boulder Creek, a contributing feature and visual barrier. Figure 7. Historic District Boundary Recommended by Staff While this boundary includes areas, such as parts of Central Park, Broadway and 13th Street that are non-contributing, the grouping as a whole achieves significance within its historic context and the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character possess integrity. 36 25 PUBLIC COMMENT (OCTOBER 2023-JANUARY 2024) The project team delivered walking tours and an online Storymap to raise awareness and understanding of the layered history of the area, including stories of historically excluded persons and communities that have not been part of the dominant narrative to date. The goal was to provide the public with background information that could help people make a more informed decision on whether they support the proposed historic designation. Staff provided two main channels for feedback from the community, in addition to mandatory hearings: (i) an online questionnaire and (ii) consultations with the Community Connectors-in- Residence (CC-in-R) as part of the project’s deliberate racial equity strategies. Online form. The online form was added to the project website in mid-October. Thirty responses were received between Oct. 15 and Jan. 11, with 50% in opposition, 30% in support and 20% unsure of whether they support this historic designation. Staff recognizes that this is not a statistically valid survey and that the number of responses are relatively small, but that a diversity of viewpoints has been shared. Out of those who support the designation, the justifications included: (i) it would be good for tourism and business; (ii) preservation is generally a valuable goal, (iii) this area represents the best of Boulder (besides the mountain backdrop), and (iv) the designation could help improve public safety in this area. Out of those who do not support the designation, the justifications included: (i) that the district is not aligned with the city’s equity and climate goals, (ii) a preference to focus on redevelopment and programming here instead of further restrictions; (iii) parking lots are not historic and should not be included; (iv) hope that parking lots could be used for community benefit such as affordable housing; (v) the need to ensure that our civic spaces meet the needs of our community today; (vi) insufficient benefit of a district, (vii) a desire for the city to focus on other priorities; and (viii) a need to effectively addresses issues related to public safety and the unhoused here before pursuing a district. Out of those who are unsure if they support the designation, the justifications include: (i) needing more information and understanding of the impacts, (ii) concerns that public resources would be spent with little return, (iii) skeptical that the collection of disjointed buildings warrants a historic district designation, (iv) likely to be more supportive if the use of current buildings can be reimagined; (v) concerns that the designation glosses over the presence of unhoused in the area, and (vi) a desire for the city to focus on public safety first and foremost. A more detailed overview and list of all feedback received through the online questionnaire is included as Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024. 37 26 Consultations with CC-in-R. Staff consulted with CC-in-R twice. The first meeting focused on asking for input on the engagement plan from an equity perspective. The second meeting focused on gathering feedback on the walking tour script and the general narrative of the area’s history. Main feedback received by CC-in-R include: (i) concerns that written history is ‘white’ history; (ii) that any educational materials should be developed with or at least reviewed by people from diverse background to ensure it is inclusive and not offensive or hurtful; (iii) that preservation should expand beyond the traditional purview of buildings; and (iv) that negative impacts should be acknowledged. CC-in-R also had questions about how the proposed district benefits all members of our community and how it can help the unhoused in Boulder. Based on this feedback, staff undertook additional research to elevate the stories of historically excluded or marginalized peoples in this process. Although not directly related to this project, the feedback of CC-in-R has influenced the content of Landmark Board memos, which as of November 2023 now recognizes the pre-settler history when describing the area. Staff is also committed to further deepening the partnership with local people of color for the upcoming update of the Historic Preservation’s 10-year Strategy in 2024. NEXT STEPS The historic district application will be reviewed by Boards and the City Council in early 2024. The anticipated schedule includes: • January 22, 2024 - Parks & Recreation Advisory Board • February 7, 2024 – Landmarks Board Designation Hearing • March 2024 – Planning Board (Land Use) • March 2024 – City Council, 1st Reading • April 2024 – City Council, 2nd Reading and Public Hearing ATTACHMENTS • Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks • Attachment B - Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024. 38 Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks Dec. 15, 2024 The Landmarks Board adopted the Significance Criteria for Historic Districts (link) in 1975 in order to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner. The following provides staff’s preliminary analysis of the proposed district in relation to the Significance Criteria. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The district, as an entity, should show character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state, or nation; be the site of historic or prehistoric event(s) that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community. 1.Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state or local. Elaboration: The proposed historic district is associated with historical individuals and events. Individuals that were instrumental in the early formation of the area include: •Maryette Kinglsey (c.1860-1902) owned four different properties in the area as early as the 1890s, and from which she ran thriving businesses.1 Her brothels were viewed by “civic improvers” including members of the BCIA as unsightly for tourists and visitors arriving or departing by train. •Jennie Johnson (c. 1866-unknown) owned two different properties in the area from 1900 until 1928. She owned a cleaning business, which she ran from her house near 11th Street north of Boulder Creek.2 Johnson was the last owner to sell her residence to the city for “park improvements,” refusing for many years to leave.3 •“Rocky Mountain” Joe Sturtevant (1851-1910) owned a studio at the approximate location of the Municipal Building from 1900 until Sturtevant’s death.4 Sturtevant made many photographs of the area, some of which were used to promote “improvements.”5 1 “Flood in Boulder.” Boulder Daily Camera, May 31, 1894. 2 “Cleaning Done.” May 8, 1906. Boulder Daily Camera, Volume 16, Number 37. 3 “City of Boulder Buys Property In Jungles To Clean Up and Beautify.” April 11, 1921. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 22. 4 “View of the buildings on the west side of Broadway between numbers 1763 and 1777. In the foreground is Joseph Sturtevant's photography studio with his wife, Anna Lyckman Sturtevant, standing in the doorway. A streetcar is visible in the distance (S-673).” 1900. BHS 207-3-54. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A37675 5 “Views of what was known as Cigarette Park and is now Central Park.” 1870-1920. Call No. 207-3-48. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder, CO. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A40011 Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 39 The Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA) was a volunteer organization originally established in 1898 by Ira M. DeLong, H. O. Dodge, Fred L. Williamson and Neil D. McKenzie, with the purpose of “encouraging the culture of lawns and trees; improving and ornamenting the public highways; opening public parks and drives; maintaining a high standard of public neatness; and cooperating with every available agency to increase the beauty and healthfulness of our city.”6 They reincorporated in 1903 with a focus on “the improvements of Boulder in health, growth, cleanliness, prosperity and attractiveness through individual effort as well as through cooperation with other organizations engaged in similar work.”7 The BCIA acted as a de facto planning commission, strongly focused on the downtown creek area, until 1934 when they dissolved, noting that “the Boulder Parks and Planning Commission has almost identically the same purpose for which our Association exists.”8 Between 1903 and 1934, many business and civic leaders served as officers of the BCIA, including Junius Henderson, Eben G. Fine, Fred White, Herbert A. Shattuck, D. M. Andrews, Maud Gardiner O’Dell, and William J. Baird. Many of these members were particularly key to the development of the area as public space: •Ira M. DeLong (1855-1942) was professor of mathematics at the University of Colorado - Boulder from 1888 to 1925. DeLong was one of the founders of the BCIA in 1898 and drew connections between aesthetics and morality.9 •Junius Henderson (1865-1937) Practiced law and was a county judge until 1902 when he became curator of the University Museum. He became a professor of natural history in 1908. He was president of the BCIA in 1910, when the organization commissioned Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. to propose improvements for the city. •Herbert A. Shattuck was a civil engineer who briefly worked for Thomas Edison. He studied landscape design and designed “Shattuck’s Hillside Park” (now the Hillside Historic District). Shattuck was instrumental in promoting Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.’s “plan for the city.”10 6 “Constitution of the Public Improvement Association of Boulder.” 1898. BHS 328-193-(7-8). Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder, CO. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A50763 7 “Records of Boulder City Improvement Association.” 1903-1914. BHS 300-1-10. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder, CO.https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora:50763 https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A7574 8 White, Fred. “Letter preceding Minutes of Meeting of Boulder Improvement Association.” Feb. 27th 1934. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder Colo. 9 DeLong, Ira B. “Aim of the Association - Public Improvement Association Papers.” 1898. BHS 328-193-(7-8). Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder, CO. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A50763 10 Carrigan, Beverly Halpin. “Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. Maker of Parks-Planner of Cities: Visits-Plans-Suggestions-Goals for Boulder, Colorado 1907-1927.” Carnegie Library for Local History. Call Number 998-11-9. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A100249 Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 40 •William J. Baird (1861-1934) was a physician and surgeon. He corresponded with Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. between 1907 and 1934, mainly on the details for a creek-side park.11 Baird additionally organized volunteers 12 and donations 13 for Central Park. Following the construction of the bandshell in 1938, Central Park became a focal point for social activities, typically based around musical or religious activities that were seen by the organizers as morally appropriate. In 1939, Central Park hosted a “Flander’s Field” memorial that involved filling the park with memorial crucifix grave markers. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Boulder Rotary Club sponsored events like dance exhibitions, educational talks and musical performances. The Boulder Lions Club was chartered in 1918 as a volunteer organization. By mid-1938, the Lions Club had spent more than $20,000 on the improvement of local parks, including the construction of shelter houses in Blue Bell Canyon and at the top of Flagstaff Mountain. In 1938, they donated the money to build the bandshell, and sponsored religious and musical events. The Lions Club donated picnic tables and a drinking fountain to Central Park in 1942. During the 1950s and early 1960s, the events became more nostalgic. “Singalong” concerts where “citizens of Boulder with any music ability” were invited to participate were popular.14 In 1952, the community raised $5,095 in 1952 to purchase an engine, passenger car, and caboose as a “monument to the pioneers of Boulder” and the Daughters of the American Revolution sponsored a commemorative plaque. In 1953, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) sponsored the first “Huck Finn Day” fishing contest and pageant that included a march between the fishing pond and the bandshell. The annual event continued for most of the 1950s. “Santa Claus” events for children included crowning a “yule queen” or “Miss Noel”15 and the “lots” west of the Municipal Building were used for community bonfires celebrating Twelfth Night.16 The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a decline in the maintenance of the park, and multiple areas were fenced off, and the park closed for periods of time due to clashes between park users and the police. During the summer of 1969, Sunday concerts in Central Park welcomed “straights, hippies and unclassified” to “truck on down to the park.”17 Theatre 11 Files; 3300; City of Boulder Improvement Association; Boulder, Colo.; 1907-1909. Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, 1863-1971. Library of Congress, Washington, DC.: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571-02- 185_0146_0316/?sp=6&st=image&r=0.014,0.392,0.684,0.336,0 12 “Local Personal News.” May 10, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 48. 13 “DR. O. M. GILBERT GIVES $100 FOR NEW PARK” May 22, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 58. 14 “Boulder Summer Recreation Plans Include Swimming, Tennis Lessons.” May 14, 1948. The Owl - BHS, Volume 34, Number 26. 15 “Jingle Bell Miss Merry Christmas To Maintain Festive Tradition of Yuletide Season.” November 30, 1962. The Owl - BHS, Volume 49, Number 10. 16 “Tonight's Rally Features Bonfire and Snake Dance Cheerleaders to Lead Yells This Evening Directly West of the Municipal Building.” March 5, 1954. The Owl - BHS, Volume 40, Number 21. 17 “Sunday In The Park.” March 26, 1969. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 17, Number 108. Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 41 in the Park formed in the 1970s specifically to present live performances in the bandshell that incorporated ambient and spontaneous noises of Central Park and surrounding streets.18 The 1970s also saw rallies and protests including a Chicano rally protesting police brutality and racism in 1969;19 Martin Luther King Memorial Vigil in 1971;20 a candle-lit march commemorating the 17th Anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan in 1972;21 and bicycle rallies to demand safer bicycling.22 In 1972, Mahatma Krishnasukanand used “inspiring words” to “raise the vibration of Central Park.”23 A few months later, The World Family Church sponsored a community fair that spanned the length of the creek park from the public library to Central Park.24 2.Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is the most applicable to institutions (religious, educational, civic, etc.) or business area, though in some cases residential areas might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places which demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage. Summary: The proposed district has significance as the geographic focus of the community-led movement to eliminate the mining-centric industry and direct Boulder toward a health, education and tourist-based economy. Through the 1950s, Central Park was the location for events that civic leaders of the time considered physically and “morally” healthful and would develop a desirable community. The placement of the municipal resources after 1951 demonstrates the growth of the municipal identity of Boulder. A boom in population created conflict between those nostalgic for the “pioneer days” and counterculture advocates wanting to confront “the establishment” embodied in the municipal area. Elaboration: Prior to the formation of Boulder, Colorado’s First Peoples relied on the natural environment of the creek and creek-side land. Indigenous knowledge, oral histories, and languages handed down through generations shaped profound cultural and spiritual connections. These connections are sustained and celebrated to this day. Land 18 Kaiser, Kathy. “Free plays held in Central Park.” June 17, 1974. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 23, Number 8. 19 “Chicanos Rally at Fountain March to Police Station.” September 8, 1969. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 18, Number 6. 20 “Storm chills King vigil, cuts turnout.” April 5, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 124. 21 “Nagasaki memorial plans” August 9, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 20, Number 172. 22 Ham, Richard G. “Bikeways.” April 23, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 138. 23 “Go Beyond Your Mind.” September 6, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 21, Number 4. 24 Photo caption. September 26, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 21, Number 18. https://www.ppc- historicnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=CDY19720926-01.2.28&srpos=43&e=--1938---1974--en-20--41-byDA-img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA- %22bandshell%22-------0-----Boulder+%28CO%29- Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 42 within the proposed district is considered sacred to the First Peoples and is associated with cultural beliefs, customs, and practices rooted in the community’s history and collective historic identity. After the formation of Boulder in 1859, distinct areas of residences and commercial interests developed adjacent to Boulder Creek. As the city grew, this area was the focus of the community-led movement to eliminate the mining-centric industry and direct Boulder toward a health, education and tourist-based economy: It uniquely demonstrates the growth of the municipal identity of Boulder. The working-class residents that lived in the area and much of the industry were considered counter to the health, education and tourist-based image that the “civic improvers,” including the Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA), promoted. The BCIA hired Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. in 1910 to write a report on The Improvement of Boulder.25 The report proposed a park along Boulder Creek and to “group together main public buildings of a city.” Using the Olmsted report to validate and justify the displacement, residences and commercial interests were systematically removed by the city. The proposal for parkland along Boulder Creek was refined in Olmsted Brothers plans developed 1917-1923 and published in 1923 26 in The Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado.27 By 1925 much of the land to create the park had been purchased by the city, but when a funding proposal failed to win community support the park itself was never formally created. Instead, BCIA volunteers, led by William Baird, planted trees and shrubs and graded the paths to create the park they considered worthy of Boulder’s new health, education and tourist-based image. The area was modified by 1932, and the “improvements” identified on a map created by George Hubbard (city surveyor and building inspector) for a Daily Camera article on Dec. 31, 1937. These amenities illustrate the slight shift in public sentiment and community needs: in addition to open lawns and gardens around which to promenade, the park included active recreation spaces like tennis courts and a softball field.28 Through the 1950s, the area was used for recreation to keep both mind and body healthful. 25 Olmsted, Jr. Frederick Law. The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado. Brookline, Mass., 1910. Google Books: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Improvement_of_Boulder_Colorado/Qx4UMxP33pUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP9&printsec=frontco ver 26 Olmsted Plans and Drawings Collection “Olmsted Job #3300 Boulder, Colorado Improvement Association Boulder, CO Plan #3300-63 City of Boulder Preliminary Plan of Proposed Park Improvements Along Boulder Creek OBLA, October 1923.” National Park Service, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site. https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/35378272173/in/album-72157683458369472/ 27 Olmsted Brothers. The Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado. Brookline, Mass., 1923. Files; 3302; Boulder Creek; Boulder, Colo., 1917-1924. Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, 1863-1971. Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Page 76-86: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571-02-186_0383_0484/?sp=76&st=image 28 “Photo 4 - Boulder from Flagstaff Mountain taken 1937 or early 1938. 1933 courthouse at left center, Valmont Power Plant visible in the distance. Identified buildings are listed on the reverse of the photo.” C. 1937. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A67946 Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 43 The post WWII years in Boulder saw huge population growth. The general shift in the type of events held in the park and the proposed addition of monuments and memorials show a community nostalgic for “pioneer days” and simpler times. The construction of municipal resources including the “city hall” in 1952, which housed the police station and jail, newly centered the municipal identity of Boulder in the area. Through the 1950s and 1960s, counterculture advocates wanting to confront “the establishment” clashed with the nostalgia of the area, culminating in the vandalism of Central Park’s train “Memorial to Boulder’s Railroad and Mining Pioneers” in 1958. By the late 1960s, the area was firmly established as the municipal center of Boulder. As downtown was termed “decaying” and complaints about “hippies” living in Central Park rose, Boulder’s voters were asked to decide whether to redevelop Central Park with a second municipal building, exhibition hall, conference center, auditorium, science museum, and theater. The bond issue failed and Boulder retained the institution of a public gathering space anchored by municipal buildings. 3.Recognition by Authorities: If a number of structures are recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc., the Boulder Historical Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schoolland, etc.) F.L. Olmsted, or others in published form, as having historical interest or value. The proposed district includes five structures that have been previously designated as individual landmarks, recognizing their historic, architectural and environmental significance. In addition, the area has previously been considered potentially eligible for designation as a historic district. Previous determinations include: Glen Huntington Bandshell (eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (1995, 2016, 2022); Atrium Building (Eligible for the State Register, 2000), Penfield Tate II Municipal Building (eligible for the State Register, 2000; recognized in the December 1953 issue of Progressive Architecture), the Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse (eligible for the National Register, 2005). Additionally, the Greenways Plan (2011) identifies Central Park as eligible for listing in the State and National Registers with comment “possibly eligible as component of a historic district”29 and a 2001 Historic Resources Survey Report prepared for the State Historic Preservation Office identified Central Park as a “cultural landscape.”30 4.Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age of the structure. 29 City of Boulder. Greenways Plan, 2011. https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/407/download?inline. Pg 116. 30 Hermsen Consultants. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Broadway Reconstruction, Boulder, Colorado.” October 2001. Prepared for State Historic Preservation Office. Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 44 Summary: While the history of the site extends beyond the late 19th century, key dates within the proposed district include 1871 (construction of the Boulder Slough), 1906 (construction of the Storage & Transfer Building), 1925 (design and initial grading of Central Park), 1938 (construction of the Bandshell), 1950 (Amphitheater seating), 1951 (construction of the Municipal Building), 1969 (construction of the Atrium Building) and 1998 (placement and dedication of the Dushanbe Teahouse). Elaboration: Grading of Central Park began in late summer, 1924 31 and the park’s paths creating diagonal circulation patterns laid down by 1925.32 Between 1925 and 1938 the area developed informally as the city acquired additional land. Volunteers planted trees that included elm, oak, mountain ash, hawthorn, crab-apple, and pine.33 William Baird donated a white oak, and Mrs. Cheney and Eben G. Fine each donated red oaks.34 The bandshell was added to Central Park in 1938, and the area re-landscaped the following year, removing the perimeter hedges and adding a small lawn for seating in front of the bandshell. By 1940, 13th St. and the northeast side of Broadway included a sidewalk and boulevard of trees. Volunteers continued to modify Central Park, adding picnic benches and a water fountain in 1942 (no longer extant). A multi-year plan for relocating the municipal seat to the area was developed by Saco R. DeBoer and adopted by City Council in 1945. Implementation of the plan began in 1950 with the installation of an amphitheater seating at the bandshell. Construction on the new city hall (called the Municipal Building after 1952) began the following year after delays due to costs. The “master plan” included new circulation paths from the recreation areas west of the Municipal Building through Central Park. The City placed the train car monument next to the Boulder Slough in 1953. A honey locust tree was donated by Boulder High Students to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the United Nations and planted in the lawn in front of the Municipal Building in 1955.35 The lawn area was re- landscaped in 1958.36 In 1961, the tennis courts, softball lots, and remaining building to the west of the Municipal Building were removed to create to the municipal mall (no longer extant) and 31 “Local News.” July 28, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 114. 32 “Boulder City Park from 12th Street bridge.” 1925. Call number BHS 141-2-48. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A30084 33 “Field Trip Is Made By Geography Class.” April 5, 1937. The Prep Owl - BHS, Volume 24. 34 “Local Personal News.” May 10, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 48. 35 “BHS Students Give Donations for Tree.” December 9, 1955. The Owl - BHS, Volume 42, Number 12. 36 Photo caption. Aug. 1, 1958. Daily Camera, Boulder. Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 45 parking lot to connect the Municipal Building to the public library (constructed 1961). The City broke ground on an addition to the west side of the municipal building in 1962. The construction of the Midland Federal Savings and Loan bank branch (Atrium Building) in 1969 further established the streetscape character along 13th Street. 5.Other, if applicable: ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: The district should portray an environment in an era of history characterized by distinctive architectural periods or styles; embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a good example of the common; include the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or include a fine example of the uncommon. 1.Architectural Identity: The area should display common characteristics or continuity, and represent a distinguished entity that possesses integrity of appearance, and/or feeling (mood). The area is unique for its inclusion of a variety of distinct architectural styles spanning the twentieth century. The district’s architectural identity is unified by its setting, mass, scale and use of simplified geometric forms. The five individually landmarked buildings retain a high degree of integrity. Its character is defined by an urban park along the banks of Boulder Creek and bounded by major throughfares, with municipal buildings situated along the park edge. The Atrium Building, completed in 1969 and used as city offices for nearly 40 years, and the construction of the Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse in 1998 contribute to the area’s historic character. 2.Recognized Period(s)/Style(s): It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style, or contain good examples of more than one period/style, thereby preserving a progression of styles; i.e.: Victorian Revival styles, such as described by Historic American Building Survey Criteria, Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barker), The History of Architectural Style (Marcus/Tiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard et al), History of Architecture (Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado (Thorsen et al) and any other published source of universal or local analysis of “style”. The district uniquely exemplifies distinct architectural and landscape styles spanning the twentieth century. Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 46 •The Storage & Transfer Building, constructed in 1906, is an example of the 19th century commercial style. •Central Park, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in 1924 and modified by Saco DeBoer’s 1938 design, including the construction of the Bandshell, reflects planned and natural site characteristics representative of the 1938-1974 era. •The Bandshell, designed by Glen Huntington and completed in 1938, is a rare example of the Art Deco style in Boulder. •The Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, designed by James Hunter and completed in 1952, is an example of the International Style. Hobart Wagener’s 1962 addition was designed in the Formalist style. •The Atrium Building, designed by Hobart Wagener in 1969, is an example of the Rustic Modern style. •The Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse is an exceptional example of a Central Asian (Tajik) Teahouse and reflects the political climate at the time. The Bandshell, Municipal Building, and Atrium Building reflect progressive and forward-looking styles and are significant for their association with the development of the Modern movement in architecture in Boulder. As a whole, this area represents an eclectic municipal character that is unique to Boulder’s history, location and climate. 3.Architect(s) or Builder(s) of Prominence: A good example of the work of architect(s) or builder(s) recognized for expertise nationally, state-wide or locally. The district includes works by the following notable architects and designers: •Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., considered the forefather of the procession of landscape architecture in the United States,37 authored the 1910 report, “Improvement of the Boulder, Colorado,” which shaped not only this area in Central Boulder, but also influenced the broader development of the community related to flood mitigation, city planning and zoning. In 1924, his firm, Olmsted Brothers, designed plans for Central Park, followed by a grading plan and planting plan. •Saco R. DeBoer, Denver landscape architect and city planner, was commissioned in 1937 to select a site for the bandshell and design the landscaping around it. His designs for the amphitheater seating were realized in 1950. 37 Kluas, Susan. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. https://olmsted.org/colleagues-firm/frederick-law-olmsted- jr/ Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 47 •Glen Huntington, locally prominent architect responsible for numerous historic buildings, including the Boulder County Courthouse and the Huntington Arms. •James Hunter, locally prominent architect who worked in Boulder between 1940 and 1973 and designed the Municipal Building (1777 Broadway; 1951), the Boulder Public Library (1001 Canyon; 1961) and the Masonic Lodge (2205 Broadway, 1948); •Hobart Wagener, locally prominent architect active in Boulder in the 1950s to the 1980s. Notable works include the Atrium Building (1300 Canyon; 1969), Fire Station No. 2 (2225 Baseline Rd; 1958); the Green Shield Office Building (900 28th St.; 1959), the Labrot House (816 6th St.; 1954) and the Methodist Student Center (1290 Folsom; 1957). •Teahouse 4.Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, detail, material, and color which is of excellent visual quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship. Central Park, including the Bandshell and its amphitheater seating, the Dushanbe Teahouse displays high artistic value as seen in its intricately handcarved and brilliantly painted wood trim and decorative exterior “faïence” tile panels. The Atrium and the Municipal Building are significant for the high quality of stone work. 5.Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship that are representation of a significance innovation. Dushanbe Teahouse: The Teahouse ceiling was constructed using only traditional hand tools and without any electric tools. The Teahouse is significant as the only “chaikhona” (Central Asian/Tajik Teahouse) in the Western Hemisphere. The Bandshell is a rare example of the Art Deco style in Boulder and one of only two in Colorado. 6.Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder area. Local stone is utilized in the design of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, Atrium Building, and landscaping walls within Central Park. 7.Other, if applicable. Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 48 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The district should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the protection of the unique natural and man-made environments. Summary: 1.Site Characteristics: The site should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation, and streetscape objects, i.e.: lighting, fences, sidewalks, etc. The proposed district has environmental significance for its planned and natural site characteristics, including: •Spatial relationship of the civic buildings and Central Park •Boulder Creek and the Boulder Slough •Circulation Paths with the park creating a relatively flat central green •Mature trees planted in groves and lining the perimeter of the park •Views toward the Flatirons •The Teahouse was sited as part of the City of Boulder’s 1993 Civic Park Master Plan, a comprehensive plan of the civic use and public buildings in the downtown campus area. Plans for the area placed the Teahouse at the center of the Civic Park Plaza which included the Civic Plaza (north of the Teahouse site) used for Farmers Market exhibits and performances and the 13th Street Community Plaza (the street west of the Teahouse site) used for public events such as the Boulder Creek Festival and the Farmers Market. Changes within the proposed boundary, including the replacement of the Broadway Bridge (c. 2002), the addition of the Boulder Creek Path (1980s), tree and vegetation planting and removal, removal of commemorative train cars, the establishment of the Sister Cities and 13th Street plazas, and the addition of small scale features including decorative boulders, artwork and light fixtures, do not detract from the overall historic character of the area. 2.Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing, placement, or other qualities design with respect to its site. The scale, massing and placement of structures in the proposed district is generally defined by one and two-story buildings surrounding a central urban park with mature trees and a green lawn. The Municipal Building is a prominent visual feature, sited appropriately for an important civic structure. The park surroundings provide an appropriate setting for the public use of the buildings, and area complementary to their functions. 3. Geographic Importance: As an entity it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community, having unique and irreplaceable assets to the city or neighborhood. Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 49 The area is an established, familiar and prominent visual feature of the community, its location near major thoroughfares. Situated prominently along Broadway, Canyon and Arapahoe, major thoroughfares in Boulder, as well as 13th Street, a dedicated bike route (named for advocate Al Bartlett). 4.Other, if applicable. Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks 50 Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 CIVIC AREA HISTORIC DISTRICT Online feedback (as of Jan. 11, 2024) The project website has hosted an online form since Oct. 16, 2023 for community members to express their views on the proposed historic district. Thirty people have provided feedback through this channel as of Jan. 11, 2024. The project team recognizes that this is not a representative sample of our community. The online form asked whether people support a designation. Out of the 30 respondents: -30% support the designation -50% do not support the designation -20% are unsure if they support the designation. The sections below summarize the main reasons provided as well as some supporting quotes. A table with the full list of input received is also provided. 1.Out of those who support the designation, the following reasons have been provided: -It’s good for business and for tourism. -Preservation is a valuable goal for our cities -This area represents the best of Boulder (besides the mountain backdrop) -It will help improve safety and allow people to use the spaces currently dominated by the unhoused and substance abusers -Central park is important for community gatherings “Such a district will act as a deterrent against the spread of any radical changes…” “Perhaps this newfound designation could also help drive some of the seedier elements of that area out of the downtown area (or at least to a place that is not so visible or beloved).” “Why are we so eager to get rid of historical stories of Boulder? The Italians would never tear down an article of Art or History.” “Thank you to these organizations and the landmark committee for seeing the civic center as something that should be protected.” Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 51 2.Out of those who do not support the designation, the following reasons have been provided: -This area needs redevelopment and programming, not further restrictions. -Parking lots are not historic. Affordable housing should be built on the parking lots. -We need civic spaces that meet the needs of our community today. -There is limited benefit of a district designation. -The city should focus on other priorities. -This is not aligned with the city’s equity and climate goals. -Not worthwhile to pursue a district until issues of unhoused and public safety are addressed in the area. “There is no benefit to landmarking the parking lots and lawn areas around these already landmarked buildings.” “I think we can recognize the history without making this a historic district that would make future improvements harder to complete.” “The results are clear – landmarking these spaces has simply crystallized their nonfunctionality. Now it’s [the bandshell] a relic that has little relevance to the performing arts.” “..the plan seems aimed at preserving Olmsted’s exclusive version of this area…Why is his version of the use of this land the one that gets preserved? …Why do three groups that don’t include the communities or people with deeper historical ties to this area get to dictate the future of this area for generations to come?” “If we are going to spend taxpayer money on this area, it should be done in a way that repairs past harms and oppressions, rather than preserve them.” “Please do not do this. It was a good intention in the past, but not now. Especially because the City owns and manages the resources. Our Downtown needs more cultural interest and creative facilities that expand water related experience, entertainment, art and robust and diverse markets. But a HD designation at this point is a constraint.” “Pointless to do this until the issues around homelessness and safety are addressed – otherwise the designation is pointless window dressing and propaganda.” “Are you spending all of this money for the homeless to have a beautiful place to occupy?” 3.Out of those who are not sure if they support the designation, the following reasons have been provided: -Need more information and understanding of the impacts -Worried that significant public resources would be spent here with little return -Skeptical that the collection of disjointed buildings warrants designation of a historic district -Would support if the use of current buildings can be reimagined Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 52 -Worried that the designation glosses over the presence of unhoused in the area and the impact on safety and access to this area for the general public -Worried that unless the challenges with the unhoused and substance abuse onsite are addressed, the positive impacts of a historic district cannot be realized -Desire for the city to prioritize public safety “I oppose the idea if the inclusion of certain buildings within the proposed historic district will prevent the possibility of replacing or reimagining some of the buildings within that district [reference Penfield Tate and Atrium].” “As far as I know the specific area on the map, it’s a lot of random generic buildings. If anything, Pearl St fits the bill and we already have that.” “One thing everybody hates, is a grand expenditure of resources on something that is not terribly important.” “And I think as long as there are homeless encampments along that whole park area- which seem to be growing – it will never be a vibrant destination. Fact.” “If the area was cleaned and made safe I would support the designation.” “Advertising and promoting this area will increase the danger to citizens and visitors until this area is managed and drugs are banned from these sites.” “No desire to preserve the lawless, degraded and dangerous place this area has become.” “Total disconnect between lack of care and lack of law enforcement in downtown civic areas and this effort to create historical designation of an area the City has allowed to become trashed and dangerous….Is this an effort to obfuscate and detract from working on fixing the problem?” Table 1 is the full list of input received through the online form. Table 1 Feedback from the online form (as of Jan. 11, 2024) Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. Yes Historic Districts are support tourism and is good for business. Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 53 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. No A lot of this area needs to be redeveloped. Too many parking lots and empty buildings. Really need to build affordable housing on the parking lots. Yes It's historic, and it reflects a Boulder that so many of us wish were still there. Such a district will act as a deterrent against the spread of any radical changes to a place that was already perfect. Perhaps this newfound designation could also help drive some of the seedier elements of that area out of the downtown area (or at least to a place that is not so visible or beloved). Yes It is vital to preserve the history of Boulder and remember all of those who came before us. Yes Central Park plays a huge role in Community Gatherings Yes I remember going to the Bandshell as a child. There use to be a train engine there, that just amazed me. Why are we so eager to get rid of historical stories of Boulder? The Italians would never tear down an article of Art or History. https://youtu.be/xevBo6gfafA?si=4k4LYPwLr0uxVpnJ I suggest you watch this video done by Denver CBS on the Huntington Bandshell. No It's a terrible idea... This is just an extension of PLAN's nimby reaction to the Civic Area Plan which contemplated improvements and construction of new buildings in the area to make space for civic uses such as an indoor farmers market...landmarking the bandshell, seats, atrium building, etc is a non-sensical approach to making civic spaces that can meet the needs of our community. The results are clear - landmarking these spaces has simply crystalized their nonfunctionally. When the city met with users of the bandshell, the main request was to add green room space. By moving it and adding that space, it could have had life. Now it's a relic that has little relevance to the performing arts. Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 54 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. There is no benefit to landmarking the parking lots and lawn areas around these already landmarked buildings. No I think we can recognize the history without making this a historic district that would make future improvements harder to complete. Yes It has so much history and really represents the best part of Boulder besides the mountain backdrop. Yes The buildings to be included in the historic district, because of their significance, need to have landmark protection. Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 55 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. No Not consistent with the city's equity and climate goals This area spent far more time in the hands of the Indigenous people who had stewarded it since time immemorial. After the Indigenous people were forcibly removed from their land, this area was dominated by workers, low-income people, and people of color. Yet the plan seems aimed at preserving Omlsted's exclusive version of this area. Olmsted is a noted racist whose plans for this area led to the displacement of those who had long used it for shelter, gathering, and other purposes. Why is his version of the use of this land the one that gets preserved? Why has there apparently been no input from BIPOC people and especially from those with much deeper ties to this area than any non- Indigenous people here now on the creation of this historic district? Why do three groups that don't include the communities or people with deeper historical ties to this area get to dictate the future of this area for generations to come? How does memorializing a racist's vision of Boulder's civic area align, created through traumatic displacement of Indigenous people, poor people and people of color, mesh with our city's racial equity goals? People from groups that have been and continue to be traumatized by displacement from this area ought to be the ones deciding how this area is used. Resources spent creating a historical area would be better used offering housing support or reparations to the descendants of those displaced by Olmsted's vision of a neat and tidy area that destroyed natural ecosystems and excluded BIPOC residents, low income people, and laborers. If we are going to spend taxpayer money on this area, it should be done in a way that repairs past harms and oppressions, rather than preserves them. Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 56 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. Not sure Is that area really "historic"? It sounds like Boulder just wants to have a "historic district" like other cities. Historic districts are usually a focal destination for restaurants, shopping, walking. As far as I know the specific area on the map, it's a lot of random generic buildings. If anything, Pearl St fits the bill and we already have that. Boulder has MANY other things that could use improvement and development. One thing everybody hates, is a grand expenditure of resources on something that is not terribly important. And I think as long as there are homeless encampments along that whole park area - which seem to be growing - it will never be a vibrant destination. Fact. I think the band shell should be demolished (it's small, dirty, inadequate, and how often is it really used?) and a bigger stage area could be established for outdoor events. No This area has so many opportunities for redevelopment that can anchor a variety of community focused and cultural mixed uses. Establishing a vital snd creative mixed use East Bookend will strengthen the urban downtown. By establishing a historic district it will prevent so many good things for an equitable downtown. The bandshell influence along the public front door to Boulder is an underwhelming civic experience. The stories and histories of the civic area can be expressed so creatively without the constraint of a district. Please do not do this. It was a good intention in the past, but not now. Especially because the City owns and manages the resources. Our doentown needs more cultural interest and creative facilities that expand water related experiences, entertainment, art and robust and diverse markets. But a HD designation at this point is a constraint. No Why designate parking lots as historic? Most of the block between 13th St and 14th St is parking lots, which makes that block unworthy of designation as a historic district, particularly when the city can just landmark the existing buildings. Better to prioritize filling in those unattractive empty spaces with something useful (housing would be nice) rather than make it harder to develop anything by creating another historic Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 57 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. district. Also, the Atrium building wasn't worthy of being landmarked, doubling down on that would compound the mistake. No This area needs redevelopment and programming, not further restrictions on use Please invest in public use--including programming, infrastructure and public safety--in this area. No This area is TRASHED - totally unsafe currently - certainly no longer "historic" Pointless to do this until the issues around homelessness and safety are addressed - otherwise this designation is pointless window dressing and propaganda. No Not until it is safe and the Not sure Concern for safety of area given drug use and resulting violent behaviors I have great concern over lack of acknowledgment that this area is unsafe to visit and enjoy based on out of control drug use and aggression of people on meth and similar stimulants that cause aggression. Advertising and promoting this area will increase the danger to citizens and visitors until this area is managed and drugs are banned from these sites. If the area was cleaned and made safe I would support the designation. The history provided in the report is very beautiful and well done. No no support until the area is safe on an ongoing basis. The civic area is disgusting and unsafe. All this beautiful accumulation of history yet, for the past few years, it has turned into a sh*thole with the City's blessing. The intersection of Broadway & Canyon, through which nearly every visitor to Boulder passes, is an embarrassment. Do better and stop normalizing the situation. Yes Because hopefully if this happens, the area will be cleaned up and I can return to walking along the Boulder Creek in that area, as well as bringing guest and children to play. The sooner the better Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 58 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. No Are you spending all this money for the homeless to have a beautiful place to occupy? As a citizen of Boulder for over 50 yrs I do resent the intimidation I feel when I want to enjoy our lovely river walks. I am not referring to those who are unfortunate in losing their homes, I am referring to those who live that life by choice. They delight in getting as much as they can from society for free, as you well know. They regularly harrass the Boulder High students coming to and from school on their bikes, as you also well know. Untill you figure out a way to create these wonderful spaces for us the citizens to enjoy, why spend all that tax money? No This area is currently an embarrassment to the city, designating as Historic will only elevate the hypocrisy in how this area is being managed This area is a complete embarrassment, one of many black eyes on the city of Boulder. Central Park is home to open drug use, open defecation, regular drug overdoses, a multitude of encampments, harassments, physical altercation, etc. etc. Designating as "Historic" may lead residents and visitors coming to the area under the presumption there is some significance/beauty to the area, cultural relevance, or just an enjoyable site with something to be gained (historical perspective). Visiting the area will not fulfill any of these things interests and will likely lead to visitors leaving the area with a less than stellar view of Boulder. Until the city takes a proactive approach to cleaning and maintaining any of the public spaces I am not in support of any of the efforts of this city to designate or elevate our public spaces to anything other than what they are, unsafe and unsanitary areas much of the public chooses to avoid. Not sure I no longer feel safe in most of our public spaces and have stop enjoying our public spaces. I used to love taking my kids to Pearl Street, but we have been harassed by drug addicts (been yelled at) and the public bathrooms are not accessible (as meth users use these public spaces). We also wtiness someone defecating on Spruce Street. A civic area would not be enjoyed by most given that our public safety is precarious! The City's efforts need to prioritize public safety so that ALL can enjoy our public areas. I don't see how a civic area wouldn't just be plagued with drug addicts and unhoused citizens. Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 59 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. No Get your priorities straight. This town is pathetic nowadays. How can this even be a consideration with the rampant meth, fentanyl, and violent crime that has plagued this area (and entire town). Needles all over the place. Feces in the river that's covered in trash. You guys really think meth addicts need affordable housing? Addicts need treatment, not housing. Addiction is the root of all of the problems here, and in 15 years of living here I'm repulsed by it nowadays. As a business owner I pay an ungodly amount of taxes and I can't even comfortably take my son to the majority of places downtown. People using meth in public bathrooms. Pathetic. The law only applies to taxpayers. Park your car and your parking goes 3 minutes over, you have a ticket within seconds. Meanwhile right around the corner a meth head is committing grand larceny and BPD just shrugs it off - back to harassing skateboarders and taxpayers. Your priorities are so far from reality. Everyone in Boulder is so fed up with this crap. Not sure Will the designation insure that regular citizens can use it safely?? And the city will stop prioritizing the use of the are to the meth / fent head zombies that terrorize the passerbys? This area has been in rapid decline the last couple of years- open drug use, sex, violence, trashing of the land and structures. I don't go down there any more due to the lack of safety. Are you going to clean it up? have security guards? eliminate drug use? eliminate camping? pick up needles? feces? it is absolutely disgusting what has happened the this city in the last 30 plus years. Not sure Only if the area is first returned to a safe, clean and actual civic place. No desire to preserve the lawless, degraded and dangerous place this area has become. Total disconnect between lack of care and lack of law enforcement in downtown civic areas and this effort to create historical designation of an area the City has allowed to become trashed and dangerous. It does not make sense that resources are being expended for this type of designation without first fixing it. Is this an intentional effort to obfuscate and detract from working on fixing the problem? Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 60 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. Yes to preserve the beauty of our civic center, and prevent the area from being turned into dense concrete apartment, blocks, or a larger, drug-filled homeless encampment Concerns: open air meth and fentanyl use. Encampments. Propane tank fires. Stabbings and shootings. Clean up this area. It's a disgrace. The current council majority that opposes the police and cleanup resources required to keep this area safe are turning Boulder into a dump. Thank you to these organizations and the landmark committee for seeing the civic center as something that should be protected. No The designation totally ignores the current situation in this area: that citizens actively avoid the area due to crime and harassment by transients. I and my neighbors with whom I have spoken are deeply offended by this. The city spends my time and money on this designation, but not on the unsafe conditions there??? I am outraged by your tone deafness. This tells me my city staff are more effective with the past than the present. I am so sorry to see the decline in our city staff and elected officials mirroring the decline in our public spaces. I am now motivated -- after many years of support -- to work for an entirely new roster of all of you. You are supposed to LEAD. Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 61 Do you support the proposed historic district? Please explain the reason for your selection. Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to this proposed designation. Not sure I oppose the idea if the inclusion of certain buildings within the proposed the historic district will prevent the possibility of replacing or re-imagining some of the buildings withing that district. It is clear to me that there are two problematic buildings within the district boundary: 1. The current functions of the Pennfield Tate building should be moved to the Western City Campus on Broadway, as that campus is built. Doing so will allow the Pennfield Tate location to be re-imagined or re-built into a facility that can serve various new public functions - including the function as a central hub for festivals held within the district boundary. 2. The current functions of the Atrium building should also be moved to the new Western City Campus on Broadway, as that campus is built. This would allow the Atrium location to be re-imagined or re-built as a year-round indoor/outdoor Boulder Farmers Market facility. Imagine a facility at the Atrium location with large opening overhead doors - open during the warmer months - and closed in the colder months - enabling a year-round Farmer's Market. Look to the success of the Santa Fe, NM Farmer's Market as a great example of such a facility. No The area doesn't feel special anymore due to safety concerns. Would designation make it much more difficult and expensive for tax payers anytime a project occurs within the "landmark"? Will the "landmark" receive the extra help it already needs in terms of encampments and feeling safe? Once it becomes a "landmark", are there elements that would be restored to represent or educate visitors on the history of the area (not just a few signs)? How will the "landmark" designation work with the next phase of the implementation of the Parks department vision for the area? What has recently been implemented seems to conflict with "landmark" implementation as well as other department visions for the future. Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024 62 TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation Scott Schuttenberg, Deputy Director Bryan Beary, Senior Manager, Community Building and Partnerships Mark Davison, Senior Manager, Planning Regina Elsner, Senior Manager, Natural Resources Jackson Hite, Senior Manager, Business Services Megann Lohman, Senior Manager, Recreation Stephanie Munro, Senior Manager, Regional Facilities Dennis Warrington, Senior Manager, Urban Parks SUBJECT: Matters from the Department DATE: January 22, 2024 A.Court System Plan The intent of this item is to update PRAB on the Court System Plan being developed for the city’s tennis and pickleball courts. This includes development of recommended Level of Service (LOS) for tennis and pickleball, analysis of sites where potential courts may be located if additional funding is identified, and updating Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) planned actions for 2024 and beyond. Background The Court System Plan analyses the growing demand for both pickleball and tennis in the community and the city’s contributing role in providing courts for both sports. In addition, the plan evaluates the changing court supply – including the closure of a private tennis facility at the Millenium site and pending development of CU South - impacts to the Boulder racket playing community. The Court System Plan will provide recommendations utilizing a three-pronged approach that blends input from the community, data, and policy guidance. Previous PRAB touchpoints include the following: •May 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 17) •July 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 12) •September 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 7) •October 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 14) •November 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 229) Process and Timeline The graphic below details the project timeline, the deliverables and community engagement process. 63 Figure 1: Timeline of Tennis and Pickleball Court System Plan Best Practices and Market Study Initial research on best practices provides recommendations for specifications, maintenance, and operations. •As staff previously identified, use of post-tension concrete for the foundation is recommended to increase lifecycle, reduce maintenance costs, and create greater playability for courts over the current asphalt slip sheets. •Dedicated courts, those with lines and nets for only one sport or the other, are recommended for both tennis and pickleball to best accommodate each sport. To a lesser degree, multi-sport courts can also be accommodated based on the fiscal reality faced by the department and the ability to accommodate the widest use. •Parks and recreation agencies recommend establishing a Level of Service (LOS) to guide what resources are needed for parks and recreation facilities and activities to meet community needs. Peer Agency Comparison BPR uses cities of similar size and situation to benchmark different recreation activities and amenities. The seven agencies compared here are: Ann Arbor, MI; Asheville, NC; Bend, OR; Berkeley, CA; Bloomington, IN; Naperville Parks and Recreation District, IL; Tempe, AZ. Based on BPR’s seven peer cities, the average population served by a single tennis court is 5,275 people. The average population served by a single dedicated pickleball court is 11,383 people. Regional Cities Comparison BPR uses six cities in the front range to benchmark different recreation activities and amenities. The six agencies compared here are: Broomfield; Foothills Park and Recreation District; Fort Collins; Longmont; South Suburban Park and Recreation District; Westminster. Based on six Colorado comparison cities, the average population served by a single tennis court is 9,235. South Suburban Park and Recreation District is an outlier, with each tennis court 64 serving 25,542 people. When South Suburban is removed, the average is 5,973 people served by each tennis court. While the six Colorado municipalities considered vary, the average population served by a single dedicated pickleball court in these communities is 15,011. Table 1: Agency Comparisons for Dedicated Outdoor Tennis and Pickleball Courts Agency Population Outdoor Dedicated Pickleball Courts Outdoor Dedicated Tennis Courts 1 court per X population 1 court per X population Boulder, CO (City Courts Only) 108,663 NA 5,400 COLORADO AGENCIES Broomfield, CO 76,976 25,659 6,415 Foothills Park and Recreation District, CO 93,000 9,300 5,813 Ft. Collins, CO 167,554 21,250 6,800 Longmont, CO 101,561 12,300 4,300 South Suburban Park and Recreation District, CO 157,261 7,663 25,542 Westminster, CO 111,153 13,894 6,538 COLORADO AVERAGE 15,011 9,235 OTHER PEER AGENCIES Ann Arbor, MI 119,570 10,870 3,986 Asheville, NC 97,949 12,244 4,664 Bend, OR 107,305 6,312 13,413 Berkeley, CA 112,643 22,529 3,313 Bloomington, IN 80,332 8,033 3,651 Naperville, Illinois Park and Recreation District 149,540 8,308 4,154 Tempe, AZ 190,889 NA 3,743 OTHER PEER AGENCY AVERAGE 11,383 5,275 Level of Service (LOS) The LOS describes the minimum desired number of an amenity or facility that a department wants to provide based on population served. Using LOS can also help agencies prioritize needs between different recreation activities and identify gaps in service. Some recreation organizations provide recommended LOS. While the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and USA Pickleball do not provide a targeted LOS, in communication with both organizations, they did provide support for the LOS BPR developed in working with the consultant on this project. 65 As with many other recreation services, the city is not the sole provider for the community. The city focuses resources on providing services that provide the most community benefit. In the case of tennis and pickleball courts, this may translate to courts that are free or low-cost to use, open to the public. While the Court System Plan will explore opportunities for an indoor court facility, outdoor dedicated courts are the focus of this LOS for tennis and pickleball in Boulder. The LOS also accounts for the community access others provide in Boulder. Other data and standards considered in the development of LOS includes: •Demographic projections. •2022 Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Equity and ReinvestmentPrioritization).•2022 United States Tennis Association City of Boulder Assessment.•2023 Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Pickleball Report.•2023 Tennis Industry Association Annual Report.•2023 Pickleheads City of Boulder Court Report. •Community and stakeholder input •Current and planned tennis and pickleball court capital improvements.•USA Pickleball/Pickleheads Recommendations for Boulder –•USTA Recommendations for Boulder•USTA – Statement of Guidance for Tennis Court Development•BPR Community Access Rating Based on the above sources, 7-8% of the United States population plays tennis and 3-5% plays pickleball. This amounts to approximately 2.7 tennis players for every 1 pickleball player. An estimated 10-11% of Boulder’s population currently plays tennis with 5-6% playing pickleball. This means that the percentage of population that plays these sports is higher in Boulder than the national average. This is consistent with many other recreational activities in Boulder. The ratio of tennis players to pickleball players in Boulder is closer to 2:1. As shared in the November PRAB memo, growth trends for each sport indicate that the number of players for each sport may continue to rise in the next several years. Following the completion of courts at East Boulder Community Park in 1991, BPR’s supply of tennis courts remained stable for several decades as the population of Boulder and number of tennis players grew. Multi-striping of courts began in 2016 as a response to the emergence of pickleball. This creation of multi-use courts provided interim space for this new growing sport quickly and at a low cost. Creating multi-use courts did reduce the LOS for dedicated tennis courts. Before the multi-use courts, BPR was providing 1 dedicated tennis court per 2,349 people in 2015. With the creation of multi-use courts and the growth of tennis, the LOS for BPR courts is 1 court for every 5,200 people. BPR only provides a portion of the community accessible tennis courts in Boulder. When accounting for these additional courts with community access, the overall LOS in Boulder is 1 tennis court for every 3,176 people in 2024. BPR is aware of the upcoming closure of private tennis courts at Rocky Mountain Tennis Center and CU South that will further reduce the number of courts and community access to tennis courts. While BPR’s role is not to replace private industry, staff recognizes that these closures will likely increase demand for BPR tennis courts. The amount of community access lost is anticipated to further reduce the LOS in Boulder to 1 court per 3,406 people in 2025. The target LOS for the city factors in other providers of community accessible tennis and pickleball and looks to define BPR’s contribution to this overall LOS. The LOS aims to, at a minimum, restore LOS for dedicated tennis to before courts were multi-striped and then adjust 66 for growth of the sport and population. Pickleball LOS is based on this tennis target and then adjusted for the relative number of players and growth as well. Target LOS Using the above methodology, the LOS for BPR in providing courts for tennis and pickleball is described as such: •The target LOS for the city for dedicated outdoor tennis courts is 1 court per 1,750 people. To achieve this LOS, BPR’s contribution goal would be to add 22 tennis courts by 2039. •The target LOS for dedicated outdoor pickleball courts in Boulder is 1 court per 3,500 people. To achieve this LOS, BPR’s contribution goal would be to add 22 pickleball courts by 2039. To reach the goal of 44 additional outdoor dedicated courts by 2039, BPR would need to identify additional funding outside of the current six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). There is funding within the current CIP to partially fund new dedicated courts for both Tennis and Pickleball. As part of this plan, BPR will also investigate indoor tennis, which would also require additional funding and/or partnerships to achieve. In developing new and dedicated courts over the next six years, BPR recognizes the need to retain the current multi-use courts. BPR recognizes the community benefit provided by these courts which allows locals and casual players to play either sport at one location. The number and placement of multi-use courts will be evaluated as new dedicated courts are added to the system. Youth, Equity and Accessibility In 2024, BPR is starting a Universal Accessibility Plan. BPR facilities follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with a focus on going beyond these laws to create universal access and an equitable playing experience for all. Additional focus will be placed on serving people experiencing disabilities such as additional gate width at court entrance to allow tennis wheelchairs that may be wider than other wheelchair types to enter. In addition, as courts are developed, BPR will follow best practices in serving youth, including painting of lines for Junior tennis on courts. BPR will also consider equity when delivering on this LOS. Below is an example of mapping that combines the 1,750 people served by each court with priority areas for parks and recreation investments shaded in darker blue. 67 Figure 2: Dedicated Outdoor Tennis Court LOS Equity Mapping Site Analysis: Potential Additional Outdoor Dedicated Courts As discussed in the 2022 BPR department plan, action and vision level plan alternatives for courts include potential for additional facilities if additional funds can be identified. Following the LOS, BPR will look to add 22 new dedicated tennis courts and 22 new dedicated pickleball courts by 2039. Adding this quantity of courts will require development of courts at multiple sites. To plan for these potential new additions, staff chose six park sites to analyze the opportunity for new courts. The six chosen sites are: •East Boulder Community Park (East) •Valmont City Park (Valmont) •Tom Watson Park (Tom Watson) •Gerald Stazio Fields (Stazio) •Foothills Community Park (Foothills) •South Boulder Recreation Center (South) 68 These parks were chosen from all BPR properties because they are community parks, city parks, or recreational facilities with potential space for 4 or more additional courts after analysis of topography, floodplain, access, and noise limitations. These six sites were then evaluated based on: •Property ownership•Adequate space•Proximity to residential properties•Utilities•Topography•Environmental Impact•Parking and Multi-modal Access•Current and Planned Uses•Equity•Existing Amenities Of the six sites studied, South Boulder Recreation Center site was found to have too many limitations, including current competing uses and environmental factors in a constrained footprint. The site also has acoustic concerns as emerging best practices recommend pickleball courts be at least 500 feet from residences without significant mitigation measures. While the recreation center blocks some of the pickleball noise, much of the surrounding park is within 500 feet of residential areas. The site evaluation based on the above criteria showed that this site is not a good candidate for locating four or more additional courts. The multi-use courts currently on site will continue to be maintained in 2024. The other five sites will receive concept plans as part of this Court System Plan. Planned Actions and Funding Immediate Actions In 2024, staff will continue with replacement of courts at Arapahoe Ridge and Columbine with post-tension concrete. The court renovations at these two parks increases the playability of these two sites where poor conditions currently hinder play. BPR staff, working with the consultants, also recommend that no changes are made to the distribution of courts in 2024. Any change to the current distribution would only increase the level of service for one sport and reduce the number of courts available to the other sport. Additionally, maintaining the current distribution allows staff to focus on planning for construction of new additional courts that will increase the overall LOS in 2025. BPR Capital Investment Program (CIP) Actions BPR has identified a series of actions in the current six-year CIP to fulfill policy direction to “take care of what we have” in terms of existing courts, and through the park renovation program, identified sites where new dedicated pickleball and tennis courts can be added. As park renovations require thoughtful planning, including community engagement, to get to construction documents, the quantity and location of courts will be determined though the planning process. Staff are able to identify the total amount BPR could add, and as staff work through the planning and design process, BPR will engage with the community on the right balance to support recreation needs at each park. 69 2024-2030 Six-Year CIP Note: only 2024 funding is approved by Council, years 2025 to 2030 are projected workplan for BPR Year Funding CIP Type Action Location 2024 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of existing courts Arapahoe Ridge and Columbine 2024 Planning & Design Plan and Design up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 16 dedicated pickleball courts East Boulder Community Park 2025 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of existing courts TBD 2025 Approx. range of $1,750,000 to $2,250,000 million* Construction Build up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 16 dedicated pickleball courts. *Note: the cost estimating is at an order of Magnitude stage and is only a guide. Class C estimates will be developed to identify budget for project at a later stage. East Boulder Community Park 2026 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of existing courts TBD 2027 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of existing courts TBD 2027 Planning & Design Plan and Design up to 12 dedicated tennis courts Valmont South 2028 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of existing courts TBD 2028 Approx. range of $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 million** Construction Plan and Design up to 12 dedicated tennis courts. **Note: the cost estimating is at an order of Magnitude stage and is only a guide. Class C estimates will be developed to identify budget for project at a later stage. Valmont South 2029 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of existing courts TBD 2029 Planning & Design Build up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 4 dedicated pickleball courts Tom Watson 2030 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of existing courts TBD 2030 Approx. range of $1,250,00,000 to $1,700,000 million*** Construction Build up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 4 dedicated pickleball courts. ***Note: the cost estimating is at an order of Magnitude stage and is only a guide. Class C estimates will be developed to identify budget for project at a later stage. Tom Watson T2031-2039 CIP 2031- 2029 TBD Planning & Design Consider addition tennis and pickleball courts as needed at identified park locations in system plan Stazio and Foothills Long-term Actions Potential Indoor Courts Facility: BPRs 2024-2025 workplan will include the exploration of an indoor facility for recreation activities including but not limited to aquatics, courts, and other aspects of fitness and wellness in the community. To develop a future indoor recreation facility there are three key steps ahead: 70 1.Understanding what the community wants: When BPR looks at the incredible investment in a new facility, staff need to explore the needs of the whole community such as but not limited to youth, older adults, people with disabilities, and those with low income. A key priority is to ensure that the outcome provides welcoming space that benefits the whole community. Previous planning has identified Valmont City Park as a location for a future indoor recreation center that could meet needs where current supply isn’t adequate – such as for swimming and indoor sports. The 2015 Aquatics Feasibility Plan community engagement identified a desire for additional swimming capacity, a competition facility, and other amenities – the intent of upcoming engagement would be to more specifically confirm needs given changes in supply and trends since then. Upcoming engagement will also help BPR prioritize other activities for the current facilities and a potential new facility – such as indoor tennis or pickleball. 2.What would it cost to build and then operate a new facility? Building on the community engagement, research, and guidance for leadership, staff will develop rigorous costing. City policy requires that before building anything new, BPR carefully considers the costs of capital construction and the annual ongoing operating and maintenance costs. BPR must also consider the impacts on city sustainability, equity, and resilience goals. Developing a robust and clear understanding of what the community prioritizes in a new facility and what it would cost will enable us exploring the third question with city leadership and community: 3.Is the community interested in paying for a new facility? This will be a policy conversation with city leadership when the planning work can support careful decision- making. This is a 50-year decision, and to support the policy conversation well requires major planning work. Coming out of the Courts system plan staff will use the baseline information gathered to inform planning for a new indoor facility beginning in 2025. Next Steps Staff will share the five concept plans for East Boulder Community Park, Valmont South, Tom Watson, Foothills, and Stazio through Engagement Window 2 from March 4 - March 15. Three of the parks, East Boulder Community Park, Valmont South, Tom Watson, are in the current six- year CIP and a wider community engagement for each of these parks will occur to support the park planning and design process at each site. The Engagement Window 2 will include a public meeting and sharing online. Staff will share the concept plans at the March PRAB meeting. PRAB will review a final document of the plan in May 2024 along with responses from engagement window 3. This plan will provide technical information that is not subject to community review, however, it will also outline priorities and investment strategies that will be considered in budget development and identifying alternate funding. The PRAB's role is to 71 provide input on the investment strategies at the request of the department. Approvals for individual projects will be part of future budgets. B.Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment The Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA) has been finalized, and MIG, a nationally recognized historic preservation consultant reviewed and informed the methodology, content and determinations regarding historic significance and integrity of Central Park. The diagram below outlines in green the area of the park where the CLA findings identified historic significance and integrity for the 1937-1973: Huntington/DeBoer historic period for the Central Park study area (the blue line denotes the study aera). Findings from the CLA for the 1923-1936: Olmsted Jr historic period identified historic significance, however that there was no historic integrity. A property must be determined historically significant and retain sufficient historic integrity to be listed. Figure 1. Study Area of Cultural Landscape Assessment (blue boundary) and final recommendations for the CLA boundary in the historic district (green boundary). BACKGROUND: Following Council’s direction at the June 14, 2022 meeting (item 4B, page 70), Historic Preservation and Parks and Recreation staff jointly established an approach to evaluate a Historic District in the Civic Area that includes developing a Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA), which will be integrated into the Civic Area Phase 2 process and timeline, and inform the next phase of park design for the Civic Area. See City Council 05.18.2023 information packet item (link). Upon receiving an application for a potential Historic District, staff also confirmed that the CLA would be a consideration in evaluating boundaries for the proposed district. The CLA documents the history of the area, inventory the existing landscape contributing and noncontributing features and evaluate the area’s historic significance integrity with findings 72 informing the historic boundary for the park. In historic preservation world, some terms are helpful to understand: Significance: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A.That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B.That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C.That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D.That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity: Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. Contributing Resource: Contributing resource means a building, site or structure that adds to the historic significance of a historic property or historic district. Non-contributing features: A non-contributing structure is one that was not built during the period of significance for the district (generally less than 50 years ago), or, if built during the period of significance, has modifications that compromise the feature's ability to convey its historic appearance. ANALYSIS: This process and products for the CLA is described below in terms of the final products that are in the report: •Evaluation of the site history in chronological order with identification of historic periods, •Existing conditions inventory with identification of contributing and non-contributing features tied associated with the historic potential and identified periods of significance, •Evaluation of landscape character and features of the entirety of Central Park, •Evaluation of historic periods for significance according to National Register criteria A, B, C, and D, •Evaluation of integrity covering landscape characteristics and seven aspects of integrity according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, •Findings for significance, and •Findings for integrity covering landscape characteristics and seven aspects of integrity according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. To ensure BPR followed best historic preservation practices for the report, a nationally recognized consultant, MIG with expertise in historic preservation practice and cultural landscape assessments, was contracted to work with city staff on the methodology, content, and findings for the CLA. The CLA is the first of its kind for BPR, however, as affirmed by MIG, it follows Secretary of Interior defined practices and standards. The study area for the Central Park (boundary in blue in the above diagram) covers an area of approximately 4 acres and encompasses the current Glen Huntington Bandshell landmark boundary (boundary in yellow within the blue boundary in the below diagram). The park is 73 bounded by Canyon Blvd. to the north, 13th Street to the east, Arapahoe Ave. to the south, and Broadway to the west. The chronological site history for the CLA provides an overview of the timeline of the major events that had an impact on the design and development of Central Park area. Four eras of physical development were identified and include the acquisition of the park, its initial development, and major redesigns or alterations. The major historical periods the CLA outlines in its research are: • 1903-1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park • 1923-1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park • 1937-1973: Huntington/DeBoer Design for Bandshell and Seating • 1970-2023: Modern Updates Conclusion and Recommendations 1923-1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park: Central Park has potential significance under National Register criteria A and C for its early role in the development of the park system in Boulder and as the work of master landscape architect Olmsted Jr in 1923-1924. due to loss of the landscape features from this period, major alterations and improvements that have taken place in Central Park since the Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park Historic Period, it no longer retains integrity to convey this era of significance. While local criteria are different, including the whole park in a Historic District is not supported by the CLA. The CLA also finds the Olmsted Jr. historic period is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for these associations. A property must be determined historically significant and retain sufficient historic integrity to be listed. 1937-1973: Huntington/DeBoer Design for Bandshell and Seating: The northern third of Central Park containing the Huntington/DeBoer Band Shell and associated seating are significant under criteria A and C and retain historic integrity, with a few of the seven aspects of integrity diminished. The current boundary for this historic period of significance with integrity is the green line described in Figure 1 above. The research in this report has indicated that, in addition to the Bandshell and seating, there are two diagonal paths and the screening trees behind the Band Shell that also date to this historic period, and should be managed as contributing features in the landscape. The period of significance, as described in the site history in Part 1 and outlined in further detail in the previous documentation mentioned above, is 1937-1950. The CLA found that the southern two thirds of the park do not retain historic integrity. Next steps The final CLA: • Can inform the historic integrity of Central Park in respect of the contributing and noncontributing features identified in the existing conditions analysis; • Establishes a practice for evaluation of designed cultural landscapes in Boulder; • Provides a valuable tool to inform the design of Central Park in the context of the Civic Area Phase 2 project; • A guiding principle of the 2015 plan for the park is “Celebration of History & Assets” and the park design will preserve, reflect, and celebrate the area’s fully inclusive history (e.g. indigenous populations, mining, the railroad, Olmsted’s linear park and landmarked structures). The information and research in the CLA will help inform the story of this site, 74 Attachment A Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park C.BPR 2024 Action Plan (verbal presentation) 75 BOULDER CENTRAL PARK  CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT  January 12, 2024  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 76 2 CONTENTS  Part 1 Introduction and Historical Chronology ......................................................................... 4  1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4  1.1.1 Purpose and Goals ............................................................................................................. 4  1.1.2 Existing Historic Status ...................................................................................................... 4  1.1.3 The City of Boulder Historic District for Band Shell Designation ........................................ 4  1.1.4 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 5  1.1.5 Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................................... 5  1.2 Description of Study Boundaries ............................................................................................. 6  1.3 Site History .............................................................................................................................. 7  1.3.1 1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park ............................................................... 7  1.3.2 1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park .............................................................. 13  1.3.3 1937‐1969: Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Band Shell and Seating ........................ 21  1.3.4 1970 – 1924: Modern Updates ........................................................................................ 24  1.3.5 Description of Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 27  Part 2: Analysis of Significance and Integrity & Evaluation of Landscape Features ................. 30  2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 30  2.1.2 Study Area Boundary ....................................................................................................... 30  2.2 Analysis of Significance and Integrity .................................................................................... 31  2.2.1 Evaluation of Significance ................................................................................................ 31  2.2.2 Evaluation and Analysis of Contributing Features ........................................................... 33  2.2.4 Analysis of Integrity ......................................................................................................... 48  2.3 Conclusion  ............................................................................................................................ 54  3.1 References ....................................................................................................................... 55  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 77 3 This report recognizes some documented views, ideas, language and actions caused harm to  different populations found within and around the area of Boulder Central Park at the time and  still perpetuate harm today. This report would like to acknowledge this sensitive information and  does not condone these past ideas and actions but documents these historical events. It is not  the intention of this report to perpetuate this harm but to shed light on these events and not  preclude these happenings from historical record.   The City of Boulder acknowledges the city is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of  Indigenous Peoples who have traversed, lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since  time immemorial. Those Indigenous Nations include the: Di De’I (Apache), Hinono’eiteen  (Arapaho), Tsétsėhéstȧhese (Cheyenne), Nʉmʉnʉʉ (Comanche), Caiugu (Kiowa), Čariks i Čariks  (Pawnee), Sosonih (Shoshone), Oc'eti S'akowin (Sioux) and Núuchiu (Ute).  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 78 4 PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY  1.1 INTRODUCTION  Project Overview: This Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA) has been conducted by the Boulder  Parks and Recreation department to make a determination as to whether any historic periods  for Central Park have historic significance and integrity.  The two main questions to be addressed  in this report are:  1)What Central Park historic periods are significant, following guidelines of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Cultural Landscapes Program? 2)Does Central Park have integrity from a historic period(s) following guidelines of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Cultural Landscapes Program? This (report/project/landscape assessment) has been divided into two distinct sections:  Part 1 – Introduction, a description of the project boundary, and a detailed site history   Part 2 – Analysis and Evaluation   1.1.1 Purpose and Goals  The findings of this report will be integrated into Reimagining Civic Area East, Phase 2, and the  historic significance documentation and integrity analysis will help inform this next phase of park  design.   1.1.2 Existing Historic Status  Currently the northern portion of the park (see diagrams below) has been previously reviewed  and the Band Shell and seating area were found to have historic significance and designated as a  City of Boulder Historic landmark in 1995. The south portion of the park has not been previously  evaluated for historic significance.   The CLA will review the whole of Central Park through the cultural landscape assessment  including the existing City of Boulder historic district area.  1.1.3 The City of Boulder Historic District for Band Shell Designation  The 1995 landmark designation, the 1995 Historical Study and the 2016 Determination of  Eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register determined that the Glen Huntington Band  Shell and its setting have significance:   Designation Boundary Description: Central Park (Southeast Corner of Broadway and Canyon  Boulevard) North 170 feet of Block 13, Original Townsite to the City of Boulder.  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 79 5 The Modern Architecture Preservation  League (MAPL) proposed the landmark  boundary for the designation of Glen  Huntington Band Shell in May 1995. In July  1995, the City of Boulder Landmarks Board  amended the boundary to the 300'x170' site  south of Canyon Boulevard. This boundary  included the Band Shell and amphitheater  seating along with a portion of the park  associated with Saco Rienk DeBoer's design  circa 1947. In October 1995, the amended  boundary was approved by City Council, and  the Band Shell was designated as a Boulder  Individual Landmark by Ordinance 5751.7.  The designation boundary includes the Band  Shell, the open space between the stage and  the seating, the amphitheater seating, two  concrete paved sidewalks leading to the Band Shell, and the berm and retaining wall south of  the stage.  The above figure shows the designation boundary for Glen Huntington Band Shell including adjustment by the  Landmark’s Board, 1995. (source: Landmark Designation Submittal); Edited for clarity by Mundus Bishop, 2021.  1.1.4 Methodology   City staff carried out research for this report from April to September of 2023. As part of its  research, City staff reviewed files, images, and reports from Carnegie Library, the Denver Public  Library, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress. Staff also reviewed existing research  on Central Park and consulted with experts familiar with the park’s history and changes through  time.  This report builds off objective evaluations made by cultural resource specialists, outside  consultants, and city planners. The Boulder Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment has  been prepared by BPR staff and reviewed by a professional consultant in the field of cultural  landscape as well as other City staff.  1.1.5 Summary of Conclusions  Central Park has potential significance under National Register criteria B and C for its early role in  the development of the park system in Boulder and as the work of master landscape architect  Frederick Law Olmsted Jr in 1923‐1924. However, due to major alterations and improvements  that have taken place in Central Park since Historic Period 2, it no longer retains meaningful  integrity to convey this era of significance.  The northern portion of Central Park containing the  Huntington/DeBoer Band Shell and associated seating are significant under criteria A and C and  retain historic integrity. The current boundary for these features and full description of  significance is described in the above sections under Part 2. The research in this report has  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 80 6 indicated that, in addition to the Band Shell and seating, there are two paths and the screening  trees behind the Band Shell that also date to Historic Period 3 and should be managed as  contributing features in the landscape.    1.2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY BOUNDARIES  This assessment covers the entirety of Central Park, an area of approximately 4 acres that  encompasses the current Band Shell landmark boundary. The park is bounded by Canyon Blvd.  to the north, 13th Street to the east, Arapahoe Ave. to the south, and Broadway to the west.  Below is the diagram outlining the boundary of the study area in blue for Central Park. The  yellow areas identify existing historically‐designated structures and landscapes under the  Boulder Revised Code for Historic Preservation.   Study Boundary Map   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 81 7 1.3 SITE HISTORY  The site history provides a timeline of the major events that had an impact on the design and  development of Central Park. Four eras of physical development were identified that cover the  acquisition of the park, its initial development, and periods of major redesigns and alterations.  1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park 1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park 1937‐1969: Huntington Design for Band Shell and Seating 1970‐1924: Modern Updates 1.3.1 1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park  Period Summary: This historic period covers early plans for city improvement with a stream‐side  park, as well as the city’s acquisition of land for the area covering the future Central Park:  February 1903: The Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA) formed. 1907: BCIA sought advice from Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. 1910:  Olmsted Jr. produced the “The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado” report. 1912 Olmsted Jr. produced an addendum to the 1910 report. 1916: Olmsted Jr. produced a “Planting Plan” covering Central Park area that was not implemented by the city. 1918: The first city commission for parks and planning was formed. 1921: The city acquired land for Central Park. 1903: Establishment of the Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA)  Starting in February of 1903, Boulder established the Boulder City Improvement Association  (BCIA). The group was formed to promote “the improvement of Boulder in health, growth,  cleanliness, prosperity, and attractiveness” (Boulder, Colorado Improvement Association.  National Park Service, last modified April 20, 1924, https://www.nps.gov/places/boulder‐ colorado‐improvement‐association.htm).  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 82 8 1904 Map of The City of Boulder   Please add an icon or even a rectangle where Central Park is over the historic city plan “Map of the City of Boulder”. 1904. Carnegie Library. Boulder, CO.   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 83 9 1903: Railroad ownership of land known as Railroad Park  The site for the northern area of Central Park was originally owned by the railroads whose tracks  ran along the north edge of the site (present day Canyon Blvd.). Central Park was colloquially  known as Railroad Park (City of Boulder, Greenways Master Plan, 2011, Appendix II, p. 100).  Railroad Park was made up of lots 1‐6 of block 13. Adjacent lots 7‐12 were privately owned by a  family with a business that transferred luggage and contained a house and greenhouses.  1906: City begins acquiring the land  The City of Boulder began acquiring the property from the Colorado and Southern Railway in  1906. The city Parks Board, which was created in 1907, resolved “to make something better of  the dump and trash heap known as ‘Railroad Park’. Further parcels were acquired in 1915 and  1933.  1906 Map of the City of Boulder  Please add an icon or even a rectangle where Central Park is over the historic city plan “Map of the City of Boulder”. 1906. Carnegie Library, Boulder, CO   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 84 10 1907: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. hired  In 1907, the BCIA formed the Parks Board and hired Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. to survey Boulder  and provide “advice, and the best obtainable, as to how to improve our city as to Parks,  Boulevards and general plans for Civic betterment.” Olmsted was also asked to explain “what  physical improvements within the reach of the city will help to make it increasingly convenient,  agreeable, and generally satisfactory as a place in which to live and work” (Olmsted Associates.  Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, ‐1971; Files; 3300; City of Boulder Improvement  Association; Boulder, Colo.; 1907 to 1909. ‐ 1909, 1907. Letter of March 15, 1907.   Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mss5257102407/).   1910: Olmsted Jr. report  The report produced by Olmsted Jr. was issued in 1910 and called “The Improvement of Boulder,  Colorado.” The 106‐page report focused primarily on suggestions for streets, waterways, public  open spaces, and preserving the natural scenery. In a section titled “Fundamentals of Park  Design for Boulder,” Olmsted wrote about a “Boulder Creek Park” and said “the plan of keeping  open for public use near the heart of the city a simple piece of pretty bottom‐land of the very  sort that Boulder Creek has been flooding over for countless centuries, of growing a few tough  old trees on it and a few bushes, and of keeping the main part of the ground as a simple, open  common, where the children can play and over which the wonderful views of the foothills can  be obtained at their best from the shaded paths and roads along the embankment edge – this  would give a piece of recreation ground worth a great deal to the people. And, at the same time  it is probably the cheapest way of handling the flood problem at Boulder Creek” (p59, Olmsted,  1910). Olmsted suggested that Boulder Creek could be reimagined as a "pretty, shady spot with  a clean park path running beside the murmuring waters” (p68, Olmsted, 1910).  Olmsted Jr.’s 1910 report made further recommendations for city‐wide improvements including  planting trees to screen for what at the time was deemed a “rather unattractive class of  occupancy” that resided along the creek (p68, Olmsted, 1910). Describing the area just east of  what is now Central Park, Olmsted also wrote that whatever happens with the “little bits of  pastured ground along the creek above the railroad, where gypsies or other campers have been  in the habit of gathering and turning loose their animals to graze” he hoped that “the city will  not be led into the foolish extravagance of trying to make an artificial clipped lawn of these  areas” (p17, Olmsted, 1910).   As a proponent of reinforcing the views to the foothills, Olmsted supported “the careful studying  out of the best views and the limiting of all other tree and shrub growth to locations that will  never interfere with these views but merely afford them pleasing frames” (p17, Olmsted, 1910).   As an advocate for “equitably distributed” public recreation grounds in every neighborhood  (p24, Olmsted 1910), Olmsted wrote that “every home in the city ought to be within about a  quarter of a mile of a good playground and of a spot where older people can take their exercise  or their ease in the open air under pleasant surroundings and in the presence of a fine view of at  least of such breadth of sunlighted open space as is wholly beyond the means of most to attain  on their own property” (p22, Olmsted, 1910).   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 85 11 He also wrote that public recreation grounds should be planned to secure certain elements of  design (such as densely shaded promenades) “generally surrounding and always contiguous to  an open space… which shall be of such size and shape… as to afford permanent views of the  foothills from the promenade and preferably from the open space itself, over a pleasing  foreground” (pp16‐17, Olmsted, 1910).  In his 1910 report, Olmsted identified three specific areas for park development: (1) “the vacant  land on the south side of Boulder Creek just east of the 12th Street lots”; (2) “the vacant meadow  lying between the creek and the Lincoln School”; and (3) "the west half of the block lying  between Nineteenth Street and the line of Twenty‐First Street” (p24, Olmsted, 1910).   The report provides no detailed plans for the area that would become known as Central Park but  does describe enhancements associated to 12th Street [Broadway] and at the banks of Boulder  Creek. Regarding the area around what is now Central Park, Olmsted suggested that “beginning  at the Twelfth Street bridge where the land values are high, we advise limiting the control of the  banks to a very narrow strip on each side, enough only to provide an adequate channel for the  stream, with substantial walls to protect its banks in place of the present wooden bulkheads  whenever their reconstruction is justified, with an ample foot‐path shaded by a single row of  trees along the north embankment and with some planting along the Twelfth Street lots on the  south embankment. After getting beyond [downstream, east of] Twelfth Street lots the breadth  of the embankment could be increased at small expense, giving more room for trees and for  benches, etc.” (p17, Olmsted Jr., Frederick Law, "The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado",  Boulder City Improvement Association, 1910).  1912: Olmsted Jr. report addendum  Olmsted produced a report on April 22, 1912 outlining his suggestions, although most, if not all,  were never implemented. It included his recommendation to cover the surface of the flood  channel in alfalfa or other low green crop and to put a three‐foot‐high fence along the berm at  the top of the flood channel (Olmsted Jr., Frederick Law, "File 3300, Plan 21" 1912).   1920: Purchase of the land for a future park  Starting in 1920, the City began to clear the area which was known at the time as “The Jungle”  just east of Central Park, of what was deemed unsightly houses, filling in the land with dirt from  the paving district. The following summer, the City purchased all the land except three lots  between 11th and 9th, the railroad tracks, and Boulder Creek. A July 29, 1921 article in the  Boulder Tribune stated that the City was “given a lot highly desired for park purposes by Mrs. C.  A.Butsch. The Colorado & Southern railroad gave an indeterminate lease on a parallel tract of land and also over the land lying between Eleventh and the main C & S line into Boulder. All of this section is being filled in with dirt and leveled up so that it can be used for park purposes. There will be enough dirt from the Pine‐Spruce district to complete the job and also to permit other improvement work along the creek” (Boulder Tribune, July 29, 1921). Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 86 12 The following depiction of the area adjacent to Central Park and the community that resided in  this area is not a current idea supported today but a reflection of ideas and events that were  publicized at the time: "The section...was once a disgrace to the city, and a gathering place of  undesirable people. In the early days, it was a red light district, later became the tramp quarters  of Boulder. The most undesirable section of the district [adjacent to present day Central Park  between 10th and 11th Street] was wiped out by the city in purchases made several years ago....  The acquirement [of this area] completes the task that was inaugurated a few years ago of  cleaning up the "jungle" (Boulder Daily Camera, 13 April 1928).  1920 Photo Showing Settlement   in the Area of 1042 Water Street  Carnegie Library, Boulder, CO. The Jungle, photo 2, 1920  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 87 13 1920 Photo Showing Demolition of the   Settlement in the Area of 1042 Water Street  Carnegie Library, Boulder, CO. The Jungle, photo 4, 1920  1921: City acquisition of “Railroad Park” land  In 1921, the City began to lease the land of what is now the north half of Central Park from the  railroads. It was not until 1933 that the City acquired the land in full (Pollock, Peter. Frederick  Law Olmsted, Jr. and the Improvement of Boulder, Colorado. 2022. National Park Service.  https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ncptt/upload/FG_Peter‐Pollock.pdf).  1.3.2 1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park  This historic period covers the design and construction of Central Park by Olmsted Jr. up until  Huntington and DeBoer altered the north section of the park.  1923 Olmsted’s 1923 Report  In 1923, the Olmsted Brothers completed “A Report on the Improvement of Boulder   Creek in Boulder, Colorado.” The report provides details for flood protection measures along  Boulder Creek from 9th to 17th Street and presents a unified plan for civic improvements  including a new city hall and athletic field.   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 88 14 1923 Topographical Survey and Plan   “City of Boulder Topographical Survey”. February 23, 1923. Department of Public Service. Boulder, CO.  1923 Proposed Park Improvements by Olmsted Brothers  Olmsted Brothers. “Preliminary Plan of Proposed Park Improvement Along Boulder Creek”. October 1923. Boulder,  CO.  In the report, Olmsted Jr. explained his ideas for a streamside park and greenway. Ultimately, a  bond measure to fund the project was passed by such a slim number of votes that the State  ruled the results could not stand, and the bond then failed when put up for city election  afterward. This lack of funding led to a much smaller park in the area bounded by present day  Broadway, Canyon, Thirteenth, and Arapahoe known as Central Park (p14, Pollock, 1922).  In 1923, several letters were sent by the City of Boulder to Olmsted requesting more advice on  flood control measures (Library of Congress, Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files 1863‐1971;  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 89 15 Files; 3300; Boulder City Improvement Association; Boulder, CO; 1923‐1931  https://www.loc.gov/item/mss5257102411/).  1924: Olmsted Jr. Presents Design for Park  In early 1924, Olmsted Jr. presented plans that focused on what is now Central Park as an area  for park development. Olmsted first developed a grading plan for the site. Eleven days later, he  presented his planting plan complete with a list of plant species he envisioned for the park.  Though there were trees on site at the time, Olmsted presented plans to add new plantings and  incorporate existing trees.  1923 and 2024: Olmsted’s Plan of Park Improvements and Grading Plan   The 1923 plan shows that the purpose of the  green, berms, and pathways was to serve as a  backdrop for the war memorial (located just off  the green) that would serve as the main feature  of the park. The intentional off‐center  placement of the war memorial enabled an axis  path across the park that would line up with the  main entrance of the proposed City Hall (located  on the other side of Broadway). Another major  axis path was planned north of the memorial to  connect with the diamond paths.   However, the central features of the park, the  Veterans’ Memorial and associated axis paths, were not built because of the failed bond  measure. Therefore, when we review the 1924 grading and planting plans, we can see the  memorial has now been removed, and the axis path has become a dashed line (showing it is  removed) The green area with the culverted ditch remains. (p35, Carrigan, Beverly "Frederick  Law Olmsted, Jr., Maker of Parks ‐ Planner of Cities" Boulder Historic Context Project, 1992).  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 90 16 1924 Grading Plan for the Park at Boulder Creek  Olmsted Jr., "Grading Plan for Park at Boulder Creek". February 29, 1924.  (File 3300, Plan 64)   The Olmsted grading plan a year later shows the updated layout for the site without the war  memorial and the axis paths and includes a central green area created by a culverted ditch. A  berm runs along the east side, and shallow berms are proposed on the west side (in the  northwest section of the park). These are likely added since the formal east/west axis paths are  removed. Informal paths run around the site with a diamond path retained above the central  green area, and tree locations are identified around the edges of the property. A proposed  walking path, set back from the creek, runs parallel and away from the sloping banks of the  water course. The grading plan shows the location of three structures on site at the time, and  they were presumably removed as part of the grading and park development.    Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 91 17 Olmsted’s 1924 Planting Plan  Olmsted’s 1924 updated planting plan also shows the war memorial removed and was produced  in concert with the grading plan submitted to the City two weeks before. The plan shows trees  and shrubs along 12th Street (Broadway), Water Street (Canyon Blvd.), and 13th Street, as well as  trees and shrubs concentrated in the eastern and northern parts of the park, affording the  greenspace in the middle of the park with the culverting of the ditch. This space would afford  limited views, due to surrounding development and park tree canopy, across the creek to the  foothills beyond.   1924 Planting Plan for Park at Boulder Creek  Olmsted Jr., "Planting Plan for Park at Boulder Creek"   (File 3300, Plan 64) February 29, 1924  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 92 18 On March 12, 1924, Olmsted submitted to the city a planting list that identified the name of  suggested plants and trees, as well as notes on their shape, pruning, and care. This included a  variety of large shade trees, small ornamental trees, and a large variety of woody shrubs and  perennials that flower in different seasons.   City of Boulder Planting List  Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Planting List to Accompany Plan 3300‐65", March 12, 1924, p. 1  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 93 19 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.’s “Planting Plan for Park at Boulder Creek, File 3300, Plan 65” (March 10, 1924)   1929: The Completion of The Park  Photos taken from 1929 show the newly designed park from two angles: one from Canyon Blvd.  looking towards Broadway, and the other from the corner of Canyon Blvd. and Broadway. The  images show the construction of the diamond paths and two paths along the east, north, and  west edges. They also show new tree plantings around the periphery and the hedge to the west.  The central green area is missing, since the canal culvert was never installed, and the space is  divided by the ditch and existing plantings. The berms to the northwest were also not completed  according to the plan, and the west‐side berm is smaller than specified (both in height and size).    Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 94 20 Photo of Railroad Park looking SW from North, May 31, 1929, Boulder Historical Society 141‐3‐93  Photo of Railroad Park from freight house, May 31, 1929, Boulder Historical Society 141‐3‐94   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 95 21 1933: A New Name for The Park  Beginning in 1933 the site became known as  Central Park (p5, Boulder Band Shell Historical  Study by Front Range Research Assoc., 1995).   1930s: Further Park Construction  There are no records showing who did the  additional park construction occurring  between the Olmsted Jr. Plan and the  development of the Band Shell Area.  However, a 1937 aerial image of the park  shows perimeter circulation with sweeping  crisscrossing paths through the center of the  park. Additionally, the path along the east  side does not reflect Olmsted’s plan for the  informal path and berms. Instead, it enters  central to the east side and appears to  redirect around something—likely the ditch  that was never culverted. A social path  running along the creek, parallel to the path  Olmsted originally laid out, can also be seen  in the aerial image (Colorado Aerial Photo  Service, 7/23/1937 Aerial Photo of Central  Park).  1.3.3 1937‐1969: Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Band Shell and Seating  This historic period covers the design and construction of the Band Shell by Glen Huntington and the  arrangement/siting of the Band Shell by landscape architect, Saco DeBoer, through a series of  improvements that relate to the siting and construction of the Band Shell within the park.  1937: Initial discussion on funding for the construction of the Band Shell   The Boulder Planning and Park Commission received notice that the Major Activity Committee of  the Lions Club sought to fund the construction of the Band Shell for public concerts. On April 15,  1937, City Manager H.C. McClintock reported to the Boulder Planning and Parks Commission  that the Lions Club suggested they undertake a project to construct a Band Shell for public  concerts.  1937: Initial ideas on locating the Band Shell  Saco R. DeBoer, Landscape Architect for the City of Denver, consulted on the location of the  Band Shell. He recommended the area south of the railroad right of way which included the  location of City Hall at the west end. In June 1937, DeBoer reported to the city manager that  “Central Park is the only location at the present time… I would suggest that the band stand be  located on the north line against the railroad right of way, approximately in the middle of the  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 96 22 park. If this site meets with your approval, I shall draw up a sketch showing my ideas in regard to  the treatment of the band stand and the grounds around it” (p5, Boulder Band Shell Historical  Study, 1995).  1937: The Band Shell and its landscape design  In July of 1937, the city manager presented to the Planning and Parks Commission preliminary  sketches of the Band Shell prepared by Lloyd Lear of Chicago, who had been retained by the  Lions Club. The commission approved the project and requested a recommendation for the  location of the structure from DeBoer (from Band Shell Historical Study 1995; Boulder Daily  Camera, 11 June 1937.; Boulder Planning and Parks Commission, Minutes, 15 July 1937; Boulder  Planning and Parks Commission, Minutes, 12 August 1937).  1938: Glen Huntington design for the Band Shell  Glen Huntington developed plans for the Art Deco style Band Shell (p9, Boulder Band Shell  Historical Study, 1995).  1938: Construction of the Band Shell  In June of 1938, construction of the Glen Huntington‐designed Band Shell was completed.  According to the Boulder Band Shell Historical Study, the Band Shell “faces south toward Boulder  Creek and away from traffic on the thoroughfare on the northern edge of the park. The scale of  the Band Shell and its associated seating area is in keeping with the size of the park and provides  a comfortable gathering space for concerts and other cultural entertainment” (p18, Boulder  Band Shell Historical Study. 1995).  1939: Vegetation alterations  In the spring of 1939, DeBoer was asked to consult on landscaping around the Band Shell.  The Planning and Parks Commission had expressed a desire for a screening effect  around the site, and DeBoer's original plan to plant pine trees and evergreens was revised  to include faster growing trees such as Chinese elms and Lombardi poplars. DeBoer’s new  landscaping plan included deciduous trees adjacent to the structure, with pines in front of those.  The first phase of landscaping around the Band Shell was completed in 1939 with the allocation  of $125 for shrubs and trees to be planted near the structure (Boulder Planning and Parks  Commission, Minutes, 11 May 1939 from p4 Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).   1939: Path alterations  Paths were altered in the area around the Band Shell to prevent people from taking shortcuts to  the site (p10, Boulder Band Shell Historical Study).  1945: Unrealized plan for civic area  In 1945, DeBoer developed a plan for the larger civic area, which included planting trees around  the Band Shell to screen the structure from adjacent streets and a curving parkway along  Canyon Boulevard and 13th Street. This plan was never realized.  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 97 23 1947: Amphitheater style seating  DeBoer proposed amphitheater style seating to the south of the Band Shell.   1949 to 1951  The area in front of the amphitheater was redesigned to include amphitheater seating. The  seating was constructed in 1950 after the area was regraded to accommodate the sloped bench  seating and a retaining wall. The seats had concrete bases and wood tops, and they were  reinforced with rebar. A concrete sidewalk was installed on the south edge of the amphitheater.  1952 to 1953  In September of 1952, Locomotive #30, coach #280, and caboose #04990 were put on display at  the north end of Central Park. A train dedication ceremony was held in the park on August 6,  1953 (p1, City of Boulder Train History, formal citation needed to be identified).  1953  In 1953, the Denver, Boulder, and Western Railroad's Engine No. 30 was moved to the area  south of the Band Shell (Carnegie Branch Library, Boulder Daily Camera, Engine No. 30 in Central  Park, 1950‐1953).  1956  The first photograph of the rectangular concrete lighting piers added in front of the stage is  published (p4, Carnegie Branch Library, Boulder Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).   1960s  Aerial Imagery shows the alterations of the paths on  the north section of the park to accommodate the  Band Shell and seating. The diagonal paths have been  removed and new curving paths have been provided  for access to the seating area on the south side. Trees  have also infilled across the park; original  cottonwoods along the ditch remain in place. (1965,  Colorado Aerial Photo Service)  circa 1960s  The color scheme for the Band Shell changed from  green and light beige (original) to cream and gray  which can still be seen today (p4, Boulder Band Shell  Historical Study, 1995).  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 98 24 1.3.4 1970 – 1924: Modern Updates  This period includes the addition and upgrades of multi‐use path connections, underpasses, and  vegetation alterations.   1970  The Band Shell was proposed for relocation, but the plan was never implemented (p13, Boulder  Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).  1972 Aerial Image  (1972, Google Aerial Image)  The 1972 aerial Image shows the paths  around the Band Shell have been  reconfigured again to simplify circulation into  the open area north of the seating. The  curvilinear path around the back of the Band  Shell is no longer present and a distinct  hedge row was planted along the backside of  the seating. 1980s  The Band Shell general maintenance efforts  took place and include the replacement of  interior cladding, floor repair and  replacement (not in full), and touch‐up  painting (p4, Boulder Band Shell Historical  Study, 1995).  1980s  Trains were relocated near the Band Shell  berm with the help of the Boulder Model  Railroad Club (p1, City of Boulder Train  History, formal citation needed to be  identified).  1984 to 1987   Boulder Creek Path was built along the south  edge of the site boundary and north of the Boulder and Left Hand Ditch (pg. 2 Appendix,  Greenways Master Plan, 2011).  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 99 25 1987  Boulder County Commissioners considered moving Band Shell to fairgrounds in Longmont (p13,  Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).  1988  Boulder Train Depot Task Force, local officials, businesspeople, and historians recommended  removing the Band Shell and relocating the train depot to Central Park (p13, Boulder Band Shell  Historical Study, 1995).  1995  Parks and Recreation Department completed Band Shell rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and  stabilization efforts included replacement of the roofing and plywood sheathing, minor repairs  to the framing and foundations, fresh coats of paint, waterproofing the stage flooring, and  removing all cementitious panels due to asbestos (p2‐12, Structural Review and Boulder Band  Shell Historical Study, May 2023). This study suggested the Band Shell and its site were  potentially eligible for listing on the National Register.   1995  The Boulder Band Shell and the northern 170 feet of Block 13 was designated as a local  landmark through ordinance 5751 which was the same year the Band Shell had been officially  renamed the “Glen Huntington” Band Shell.   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 100 26 2002 Aerial Image  The 2002 aerial image shows the trains located  south of the Band Shell. Major changes to the  circulation were added to the southern section  with the construction of the Boulder Creek path in  the 1980s. The center of the park was further  dissected with the addition of a wide path now  running parallel to the north side of the ditch. The  shrubs in front of Band Shell stage had been  removed with angled parking added along 13th  street (2022‐2004 Google Earth)  2003‐2004  The southwest section of Block 13 was redesigned  to include a bus stop and access to the Boulder  Creek Path. A curvilinear sidewalk and staircases  were constructed in between the western walkway  and the Boulder Creek Path (31 Dec 2002 Google  Earth)  2003‐2008   Trains adjacent to the Band Shell were relocated  offsite (Landmarks Board Memo, 9 Q. Golden  Railway Museum).  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 101 27 2008 Aerial Image   The 2008 aerial image shows the new wider paths  now dominating the west side of the park acting as  a thoroughfare rather than providing access to  amenities within the park. The trees to the north of  the Band Shell are conifers acting as a screen and  backdrop for the Band Shell. The hedge around the  park is also no longer present (2008, Google Earth).  2014  The railroad tracks and fence associated with the  trains were removed from the site   (Google Earth Aerial Imagery, 2013 – 2014).  2019  Sandstone paving was added at the southeast  corner of the Band Shell seating area   (pp2‐13, Historic Places Plan, Boulder Parks and  Recreation, 1924).  1.3.5 Description of Existing Conditions   Central Park is positioned just south of the main downtown area in Boulder. It is located two  blocks away from Pearl Street, and it encompasses Boulder Creek. This centrally located park  space provides recreational opportunities, access down to the creek, multi‐modal transportation  options, and spaces for respite and gathering.   The northern end of the park has undergone several transformations from an open grove to the  construction of an outdoor event venue with amphitheater‐style seating. Along the western  edge adjacent to Broadway, the park includes perimeter streetscape trees and has undergone  large transportation improvements with regrading for a multi‐use bike path and underpass. On  the eastern side of the park along 13th Street, large mature trees — possibly dating back to the  original 1924 Olmsted Jr. park plans — still exist today. The southern edge of the park along the  creek and Arapahoe Ave. has been modified again by a transportation improvement that  includes terraced walls and a multi‐use trail and associated underpass to continue south beyond  Arapahoe Ave. and the park.   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 102 28 Topography: The topography of the site consists of the sloped berm around the amphitheater  seating and raised grades on the eastern edge with an open‐air ditch running west to east down  the center. Major grading modifications have been made at the eastern bank of Boulder Creek.  They include terraced walls and steps down to the north‐most location for creek access.   Vegetation: Large mature trees flank the two streets on the western and eastern edges with two  prominent groves of trees interior to the park along 13th Street and Canyon Boulevard, and  screen the Band Shell on its north side. Newly planted trees have been included along the  eastern bank of the Boulder Creek transportation improvements and the understory remains  turf grass in the majority of the park. Smaller junipers and deciduous shrubs can be found at the  northern end of the park around the Band Shell area and the north corner at Broadway. The  large majority of the park’s understory includes turf lawn with open central greens (two split by  a ditch) and some minor shrub plantings along the Broadway edge and Band Shell site.  Circulation: The circulation has been largely defined by the Boulder Creek Path which cuts  through east to west along the ditch, along the eastern bank of the creek. Circulation has been  altered by the Broadway underpass grading project which included the addition of stairs and  ADA ramps. Perimeter circulation in the streetscape encompasses all four sides of the park with  diagonal sidewalk access from the north corner into the Band Shell site.   Two diagonal concrete paved sidewalks extend from the northeast and northwest corners of the  park towards the Band Shell. These paths terminate at a large, level area between the Band Shell  and the amphitheater seating that is paved with loose gravel.  Buildings and Structures:  The major buildings and structures that exist in the park today include the Band Shell, the small  stone wall at the south end of the amphitheater seating, the ditch diversion infrastructure, and  the pedestrian bridge crossing.  The Band Shell is set on the north edge of Central Park and oriented to the south. The setting is  characterized by sloped amphitheater seating—a concrete terrace with fifteen rows of wood  and concrete benches—that faces the Band Shell. An approximately 20 foot‐wide landscaped  berm and remnants of a sandstone retaining wall south of the Band Shell's seating define the  southern edge of the seating area.  Views and Viewsheds: Prominent views include those towards the Band Shell from the  surrounding streets. Views from Glen Huntington Band Shell include vistas towards the Boulder  Flatirons. Views from Broadway and 13th Street to Glen Huntington Band Shell are significant.  Land Use: The land use of the park today includes recreational gathering, civic and cultural event  programming and gathering and seating spaces for all.   Spatial Organization: The general elements of spatial organization today include an open space  consisting of two green lawns with a ditch that runs through the middle of the park; large groves  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 103 29 and tree plantings around the north, east and western edges of the park create a strong  perimeter; and the Band Shell and event space located to the north of the park. Boulder Creek  runs diagonally from Broadway down to the southeast end of the site.   The Band Shell is prominently sited at the north edge of Central Park with the amphitheater  seating oriented towards it. Concrete paved sidewalks at the northern corners connect the  perimeter walks to the Band Shell's amphitheater, similar to the overall appearance of the  original Huntington design  Small‐Scale Features: Contemporary small‐scale features across the site support daily park  functions and include regulatory signage, trash and recycling bins, and lampposts.  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 104 30 PART 2: ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY & EVALUATION OF  LANDSCAPE FEATURES  2.1 INTRODUCTION  This section consists of three parts. The first presents an evaluation of the significance of the  Central Park landscape based on the criteria provided by the National Register of Historic Places.  The second part includes analysis and evaluation of the existing conditions and identification of  contributing features based on significance. The third is a summary of historic integrity. Even if  the park has historic significance, the landscape must also possess historic integrity to make it  eligible to be classified as a significant historic landscape. Below is the diagram outlining the  boundary of the study area in blue for Central Park. The yellow boundaries are existing  historically designated structures and landscapes under the local Boulder Revised Code for  Historic Preservation.   2.1.2 Study Area Boundary  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 105 31 2.2 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY  2.2.1 Evaluation of Significance  A cultural landscape embodies the associations and uses that define the history for a specific  place. Physical features of cultural landscapes can include trees, buildings, pathways, site  furnishings and water bodies. The features define the cultural landscape for a historic period. A  historic period begins with the date when significant activities or events began. This is often the  date of construction. Each historic period identified in Part 1 is considered in the assessment  that follows.  Historic Period 1 ‐ 1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park Historic Period 2 ‐1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park Historic Period 3 ‐1937‐1969: Huntington / DeBoer Design for Band Shell and Seating Historic Period 4 ‐1970‐1924: Modern Updates Criteria for Evaluation   As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the criteria for the National  Register of Historic Places, a cultural landscape must be shown to be historically significant for  one or more of the following Criteria for Evaluation:  A.That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C.That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D.That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Based on the research conducted on behalf of this Cultural Landscape Assessment, it appears  that Central Park has potential for historic significance under Criteria A and C.  Criterion A: Events   The establishment of Central Park helps to illustrate the city‐wide park and Civic Center planning  efforts that took place in the early 20th century and influence of the Olmsted brothers during  Historic Period 1, the installation of one of Boulder’s early public parks during Historic Period 2.   Additionally, the installation of the Band Shell in the northern section of the park is significant  for the role it has played in the social and cultural life of Bouder since 1938 (Historic Period 3), as  the site of numerous concerts and other varieties of community entertainment and social  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 106 32 gatherings.  Criterion B: Persons   Central Park appears to be significant for any persons that are associated with the lives of  persons significant to the development of Boulder. While the Park is associated with several  important designers, their contribution is best understood under the discussion of Criterion C as  the work of a master.   Criterion C: Design   Central Park appears to meet the threshold for significance under Criterion C as the work of  master landscape architect Olmsted Jr. during Historic Period 2 and for the installation of the  Band Shell and associated landscape for its distinctive Art Deco‐style design and as the work of  master designers Glen Huntington and Saco R. DeBoer during Historic Period 3.    Olmsted, Jr., began his career as an apprentice on two projects: the 1893 World's Columbian  Exposition in Chicago and the George Vanderbilt estate, "Biltmore," in North Carolina. He  became a partner in his father's Brookline, Massachusetts landscape architecture firm in 1895,  and with Olmsted Sr.'s retirement, took over leadership with his stepbrother, John Charles  Olmsted. The Olmsted brothers' firm completed thousands of landscape projects over the next  fifty years including plans for metropolitan park systems and greenways across the nation. For  example, Olmsted, Jr. was appointed by the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia in  1901 to help update the L'Enfant plan for Washington, D.C. He also established the first formal  training in landscape architecture at Harvard in 1900.   Olmsted Jr. put forward a concept, grading plan and planting plan for Central Park between  1923‐1924 that led to the initial development of the park and complemented earlier  recommendations for a park system and civic center in Boulder. He was a founding member and  later president of the American Society of Landscape Architects.  (https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/sontag/olmsted.htm#:~:text=Olmsted%2C%20 Jr.%2C%20also%20established,Acadia%2C%20Everglades%2C%20and%20Yosemite.)  According to the Boulder Band Shell Historical Study, the Band Shell is significant under NRHP  Criterion C for its representation of the Art Deco Style in Boulder; as an example of Band Shell  construction and park architecture from the 20th century; and as a representative work of  master designers. The Band Shell's Art Deco Style is reflected in its streamlined composition,  compound arch, and simplified design. Few Art Deco style buildings were erected in Boulder and  the Band Shell is one of the best preserved structures. It is one of only two Band Shells in  Colorado (pp2‐9, Historic Places Plan, City of Boulder, 1924).  Criterion D: Information Potential  Criterion D is typically reserved for archaeological resources, which is outside the scope of this  report.  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 107 33 2.2.2 Evaluation and Analysis of Contributing Features    Based on the evaluation of significance outlined in section 2.2.1, the following discussions  compare Central Park during historic Periods 2 and 3 to existing conditions in order to determine  what, if any, landscape characteristics and features remain extant. Both discussions are  accompanied by diagrams that illustrate how the landscape has changed over time. This  provides a basis of understanding that supports the analysis of historic integrity in section 2.2.4.   Historic Period 2. 1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park  Topography:  Historic Condition: The original proposal for grading at Central Park included one contiguous, flat lawn that would capture sunlight and connect the north end to the south end by undergrounding the ditch that splits the lot into two. On the west side of the park along 13th Street, Olmsted Jr. proposed a continuous berm—reaching 4 feet high at various points—most likely to keep views on this edge interior to the park. The proposal reflects his report that states parks should have views both internal and external to the park. On the northeastern corner, he proposed a gentle slope along the northern edge, mimicking the feeling of a landform surrounding the flat plane. o Planned But Not Implemented: It is unclear what grading was implemented from the 1930’s imagery above but the grading that was clearly not installed from this era was the undergrounding of the ditch to create one open lawn space. o Implemented: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of the Olmsted Jr. design (pg. 22), topography that was implemented at the time might have followed the proposed grading in the 1924 plans in regard to matching existing street elevations, maintaining open and flat lawns and possibly the natural occurring bank grading down to Boulder Creek. Undergrounding the ditch did not take place (as shown in the image with the ditch still daylighted and circulation paths around the ditch) and it is unknown if the berm by 13th Street and gentle landforms to create the north most space was completed. Existing Conditions: Today, the existing ditch remains an open channel, splitting the park into two. Major grading improvements have been completed for the Boulder Creek underpass beneath Broadway, causing the grading plan to be reconfigured on the west edge of the park (Broadway and Canyon Blvd). At this corner, stairs are required to access Central Park and there are larger grade differences along Broadway, Boulder Creek’s eastern bank and Arapahoe. Evaluation: o Contributing Elements: The grading that remains intact from the original design intent include the following: Two areas where open lawn remains The interior channel of Boulder Creek A small grade change between 13th Street and the eastern edge of the park o Elements that have been Modified Over Time: Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 108 34 4’ continuous berm along the eastern edge of the park is lower and not continuous for passage of the ditch infrastructure. Berming to surround the northern section of the park to create encompassed space Gentle sloping from Broadway down to the open lawn Undergrounding the ditch to create one open lawn space Existing bank and slope conditions down to access Boulder Creek on the south end of the park Siting, grading, and construction of the Band Shell in the northern section of the park The multi‐use path under pass at Broadway and the multi‐use path under pass at Arapahoe. Topography Evaluation Diagram  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 109 35 Vegetation: Tree Plantings  Historical Condition: The intended purpose of the tree plantings, according to Olmsted Jr.’s report, is to create shade so that people can find shelter from the elements, as well as sit and look out onto a vista or sunny open space. The general layout of the plan included dense groves along Canyon Boulevard, 13th Street, Boulder Creek and Broadway, lining the perimeter of the park and framing open sunny lawns. o Implemented: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), tree plantings were implemented closely following the proposed 1924 planting plans in regard to matching existing species that can be seen still standing today and the clustering of trees to create major groves of canopy per the original design. Groves of shade trees were implemented along 13th Street (this being the densest area of tree plantings), along Broadway splitting the two circulation paths, following Boulder Creek and a secondary grove along, what is now, Canyon Boulevard to the north. Existing Conditions: Central Park has existing trees along the perimeter and concentrated on the northeast, north and eastern boundaries of the site. On the interior of the site where the trees remain (shown in green on the Tree Planting Integrity Diagram), they correlate to the original planting plan designed by Olmsted Jr. in 1924. The plans show street tree planting as well, but due to street widening and other causes, they have been replaced by other species of trees not included from the Olmsted Brothers’ 1924 design. o Contributing Elements: Trees identified as contributing have the following characteristics that coincide with the Olmsted Brothers design: Match the approximate location of the tree planning on the 1924 planting plans (within 10’ of the original placement). Match at least the genus of the planting design or the genus and the species of the intended design. o Modifications: In the below diagram, trees that do not exist today are highlighted in red and have been out‐competed by the existing tree canopy, removed or never planted. Some of these locations do not have any plantings on site, while other locations do have tree plantings, but the trees themselves are not the same genus or species as the original design. The greatest difference in the planting plan occurs around the Band Shell to the north, where the addition of this structure removed half of the northern grove and to the east where there were a large gardens and dense groves of trees designed along 13th Street. o Non‐Contributing Elements: Trees that are identified as non‐contributing have been planted outside of the original design intent and historic period, after the 1924 planting plans were implemented, and they do not match the location, genus, species or overall design intent. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 110 36 Vegetation ‐ Tree Plantings Evaluation Diagram  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 111 37 Vegetation: Groundcover Plantings   Historical Condition: The plant list included with the 1924 proposal included a mix of groundcover along the perimeter of the park at the west, south, and eastern edges of the park. General guidelines were noted for park design in his report and gardens were noted to provide color and interest as well as to provide internal focal points. o Implemented: It is unclear whether the majority of the groundcover was ever implemented per the 1924 plans. Aerial photographs show dense tree cover, and the extent of the gardens below cannot be seen from these photographs. In reviewing the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), groundcover plantings might have been somewhat implemented per the proposed 1924 planting plans in regards to the garden bed layout, but it is unclear if these gardens truly existed beneath the canopy of the trees. There is a darker and dense looking aspect to the imagery that may lend itself to some understory plantings beneath the trees along the 13th Street interior path and along the north more path on Broadway. There are areas that look to have less groundcover beneath the trees that directly align with 13th Street and Boulder Creek. Existing Conditions: Due to various park improvements that include regrading for the Boulder Creek path in two locations and adding a tree canopy to create deep shade along the east side, groundcover plantings do not exist in the park today (except for three smaller plantings on the west side). o Contributing Elements: Plantings along Broadway provide some screening of the street but do not match the original species in the plant list provided by Olmsted Jr. o Modified: It is unclear whether the majority of the groundcover was ever implemented, but today, the extensive upgrades to the multi‐use paths, streetscape enhancements, and heavy shading from the existing canopy could have contributed to the removal and/or loss of almost all of the garden beds from the proposed design. o Non‐Contributing Elements: Shrub plantings outside of the original 1924 planting design, layout and species recommendation have been planted around the Band Shell and its seating to help define the space and create screening from outside of the park looking into the event venue. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 112 38 Vegetation: Groundcover Plantings Evaluation Diagram  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 113 39 Circulation   Historical Condition: Olmsted Jr.’s proposal for circulation included perimeter sidewalks on all sides of the park and diagonal walks that cut through the north end to connect users to the gardens, creek views, and open lawn. o Planned But Not Implemented: The majority of the circulation paths were implemented with the modification of interior circulation around the ditch infrastructure on the east side of the park. o Implementing: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), the original circulation was closely implemented per the proposed 1924 layout plans. Perimeter walks were built along with the crisscross design to the north of the park that sweeps paths on the interior of the park on both the west and east side, offset several feet from Broadway and 13th Street. Two paths were also created to follow the upper and lower bank of Boulder Creek with one additional path added along a north‐west diagonal axis. Existing Conditions: The current sidewalk layout is interrupted by the Glen Huntington Band Shell from the original northern crisscross alignment and the addition of the Arapahoe/Broadway underpass for the Boulder Creek Pathway has disrupted the original north south alignment along Broadway. Today the existing perimeter sidewalks remain with only a small connection sidewalk from the northwest and northeast corners of the park into the Band Shell seating area. The interior park circulation has been removed along Broadway, 13th Street and Boulder Creek. o Contributing Elements: The contributing circulation that exists today can be seen through the remnants of the diagonal paths that connect the Broadway and 13th Street corner (where the Band Shell is located) as well as the perimeter paths along the Right‐of‐Way on the edges of the park. A portion of the south‐end walk adjacent to Boulder Creek on the south end of the park remains, but it is visually separated from the creek due to high retaining walls and plantings constructed for the Arapahoe underpass work. o Modified: Large portions of the circulation paths were removed or modified due to transportation improvements and the addition of the Glen Huntington Band Shell and regrading of the Boulder Creek multi‐use path. o Non‐Contributing Elements: The non‐contributing circulation is outlined in orange as the major connector that runs east‐west along the ditch (splitting the park in two) as well as the multi‐use path that runs south and continues as the Arapahoe underpass enhancement. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 114 40 Circulation Evaluation Diagram  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 115 41 Views and Viewsheds   Historical: Olmsted Jr.’s report mentions the importance of key views for all park design internal to the park itself (of open sunny spaces, gardens, or groves) as well as external views of major landscape elements such as the foothills along the Front Range. o Implemented: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), the original design intent between tree planting and circulation was implemented and so might have afforded views to the Flatiron Mountains at the northwest corner of the park. It is unclear whether there were ever internal views to gardens within the park. The ditch the separated the lawn into two spaces included trees that might have blocked some views across open space. The original paths along the Boulder Creek would have had the intended views and access down to Boulder Creek. o Planned But Not Implemented: Since the ditch was never undergrounded per the proposed 1924 plans, views across the contiguous open lawn were interrupted by the ditch and vegetation that grew here over time. Eventually, views of the Flatirons were blocked with invasive tree species taking over at the site of the ditch. Existing Conditions: Some of the prominent views can be seen throughout the park today, but there are multiple views that have been lost over time. The views that do exist are associated with prominent features outside of the park as well as views to Boulder Creek. The views that have been lost correlate to the many gardens that were not implemented or lost over time due to transportation improvements completed throughout and adjacent to the park. o Contributing Elements: Some of the prominent views can be seen throughout the park today which includes: Views out to the Flatirons – mostly captured along the perimeter of the park Views to Boulder Creek – located at the south side of the ditch where the creek bends south o Non‐Contributing Elements: Views to the Band Shell are the only non‐ contributing elements that exist. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 116 42 Views and Viewshed Evaluation Diagram  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 117 43 Buildings and Structures  Historical Condition: The proposed War memorial in the 1922 design plan from Olmsted Jr. was never realized. For the ditch infrastructure, a portion of this system was built with a similar pedestrian cross and diverting dam to pull off water from the Boulder Creek was constructed. o Planned but Not Implementation: The war memorial, along with the ditch infrastructure to underground the water resource, was never constructed per the 1922 and 1924 proposed plans. o Implementation: The pedestrian crossing at the dam and diverting infrastructure was constructed, as shown the 1937 aerial. Existing Condition: Some of the ditch infrastructure is in existence today from the proposed sketches from Olmsted Jr. In 1924. The sketches show the dam and pedestrian crossing without piping the water access below the park. o Contributing Elements: The ditch infrastructure could be considered a possible contributing element to structures in the park but was not realized with the full intention of creating an underground utility with contiguous park space above. Land Use  The organization, form, and shape of the landscape in response to land use.  Historical Condition: The proposed city block was envisioned as a stand‐alone park with creek access running through with opportunities for recreation, passive activities, garden viewing and seating under shaded areas. This was seen as a respite away from urban conditions. o Planned but Not Implemented: The war memorial and axial circulation that connected the park to the municipal building was never implemented along with unifying the space as one with one great lawn. o Implemented: The internal and external circulation along with shaded grove trees and access to the creek was realized from the 1937 aerial photos. Existing Condition: Today the park remains an open space for recreational programming, pedestrian circulation and passive gathering. o Contributing Elements: The park space is a contributing feature for recreation, circulation and passive gathering. o Not Implemented and/or Modified: Large gardens and easy access to the creek have been removed through transportation improvements. Large areas of gardens might have also been implemented and lost under the dense shading of tree canopy along 13th street. Spatial Organization   Historical Condition: The proposed spatial organization of the 1924 plans was implemented closely with the exception of the great lawn in the center of the park. The ditch remained daylighted with larger trees that existed, separating the space into two. o Planned but Not Implementation: Undergrounding the ditch was not implemented from the 1924 plans to create on centralized lawn, and neither was the war memorial (from the 1922 plans) as a major focal point int the space. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 118 44 o Implementation: The pedestrian circulation around the exterior of the park and cutting through the site was constructed along with the major grove of trees on the perimeter. The open view into the center of the space and access down to the creek was all organized and implemented per the 1924 plans. Existing Condition: Today some of these perimeter elements still remain with an open view to the center of the site. o Contributing Elements: The perimeter grove of trees and outer pedestrian walks remain as contributing features of the existing characteristics of the design intent. o Non‐Contributing Elements: The added structure of the Band Shell, seating and grading disrupt the views to a north grove of trees along with the consistent diagonal circulation in this area. Historic Period 3. 1937‐1969: Huntington Design for Band Shell   Topography:  Historic Condition: The original proposal for grading around the Band Shell was to accommodate amphitheater style seating with a sloping grade from the flat area between the stage and first row of seating, and it transitions higher for best viewing purposes for all rows of seating. The topography also created a flat area in front of the stage, again for the best viewing experience, and included a low stone‐stacked wall on the backside of the seating that ‘holds’ the berms’ semi‐circular shape. o Implemented: It is unclear what specific grading was designed for the Band Shell seating by Saco Deboer from the 1947 sketches, but the amphitheater seating is shown surrounding a large flat area in front of the stage, the grading that was implemented was approximately 3 feet and higher from the first row of seating to the last row on the outer semicircle. Existing Conditions: Today this topography of the site for the seating, flat area in front of the stage and terrace in the back remains today. The terracing at the back has degraded over time and the wall has collapsed with about 1/3rd of the wall missing or buried throughout the length of the terrace. Evaluation: o Contributing Elements: The grading that remains intact from the original design intent include the following: Flat area in front of the stage Amphitheater berm – for seating Terrace at the back of the seating o Not Implemented and/or Modified Over Time: The terrace wall has degraded and the majority of the stone and prominence of the terrace is gone. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 119 45 Vegetation: Tree and Groundcover Plantings    Tree plantings of human‐influence—both native and introduced —include ornamental, shade, or  specimen trees and are of a deciduous or evergreen species. Tree plantings can be used to  provide shelter, frame views, and create a sense of place in a park.   Historical Condition: Groupings of mature trees frame the north, east and west sides of the Band Shell site. At the Band Shell, mature trees define the edges of the sloped concrete terrace. A planting bed of low shrubs along the amphitheater berm defines the southern edge. Groves of trees frame the amphitheater and screen the park from Canyon Boulevard, Broadway, and 13th Street. Photographs from the 1940s and 1950s indicate that the area in front of the Band Shell's stage was planted with evergreen shrubs. o Implemented: Mature trees include Austrian Pine, Douglas Fir, Northern Red Oak, White Oak, English Oak, Shumard Oak, American Elm, Norway Maple, Silver Maple, Honey Locust, Crabapple, Rocky Mountain Juniper, and American Linden trees. The lawn is the prominent groundcover to the south of the Band Shell. Existing Conditions: It is unknown when these were removed, but plantings appear in aerial photographs as late as 1984. o Contributing Elements: The Vegetation remains similar to Saco Rienk DeBoer’s landscape design: A backdrop of evergreen and deciduous trees surround the Band Shell amphitheater at the north and east edges of Central Park. o Not Implemented and/or Modified: The low evergreen shrubs that surrounded the front area of the Band Shell have been removed. o Non‐Contributing Elements: There are some junipers, deciduous shrubs and one crab apple that were recently planted on the backside of the seating on the berm that are not part of the original design intent of the site. Circulation   Circulation for pedestrian access is identified as any defined pathway where specific materials  have been laid to promote movement of people throughout the site. This includes concrete  walkways, crusher fine paths, and multi‐use trails.   Historical Condition: During the period of significance, pathways were aligned to access the Band Shell. The two concrete paved sidewalks that extend from the north corners of the site to the Band Shell are in a similar alignment to those in place in the 1940s. Historic aerial images indicate that there were paths at the southern corners of the amphitheater that connected the park diagonally to the Band Shell toward Broadway and 13th Street. A remnant stone path on the berm, south of the amphitheater connects the south lawn to the amphitheater seating. It is unknown if the remnant stone path is original to amphitheater or a later addition. o Implementing: The circulation paths were implemented with modifications to the diagonal path at the south end when the seating was constructed to the south of the stage. Existing Conditions: Circulation at the Band Shell site has been altered to meet the changing needs of the park and the surrounding urban context. The amphitheater does Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 120 46 not currently have a designated accessible route or accessible seating. Concrete paved  sidewalks appear to be ADA‐compliant in slope for accessible pedestrian access. The  slope of the amphitheater is greater than 5% and is not ADA‐compliant for accessible  access or seating. The large level terrace between the seating and stage is ADA‐compliant  in slope. The nearest existing ADA‐compliant accessible parking space is approximately  200‐feet from the Band Shell on 13th Street.  o Contributing Elements: The contributing circulation consists of: Northeast concrete paved walk Northwest concrete paved walk Southeast sandstone pavers /Remnant stone path o Not Implemented and/or Modified: It is unclear if the original walkways were paved concrete or composed of other materials. Historic aerial images indicate that there were paths at the southern corners of the amphitheater. These walkways were removed when pathways were realigned across the park in the 1960s. o Non‐Contributing Elements: Sandstone paving was installed at the southwest corner of the amphitheater in 2019. Views and Viewsheds   Viewsheds show the environment or a focal point visible from one or more viewing areas,  created intentionally by using foreground elements for framing and by ensuring no obstruction  is permitted to block a specific focal point.  Historical: Prominent views include those towards the Band Shell from the south lawn and frame areas within Central Park. Views from Glen Huntington Band Shell include those towards the Boulder Flatirons from the stage, amphitheater seating, terrace, and south lawn. Views from Broadway and 13th Street to Glen Huntington Band Shell are significant. o Implemented: All viewsheds out to the Flatirons and into the Band Shell space itself were implemented while the tree plantings framed the shell and stage views. Screening from Canyon Boulevard was also provided around the back side of the Band Shell. Existing Conditions: Some of the prominent views can be seen today from the stage outward to the Flatirons. Over time some of these views have been slightly altered due to the mature tree canopy growth. The same can be said for views into the site of the Band Shell. The majority of the views to the main shell architecture can be seen from Broadway and across the park at the south end, but they have been slightly altered by the growth of maturing trees and tree growth coming out of the ditch.  Many invasive tree species were removed in the last decade at the ditch, revealing the historic views of the Band Shell from the south lawn of the park. o Contributing Elements: Some of the prominent views can be seen throughout the park today which include: Views out to the Flatirons – from the stage Views from Broadway to the Band Shell View to the Band Shell from the south lawn Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 121 47 Buildings and Structures  Historical buildings and edifices are the human‐made structures on‐site that provide shelter  from the elements, serve as memorials, or provide cultural or commercial services and civic  programming.  Historical Condition: Character‐defining features of the Band Shell include its original location, architectural design and role as a focal point and cultural venue within Central Park. Located on the northwest corner of Central Park, the structure is a prominent landmark on Canyon Boulevard. Character‐defining features of the amphitheater seating include its sloped concrete terrace with 15 rows, and its three sections. The amphitheater seating is defined on its south edge by the low berm. o Planned but Not Implemented: The War memorial along with the ditch infrastructure to underground the water resource was never constructed per the 1922 and 1924 proposed plans. o Implementation: The pedestrian crossing at the dam and diverting infrastructure was constructed, as shown in the 1937 aerial. Existing Condition: Some of the ditch infrastructure is in existence today from the proposed sketches from Olmsted Jr. In 1924. The sketches show the dam and pedestrian crossing without piping the water access below the park. o Contributing Elements: The ditch infrastructure could be considered a possible contributing element to structures in the park but was not realized with the full intention of creating an underground utility with contiguous park space above. Small‐Scale Features   The organization, form, and shape of the landscape in response to land use.  Historical Condition: The sandstone wall at the edge of the planting bed is a part of the original construction. o Implementation: It is unclear if the sandstone wall was inherent to the original design intent after reviewing the 1947 sketches from DeBoer but might be original to the design of the seating later, once the implementation of the seating moved forward. Existing Condition: Today, the sandstone wall has degraded in places, either missing stone elements or the stone is completely buried for some of the sections of the wall. o Contributing Elements: The sandstone wall at the back of the berm is considered a contributing element and is part of the original character of the seating. o Non‐Contributing Elements: Contemporary, non‐contributing small‐scale features across the site support daily park functions and include regulatory signage, trash and recycling bins, and lampposts. Spatial Organization   Arrangement of elements creating the ground, vertical, and overhead planes that define and  create spaces per a specific design intent.  Historical Condition: The spatial organization of the Band Shell and associated site remains similar to the end of the period of significance. In the 1940s, the spatial Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 122 48 organization of the site was altered by Saco Rienk DeBoer's Central Park's design that  added amphitheater seating to the Band Shell. This inclusion created a defined space for  entertainment and performance separate from the south lawn, which remained open for  flexible use. The Band Shell is sited at the north edge of Central Park with the  amphitheater seating oriented towards it. A sloped berm gradually transitions into a  south lawn creating a visual connection between the spaces. Concrete paved sidewalks  at the northern corners connect the perimeter walks to the Band Shell's amphitheater.   o Implementation: All elements relating to spatial organization were implemented including the siting of the Band Shell on the north end of the park, the open area between the seating and the stage, the seating to the south end of the site and the mature trees surrounding the north and edges of the Band Shell. Existing Condition: Today the overall appearance of the landscape reflects the original design intent with seating added later by Saco Rienk DeBoer: o Mature trees for screening at the north end of the Band Shell o Location of the Band Shell at the north end of the park o Location of the open space between the stage and seating o Seating rows to the south end of the Band Shell 2.2.4 Analysis of Integrity  The seven aspects of historic integrity are considered in this section to determine whether or  not the park retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. The seven aspects of integrity  are informed through the analysis of existing conditions and the evaluation of the identified  landscape characteristics outlined in the previous section.   In addition to demonstrating historic significance under at least one of the National Register  criteria, a property must retain sufficient historic integrity to be considered eligible for listing in  local, state, and national registers. If a site does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its  significance, it may not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.   Integrity is evaluated based on the property’s ability to convey its historical significance. To  retain integrity, a property must exhibit some or all of the seven aspects of historic integrity as  defined by the National Register of Historic Places, including:  Association: is the direct link between an important historic event or person and historic property. Design: is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Feeling: is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Location: is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Materials: are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Setting: is the physical environment of a historic property. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 123 49 Workmanship: is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Analysis of Landscape Integrity for Historic Period 2:   1923 ‐ 1936 Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park  Location: Central Park, as purchased by the City of Boulder, is still in the same location today.  Finding: Has Integrity Design: The initial 1922 plan included a war memorial and three axis paths, with the aim of lining  the west access path up with the civic building. This design was never realized. In a letter to  Olmsted, dated November 12, 1923, William J. Baird wrote that since the bonds failed to carry,  “the Memorial feature is to be omitted, that is dead.” In the same letter, Baird wrote that “our  only hope of doing anything along the Creek is to begin in a very small way.”  (https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571‐02‐186_0166_0382/?sp=72&r=‐ 0.074,0.276,1.036,0.353,0).  In the following year, an updated plan created a large central green for the park with trees  around the edge. The green was never realized since the ditch and large trees associated with it  were retained. In addition, the Bandshell from a later historic period also impinged upon this  area and there was a large concrete multi‐use path added, parallel to the ditch, that is  approximately 10ft wide cutting across the park.  Finding: No Integrity Setting: The park was initially designed to contain a large war memorial as the central feature of  the park that would have been a focal point for the surrounding environment. The war memorial  was never constructed including the three formal axis paths that would have been the main  thoroughfare to access the main features planned for the park. In addition, one of the main axis  paths was to connect with the proposed entrance to the civic building over the road. Again,  since this path was never built, and the entrance to the building was relocated, this formal axis  was never realized. The creek still runs through the southwest section of the park, yet the  addition of the multi‐use commuter path with the large retaining walls on either side has cut off  access to the banks of the creek in this area. Major new buildings have been built around the  edges of the park enclosing it in a vertical envelope, and the multi‐use commuting paths that  approach and run through the park also affect the setting.  Finding: Diminished Integrity Materials: The many major components of Olmsted Jr’s design for Central Park were never  realized, so there is no material evidence for them. The peripheral features (including informal  paths and trees around the edge of the park) have been greatly altered or contain features that  were added from later periods (including the addition of the Bandshell at the north end of the  park which removed half of the existing grove of trees and interrupting the circulation paths in  this area).   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 124 50 Finding: No Integrity Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or  people during any given period in history. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in  constructing or altering a building, structure, object or site. It may be expressed in vernacular  methods of construction and plain finishes, or in highly sophisticated configurations and  ornamental detailing.  Finding: No Integrity Feeling: The construction of the Bandshell and associated seating was a major addition that took  away from the integrity of the 1924 Olmsted Jr. Park design. The landscape character analysis  also shows that, of what was implemented from the 2023 plan, peripheral elements of the  design (including informal paths and vegetation) are intact but major elements interior to the  space have since been removed or altered with the ditch cutting through the center of the park  dividing it in two and all of the understory gardens removed or not implemented. Other modern  additions to the site include two multi‐use concrete paths that are 16ft wide, one path includes  two large retaining walls approximately 5ft and higher, that were added by the Transportation  Department as commuting routes. These major circulation routes cut diagonally through the  south end of the park. Additionally, a 10ft wide concrete multi‐use path with an associated bus  stop has been added to the north side of the ditch cutting across the park. The setting has been  severely impacted by the modern additions and Bandshell. With the major components of the  design not implemented like the green, memorial and axis paths, that desired feeling was never  actually realized.  Finding: Diminished Integrity Association: The park is associated with Olmsted Jr for this historic period due to the design he  laid out for the park. However, the lack of implementation for the major features (the large  green as a central gathering space, the war memorial, and the formal access paths) mean the  design was never realized. Although peripheral elements like trees and some paths were built,  the park as a whole does not represent a design plan that reflects the typical body of Olmsted’s  work that has been fully implemented.   Finding: No Integrity Summary of Integrity: The many major components of Olmsted Jr’s design for Central Park were  never realized, and the peripheral features (including informal paths and trees around the edge  of the park) have been greatly altered or contain features that were added from later periods  (including the addition of the Bandshell at the north end of the park which removed half of the  existing grove of trees and interrupted the circulation paths in this area). Therefore, there is no  integrity to the design features that were built, and their significance is limited since major  components of the design were never implemented.  The initial 1923 plan included a war memorial and three axis paths with the aim of lining the  west access path up with the civic building. This design was never realized. In a letter to  Olmsted, dated November 12, 1923, William J. Baird wrote that since the bonds failed to carry,  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 125 51 “the Memorial feature is to be omitted, that is dead.” In the same letter, Baird wrote that “our  only hope of doing anything along the Creek is to begin in a very small way.”  (https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571‐02‐186_0166_0382/?sp=72&r=‐ 0.074,0.276,1.036,0.353,0).  In the following year, an updated plan created a large central green for the park with trees  around the edge. The green was never realized since the ditch and large trees associated with it  were retained.  The main design components of the site were never realized: the war memorial, formal axis  paths, bermed topography along the north and eastern edges to screen the roadway and all  understory gardens and the connected green in the middle of the park. Instead, periphery  features such as edge tress and informal paths were built.  The construction of the Bandshell and associated seating was a major addition that also took  away from the integrity of the 1924 Olmsted Jr. park design. The integrity analysis also shows  that, of what was implemented from the 2023 plan, peripheral elements of the design including  informal paths and vegetation have since been removed or the majority altered, and the ditch  still cuts through the center of the park dividing it in two. Other modern additions to the site  include two multi‐use concrete paths that are 16ft wide, and one path includes two large  retaining walls approximately 5ft and higher that were added by the Transportation Department  as commuting routes. These major circulation routes cut diagonally through the south end of the  park. Additionally, a 10ft wide concrete multi‐use path with an associated bus stop has been  added to the north side of the ditch cutting across the park.   Based on the above summary, the findings show the major features of Olmsted’s plan were not  implemented including the war memorial, the formal axis paths, and the large green. Peripheral  elements have since been removed or greatly altered and the ditch, multi‐use path and large  trees cut across what would have been a large, green gathering space central to the park that  was never realized. In addition, modern additions to the site, especially the multi‐use  commuting paths with the high concrete retaining walls show there is no integrity for this  historic period.  Finding: No Integrity Historic Period 3 ‐1937‐1973: Huntington DeBoer Design for Bandshell and Seating   Location: The Bandshell and associated seating is still in the same location today.  Finding: Has Integrity Design: The Bandshell and associated seating with the two diagonal connecting paths and the  screening trees have been implemented according to the design and retained.  Finding: Has Integrity Setting: Major new buildings have been built around the edges of the park enclosing it in a  vertical envelope, and the multi‐use commuting paths that approach and run through the park  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 126 52 also effect the setting. The screening envelope next to the Bandshell is still intact, as are the two  main diagonal paths built to access this performance space.  Finding: Diminished Integrity Materials: The many major components of DeBoer’s design are intact including the Bandshell,  the regrading of the slope for the seating and the seating itself. In addition, the screening trees  on either side of the Bandshell and the circulation paths are still intact and retain integrity if not  diminished.  Finding: Has Integrity Workmanship: The physical evidence of the art décor crafts exhibited in the Bandshell design  and the innovative seating construction have been retained.  Finding: Has Integrity Feeling: The construction of the Bandshell and associated seating was a major addition that gave  the park a focal point it never had before.   Finding: Has Integrity Association: The Bandshell area is associated with DeBoer for this historic period due to the  design he laid out for the bandshell and associated setting.   Finding: Has Integrity Summary of Integrity: The Bandshell and associated seating are significant under criteria A and  C and retain integrity. The current boundary for these features is also correct as originally  described. Research has indicated that, in addition to the Bandshell and seating, there are two  diagonal paths plus the screening trees behind the Bandshell that also have integrity and should  be managed as such. There was a circular path around the Bandshell that has been removed, but  this does not affect the overall integrity.  Finding: Has Integrity Summary of Integrity:   Overall, Central Park has diminished integrity. This is due largely to the fact that many major  components of Olmsted Jr’s design for Central Park have been altered or removed entirely  (including the addition of the Band Shell at the north end of the park which removed half of the  existing grove of trees and interrupted the circulation paths in this area). Therefore, there is no  integrity to the design features that were built during historic Period 2. Analysis shows that, of  what was implemented from the 1923 plan, peripheral elements of the design including informal  paths and vegetation have been removed or the majority altered, and the ditch still cuts through  the center of the park dividing it in two, which has impacted the design, materials, workmanship  and feeling of Central Park.   The construction of the Band Shell and associated seating was a major addition that impacted  the integrity of the 1924 Olmsted Jr. park design. Other modern additions to the site include two  multi‐use concrete paths that are 16ft wide, and one path includes two large retaining walls  approximately 5ft and higher that were added by the Transportation Department as commuting  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 127 53 routes. These major circulation routes cut diagonally through the south end of the park.  Additionally, a 10ft wide concrete multi‐use path with an associated bus stop has been added to  the north side of the ditch cutting across the park.   However, the Band Shell and associated seating during Historic Period 3 retain integrity to that  period. The boundary for these features is limited to the north half of Central Park. Research has  indicated that, in addition to the Band Shell and seating, there are two diagonal paths plus the  screening trees behind the Band Shell that also have integrity and should be managed as part of  the historic landscape. Therefore, the north portion of Central Park retains historic integrity to  the years during which the Band Shell and seating for planned and built, starting in 1937 through  1950.  Process and Findings  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 128 54 2.3 CONCLUSION  Central Park has potential significance under National Register criteria A and C for its early role  in the development of the park system in Boulder and as the work of master landscape architect  Olmsted Jr in 1923‐1924. However, due to major alterations and improvements that have taken  place in Central Park since Historic Period 2, it no longer retains meaningful integrity to convey  this era of significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic  Places for these associations. A property must be determined historically significant and retain  sufficient historic integrity to be listed.   However, the northern portion of Central Park containing the Huntington/DeBoer Band Shell  and associated seating are significant under criteria A and C and retain historic integrity. The  current boundary for these features and full description of significance is described in the above  sections under Part 2. The research in this report has indicated that, in addition to the Band Shell  and seating, there are two paths and the screening trees behind the Band Shell that also date to  Historic Period 3 and should be managed as contributing features in the landscape. The period  of significance, as described in the site history in Part 1 and outlined in further detail in the  previous documentation mentioned above, is 1937‐1950, which spans the years in which the  Band Shell was first proposed and designed through the completion of the associated landscape  design.   Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 129 55 3.1 REFERENCES  City of Boulder, Parks and Recreation Department “The Masterplan for Boulder’s Civic Area.”  June 2015. https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/9432/download?inline=  Front Range Research Associates. “Historic Building Inventory Record: Broadway and Canyon  (sec).” November 1995. blob:https://gis.colorado.gov/8e4f5832‐077d‐4822‐9b67‐1f82bd2db3f7  Front Range Research Associates, Inc. Boulder Band Shell Historical Study. Prepared for the City  of Boulder. 14 July 1995.  Olmsted Jr., Frederick Law “The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado.” 106p, March 1910– History  Colorado Object ID 978.84 B663i  Olmsted Associates Report “A Report on the Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder,  Colorado.” This report specifically details flood protection and park improvements to be made in  what is currently the Civic Area 1923  Planning and Development Services “Memo to the Landmarks Board – Proposal to amend the  designation boundary to include all of Block 13 of 1236 Canyon Blvd., the Band Shell, an  individual landmark.” April 6, 2022.  A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques – Robert R. Page,  Cathy A. Gilbert, Susan A. Dolan – U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1998.  https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2198422   Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide – Robert R. Page – U.S.  Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2009.  Pollock, Peter. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and the Improvement of Boulder, Colorado. 2022.  National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ncptt/upload/FG_Peter‐Pollock.pdf  Preliminary Property Evaluation Form, Colorado OAHP  CU Boulder’s Historical Aerial Photos Of Colorado (Digital Collection)  Index to Colorado School of Mines Historical Aerial Photos of Colorado  City of Boulder Public Tree Map  https://boulder.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ecc3d671d264b5aadff76 cd89f3e4b0  Burrell, Dave “S.R. DeBoer Historic District: Application for Landmark Designation(link is  external),” DeBoer Neighborhood Preservation Committee, n.d. chrome‐ extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rootedincheyenne.com/wp‐ content/uploads/2022/07/DeBoerDistrict‐DLPCApp‐v3.0.pdf  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 130 56 Taylor, Carol “Saco DeBoer Hired for Zoning Study in 1927(link is external),” Daily  Camera (Boulder, CO), June 16, 2012.  Corson, Dan W., Boulder’s First Zoning Ordinance, 1997.  Oral history interview with S. R. DeBoer  Maker Elinor Kingery; Mrs. Henry Knight  Dates Date Made, 11/22/1963  Description  Description of content: In this interview, DeBoer discusses his career in city planning and as a  landscape architect in Denver, Colorado. And Grand Junction; Mayors Robert Speer and Ben  Stapleton; Jacob Fillius; Denver Botanic Gardens  Physical Description: Available in digital format on SoundCloud.  Recording length: 1 hour, 48 minutes.  Object ID AR.OH.94  Preferred Citation  Oral history interview with S. R. DeBoer, AR.OH.94. History Colorado, Denver, Colo.  https://soundcloud.com/historycolorado/oral‐history‐interview‐with‐s‐r‐deboer‐aroh94  Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 131 to Shihomi Kuriyagawa and Mark Davison (City of Boulder) from Eleanor Cox and Laurie Matthews (MIG) re Peer review of DRAFT Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment Report date 12/13/2023 Certification of Peer Review and Summary of Findings Peer Review In September of 2023, Shihomi Kuriyagawa and Mark Davison from the Parks Department at the City of Boulder contracted Laurie Matthews at MIG to provide peer review for a department-authored cultural landscape assessment of Central Park. Eleanor Cox is providing technical guidance on the report content to the City while Laurie Matthews is providing QA/QC on MIG deliverables. Our professional qualifications are attached to this memo. On Oct 27, 2023, MIG received a copy of the DRAFT Boulder Central Park, Cultural Landscape Assessment from the Parks Department. Minor comments regarding missing context and organization of the report were provided in response, and on November 29 MIG received a revised draft for full peer review. After reviewing the revised report, MIG finds that sufficient evidence is presented to support the findings. Further refinement and organization of the content is needed before the report should be considered final, but the chronology is well researched and the integrity analysis presented meets professional standards. MIG concurs with the findings as described below. Summary of Findings The design and development of Central Park in 1923-1924 is historically significant under National Register Criterion C (design) as the work of a recognized master, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. Additionally, the northern portion of Central Park is already an established historic district that has been determined historically significant under National Register Criteria A (Events) and C (Design) for its role in the social and cultural life of Boulder and the design improvements implemented between 1938 and 1950 by Glen Huntington and Saco Rienk DeBoer, including the band shell, the amphitheater, and the associated vegetation and grading. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 132 MIG, Inc. Over the past century the Central Park landscape has experienced changes that include: ▪Physical changes to the landscape, such as the realignment and redesign of the vegetation and circulation systems, and substantial regrading of the topography. ▪A change in use through the construction of the bandshell and its evolution as an activated space for entertainment and performance. These changes have resulted in a lack of historical integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, which are needed for Central Park to convey its 1923-1924 design and association with Olmsted Jr. The character of Central Park relating to the Olmsted Jr.-era has been altered to the point where it is no longer visible in the landscape. Both historic significance and historical integrity are required to meet eligibility thresholds for listing in the National Register. While Central Park has its origins in the 1920s and the Olmsteds’ recommendations and designs for a park system in Boulder, it is no longer able to tell that story through the existing landscape. As such, while the park’s history is significant the lack of integrity in the landscape disqualifies the park as a whole for listing in the National Register as the work of master landscape architect Olmsted Jr. However, the northern portion of park is still able to convey its historic significance and association with the 1938-1950 era of park development associated with Huntington and DeBoer. Therefore, Central Park remains eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C for the period in which the bandshell and associated amphitheater seating were designed and built (1938- 1950). The area associated with these improvements is roughly outlined in yellow in the graphic on page 3 of this memo; note that the graphic is approximate and included for general reference only. The National Register-eligible portion does not constitute the full park boundary as no evidence exists linking the southern portion of the park to the Huntington-DeBoer improvements. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 133 MIG, Inc. Aerial view of Central Park with the approximate National Register-eligible bandshell area roughly outlined in yellow. North is up. Courtesy City of Boulder Parks Department. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 134 MIG, Inc. Attachments: Professional resumes for Laurie Matthews and Eleanor Cox. Both staff meet the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards in the areas of history, architectural history, and/or historical landscape architecture. Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 135 EDUCATION »MLA, University of Oregon »BLA, Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon »BFA, Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS »American Society of Landscape Architects »Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation »National Trust for Historic AWARDS »Oregon ASLA Distinguished Practitioner Award, 2022 »Oregon Recreation and Parks Association, South Park Blocks Master Plan, 2022 »Oregon ASLA Award of Excellence, Lithia Park Master Plan, 2019 »Oregon ASLA Award of Excellence, Willamette Falls Cultural Landscape Report, 2019 »Historic American Landscape Survey Challenge Award, Gaiety Hollow Documentation, 2014 Laurie Matthews, FASLA DIRECTOR OF PRESERVATION PLANNING AND DESIGN | MIG Laurie Matthews is a nationally recognized expert in preservation planning and cultural landscapes. Her work has helped to maintain and manage some of the most iconic and precious historical sites in the country such as Hearst Castle, Ellis Island, and Yosemite National Park. Laurie is fascinated by the complexities and stories associated with landscapes and the history they reveal. Her expertise and experience are invaluable in assisting clients interpret and apply The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the National Register of Historic Places guidelines to the cultural properties under their stewardship. Laurie’s analytical and communication skills enable her to readily identify issues and clearly outline potential choices and tradeoffs related to design and management. She is inspired by the passion of her public and private clients and recognizes the impact the planning and design projects she prepares have on cultural landscapes. Laurie has garnered national and regional awards for her work, and she frequently speaks at national conferences on historic preservation and design. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE »Willamette Falls Cultural Landscape Report, Oregon City, OR »Yosemite Lodge Cultural Landscape Report, Yosemite National Park, CA »South Park Blocks Master Plan, Portland, OR »Dorris Ranch Master Plan, Springfield, OR Preservation Sand Creek Cultural Landscape Inventory, Sand Creek Massacre National Historical Site, CO »Lithia Park Master Plan, Ashland, OR »Point Reyes Light Station Cultural Landscape Report and Rehabilitation, Point Reyes National Seashore, CA »Oliver Kelley Farm Master Plan, Elk River, MN »Bassett Farms Cultural Landscape Report, Kosse, Texas »Denali Park Road Cultural Landscape Report, Denali National Park and Preserve, AK »Scotty’s Castle Cultural Landscape Report, Death Valley National Park, CA »Minidoka National Historical Park Visitor Center, ID »Menlo Community Residential, Menlo, CA »Greasy Grass Battlefield Cultural Landscape Report, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, MT »Curry Village Cabins Rehabilitation, Yosemite National Park, CA »Gaiety Hollow Cultural Landscape Report, Salem, OR »White Pass Cultural Landscape Report, Klondike Gold Rush National Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 136 EDUCATION »MS, Historic Preservation, Columbia University in the City of New York »BA, History, University of California, Santa Cruz CERTIFICATIONS »Certificate of Cultural Landscape Preservation and Management, University of California, Berkeley PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS »Vice-President, California Garden and Landscape History Society PRESENTATIONS »"Understanding Cultural Landscapes and Planning for Change at the National Mall," National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference, 2023 »“Climate Adaptation for Buildings and Landscapes,” National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference, 2022 »“Landscapes Lost or Forgotten: University Mound Nursery in San Francisco,” California Garden and Landscape History Society, 2020 Eleanor Cox, MS PRESERVATION SPECIALIST | MIG Eleanor Cox is a highly accomplished preservation specialist and project manager dedicated to broadening the application of cultural landscapes as a framework for holistically managing and maintaining historic sites and resources. An internship with the National Park Service put Eleanor on the path to graduate school and a 10-year career in historic preservation planning and cultural resources management spanning the United States. Using cultural landscapes as a lens to examine a project, she helps clients consider a place and all its layers and components—historic and archeological, social and spiritual, natural and man-made—as they decide upon its future. Combined with her research, analysis, and writing skills, Eleanor’s expertise and experience enable her to efficiently guide clients through often complex planning processes that require balancing client and stakeholder needs with cultural resources. She is passionate about applying her knowledge to create effective long-term stewardship strategies that allow for change while recognizing and maintaining the significant past. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE »Bear Lodge Indigenous Cultural Landscape Report, Devils Tower National Monument, WY »Keys Ranch Historic District Cultural Landscape Report, Joshua Tree National Park, CA »Camp Namanu National Register of Historic Places Nomination, Sandy, OR »Ukiah Railroad Depot Historic Resource Evaluation, Ukiah, CA »Bacon Ranch Historic District Cultural Landscape Report, Pinnacles National Park, CA »Bassett Farms Cultural Landscape Report, Limestone County, TX »Thousands Cabins Determination of Eligibility and National Register Update, Yosemite National Park, CA »Merced Manor Reservoir and Pump House Historic Resource Evaluation, San Francisco, CA* »Capitol Annex Replacement Project Landscape Evaluation and Historic Context Statements, Treatment Report, and Environmental Review, Sacramento, CA* »Capitol Extension Group Historic District National Register Update, Sacramento, CA* »Camp Locket Cultural Resources Technical Report, Campos, San Diego County, CA* »Golden Gate Village Maintenance Projects, Section 106 Compliance and Memorandum of Understanding Between the Marin Housing Authority and County of Marin, Marin City, CA* * Completed prior to joining MIG Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park 137 3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200 TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board SUBJECT: Matters from the Board DATE: January 22, 2024 A.March Regular Meeting Date. The regularly scheduled March meeting falls on Monday, the 25th, the beginning of BVSD’s Spring Break. a.Discussion Needed: PRAB’s input on rescheduling if necessary to allow BVSD families Spring Break with their children. B. Board Membership C.PRAB Matters (Verbal) 138