Section 177 PrecendentFrom:Harold Hallstein
To:OSBT-Web
Cc:Burke, Dan; John Potter
Subject:Re: Section 177 - Precedent
Date:Wednesday, March 13, 2024 5:43:37 PM
Attachments:image.png
External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender.
OSBT - forgive me. I see the memo I sent to you was late stage work product. The board final adopted memo, which has no material changes, is available in Board files, and online.
Best,
Hal Hallstein
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 5:38 PM Harold Hallstein <hal.hallstein@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Open Space Board of Trustees,
There has been some misinformation being circulated recently about the Charter authority that the Trustees have to make conditions around licenses and disposals, and particularly if
such conditions are actually in motion language. I will present some clear evidence tonight about the historical facts in this critical matter, which is important because OSBT should not
allow its legal authority in this regard to be usurped, potentially harming OSBT and OSMP lands irreparably into the future - and more broadly the "trust" around Boulder's taxpayer
preserved lands.
1.] As a former OSBT member, I worked alongside Michelle Estrella and top level OSMP staff to create a memo on the disposal process which was meant to inform all future OSMP
disposals. That memo committee had CAO staff member Janet Michaels on the committee (not simply reviewing). The memo is attached - and it clearly gives guidance that OSBT can,
and in fact, should consider imposing conditions on license and disposal applications to protect the environmental and economic interests of OSMP.
2.] Further. reference has been made recently to the life/safety disposal at 4390 Eldorado Springs Drive, Boulder, to the Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District. Some have suggested
that OSBT did not use conditions in the actual disposal language. That assertion is non-factual.
The motion language is below and contains numerous conditions, and the full meeting minutes from the City file are included in attachment.
It should be not acceptable to Trustees that the board's authorities are curtailed without due process or legislative/referendum action. The oath taken by Trustees overtly requires
your work to protect those authorities afforded under Boulder's home-rule City Charter. This issue is of the highest importance to OSMPs sustainability and resilience into the future.
Best,
Hal Hallstein
From:Harold Hallstein
To:OSBT-Web
Cc:Burke, Dan; John Potter
Subject:Section 177 - Precedent
Date:Wednesday, March 13, 2024 5:39:47 PM
Attachments:image.png
Minutes - Open Space - 4_13_2011.pdf
License and Disposal Memo.pdf
External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender.
Dear Open Space Board of Trustees,
There has been some misinformation being circulated recently about the Charter authority that the Trustees have to make conditions around licenses and disposals, and particularly if
such conditions are actually in motion language. I will present some clear evidence tonight about the historical facts in this critical matter, which is important because OSBT should not
allow its legal authority in this regard to be usurped, potentially harming OSBT and OSMP lands irreparably into the future - and more broadly the "trust" around Boulder's taxpayer
preserved lands.
1.] As a former OSBT member, I worked alongside Michelle Estrella and top level OSMP staff to create a memo on the disposal process which was meant to inform all future OSMP
disposals. That memo committee had CAO staff member Janet Michaels on the committee (not simply reviewing). The memo is attached - and it clearly gives guidance that OSBT can,
and in fact, should consider imposing conditions on license and disposal applications to protect the environmental and economic interests of OSMP.
2.] Further. reference has been made recently to the life/safety disposal at 4390 Eldorado Springs Drive, Boulder, to the Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District. Some have suggested
that OSBT did not use conditions in the actual disposal language. That assertion is non-factual.
The motion language is below and contains numerous conditions, and the full meeting minutes from the City file are included in attachment.
It should be not acceptable to Trustees that the board's authorities are curtailed without due process or legislative/referendum action. The oath taken by Trustees overtly requires
your work to protect those authorities afforded under Boulder's home-rule City Charter. This issue is of the highest importance to OSMPs sustainability and resilience into the future.
Best,
Hal Hallstein
Approved as amended 05-11-11
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes
April 13, 2011
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Pat Billig John Putnam Allyn Feinberg Tom Isaacson Shelley Dunbar
STAFF PRESENT
Dean Paschall Jim Reeder Eric Stone Mark Gershman Doug Newcomb
Lisa Dierauf Ronda Romero Dave Barry Bob Crifasi
GUEST
Chris Meschuk, Planner II, Cominunity Planning & Sustainability
Mike Tombolato, Chief, Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District
Frederick Huff, Attorney for Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District
Neil Blank, Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District
Christopher Smith, Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 - Approval of Minutes
John Putnam requested the following amendments to the minutes of April 6, 2011:
on page 2, paragraph 5 to change "department" to "Board" and "mend the fences" to "coordinate better."
on page 3 add to his comments in paragraph 7 to say "if the department purchased AHI and the other
properties, it would have reduced cash flow for a number of years."
on page 4, paragraph 5, replace "that" with "whether" and "off a trail in" to "out of and from "if this
would be different" to "if there would be no trail " and in paragraph 6 from "John Putnam " to "Tom
Isaacson, " in paragraph 7 add "the regional trail that" and "rails to trails" at the end of that sentence.
on page 5, paragraph 5; add "operations and maintenance."
Tom Isaacson asked for these changes:
to correct the spelling of Mr. Janeczko's name on page 3 and add "there was a discussion with Mr.
Janeczko regarding the city paying $1 million to remove one of the building envelopes."
on page 4 to change "error" to "err."
Allyn Feinberg moved the minutes of April 6, 2011 be approved as amended. John seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
Jim Reeder noted that the conditions in the room made it difficult to hear and the quality of the recording was poor
so writing the minutes was particularly challenging this time.
Pat Billig welcomed Shelley Dunbar as the new Board member.
AGENDA ITEM 2 - Public Participation
None
AGENDA ITEM 3 - Director's Updates
Mark Gershman, Enviromnental Planning Supervisor, wanted the Board to have an opportunity to look at the
Greenways Capitol Improvement Project (CIP) memo before it moves forward to the Greenways Advisory
Committee, the Planning Committee, and City Council. Any comments are to be given to John Putnam who is the
representative on the Greenways Advisory Committee. The next meeting is in May.
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 1
John Putnam cominented that Mark Gershman and Allyn Feinberg started the process to include some of the
restoration projects which was one of the intended purposes of the program. He said that he and staff have been
fairly successful in getting good projects funded and helping to leverage some of the department's projects as well.
This year the money will likely go for the restoration of Eben G. Fine Park which is a Parks and Recreation
property, not Open Space, but it needs restoration and it makes sense to take turns.
Mark Gershman also provided information on the ten-year update which has also been called the "re-boot to the
Greenways Master Plan." It is a fairly minor process and smaller tributaries have been included in the program.
Kurt Bauer, Engineer with the Utilities Division, provided information about changes to the plan.
Allyn Feinberg asked about the master plan update. She said there had been some strong resistance to update the
plan and she thought seven newly specified tributaries were going to be added that were not in the Greenways
program. She wanted to know what would be required to manage them. Allyn continued by saying that her
understanding was that very few of them have the potential for having trails. She also said that there are other
issues, including Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan specifications. She wanted to know if they would get
folded into the master plan. Mark said that is the intent.
Pat Billig asked if the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan was an evergreen document and when
recommendations get implemented, if they are put into the plan. Mark said similar to the Visitor Master Plan
VMP), the department has the responsibility for implementing and tracking implementation of the Grassland Plan.
He said recommendations which call out specific projects, among other things, are being tracked at both levels.
Pat Billig asked if the document itself is updated. Mark said there is a tracking spreadsheet and each of the tasks in
the document is being tracked. This is also done for the West Trail Study Area (TSA) and the VMP.
Jim Reeder updated the Board that the department has permission to hire for some of the vacant positions.
Eric Stone announced that Joe Reale has accepted the position as the Ranger Supervisor and Pete Taylor and Jean
Koszalka, who were the acting supervisors, are ready to get back into the field. Eric also announced Mo Valenta
has been promoted to the Resource Information Coordinator position. Ms. Valenta was responsible for the maps for
the West TSA which was done effectively and efficiently. It was an incredible effort and Ms. Valenta did an
extraordinary job and worked well with a short-handed work group.
Eric Stone said that there are two ranger positions and a GIS technician position posted. The plan is to hire a lower
level position, and promote others who are already working in the department.
Pat Billig asked how many of the 15 vacant full time employee (FTE) positions were approved. Eric said an offer
was made for a wildlife ecologist and Lisa Dierauf, Community Outreach Coordinator, would provide additional
information about the volunteer coordinator position.
Jim Reeder asked Ronda Romero to confirm the number of vacant positions approved. Ronda responded saying 14
positions have been approved.
Jim Reeder updated the Board that Brent Combs has been promoted to the Sign and Graphic Display Specialist
position and is doing a terrific job. Also, an offer was made for the Fleet and Equipment Maintenance Technician
position and the candidate has accepted. The position for the Agricultural Specialist has been posted and is
narrowed down to seven candidates. Jim asked Ronda Romero for an update on the Administrative positions.
Ronda said the Admin III position is the only one that has been approved and posted.
Eric Stone added that there are two Environmental Planner positions and one Wetlands Ecologist position which
have been approved. There are several other positions on hold.
Allyn Feinberg asked if the department is increasing the number of positions to get back to what it was. Jim Reeder
said the department would like to get back to a level that is sustainable by the budget.
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 2
Torn Isaacson asked about the trail maintenance positions. Jim Reeder responded that currently there are no vacant
positions. There are two full time trails positions and the supervisor, and the seasonal staff started working last
week. There was a full time position that was eliminated.
Allyn Feinberg said to accommodate council directives for implementation of the West TSA; the department may
be short handed and should get any needed positions approved as soon as possible. Jim agreed with Allyn and said
the department needs to be creative. There are options, such as contractors, which can be used in regards to trails.
John Putnam commented that this should be discussed at the study session.
Jim Reeder reported that Joe Reale read about the request to have a ranger-led bike ride through the city to a
trailhead in conjunction with bike to work month. Joe expressed some concern with the portion of the ride through
the city as it is not Open Space property. Mr. Reale would be comfortable once the bike riders were on OSMP land
and requested comments from the Board.
John Putnam felt it was important because part of the experience users have is being able to access Open Space and
finding different ways to get there. Rangers have prestige, they are community leaders, and there is value in them
leading that effort. It is a way to show people how easy it is to access trailheads, other than by cars.
Pat Billig commented that maybe someone from one of the biking groups could be a part of this.
Shelley Dunbar asked which trailheads could they go to, and if there would be enough bike parking. She pointed
out that this is something that came up with the Community Collaborative Group (CCG) and there is insufficient
bike parking. Shelley asked if trailheads could have sufficient bike parking added before moving forward with this
effort.
Jim Reeder responded that having as many bike racks as possible in the West TSA made sense. He added that there
is a bike rack at every trailhead but not at every access point. The department has identified ten additional access
points that need bike racks in the West TSA. Some, not all, will be installed in the next couple of weeks.
Eric Stone asked if there would be enough bike parking for this upcoming event if there were many riders. Jim said
the department would provide additional temporary bike racks but nothing permanent for this event.
Jim Reeder updated the Board that the house has been removed from the Campbell property and remains on wheels
by Highway 170. The movers did not get a pen-nit so it will remain in that location until next week.
Jim Reeder updated the Board on Section 16. He reported that Jim Schmidt, Property Agent, said that because this
acquisition is so complex, the Board would need to set a date in the near future to discuss it further when Mike
Patton returns. It is a $2 million outlay of Open Space funds and it is scheduled to go to council on May 3.
Allyn Feinberg asked if the minerals issue would be resolved at that point as it would be hard to make decision or
recommendation if it was not. Jim Reeder responded that he was not sure.
Pat Billig said to plan on a third meeting in April.
John Putnam reminded the Board he would withdraw himself from the Section 16 discussion due to the work he
does with the City of Golden.
Jim Reeder pointed out that the next OSBT meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 27 and wanted to know if
that date would work with the Board's schedule. After some discussion, the Board decided to have the meeting on
Monday, April 25.
Jim Reeder commented that the Board would need to set a date for the retreat. With the West TSA issues, staff
may not have time to prepare anything before May 15 and Mike Patton requested the retreat be after that date. After
some discussion, it was decided the retreat would take place on Monday, May 16 at 3:00 p.m. at the Annex.
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 3
Dean Paschall updated the Board on the bike discussions with council. Council Member Lisa Morzel instructed
Open Space to move forward on the Eldorado Springs to Walker Ranch connection. Eric Stone and Dean had a
meeting with a representative from Eldorado Canyon State Park who had ideas and was enthusiastic about moving
forward. There is a plan of action and movement in that direction. Dean also said the Colorado Division of Wildlife
CDOW) and state parks system are merging which will create changes in upper administration which may favor
this moving forward.
Jim Reeder updated the Board on Anemone Hill bike issues. Mike Patton directed staff to meet with Boulder
Mountain Bike Alliance (BMA) to discuss their role and the criteria they see for the bike experience in that area
and to help to select a third party to help with the project. Allyn Feinberg asked for clarification on what the role of
the third party would be. Jim's interpretation was essentially to include someone with multi-use trail-building
experience. The topic of horses was brought up, and it was decided that this will be discussed at the meeting on
April 25. Staff will be meeting with the Eldorado neighbors to find a solution for their concerns and the public will
be able to give input. Jim asked if public input should be taken at the April 25 meeting or prior to the meeting.
John Putnam thought it made sense to have public input at the meeting as it would allow staff to prepare and to
hopefully have a better outcome. John asked if Mike Patton was able to find out what council is expecting on May
3. Jim said Mike has tried but has not been successful in getting direction.
Pat Billig said her impression was that council would be willing to let the Board revisit the issue and come up with
a more informed recommendation. Pat commented that during public meetings she did not recall hearing about
horses being off trail.
Shelley Dunbar explained that a lot happened during the CCG horse subcommittee meeting of which she was not a
participant. There was little perceived impact. In anticipation for the April 25 meeting, she asked if it would be
possible for staff to get the studies mentioned at a council meeting about land management in California. There
were two impact studies on horses off trail in grasslands.
John Putnam said that he made a list of helpful things that go beyond specific studies such as: getting the
background on issues based on studies OSMP has, getting a strong baseline of information and tying in the
information from the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan and Best Management Practices (BMP). Also, some
of the GIS layers would be helpful from the preliminary work that went into West TSA planning. John also
commented on a concern from council about what would happen if commercial operations increase. The Board may
need to consider how many commercial operations there will be with horses and possibly cap the number of
commercial equestrian operations in the West TSA.
John Putnam said that it would be helpful to get the rangers' perspective on the level of usage, usage on/off trail,
and user conflict in general. Their input is valuable since they have the practical experience.
Tom Isaacson asked if the focus was on the West TSA or was the mandate broader. He also asked if it would go
beyond natural areas and get into agricultural areas and what geographic scope should be considered. Pat Billig
responded that the focus should remain on the West TSA.
Tom Isaacson wanted to know if Tim Seastedt, professor at Colorado University, could be invited to the April 25
meeting to provide comments regarding horses.
Eric Stone said that what happens in the West TSA is very different from outside the West TSA. He said ranger
input would be provided and the department would look more closely at permits system for a historical perspective.
Pat Billig commented that it would be important to use the West TSA e-mail distribution as well as media notices
to make sure the public is aware of items that will be discussed at the April 25 meeting.
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 4
Eric Stone asked if the department would need to guide the discussion. Pat Billig said the Board has not had a
discussion on the available information and felt that staff recommendations and public input would be very
important.
Torn Isaacson felt it would be helpful if staff had a recommendation. The direction from council made it necessary
for the Board to look at recommendations unconstrained from the CCG recommendations.
Eric Stone said that he will ask the CCG core team and staff to develop a recommendation or options that could
help guide the discussion.
Jim Reeder commented on the no dog loop and said staff has not forgotten about it. It will be addressed when Mike
Patton returns.
AGENDA ITEM 4 - Matters from the Board
Allyn Feinberg asked if this could be delayed.
AGENDA ITEM 5 - Consideration and decision on a request to authorize the disposal of 2.561 acres of land
around the existing fire station located at 4390 Eldorado Springs Drive, Boulder, to the Rocky Mountain
Fire Protection District.*
In 1975, the West Rudd parcel, near the town of Eldorado Springs, was purchased for Open Space purposes. The
property included an existing fire station that had been built on the property in error. The station has continued to
operate on the property and is now known as Rocky Mountain Fire Station No. 6. The Rocky Mountain Fire
Protection District (RMFPD) proposes to purchase 2.561 acres around Station No. 6 from the city for $307,000
based on an appraisal by Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff. RMFPD presented their ideas to the Open
Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) on October 27, 2010 and received positive feedback from the staff and the OSBT
regarding the city's willingness to possibly sell the parcel. The direction from the meeting was to develop a sales
contract and bring it to the OSBT for consideration and a possible recommendation for the land disposal.
Additional information was provided in the memo included in the Board packet.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Neil Blank, Eldorado Springs, Board Member of Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District, said the existing fire
station was 57 years old and inadequate for providing services. Mr. Blank said in the last election, voters supported
bond issues and voted 70 percent in favor to increase taxes to build the new station. He hoped to receive the
Board's support.
Christopher Smith, Eldorado Springs, has been a member of the RMFPD board for a long time and is very excited
about a new facility which would have 24/7 coverage. He urged the Board to move forward with the proposal.
RETURN TO THE BOARD
Torn Isaacson wanted to know if there was anything different from the presentation given last October. Doug
Newcomb said nothing has changed. Ray Huff said that the only difference was that there is a contract which was
presented to the Board and he expressed their readiness to go forward with this project.
Allyn Feinberg pointed out that the next steps could be time consuming and wanted to know what the anticipated
timeline for completion would be. Mr. Huff responded that it would take about six months. There are three steps to
the approval process which entails application for special use permit, a review and hearing at the Planning
Commission, and consideration and hearing by the County Cominissioners. Allyn Feinberg asked if the permit
process with the county could run parallel to the 60-day period. Mr. Huff said that is precisely what will happen
with the understanding that they are taking a risk by doing so.
Shelley Dunbar wanted to know if the city would have access to the shared boundary only for maintenance and
repair. Mr. Huff said that was the request from the department.
Eric Stone said that there is periodic bird survey work in the grassland behind the fire station and there was not a
good crossing over the ditch so it is not used very often. Shelley Dunbar asked about the future possibility of a need
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 5
to get across to the property to do something which would not be maintenance or repair. Eric Stone said the
department could umbrella most needs under maintenance as the entry point would not be used for any reason since
the ditch obstructs access. There is a private road to the west which enters behind the area and there is a bridge
across the ditch. Doug Newcomb added that it was not very wide and was difficult to access.
MOTION
Allyn Feinberg moved the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend the disposal of the described 2.561-
acre parcel around the existing fire station on the following terms as presented in the memo of April 13,
2011:
The city pays none of the direct costs of the transaction.
The property is restricted to fire station use, community meeting room use and polling place use only
and reverts to city ownership if used for any other purpose.
The city reserves the right to access both sides of the perimeter fence for maintenance and repair
purposes and to install a vehicle gate in a shared boundary fence in a mutually acceptable location.
The property is sold as-is and where-is.
The property is sold subject to the conditions of the Open Space Charter provisions.
The closing of the sale transaction is conditional upon RMFPD obtaining all necessary permits from
Boulder County.
The closing of the sale transaction is scheduled for 45 days after RMFPD receives final Land Use
approval from Boulder County for the development of the new fire station, estimated to be in the
fourth quarter, 2011.
Tom seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Allyn Feinberg commented that the Open Space Board takes disposing of property very seriously and does not do it
often. She continued by saying that disposing in this particular situation seemed to be very beneficial and she was
happy to support it.
AGENDA ITEM 6 - Summary of 2010 Open Space and Mountain Parks Volunteer Services and Declaration
to Honor Open Space and Mountain Parks Volunteers during National Volunteer Week."
Lisa Dierauf, Community Outreach Coordinator, made a presentation to the Board. National Volunteer Week takes
place April 10-16, 2011. The City of Boulder and OSMP joins communities across the country and around the
world in recognizing volunteers for their efforts and contributions. Each year many volunteers aid the department
in carrying out its mission, goals and objectives. They help to inform the public and protect the resources that make
Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks a special place. In 2010, more than 1,400 dedicated volunteers
contributed over 33,100 hours. Additional information was provided in the memo included in the Board packet.
Dave Barry also made a presentation to the Board in conjunction with Lisa Dierauf. Dave has been working with
volunteers for a long time and said that the main part of his job is to make sure the public has a pleasant experience
when entering and exiting the Open Space. There is a lot of maintenance to be done and he has reached out to
different groups such as the Eagle Scouts who have contributed greatly to getting work completed. He has also
worked with the Thorne Ecological Society, Boulder Valley School District, individual volunteers, and jail crews
for a total of 1,500 hours of volunteer work from these groups.
RETURN TO THE BOARD
Pat Billig commented that the rate of return on the surveys was low. Lisa Dierauf responded that a lot of volunteers
only work for one day and do not contribute to surveys.
Pat Billig asked if there were reports from trail guides or bike patrols on visitor- experience. Lisa Dierauf said the
trail guides and mountain bike patrollers are similar as they are ambassadors helping the public and their reports
give numbers on contacts, problems, conflicts, experiences, etc. If there is a comment which raises a red flag, a
ranger will respond to find out what happened.
John Putnam asked for an example of the type of red flags that may be encountered. Lisa Dierauf responded with
examples such as a tree that may have fallen over a trail or dogs off leash. The patrollers are trained when to call
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 6
911 and when to call a ranger. Lisa also said that if more staff worked with volunteers, more could be done with
them, but as of right now staff is at capacity.
Pat Billig gave credit to the staff that works with volunteers and asked Lisa to pass on the Board's appreciation.
In response to a question by Allyn Feinberg, Lisa Dierauf confirmed that the department would be hiring a
volunteer coordinator. Allyn said that every year she is amazed at how many people volunteer and the department
should make sure there are enough resources to support it. Losing the volunteers would be damaging to Open
Space.
Pat Billig read a proclamation which said "The Open Space Board of Trustees joins the staff of Boulder's Open
Space and Mountain Parks Department in recognizing all of our volunteers during National Volunteer Week, 2011.
We salute the more than 1,400 Open Space and Mountain Parks volunteers who contribute their talents and efforts
in helping the department carry out its mission. These irreplaceable individuals are an inspiration as they help to
protect the resources that snake Boulder so special."
AGENDA ITEM 7 - Update on proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Trails Map as
part of the 2010 Major Update to the Comprehensive Plana
Mark Gershman, Environmental Planning Supervisor, made a presentation to the Board with the help of Chris
Meschuk, Planning Department, who was managing this section of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
BVCP) update. Mark requested that the Board review and make a recommendation to the Planning Board and
City Council, regarding several proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Trails Map.
The proposed changes were:
New proposed trails and underpasses.
New conceptual alignments.
Change from "Proposed Trail" to "Conceptual Aligmnent."
Additions to 2005 BVCP Map and corresponding deletion of conceptual alignments and proposed trails.
Additional information was provided in the memo included in the Board packet.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
RETURN TO THE BOARD
Pat Billig asked Mark to confirm if the OSMP staff studied this proposal in detail. Mark affirined that all changes
were made by staff. The changes for the West TSA have not been completed and may have to wait until a minor
update happens in approximately five years. Chris Meschuk said it might be possible to make the changes before
this goes forward.
Tom Isaacson asked what the criteria were for placing trails on the snap noting that some smaller trails were
indicated. Mark Gershman said one of the elements of the BVCP map is the background of the existing trails
network and as it changes, it must reflect what is real. The more central focus is to show city and county intent for
the vision of the trails system for the county.
Allyn Feinberg asked about the proposal in the West TSA to realign the Flagstaff Trail. Mark Gershman said the
realignment was not on the map but there were minor adjustments made since the last update.
Allyn Feinberg asked what has been done to realign the Four Pines Trail. Mark was not sure what work was
performed there as there are many realignments but said it could have been a mapping adjustment. If there was trail
construction, the department would have detailed documentation.
Allyn Feinberg asked how Community Environmental Assessment Process (LEAP) projects are identified in a trail
planning process. Mark said CEAP thresholds are often monetary so they would show up on the CEAP list in
various departments. Allyn Feinberg confirmed with Mark that there was an established process for deterinining
what trails would have CEAP's. Chris Meschuk added that doing a CEAP is looking at alternatives with impacts
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 7
and tradeoffs. When it is specific to Open Space, there is a planning process and would include an alternative
analysis.
Shelley Dunbar asked for clarification on trail deletions. There was a section of trail connecting a way into National
Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST) which was consistent with a CCG recommendation. Shelley said she
did not believe that section of trail was something that would be deleted in the West TSA. Mark said he would
follow up but he noted that there are two parallel trails on the map. He said there are two trails shown on the map
but only one exists on the ground.
Torn Isaacson recommended including a proposed extension of the Boulder Creek Path. Mark said if the Board
wanted to recommend that all changes in the West TSA be made, staff can do it. Tom said he would since the
update is every five years.
John Putnam asked how firm the boundaries are because it does not make sense to work with arbitrary lines. Mark
said if changes need to be made on the comprehensive plan boundary area, there would need to be direction from
the Board. Chris Meschuk said the only time that boundary is changed is when there is an acquisition of Open
Space.
Torn Isaacson pointed out the East Beech Trail was missing on the original snap but was on the changed map.
Mark Gershmman said that it is a closed road managed by the county to provide access to the picnic area. Tom said it
was a dotted line on the subsequent map but not on the BVCP map. Mark said he will have to look at it further.
Tom Isaacson asked if the arrow which points north from the Feeder Canal was a reference to the Feeder Canal
Trail or the boundary of the planning area. Mark answered that it was the boundary of the planning area.
Torn Isaacson asked if the underpass at 79Th Street and Route 52 belonged to Open Space. Chris Meschuk thought
it belonged to county transportation. Mark Gershman commented that it was outside of the BVCP area.
Tom Isaacson commented about the alignment of the trail from the reservoir, which goes underneath the Diagonal
and picks up the trail system around Gunbarrel. He noted that in the Visitor Master Plan (VMP), the trail is on the
northeast side by Torn Watson Park and Coot Lake and so it seems to have been moved to the southwest. He was
curious to know how that happened. Mark said this was part of a transportation project and not an Open Space
project. The department did the IBM Connector Community Environmental Assessment Process (LEAP) and the
county funded the IBM trail which connects the city trail system across Open Space on the IBM property. It is not
an Open Space proposal.
Tom Isaacson asked about the trail that goes around Baseline Reservoir and all the way to the Teller Trail. He
wondered if the northern route alignment was set in stone. He suggested this might be an issue for the East TSA
planning discussion. Mark Gershman responded that avoiding natural resources is always part of the challenge.
Tom Isaacson asked about the series of trails on the east side of Cherryvale, close to Marshall Road that was not on
the map. Eric Stone explained that was the place where an un-permitted horse outfitter may be creating a social
trail. Mark Gershmman said when the department first acquired properties it was not uncommon to put up gates.
Informal pedestrian gated areas had become very popular for training dogs, flying remote control airplanes, and
some informal uses by neighbors. More people in Superior are now using this area that has access points but not
designated trailheads.
Tom Isaacson asked about the trail that was removed near Marshall Lake. Mark said it was the Mayhoffer
Singletree Trail which is a useable road but no longer considered a trail.
John Putnam asked if the Marshall Lake Trail property issues were associated with the Community Ditch underpass
problems with Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO). Jim Reeder said that FRICO does not want
the department using the culvert but would be more receptive to a bridge. It did not appear to be a problem with
FRICO as long as their standards were followed. John Putnam asked where it would fit in the city's priorities. Jim
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 8
Reeder responded that the West TSA has pushed it down the list but the department is still pursuing the possibility
of getting a permit.
John Putnam asked about the arrow on the southern edge of the map. Chris Meschuk said it was a way to
communicate the desire to connect to trail systems south into Jefferson County.
John Putnam commented about the Front Range Trail which would parallel Highway 93 into Jefferson County but
was not in the BVCP. He asked if there would be a place for it. Mark said one of the criterions to get on the
comprehensive plan map would be an appearance in an approved plan. John thought the state had a plan for the
Front Range which showed conceptual alignments. Mark said that may be a way to connect the High Plains Trail
to the trail system at Rocky Flats by paralleling Highway 93.
Eric Stone added the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Rocky Flats made it through the Department of
Interior but was never funded. While some of the conceptual trail alignments may be in an approved plan, he did
not believe there would be an option for funding the trail systems.
John Putnam asked if the county could give a short presentation about the Transportation Master Plan. Mark said
he would ask the project manager.
Pat Billig proposed to modify the staff recommendation to say: "The Open Space Board of Trustees recommends
the Planning Board and City Council approve the proposed trail changes with modifications suggested by the Open
Space Board of Trustees and include as many of the West TSA changes as possible to include additional
information from the county plans on conceptual aligmnents."
Allyn Feinberg commented that if Pat wanted to make the recommendation all inclusive under the comments from
OSBT, it should suffice.
John Putnam asked Mark if there needed to be a formal motion. Mark said the charter does not require the Board to
take formal action, only review and provide comment. Mark said the staff would commit to getting the West TSA
trail changes in the BVCP. He added that staff would get back to the Board concerning the Beech driveway and
Front Range Trail.
Pat Billig asked if the path along Highway 93 to Coal Creek from the city, which ends at the city bike paths, is a
bike path. John Putnam thought Mike Patton may have been talking about a separate trail, not just widening the
shoulder of the road. Mark said there was a discussion with other agencies and it is not something that is ready to
be built. Mark will follow up.
AGENDA ITEM 8 - Update on proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies
pertaining to Open Space and Mountain Parks as part of the 2010 Major Update to the Comprehensive
Plan.*
Mark Gershman made a presentation to the Board. Mark requested the Board to review and make a
recommendation to the Planning Board and City Council, regarding proposed revisions to BVCP policies,
specifically those which directly affect the purposes and operations of the OSMP Department. Proposed policy
revisions and additional information were provided in the memo included in the Board packet.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
RETURN TO THE BOARD
Allyn Feinberg said one concern was the addition of agriculture and food. She recalled a comment from City
Council when questioned by a member of the public if Open Space would be appropriately used for locally-grown
food. Allyn continued by saying the Board would give this serious consideration in relationship to what the county
is doing. John Putnam commented on section 3.08, Public Access to Public Lands, and questioned whether
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 9
protection of agricultural uses would fall in that category. Access is not allowed in some areas because fanners are
using them and people should not walk across crops in the fields. Mark Gershman asked John if the wording was
too vague and if degradation to agricultural productivity should be emphasized. John said, yes, it was a separate
issue. He added that in following up on council's thoughts, the concept of carrying capacity should be called out
specifically. Allyn Feinberg added that it was an aspect of sustainability.
Pat Billig commented on the sentence "Public access to natural lands" and wondered if it referred to Habitat
Conservation Areas (HCA) or natural areas. There are different categories of land and it may be too general.
Different types of natural lands may require different types of access. Mark Gershman said, the concept of carrying
capacity suggests an intermediate issue where there may be some limitations including the nature of access.
John Putnam said that if this guides actions and plans as an umbrella document, it is binary and one of the concepts
would be to think about establishing acceptable levels of use. Allyn Feinberg said if the thought was about carrying
capacity of natural land, maybe it would be a paragraph discussion on its own. Pat Billig commented that "carrying
capacity" was a very loaded term. Allyn added that however the concept is described, there may be a limit to the
use of public land.
John Putnam pointed out that in section 3.08 the word "closure" was strong and may need to be broadened.
Mark Gershman asked Pat Billig about a previous comment on the "notion of natural lands" language and wanted
to know if the language needed to be changed. Due to previous public comment Pat Billig felt the wording "public
access to natural lands will be provided" was a definitive statement and implies anywhere. How would the public
interpret it? Mark Gershman asked if "public access will be balanced with resource conservation" would be better.
Pat said yes, something similar to that because public access should be provided but resources need to be protected.
Pat Billig said the concept of being charged as a trustee was a special responsibility for the long-term stewardship
of the lands and should be noted in the document.
As a member of the Greenways Advisory Committee, John Putnam added that the department should protect
riparian zones. Wetlands are called out separately and everything else falls into a generic category. There may
need to be more attention called out about the urban drainages and native fish, etc. so they do not fall through the
cracks.
Pat Billig moved on to section 9, Agriculture and Food, and said that OSMP has a lot of agricultural land which is
not mentioned. Mark said the city and county open space programs control the majority of agricultural land in
Boulder County. John Putnam said this would be worth tying to the charter and the department should not create
two separate agricultural systems (the city and the county) in the document. It should be done jointly in a way that
is sensible in the agriculture policy. As an aspirational goal, the departments should aim to work together.
Mark Gershman asked John if he thought the city and county were trying to have represented agriculture programs.
John said no, he was not under the impression the department was but in conversations at a council study session
there was a sense that the city open space program should have a wide range of agriculture options.
Pat Billig said that the criteria for who could lease the land should be very clear. Mark said that a simple statement
up front about the percentage of land controlled by the city and county open space would be good to have. John
suggested adding information about water, as it may be limited resource.
Torn Isaacson said section 9.01 referred to fuel, and asked if the department uses agricultural lands to produce fuel.
Mark Gershman said he did not believe so. Tom Isaacson cautioned that the priority may not be correct and may
need further discussion. John Putnam asked how much the department would encourage using the land for
cellulosic materials opposed to growing food crops. Tom Isaacson asked if it should be called out and Mark said it
could possibly be removed from the document if the Board preferred. John Putnam thought there would be value in
removing the sentence as the department would not want a blanket statement encouraging land use for fuel.
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 10
Pat Billig asked to also have that section changed to read "The city and county will demonstrate and encourage..."
Mark said it could be done.
AGENDA ITEM 9 - Authorization to enter into a nonexclusive license between the city and Patton Farms,
LLC and George F. Fisher to place and use a pipeline across the Teller Farms property for the purpose of
irrigating their property from the Leyner Cottonwood Ditch."
Bob Crifasi gave a presentation to the Board regarding OSMP being a sole owner of the Teller Farms property,
with a portion of it irrigated from the Leyner Cottonwood Ditch. Patton Farms, LLC and George F. Fisher want to
irrigate their property from the Leyner Cottonwood Ditch by placing and using a pipeline across a portion of the
Teller Farms property. The agreement seeks to insure that placing and using the pipeline will not adversely affect
the city's operations or interests in Teller Farms and clarify the parties' respective rights and obligations concerning
use of the property and the pipeline. The Board was requested to approve a recommendation for the department to
authorize placing a pipeline across Teller Farms property instead of a disposition or going to court for a
condemnation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
RETURN TO THE BOARD
Allyn Feinberg asked if Patton Farms and George Fisher pursued a condemnation, would they have to pay. Bob
affirmed that someone would have to establish a value for that corridor and the department would likely be
compensated and there would be other terms and conditions.
In response to a question by Allyn Feinberg, Bob said that most of the pipeline would be above ground and run
parallel to the fence line. Allyn Feinberg asked if it was a gravity flow and Bob said yes. Tom Isaacson asked if
the pipe would be visible from the trail. Bob said it would run north/south parallel to a fence, and would look
similar to other pipe on the property.
John Putman asked if the department would be creating precedence. Bob said that the City Attorney's Office
CAO) looked at the charter and based on their interpretation, the department was required to bring this to the
Board for input before proceeding.
Allyn Feinberg asked if the license includes conditions so that resources would be preserved. Bob said they are
required to provide plans for staff approval to avoid resource damage.
Allyn Feinberg asked if there would be maintenance of the pipeline and how it would impact the land. Bob said
there would be occasional maintenance but a pipe is less damaging than an open ditch.
Responding to a question from Allyn Feinberg, Bob explained that the CAO did not believe this was a disposition
because it was a 20-year agreement which has a finn termination date. Tom Isaacson asked who would be
responsible for removing the pipe upon termination. Bob said it would be the applicant's responsibility.
Allyn Feinberg commented that she was not happy about a pipeline above ground on Open Space. Bob said he did
not think it would be inconsistent with the agricultural look of that location. She also said the conditions under
which this would be maintained, and how Open Space would be protected and preserved needed to be spelled out.
Since it would be a 20-year deal, the property could be sold and the conditions need to go with the license.
John Putnam commented about the possibility of this becoming a more common occurrence. Bob said this was a
unique situation.
Torn Isaacson asked if the pipe could be buried. Bob said it could be discussed but it would incur additional
expenses. Eric Stone added that a buried pipe would require different material such as steel vs. PVC. Allyn
Feinberg commented that there would be more impacts by burying the pipe. Bob said he has seen some projects
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 11
where pipes needed to be replaced and it was very expensive. This project would likely be in the $10,000 to
20,000 range.
Shelley Dunbar asked if the piping, rather than a ditch, was their idea. Bob said there were many conversations and
it was determined that using a pipe would be best. He added that the agreement would require eight-inch diameter
pipe, maximum. Tom Isaacson asked if they would give up their right to go to court by installing the pipe. Bob
responded that there would be no need to go to court if they are getting what they want. There would be no
economic incentive for them.
MOTION
John Putnam moved the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend to authorize the city to grant a
nonexclusive license to Patton Farms, LLC and George F. Fisher to place and use a pipeline across the Teller
Farms property for the purpose of irrigating their property from the Leyner Cottonwood Ditch. This would
be subject to adequate terms and conditions of the license agreement to protect the city. Allyn Feinberg
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Pat Billig discussed items for the Board retreat on May 16. Those items include:
Parking and the Voice and Sight Program pertaining to leadership, plans, and implementation.
Commercial Use - what the Board needs from staff, what the policy is, if it is adhered to, how much it is
used, are there violations, fees, etc.
2011 Implementation Plan - what items from the West TSA will be incorporated in the 2011 plan.
Outlines for the 2012 budget.
Allyn Feinberg suggested including adequate staffing in the 2012 budget or trying to come to some kind of
resolution.
Torn Isaacson said he would like to have a discussion about acquisitions in relationship to the $3.4 million the
department has set aside for the upcoming years. Eric Stone said it was his understanding the acquisition work
group was in the midst of preparing their own work plan and priorities. Tom Isaacson said that there would be
some acquisitions in the future and it would be helpful to understand what the tradeoffs would be.
John Putnam requested to revisit the parking fee concept. He would also like to discuss how to regionally integrate
the borders of Open Space with the county, state parks, Forest Service, etc.
MOTION
John Putnam moved to appoint Pat Billig as the chairperson for the Open Space Board of Trustees. Pat
Billig moved to appoint John Putnam as the vice chair. Allyn Feinberg moved to elect Mike Patton as the
secretary. All motions passed unanimously by acclamation.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
These minutes were prepared by Michele Gonzales.
AGENDA ITEM IA PAGE 12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Central Services Manager
Bethany Collins, Real Estate Supervisor
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: Written Information: Process for Considering License and Disposal
Requests Involving Open Space Lands
________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this memo is to provide written background information around license and
disposal requests involving Open Space land interests in advance of Open Space Board of
Trustees (OSBT) consideration during the August and September business meetings.
The Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department protects and manages Open Space land
for specific Open Space purposes for the benefit of the public as outlined in the City of Boulder
Charter (City Charter). Community support of OSMP depends upon the confidence the public has
in the City’s ability and commitment to fulfilling the City Charter open space purposes. The City
Charter requires an extensive process before disposing of, or allowing use of, Open Space land
interests for other than City Charter-defined Open Space purposes. Therefore, the use of, and
disposals of, Open Space land interests are only granted in a manner that is consistent with City
Charter and the Boulder Revised Code (BRC) and after a thorough review and approval process
involving OSMP staff, the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT), and when called for in the City
Charter or the BRC, the City Council.
Typically, OSMP’s Real Estate Services staff assume a leading role in making sure the department
has the information needed from the requesting party in order for the city to make an informed
decision with regards to disposal and licenses. For disposal requests, the Real Estate Services
program is generally guided by the OSBT Easement Request Policy adopted in November of
1985, and last revised in February 1995. For license requests, the Fence and Gate Policy adopted
in October 1985 provides some guidance. It is worth noting that both of these historic policies
were adopted prior to the 1986 creation of the Article XII Open Space of the City Charter for
disposing or licensing interests in open space land. However, because the Charter is the
controlling policy and these historic OSBT policy documents lack substance and framework for
implementation, staff is recommending to repeal these two historic OSBT policies and replace
them with one thorough and updated process document for how the department, OSBT and City
Council considers nonexclusive license and disposal requests involving Open Space lands.
Updating and putting in place a thorough process will continue to ensure requests are evaluated in
a consistent, comprehensive, fair and transparent manner, while still acknowledging that each
request is unique and requires individual consideration.
BACKGROUND
OSMP and OSBT’s authority related to licenses and disposals is granted by the following sections of
the Article XII Open Space of the City Charter and the BRC:
Section 171 Functions of the department
(a) Shall acquire, supervise, administer, preserve, and maintain all open space land and
other property associated therewith and may grant nonexclusive licenses…; …
Section 175 Functions of the Board
(a) Shall make recommendations to the council concerning any proposed disposal of
open space lands pursuant to section 177; …
(h) Shall make recommendations concerning the grant or denial of any nonexclusive
license or permit in or on open space land; ….
Section 177 Disposal of open space land
No open space land owned by the city may be sold, leased, traded, or otherwise
conveyed, nor may any exclusive license or permit on such open space land be given,
until approval of such disposal by the city council. … This section shall not apply to
agricultural leases for crop or grazing purposes for a term of five years or less. …
BRC 8-8-11. Transfer of Open Space Lands
Any transfer of open space lands from the Open Space and Mountain Parks department
to any other department of the city will for the purpose of the Charter be made only
after compliance with the requirements of Section 177 of the Charter.
When OSMP is contacted by an outside party regarding a request for long-term use or possession of
Open Space land for non-Open Space purposes, OSMP Real Estate Services staff, working in
consultation with City Attorney’s Office, determines if a request ought to go through the license or
disposal application process. 1
A. A nonexclusive, revocable or term-limited license agreement is typically pursued for
private (or 3rd party) use of open space land where a permanent or possessory interest is
not necessary and where such use does not conflict with Open Space purposes. Examples
may include but are not limited to ditch/lateral crossings, neighborhood gates in OSMP
fences, traffic signs, and placement of removable infrastructure providing safety or
stability benefits such as guardrail anchors or guy wires. Licenses are personal to the
licensee and therefore are not assignable. If a proposed use requires exclusive use or is not
term-limited or revocable, it would likely be considered a disposal.
B. A disposal is typically pursued for permanent, exclusive or possessory interests in open
space land. Examples may include but are not limited to ownership, utility and access
easements and additional use or development rights previously prohibited in dedicated
open space easements, conservation easements or development rights agreements.
Since 2010, OSMP has received 1-4 disposals per year through to approval, most involving energy or
water delivery (utility projects) or transportation infrastructure. The receipt and consideration of
license-like requests has varied both in number and method – another reason to formalize the process
framework for these requests. Staff anticipates continuing to receive 2-3 disposal requests and 5-8
license requests per year. These requests often require a great deal of OSMP staff time and are often
deadline driven. The proposed guidance framework that the OSBT will be considering and providing
feedback on both revises and clarifies definitions, expectations and the consideration process outlined
in the historic policies, including demonstrating the comprehensive analysis that takes place and the
addition of an application fee and removal of unrealistic review timelines.
1 Request and process is the same for other City departments, but any agreement or conveyance that may be
executed is typically in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
NEXT STEPS
OSMP staff has the following anticipated timeline for working with the OSBT on these matters:
1. Staff has attached the draft “Process for Considering License and Disposal Requests Involving
Open Space Lands” as well as the 1995 Easement Request and 1985 Fence and Gate policies
for OSBT review.
2. Under Matters from the Department in August, staff will consider any input from the board on
the new process document.
3. In September, staff will provide OSBT with the final draft of the new process document and
under Actions in September, OSBT will be asked to repeal the existing policies via motion.
The new process document does not necessitate formal approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Process for Considering License and Disposal Requests Involving Open
Space Lands
• Attachment B: 1995 OSBT Easement Request Policy
• Attachment C: 1985 OSBT Fence and Gate Policy
This page is intentionally left blank.
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS DEPARTMENT
PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING LICENSE AND DISPOSAL
REQUESTS INVOLVING OPEN SPACE LANDS
Draft: July 2020
I. Background, Purpose and Guiding Principle
The City of Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department protects and
manages open space land for specific open space purposes as outlined in the City of Boulder
Charter (City Charter). Community support of OSMP depends upon the confidence the public
has in the Department’s ability and commitment to fulfilling the City Charter open space
purposes. The City Charter requires an extensive process before disposing of, or allowing use
of, open space land interests for other than City Charter-defined open space purposes.
Therefore, the use of, and disposals of, open space land interests are only granted in a manner
that is consistent with City Charter and the Boulder Revised Code (BRC) and after a thorough
review and approval process involving OSMP staff, the Open Space Board of Trustees
(OSBT), and when called for in the City Charter or the BRC, the City Council.
This document sets forth a general process framework that ensure license and disposal requests
are evaluated in a consistent, comprehensive, fair and transparent manner, while also revealing
that all requests are different due to the site and project elements and require individual
consideration. As defined in Article XII, Section 170 of the City Charter, "open space land"
means any interest in real property purchased or leased with the sales and use tax pledged to
the open space fund pursuant to the vote of the electorate on Nov. 7, 1967, or proceeds thereof,
any interest in real property dedicated to the city for open space purposes, and any interest in
real property that is ever placed under the direction, supervision, or control of the open space
department, unless disposed of as expressly provided in Section 177.
II. Authority
OSMP and OSBT’s authority related to licenses and disposals is granted by the following sections
of the City Charter, Article XII Open Space and the BRC:
Section 171 Functions of the department
(a) Shall acquire, supervise, administer, preserve, and maintain all open space land and
other property associated therewith and may grant nonexclusive licenses…; …
Section 175 Functions of the Board
(a) Shall make recommendations to the council concerning any proposed disposal of open
space lands pursuant to section 177; …
(h) Shall make recommendations concerning the grant or denial of any nonexclusive
license or permit in or on open space land; ….
Section 177 Disposal of open space land
No open space land owned by the city may be sold, leased, traded, or otherwise conveyed,
nor may any exclusive license or permit on such open space land be given, until approval
ATTACHMENT A
of such disposal by the city council. … This section shall not apply to agricultural leases
for crop or grazing purposes for a term of five years or less. …
BRC 8-8-11. Transfer of Open Space Lands
Any transfer of open space lands from the Open Space and Mountain Parks department to
any other department of the city will for the purpose of the Charter be made only after
compliance with the requirements of Section 177 of the Charter.
III. Consultation with OSMP Real Estate Services Staff
When OSMP is contacted by an outside party regarding a request for long-term use or possession
of open space land for non-open space purposes, OSMP Real Estate Services staff, working in
consultation with City Attorney’s Office, shall determine if a request ought to go through the
license or disposal application process. 1
A. A nonexclusive, revocable or term-limited license agreement is typically pursued for private
(or 3rd party) use of open space land where a permanent or possessory interest is not necessary
and where such use does not conflict with open space purposes. Examples may include but
are not limited to ditch/lateral crossings, neighborhood gates in OSMP fences, traffic signs,
and placement of removable infrastructure providing safety or stability benefits such as
guardrail anchors or guy wires. Licenses are personal to the licensee and therefore are not
assignable. If a proposed use requires exclusive use or is not term-limited or revocable, it
would likely be considered a disposal.
B. A disposal is typically pursued for permanent or possessory interests in open space land.
Examples may include but are not limited to ownership, utility and access easements and
additional use or development rights previously prohibited in dedicated open space
easements, conservation easements or development rights agreements.
IV. Request for Nonexclusive Licenses in or on Open Space Land
A. License Application Process
Nonexclusive license requests shall be considered by OSMP Real Estate Services staff only
after an applicant has completed the following steps:
1. Consulted with Real Estate Services staff member from OSMP to discuss the
general nature of the license request.
2. Received a copy of this Process document.
3. Submitted a complete application cover sheet, required documents and information
and a non-refundable administrative fee.2 Documents and information requested
by OSMP Real Estate Services staff may, without limitation, include:3
1 Request and process is the same for other City departments, but any agreement or conveyance that may be executed is
typically in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
2 Fee is waived for City of Boulder and Boulder County..
3 Any documents submitted as part of a license request will be retained by the City of Boulder in accordance with the Document
Retention Schedule and are a part of the public record, subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. §24-
72-201 to §24-72-309.
ATTACHMENT A
a. A statement describing the purpose and need for the license;
b. A description of alternatives (both locations and methods), if any, that
have been considered and why these alternatives are not being pursued;
c. The benefits to the applicant if the license request is approved;
d. Impacts to the applicant if the license request is denied;
e. Any benefits to open space lands if the license request is approved;
f. Any impacts to open space lands if the license request is approved;
g. Any benefits to OSMP programs or the general public if the license
request is approved;
h. Any impacts to OSMP programs or the general public if the license
request is approved;
i. A map showing the location and dimensions of the proposed license area
that may be used or impacted for the licensed use or infrastructure
(temporarily or for the term of the license), as well as a description of
any proposed infrastructure;
j. Map(s) showing the location of sensitive areas as defined by OSMP,
including, but not limited to wetlands and other critical habitat in the
proximity of the proposed license area. Map data and other available
information of sensitive areas may be provided by OSMP upon request;
and
k. Results of environmental and resource surveys required by OSMP staff.
B. License Request Consideration
Upon receipt of a complete License Request Application, the process for consideration of
the Application is as follows:
1. OSMP Staff Review and Recommendation: In accordance with Charter Section
171(c), after receipt of the completed Application, OSMP staff will review the
application and information received and may provide a staff recommendation
regarding the license request to the OSBT.
2. Consideration by the OSBT: After receipt of the completed Application, OSMP
staff will schedule the license request for consideration by the OSBT for the Board
to make a recommendation regarding the license request.
3. Departmental Action: After OSBT recommendation, the Department will
determine whether to grant the license.
Factors including, but not limited to the following may be considered as part of the cumulative
analysis in determining whether to recommend or grant a license request:
a. The purpose(s) for the license request;
b. Alternatives available to the applicant and the costs of such alternatives;
c. The degree to which the proposed license will impact the preservation,
maintenance, and/or use of open space land interests as defined in the City
Charter and Boulder Revised Code;
d. Whether the proposed use of the license area interferes with other open
space purposes described in the City Charter; and
e. Any benefits, including the delivery of community services, that will accrue
ATTACHMENT A
to the general public.
f. Input and recommendations from other agencies and/or other city
departments that may be benefitted or impacted.
g. The following specific factors will be considered with respect to requests
for installation of gates in OSMP fences to/from private land.
i. Whether gate placement is for the specific benefit of the private
property rather than for a broader public benefit.
ii. Whether the private property owner is willing to grant a public access
easement across private property from the gate to a public right of
way.
iii. Whether the access was identified for designation or establishment
through a land use or planning process which has been reviewed
and/or approved by the City.
OSMP grant of a license may be conditioned on the applicant’s acceptance of certain license
terms including, but not limited to:
a. The applicant paying all costs associated with license request (see fee
schedule);
b. The applicant furnishing a legal description and survey exhibit of the
license area prepared by a land surveyor registered in the State of
Colorado at the applicant's sole expense;
c. Restoration of the open space land impacted by activities associated with
the license to a condition acceptable to OSMP staff;
d. The applicant obtaining and maintaining in effect during the term of the
license, insurance to protect the City from risk of loss arising out of
licensee’s use of the property;
e. The applicant indemnifying and holding the City and its officials and
employees harmless for any losses, damages, claims, and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, incurred by the City as a result of a use of the
license area or the failure of the applicant to perform required maintenance
obligations;
f. Approval of any federal, state or local permits required or proof of
consultation with other regulatory agencies as requested by OSMP staff
at applicant’s sole expense. The costs of all permits, including
mitigation, will be borne by the applicant if the license request is
approved;
g. When a license request originates from, or is necessitated by, a land use
application to an agency with jurisdiction over land use, whether the
applicant has met all applicable land use requirements relating to the
license request as part of, or in addition to, the requirements contained in
this document; and
h. Any other requirements intended to minimize disturbance and ensure
preservation of open space land, including on- or off-site mitigation
requirements, and performance by the applicant of any obligation imposed
as a condition of the approval of the license request.
ATTACHMENT A
V. Request for Disposal of Open Space Land
A. Disposal Application Process
A Disposal Request will be considered only after applicant has:
1. Consulted a Real Estate Services staff member from OSMP to discuss the general
nature of the disposal request.
2. Received this Process document.
3. Submitted a completed application cover sheet, requested documents and
information and non-refundable administrative fee4. Documents and information
requested by OSMP Real Estate Services staff may, without limitation, include5:
a. A statement describing the purpose and need for the disposal;
b. A description of alternatives (both locations and methods), if any, that
have been considered and why these alternatives are not being pursued;
c. Impacts to the applicant if the disposal request is denied;
d. Any benefits to open space lands if the disposal request is approved;
e. Any impacts to open space lands if the disposal request is approved;
f. Any benefits to OSMP programs or the general public if the disposal
request is approved;
g. Any impacts to OSMP programs or the general public if the disposal
request is approved;
h. A map showing the location and dimensions of the proposed disposal and
the location and dimensions of areas, if any, that may be impacted
(temporarily or otherwise);
i. Map(s) showing the location of sensitive areas as may be provided by
OSMP, including, but not limited to wetlands and other critical habitat in
the proximity of the proposed disposal area; and
j. Land and resource valuation (by appraisal or other means approved by
OSMP staff) of the proposed open space land disposal.
B. Disposal Request Consideration Process
Upon receipt of all required information, the process for considering a disposal
request is as follows:
1. OSMP Staff Review and Recommendation: In accordance with Charter Section
171(c), after receipt of the disposal request, OSMP staff will review the application
and information received and may provide a staff recommendation regarding the
disposal request for consideration by OSBT.
2. Consideration by the OSBT: After receipt of the disposal request, OSMP staff
will schedule the request for consideration by the OSBT whether to approve and
recommend that City Council approve the disposal. The OSBT’s consideration
will include a public hearing and vote of the board. In accordance with the City
4
Fee is waived for City of Boulder and Boulder County applications.
5 Any documents submitted as part of a disposal request application will be retained by the City of Boulder in accordance with
the Document Retention Schedule and are a part of the public record, subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records
Act, C.R.S. sections §24-72-201 to §24-72-309.
ATTACHMENT A
Charter, an affirmative vote by no less than three members of the OSBT is required
to approve the disposal and to recommend to City Council that the disposal be
approved. If OSBT does not approve the disposal request, the request is denied and
will not move forward to City Council.
3. Consideration by Boulder City Council: If approved by OSBT and
recommended for approval by City Council, staff will schedule the request for
consideration by the City Council. Disposal of Open Space shall only be granted
with the approval of the City Council in accordance with City Charter and
Boulder Revised Code and after a public petition period. Pursuant to Section
177 “No open space land owned by the city shall be disposed of until sixty days
following the date of city council approval of such disposal. If, within such
sixty-day period, a petition meeting the requirements of [Charter] Section 45
above and signed by registered electors of the city to the number of at least five
percent of the registered electors of the city as of the day the petition is filed
with the city clerk, requesting that such disposal be submitted to a vote of the
electors, such disposal shall not become effective until the steps indicated in
[Charter] Sections 46 and 47 above have been followed.” If approved by City
Council and after this period passes without petition, the open space land
interest approved for disposal and the documents necessary to convey the land
interests approved for disposal can be routed for signature by OSMP Real Estate
Services staff.
OSMP staff, OSBT and City Council may consider factors including, but not limited to the
following as part of the cumulative analysis in determining whether to recommend and/or approve
the disposal request:
a. The purpose(s) for the disposal request;
b. Alternatives, including condemnation of city open space lands, available to
the applicant and the costs of such alternatives;
c. The degree to which the proposed disposal will impact the preservation,
maintenance, and/or use of Open Space land interests as defined in the City
Charter and Boulder Revised Code;
d. Whether the proposed use of the disposal area interferes with other Open
Space purposes described in the City Charter; and
e. Any benefits, including the delivery of community services, that will accrue
to the general public from the disposal.
The OSBT’s and City Council’s approval may be subject to conditions including, but not
limited to:
a. The applicant paying all costs associated with the open space land
interest to be conveyed and/or the improvements proposed to be made
as part of the disposal request;
b. The applicant furnishing a survey and legal description of the disposal
area prepared by a land surveyor registered in the State of Colorado at
the applicant's sole expense;
ATTACHMENT A
c. An agreement by the applicant that the open space land interest that is
the subject of the disposal will revert to the City if it is not used for the
purpose for which it was requested within a specific period of time; if
the use is abandoned; or if regulatory approval or permitting applicable
to the disposal is not obtained;
d. If applicable, restoration of the open space land impacted by activities
associated with the disposal to a condition acceptable to OSMP staff;
e. An agreement that the applicant indemnify and hold the City and its
officials and employees harmless for any losses, damages, claims, and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the City as a result of a
use of the disposal area or the failure of the applicant to perform
required maintenance obligations;
f. Compensation to the Open Space Fund. In determining compensation,
factors that may be considered include, without limitation:
i. The established value of the open space land disposal (as
determined by appraisal or other means approved by OSMP
staff, which could include a multiplier);
ii. The OSMP resource value of the disposal (determined by
OSMP staff or outside experts);
iii. Forms of compensation other than cash for the disposal; for
example, labor, materials or improvements to, restoration of or
exchange of other property;
iv. Any direct or indirect costs incurred by the City related to
considering the disposal request, including, but not limited to
staff time, recording fees and appraisals;
v. Anticipated OSMP staff time to monitor the project and
restoration of the lands associated with the disposal; and
vi. The value, to the applicant, of the disposal as compared to the
cost of alternatives that may exist.
g. Review and recommendations by other agencies and/or other city
departments if necessary or deemed appropriate;
h. When a disposal request originates from, or is necessitated by, a land
use application to an agency with jurisdiction over land use, whether
the applicant has met all applicable land use requirements relating to
the disposal request as part of, or in addition to, the requirements
contained in this document; and
i. Any other requirements intended to minimize disturbance and ensure
preservation of Open Space land, including on- or off-site mitigation,
and performance by the applicant of any obligation imposed as a
condition of the approval of the disposal request.
ATTACHMENT A
This page is intentionally left blank.
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SP ACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
POLICY FOR EASEMENT REQUESTS ON OPEN SPACE
Adopted November 13, 1985
Revised February 8, 1995
I. Introduction. The primary purpose of the Open Space Program is to preserve and protect Open
Space land for the benefit of the public. This Easement Request Policy is intended to reflect that
purpose and, therefore, does not favor allowing use of Open Space land for the financial benefit
or the private convenience of individual residents or land owners.
II. Application Process. An applicant for an easement on Open Space must submit the following
documents to the Department of Real Estate and Open Space at least 14 days prior to the Open
Space Board meeting at which consideration of the request is sought:
A. A statement outlining the use of the proposed easement, including type and dimensions of any
proposed improvements to be built within that easement;
B. A map showing the location and dimensions of the proposed easement and the location and
dimensions of any temporary easement required during construction;
C. A map showing the location of wetlands within the proposed easement, or any temporary
easement required for construction. In addition, wetlands within 50 feet of the proposed
easement and temporary construction easement must be shown on the map. The wetland
boundaries must be delineated by a qualified wetlands biologist using the methodology
detailed in the City of Boulder Land Use Code (9-12, B.R.C., 1981). If wetlands are located
in the proposed easement, temporary construction easement, or within 50 feet of either
easement, the applicant will consult with the City of Boulder Planning Department to
determine if a wetlands permit will be required for requested activities in the proposed
easement.
D. Plans for restoration of the easement area after construction, including a time frame therefore,
and any additional maintenance, such as watering and weed control during reestablishment
of vegetation, that will be provided by the easement holder;
E. A statement explaining the need for the easement, which includes the following information:
1. Alternative methods to achieve the purpose for which the easement is sought;
2. Alternative locations to an Open Space easement;
3. The cost to the applicant if the Open Space easement is granted;
4. The cost of alternative ·methods and locations; and
5. Any benefits perceived by the applicant to accrue to a broader group or to the public as a
whole by virtue of the granting of the requested easement; and
ATTACHMENT B
F. Any other items reasonably requested by the Director of Real Estate and Open Space, which
items may, without limitation, include:
1. Subdivision maps;
2.Surveys;
3. Topographic maps;
4. Illustrative slides; and
5. Engineering plans.
Any items submitted in an application may be retained by the City of Boulder.
III.Referral to the Open Space Board of Trustees. The application for an easement on Open Space
land will be referred to and considered by the Open Space Board of Trustees if the following
criteria have been met:
A.All required documents have been timely received; and
B. Based upon the uses for which the easement is requested, and the availability and cost of any
alternatives, the Open Space Board Chair and the Director of Real Estate and Open Space
agree that a sufficient need appears to exist for an easement across Open Space land. If the
Board chair and director do not agree that a sufficient need exists, the applicant may appeal
that decision to the Open Space Board of Trustees within thirty (30) days of the denial, and
the Open Space Board of Trustees must hear the matter at its first meeting thereafter. The
Open Space Board of Trustees shall also have the authority to call up an item for review.
IV.Consideration by the Open Space Board. The Open Space Board of Trustees will consider, at a
public meeting, all applications that meet the criteria in Section III. The Open Space Board will
consider the following factors in determining whether or not to recommend to City Council that
an easement should be granted:
A. Whether a sufficient need for the easement exists. In determining that such need exists, the
Board will consider, without limitation, any alternatives available to the applicant, the cost of
such alternatives, and the purposes for which the easement is requested;
B. The degree to which the proposed easement will change the appearance and condition of the
Open Space land;
C. Whether the proposed use of the easement interferes with use of the land for Open Space
purposes; and
D. Whether the proposed use of the easement is consistent with the goals of the Open Space
Program as set forth in section 2-3-9(c), B.R.C. 1981.
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
D. An agreement by the applicant that the easement will revert to the City if it is not used for the
purpose for which it was requested within a reasonable period of time, or if the use of the
easement is abandoned;
E.Restoration of the Open Space property to a condition at least as good as prior to any
disturbance by the grantee of the easement. The restoration must include, without limitation,
reseeding, revegetation, and restoration of any existing improvements, such as fences. All
restoration work must be to a standard and within a time frame acceptable to the City Open
Space staff. The requirement of restoration will apply to any reentry by the applicant into the
easement area for maintenance, reconstruction, or other activities;
F. Requirement that the applicant shall indemnify and hold the City harmless for any losses,
claims, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the City as a result of a use of the
easement or the failure of the applicant to perform required maintenance obligations; and
G. Approval of a wetland permit if needed in accordance with the City of Boulder wetlands
protection ordinance (9-12, B.R.C., 1981), and Section III.C. of this policy.
VII.City Council Approval Required. No easement on Open Space may be granted without the
approval of the Boulder City Council. Therefore, a recommendation for approval by the Open
Space Board will always be referred to the City Council for further action
VIII.Developer Requests/Development Review Committee. When an easement request originates in
a proposal submitted to the City's Development Review Committee, or when a development
request requires Development Review Committee consideration, all City departmental
requirements relating to the easement request must be met as part of, or in addition to, the
requirements contained in this Policy.
IX.Staff requests that the Open Space Board of Trustees may require reimbursement for staff time that
occurs on all projects and that reimbursement shall be a minimum of $250.00 or the actual costs
incurred by the Open Space staff or any other City employees who are involved in such project.
ATTACHMENT B
This policy was adopted by the Open Space Board of Trustees, October 23, 1985.
Fences
Fencing of Open Space property is encouraged in order to accomplish several goals,
including boundary definition, ease of agricultural management, protection of land
from encroachment by private improvements, unauthorized vehicles and other uses
not in conformance with City code and Open Space land management goals and
procedures. In addition, fencing will serve to discourage encroachment on adjacent
private property by the public.
Fencing design and placement will promote existing and proposed uses of Open
Space parcels, such as grazing, haying, floodways, ditches, riparian areas,
environmental preservation, and other Open Space uses. A proliferation of fences is
not desirable, and fences will be installed within Open Space only when and where
necessary.
Gates
1.The purpose of pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle access gates is to focus user
access points at major trail access points rather than at multiple entry points. This
focus is recommended in order to:
a.Reduce multiple trails across Open Space areas.
b.Decrease erosion and “spider web” trails.
c.Decrease number of routine patrol and safety checks.
d.Reduce trespass of Open Space users onto private property.
e.Delineate access points to Open Space.
f.Reduce the number of casual refuse disposal areas on Open Space property.
2.Gates from Open Space to private land are not encouraged. The following factors
will be considered with respect to requests for installation of gates to private land.
a.Whether gate placement is for the specific benefit of the private citizen rather
than for the broader public benefit.
b.Whether the private property owner is willing to grant a public access
easement across private property from the gate to the public right of way.
c.Whether the access was created by a subdivision which has been reviewed
and/or approved by the City.
ATTACHMENT C
3.Existing gates misused for such purposes as trash disposal, vehicular access, or
unauthorized grazing will be removed. Gates where historic use has resulted in
erosion or other damage to the resource will be considered for removal.
4.All new gates which permit access onto Open Space must be accessible for the
disabled, i.e., of sufficient width to allow wheelchair access. This provision may
be waived in areas where wheelchair access is physically impossible.
5.Vehicular access gates may be installed and maintained for authorized
maintenance, patrol, forestry management, emergency access and agricultural and
land management. Use will be limited as further described in the motorized use
section of the trails policy.
6.All gates authorized by the staff or the Board of Trustees will be granted on a
revocable permit basis. Permits can be revoked for misuse as described in
sections 1 and 3. The permits will be administered by the Open Space staff or
Park Rangers.
7.Any requests that are denied by staff may be appealed to the Trails Committee
and the Open Space Board of Trustees or Parks Board.
Staff will continue to monitor gates and install or close gates in conformance with the
goals of the trails plan and land preservation and agricultural management
procedures.
ATTACHMENT C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
John Potter, Resource & Stewardship Manager
Deonne VanderWoude, Human Dimensions Supervisor
Anna Reed, Human Dimensions Analyst
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: Written Information: Quantifying Parking at OSMP-Managed Trailheads Project Update
________________________________________________________________________
Background
Human Dimensions staff has recently completed data collection for the initial phase of a two-phase study
designed to better understand parking use at OSMP-managed trailheads. Prior to this effort, a systematic,
system-wide parking study has never before been conducted. Parking and congestion emerged as
management issues in the 2005 Visitor Master Plan, and more recently were confirmed by the OSMP
Master Plan and reinforced particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Areas of concern include
congestion, safety, parking availability and equity, increased visitor use, and social/ecological capacity. In
addition to supporting other departmental efforts (e.g., infrastructure provision and design, maintenance
operations, ranger patrols), this study will contribute to Master Plan strategy RRSE.1) ASSESS AND
MANAGE INCREASING VISITATION (Tier 1) and RRSE.4 ENCOURAGE MULTIMODAL
ACCESS TO TRAILHEADS (Tier 2) by providing baseline data that should help the department make
data-informed management decisions.
Methods Overview
The purpose of Phase 1 is to collect baseline data on the number of vehicles parked at 34 OSMP-managed
trailheads (Fourth of July trailhead excluded). Data collection began in June 2019 and finished at the end
of May 2020. Staff are reviewing data quality and analyzing results, and a summary report is expected to
be completed by October 2020.
A mixed-methods approach was used to accommodate the various shapes and sizes of OSMP-managed
trailheads. This consisted of a combination of vehicle counters (inductive loop and pneumatic tube), trail
counters, field cameras, and direct observation. A summary of the different methods used, and the types
of data collected is outlined below:
• Inductive loop vehicle counters are best used at trailheads that have a relatively long natural
surface entrance (like a driveway) that cars are unlikely to stop on. These units count the number
of vehicles passing over the buried loops and their direction of travel. Through this method staff
can estimate how frequently the parking lot reaches capacity and the percent utilization by hour.
Used for example at South Mesa and Boulder Valley Ranch.
• Pneumatic tube vehicle counters are best used on relatively long asphalt surfaces. These units
count the vehicles passing over them and the direction of travel. Through this method staff can
estimate how frequently the lot reaches capacity and the percent utilization by hour for the length
of time they are installed. Used for example at Flagstaff Summit and Four Mile Creek.
• Trail counters are best used at sites where installing a vehicle counter is not feasible. Parking data
is obtained by pairing trail count data with observed vehicle counts. Through this method staff
Written Information - Item C - Page 1