03.11.26 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
March 11, 2026
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:00) Call to Order and Roll Call
II. (6:03) Approval of the Minutes
III. (6:08) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
IV. (6:25) Matters from the Board
A. Trustee Questions Or discussion on Written Information Memos or
public comment (15 min)
B. Outgoing Trustee recognition (10 min)
V. (6:50) Matters from the Department
A. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update (60 min)
B. Update to City Manager Rule 8-3-3.G(03) to allow for precautionary
landing for paragliders and hang gliders (25 min)
C. Update on the Chautauqua Ranger Cottage and Trailhead Improvement
project (25 min)
D. Director Updates (5 min)
VI. (8:45) Adjourn
Written Information Items:
A. Open Space and Mountain Parks Multimodal Assessment
Open Space Board of Trustees
Members:
Michelle Estrella
(2021-2026)
Jon Carroll
(2022-2027)
Brady Robinson
(2023-2028)
Sarah Glynn
(2024-2029)
Harmon Zuckerman
(2025-2030)
Open Space Board of Trustees
*TENTATIVE Board Items Calendar
(Updated February 26, 2026)
April 8, 2026 May 13, 2026 June 10, 2026
Matters from the Board:
• Welcome and swearing in of
new Trustee (5 min)
• OSBT Officer Elections (10
min)
• Trustee Questions Or discussion
on Written Information Memos
or public comment (10 min)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Volunteerism Program Update
and Proclamation (25 min)
• Fort Chambers - Poor Farm
Concept Plan Implementation
Update and Board input (45 min)
• Information and update on a
proposed sale of an OSMP-
managed residence subject to a
conservation easement over the
property (40 min)
• Wildfire Resilience Program
Update (35 min)
• Director Verbal Updates (5 min)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee Questions Or
discussion on Written
Information Memos or public
comment (10 min)
Action Items:
• Recommendation pertaining to
the open space related elements
of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (45 min)
Matters from the Department:
• Boulder Open Space
Conservancy Annual Update
(25 min)
• Soil Health Program Update
(40 min)
• Flagstaff Mtn Corridor
Operations and Management
Project Update (20 min)
• Trailhead Capital Projects
Update (25 Min)
• Director Verbal Updates (5
min)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee Questions Or
discussion on Written
Information Memos or public
comment (15 min)
Action Items:
• Consideration and
recommendation of the sale of
an OSMP-managed residence
pursuant to the disposal
procedures of Article XII,
Section 177 of the City of
Boulder Charter (35 min)
Matters from the Department:
• Update on city Strategic Plan
7.C: Identify and implement
key trail connections and access
improvements to open space
areas throughout the city that
encourage multimodal options
for access: receive board input
on Assessment & Preliminary
Opportunities/Strategies (70
min)
• 2027 OSMP Budget Touch #2
(45 min)
• Director Verbal Updates (5
min)
*All items are subject to change. A final version of the agenda is posted on the webpage the week of the OSBT meeting.
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date February 11, 2026
Record of this meeting can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-
meetings (video start times are listed below next to each agenda item).
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Harmon Zuckerman, Chair
Jon Carroll, Vice Chair
Michelle Estrella
Brady Robinson
Sarah Glynn
OSMP STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Jeff Haley Jennelle Freeston Brian Anacker Heather Swanson
Sam McQueen Leah Russell Brian Lieberman Ann Lezberg Rob Hill
Andy Pelster Bethany Collins
GUESTS
Dr. Katharine Suding (Distinguished Professor of Ecology, University of Colorado)
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Approval of the Minutes (00:53)
Michelle Estrella moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to approve the December 10, 2025 minutes.
Brady Robinson seconded. This motion passed three to zero; Sarah Glynn and Jon Carroll abstained as
they were absent at the December meeting.
Jon Carroll moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to approve the January 14, 2026 minutes as
amended. Michelle Estrella seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Brady Robinson abstained as he
was absent at the January meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (3:50)
Elizabeth Black spoke about prairie dogs and shared a handout on prairie dog removal over the years,
showing cost per acre for relocation versus Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Control (PERC).
Karen Hollweg spoke about the proposed disposal of the Hodges property. She asked why the reasons for
acquisition in the first place should not be upheld. She said there are lots of historical and natural
resources value on this land. She asked for more questions to be asked and more research to be done
before this is considered any further.
Lindsey Sterling Krank spoke about prairie dogs and PERC. She said she feels strongly about preserving
our wildlife and the killing of prairie dogs is upsetting. Staff in the past were able to manage prairie dogs
successfully without lethal management and would like to go back to that practice.
Paula Shuler (pooled time with Joel Schaap) spoke about how dry it is on the front range. She said our ice
and snowpack are critically low which our irrigation systems depend on. In regard to prairie dogs, this
will mean another dry year and likely massive expansion.
Lynn Segal said the prairie dogs wouldn’t want to be killed. There is not enough open space for all the
population that we are bringing in.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board (26:07)
The board asked about the written information item on the Proposed Disposal of the Hodges Property. Jon
said the memo seems to imply there is a Conservation Easement (CE) and asked if there are more details
on what that might look like. Dan said this will come back in March to the board with more information
as well as board deliberation. Jon asked about the residence and if that will remain or if it will be carved
out of the CE. Harmon asked if we should be considering a disposal before a buyer is found. Dan said this
is typically how this process is handled as it needs to be approved before the selling process can move
forward.
The board spoke about prairie dogs and the public comments in regard to lethal control. The board
additionally talked about the rules of decorum and what their options are if a speaker violates these rules.
AGENDA ITEM 7 – Matters from the Department
Heather Swanson, Deputy Director, Eric Fairlee, Agricultural Land Restoration Manager, and
Brian Lieberman, Ecological Stewardship Senior Manager, presented the “2025 Annual Prairie
Dog Update and 2026 Management Plans” (48:00)
The board asked about the moratorium on lethal control of prairie dogs. Eric said staff will use limited
PERC on areas where there have been previous removals. The board asked about lessons learned and if
management without lethal control is possible. Jon asked why staff would vaccinate prairie dogs against
plague. Brian said if plague does come through it usually causes full mortality. The board asked about
relocating all to sites such as Pueblo. Brian said this is very expensive and time sensitive; receiving sites
may also become full.
Ann Lezberg, Senior Ecologist, Dr. Katharine Suding (Distinguished Professor of Ecology,
University of Colorado), presented the “Funded Research Program Update and Research
Spotlight” (1:35:00)
The board asked clarifying questions, and had a robust conversation with Ann and Katie that included the
following:
Sarah asked about prairie dogs and grassland fire risk. Katie said prairie dogs eat lots of vegetation and
fire doesn’t carry as well over barren vegetation. Katie said they find that high risk areas are exotic
grasslands (not necessarily native); smooth brome is a common grassland in agricultural land that is very
flammable and has high fuel loads. Brady asked what the limiting factors are in the communication of
research, and management actions informed by that research. Katie said she doesn’t feel like there is a
reluctance or unwillingness to share, there is just a lot more to figure out. She said in regard to prescribed
burns, the data being collected shows how effective this can be in lowering risk of fire which will be a
great tool in communicating to the public. The board and Katie additionally discussed the other forms of
fire mitigation, effectiveness, and ongoing research and discussions.
Dan said more can be brought to the board in April with the next conversation about wildfire resilience
and prescribed burns.
Sam McQueen, Business Services Senior Manager, presented the “High-Level Strategic Guidance
Informing Annual Budget and Work Plan Development” (2:23:00)
The board responded to the staff proposed questions, “of all the connections into the citywide strategic
plan, including its strategies and priority actions, what areas do you want to see or learn more about?”,
and “do you have any questions regarding the proposed 2027 budget planning timeline?”
Brady said he was pleased to see financial information being included now in all reports brought to the
board. He said cost allocation continues to be a concern and would like to see more about priorities and
staff thinking on how to make cuts. He additionally asked how many months staff take off from budget
work. He suggested an Adjustment to Base (ATB) with changing the cycle so staff can take a break and
do this work more efficiently.
Director Updates
Dan Burke gave an update on several upcoming trailhead closures.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:47
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Russell.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space & Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Central Services Deputy Director, Open Space &
Mountain Parks
Kacey French, Planning Senior Manager, Open Space & Mountain Parks
Joshua Schnabel, Planner Principal, Open Space & Mountain Parks
Bethany Collins, Real Estate Services Senior Manager, Open Space &
Mountain Parks
Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager, Planning and
Development Services
Sarah Horn, City Planner Senior, Planning and Development Services
DATE: March 11, 2025
SUBJECT: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update
________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with
an update regarding the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP,
Comprehensive Plan or Plan). The Comprehensive Plan is a document that identifies the Boulder
Valley’s long-term vision and sets policy intended to move the community toward that vision.
The Comprehensive Plan also guides land management and community change within the
Boulder Valley by setting expectations through policies and the Future Land Use Map.
The city and county are currently engaged in a major update to the Plan. This is the eighth
major update of the Plan since it was adopted around 50 years ago. Major updates provide the
community with an opportunity to adjust the Plan to reflect changing community values and
needs, address current challenges and proactively plan for the future.
A preliminary draft of the Plan was posted for public comment on March 3. The public
engagement window will close on April 6.
Open Space and Mountain Parks Role in the Comprehensive Plan
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is jointly adopted by the City of Boulder (“city”)
Planning Board and City Council and Boulder County (“county”) Board of County Commissioners
and Planning Commission. While the OSBT is not responsible for approving the plan policies or
other elements of the Plan, staff welcomes input from the board about relevant areas of the
Plan. Additionally, the City Charter states in Section 175(e) that OSBT “Shall review the open
space elements of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations
Agenda Item 5A Page 1
concerning any open space-related changes to the plan.” This is relevant to the open space-
related land use designations (including the Future Land Use Map), regional trail connections,
and open space-related policies. OSMP staff have been part of a city team, led by staff from the
city’s Planning and Development department, in the Plan update process.
Board and Community Input
Staff sought feedback and input from OSBT on Sept. 10, 2025, regarding the draft policies and
proposed land use designations at that time. The planning team considered the board’s
feedback to inform the draft plan.
A preliminary draft of the Plan was posted for public comment on March 3. The public
engagement window will close on April 6.
Policy Revisions
The comprehensive policies in the BVCP provide guidance and direction for achieving the Plan’s
vision. The current BVCP (which was a mid-term update adopted in 2021) contains 210 policies
addressing a wide range of topics and community services. The updated Plan will include
approximately 100 policies. The overall intent of the policy statements is for them to serve as
general guidance, and they are intended to be aspirational and indicate how the community
would like to evolve over the next 20 years. Policies are not intended to provide
implementation-level details.
A selection of policies from the draft BVCP with relevance to Open Space is provided in
Appendix A. OSMP staff have reviewed multiple rounds of the draft policy language and offered
suggestions for revisions which have been incorporated in the draft plan. OSMP staff input on
the draft policy language was provided to ensure that the policies were aligned with Open
Space charter purposes and accurately reflected the management responsibilities of the
department. Feedback received during the OSBT meeting on September 10, 2025, was also
incorporated.
Trails Map/Regional Connections
The BVCP Trails Map, which appears on page 154 of the current BVCP, provides a
comprehensive guide for existing and proposed trails and trail connections for the entire
Boulder Valley. The map has been used to guide ongoing and future regional planning efforts.
However, the existing Trails Map depicts a granular level of detail (e.g., the full range of OSMP
trail categories and system reroutes is shown), and simplification of the map is warranted to
have the map better reflect general guidance and aspirations. There was also a desire to include
collaborative multi-modal / transportation corridors in the BVCP. Appendix B contains the
proposed “Regional Connections” section of the BVCP intended to replace the previous Trails
Map. We are continuing to work with our county colleagues to determine the best way to
represent our shared interest in regional trail and transportation connections.
Agenda Item 5A Page 2
Land Use Designations (“Open Space” Land Use Designation)
Background
The current Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map includes three Open Space land use
categories (which can also be found starting on page 104 of the Comprehensive Plan):
•Open Space – Acquired (OS-A); this applies to land already acquired by the City or
Boulder County for Open Space purposes.
•Open Space – Development Rights (OS-DR); this applies to privately owned land with
existing conservation easements or other development restrictions.
•Open Space – Other (OS-O); this applies to other public and private land designated prior
to 1981 that the city and county would like to preserve through various preservation
methods, including but not limited to intergovernmental agreements, dedications or
acquisitions. By itself, this designation does not ensure open space protection. See
Appendix C for more details on the history of OS-O, including why the current OS-O
designation has created confusion in the community.
Prior Proposal for the BVCP 2025 Major Update
When the OSBT was last updated on this topic on September 10, 2025, the preliminary
approach being proposed at the time involved:
•The current OS-A designation would become part of the land use designation titled
“Open Space” (losing the term “Acquired”) to speak to the future vision and use of
these lands as described by the Charter, removing the focus on ownership.
•The current OS-DR and OS-O designations would be consolidated into a “natural
systems overlay” that would be used during development review. The overlay would
not be a land use designation itself; instead, the land would have an underlying
designation similar to all other privately owned lands in the plan (e.g. Rural Lands,
Neighborhood or Industrial), and this overlay would be placed on top to indicate that,
as its name suggests, the land contains some natural or open space value or ownership
interest and should be reviewed by open space staff.
Current Proposal
The revised approach that is now being proposed is described below.
•The current OS-A designation would remain the same as proposed previously. It would
become part of the land use designation titled “Open Space” (losing the term
“Acquired”) to speak to the future vision and use of these lands as described by the
Charter, removing the focus on ownership.
•Features with the OS-DR classification would be added to the new Open Space land use
designation. Additionally, all parcels that have an OS-DR designation would be given a
property tag in the city’s database to identify them as properties with existing city
ownership interests or contractual obligations—such as legal agreements that pertain to
management or annexation. This process improvement would ensure those parcels are
properly identified during development review.
Agenda Item 5A Page 3
• The OS-O layer would be removed except for the few instances where OS-O polygons are
representative of current acquisitions or existing contractual obligations—such as legal
agreements that pertain to management or annexation—in which case they would
become part of the new Open Space land use designation.
Rationale for Revised Approach to OS-O
One of the first steps taken to consolidate the current OS-O and OS-DR designations into a
“natural systems overlay” was to attempt clean-up of the existing OS-O layer. Taking a
systematic parcel-by-parcel approach to the clean-up task revealed that the OS-O layer was
composed almost entirely of features that could be classified into one of the following
categories:
• Polygons that closely align with ditches, tributaries, or other bodies of water for which
comprehensive protections already exist. Because these features already receive adequate
protection during development review, the OS-O designation is not needed.
• Areas that do not contain open space values. This was evident in the majority of cases. This
could be due to:
o Leftover fragments remaining in the OS-O layer following acquisition of lands for
open space purposes. These fragments occur adjacent to acquisitions and have not
been removed as part of ongoing data stewardship. In fact, the presence of these
fragments can be taken as evidence that the data layer has served its intended
purpose.
o Artefacts of OS-O polygons that were digitized into the data layer prior to year 2000
and which do not accurately reflect current underlying land use or open space
attributes. In these cases, whether they originally contained open space or natural
resource values, there are currently either none at all or they are hard to define
because the properties within the polygons have largely been developed.
• Areas with likely open space or natural resource values but where those values aren’t
reliably or comprehensively identified. These OS-O polygons are located primarily in
unincorporated areas of Boulder County. In these cases, it was determined through inter-
agency review and discussion that the Environmental Resources maps contained in the
Boulder County Comprehensive Plan adequately identify and protect lands with natural
resource values. These maps guide land use and related decision making in unincorporated
Boulder County. To verify that the city would have the opportunity to comment on any
proposed development on city-owned lands in unincorporated Boulder County currently
identified as OS-O, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether development review
would be triggered based on a 0.5-mile buffer distance from county-owned parcels. The
findings concluded that city-owned lands containing OS-O are all within the 0.5-mile buffer
distance and would thus automatically receive appropriate notice by the county during
development review. In other words, the county’s process would already adequately notify
OSMP during reviews for OS-O lands in unincorporated Boulder County. The OS-O
designation adds no additional protection.
Agenda Item 5A Page 4
In summary, upon close inspection of the data, it became clear that the OS-O data layer adds no
additional protection and does not help in understanding where open space values exist within
the Boulder Valley. Moreover, retaining the OS-O layer would continue to cause confusion and
misunderstanding as to its intended function.
Land Use Designations (“Greenways” Designation)
A new land use designation of “Greenways” is being proposed for this major update to the
BVCP. The new Greenways designation, as its definition currently states, will apply to “areas
adjacent to natural urban waterways within city limits, including Boulder Creek and tributary
streams, that serve one or more of the following functions: to help manage and mitigate
flooding; to support multifunctional landscapes and ecosystem services; and to protect cultural
resources.” Greenways may also offer recreation and active transportation amenities; however,
the designation itself does not imply access, and open space charter purposes still apply to
open space managed lands with this designation.
Open Space Land is identified as a primary component of this land use designation, and the
Greenways designation overlaps several open space areas. In those cases where there is
overlap, the Greenways designation will apply for the purpose of illustrating the system-wide
connectivity of greenways, but charter open space purposes still apply.
NEXT STEPS
The public review period for the draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan will end on April 6.
More information about the draft Plan can be found on the project website, aboulderfuture.org.
Other major upcoming milestones include:
1) March 26th – City Council Joint Study Session with Planning Board
a. Review of Draft Plan and Future Land Use Map
2) April 13th – Four-Body Policy Maker Meeting
a. The BVCP comprehensive planning core team will hold a meeting with the
four voting bodies to discuss city/county policies in the public review draft
and feedback from the community
3) May 13th – OSBT Meeting
a. OSBT will be requested to provide a recommendation to council on the open
space related elements of the plan
4) June 4th – City Council Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
a. Review of Final Plan and Land Use Map
5) June 16th – Planning Board Continued Hearing
a. Deliberate and vote on Final Plan and Land Use Map
6) June 25th – City Council Continued Hearing
a. Deliberate and vote on Final Plan and Land Use Map
Agenda Item 5A Page 5
Appendix A. Selected BVCP Policies with Relevance to Open Space
Disclaimer: Due to memo deadlines, these policies were included prior to finalization of the
public review draft. Some minor edits and text revisions are likely.
2. City and County Collaboration
The city and county will collaborate to implement shared goals as described in this plan and
other respective adopted policies and plans.
5. Boulder Valley Planning Areas
The city and county establish the joint vision for urban growth within the Boulder Valley through
a framework of defined Planning Areas:
a) Area 1-Urban Lands – refers to land within the City of Boulder that is expected to be
served by the full range of urban facilities and services and where new urban
development can occur.
b) Area 1-Open Lands – refers to publicly owned land within the City of Boulder where new
urban development is not supported by the plan and is intended to remain rural in
character. Limited facilities and services may be provided if consistent with the goals and
policies of this plan.
c) Area 2-Urban Edge – refers to unincorporated Boulder County lands where annexation
to the city is supported the plan. New urban development is not supported and the full
range of urban services will not be provided by the city. Limited facilities and services
may be provided if consistent with the goals and policies of this plan.
d) Area 3-Rural Preservation – refers to land within unincorporated Boulder County that is
intended to remain rural in character. This area will not be served by urban facilities and
services and annexation is not supported except in limited circumstances as described
by this plan.
e) Area 3-Planning Reserve – refers to land within unincorporated Boulder County that may
be considered for future expansion of the Service Area per the goals, policies, and
procedures of this plan. The Service Area is defined as Area I-Urban Lands and Area 2-
Limited Service.
19. Land Use Regulations Compliance
The city and county abide by existing applicable land use regulations, where reasonably
practicable, when owning and operating public facilities in the other’s jurisdiction.
22. Open Space Preservation and Stewardship
Agenda Item 5A Page 6
The city and county preserve lands with open space value by purchasing or accepting donations
of fee simple interests, conservation easements or development rights and other measures as
appropriate and financially feasible.
23. Rural Land Preservation
The city and county support the preservation of rural land uses and character in the Boulder
Valley where environmentally sensitive areas, hazard areas, agriculturally significant lands,
vistas, significant historic resources and established rural residential areas exist.
30. Natural Urban Infrastructure
The city promotes and maintains a network of high-quality natural infrastructure including
waterways, open lands, parks, urban tree canopy, and plant and habitat corridors to integrate
environmental, social, health and recreation functions.
31. Historic and Cultural Resources Preservation
The city and county work to protect significant historic and cultural resources through formal
designation. This includes the designation of additional historic districts and individual
landmarks and the evaluation and protection of publicly owned properties that are eligible due
to their historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. The city and county
encourage the identification, designation and protection of archaeological resources and
cultural landscapes.
32. Ecosystem Protection and Management
The city and county sustain healthy ecosystems by integrating ecological values into planning
and land management. Efforts will prioritize conserving and managing lands with significant
ecological value to maintain ecological functions and biodiversity. The city recognizes that active
and intentional restoration and management of lands with potential ecological value can result
in significant future benefits to the Boulder Valley.
33. Wetland and Riparian Protection
The city and county recognize wetlands and riparian areas as vital ecological and community
assets. The city and county have programs that identify, improve, restore and protect the value
of wetlands and riparian areas in the Boulder Valley. The city strives for no net loss of wetlands
and riparian areas in the Boulder Valley by discouraging their destruction or requiring the
creation and restoration of high-quality wetland and riparian areas in the rare cases when
development is permitted and the filling of wetlands or destruction of riparian areas cannot be
avoided.
34. Climate Action
Agenda Item 5A Page 7
The city and county prioritize climate resilience and adaptation while preparing people,
infrastructure and natural systems for changing conditions. The city will advance equity and
climate justice by prioritizing support for those most affected by climate impacts.
35. Environmental Design
The city and county plan and design buildings, facilities and infrastructure to integrate nature-
based solutions and natural infrastructure that enhance natural systems, increase biodiversity,
increase resilience to wildfire, reduce urban heat, improve water use efficiency and manage
stormwater.
36. Boulder Valley Biodiversity
The city recognizes that community well-being and environmental health are interdependent.
The city considers the protection and enhancement of biodiversity in decision-making, ensuring
that future policies, programs and projects contribute to the long-term health and resilience of
both native local ecosystems and urban settings that may benefit from a diversity of both native
and non-native species.
38. Stormwater & Drainageways Integrated Management
The city manages stormwater and flood risk through a comprehensive approach that
emphasizes site-level drainage practices and the safe conveyance of flows through Boulder
Creek and its tributaries. Urban development incorporates stormwater practices, such as
natural infrastructure, that slow, store, and treat runoff at the source.
39. Greenway Preservation and Management
The city preserves and manages greenways to manage and mitigate flooding, support
multifunctional landscapes and ecosystem services, protect cultural resources and offer
recreation and active transportation amenities.
40. Nature-Based Urban Cooling and Heat Management
The city enhances and maintains tree canopy, healthy vegetation, and other cooling strategies
to reduce the impacts of extreme heat. Efforts to improve or increase cooling and heat
management strategies will prioritize vulnerable populations while balancing the need for
wildfire risk reduction and water conservation.
41. Water Quality Protection and Improvement
The city and county protects and improves water quality within the Boulder Creek Watershed.
Both entities prioritize source water protection and watershed planning efforts to protect creeks
and reservoirs for drinking water, aquatic life and recreation. The city will pursue wastewater
Agenda Item 5A Page 8
treatment processes to achieve water quality improvements, energy efficiencies and resource
recovery, including biosolids reuse.
42. Water Resources Planning
City water resource planning efforts consider climate change, are regional in nature, and use a
variety of strategies, including water conservation, infrastructure improvements, water leasing
and water acquisition, to meet municipal and open space water resources and agricultural
goals. The city seeks to achieve the water supply reliability criteria through water supply and
demand management while balancing in-stream flow maintenance and preservation of
sustainable agriculture. The city and county seek to minimize or mitigate the environmental,
agricultural and economic impacts of any necessary water rights acquisitions, including avoiding
the permanent removal of land from agricultural production.
43. Invasive Species Management
The city and county work to prevent and manage the introduction and spread of invasive plant
and animal species that pose a risk to native species/communities, public health and/or
ecosystem health. Management strategies are chosen that minimize impacts on human health,
the environment, and non-target organisms, and protect overall biodiversity and ecosystem
health. The city uses integrated pest management and other best practices to protect
biodiversity and deliver critical ecosystem services while balancing ecological integrity with
human safety and community needs.
44. Urban Wildlife – Human Conflicts Management
The city and county, in partnership with state and federal agencies, promote wildlife and land
use management practices that minimize human conflicts with wildlife while conserving,
restoring, and connecting habitat in urban areas. When a wildlife species is identified as a
nuisance or public health concern, the city and county, in partnership with state and federal
agencies, will use a range of humane, effective, cost-conscious, and ecologically responsible
management approaches.
45. Consideration of Hazards
The city and county consider hazards that present a danger to life and property like flood,
wildfire, steep slopes, erosion, unstable soil, subsidence or similar geological development
constraints when analyzing proposals for development. The city carefully manages urban
development and redevelopment in these areas to mitigate risks and avoid hazards to the
extent practicable.
46. Floodplain Management
Agenda Item 5A Page 9
The city and county protect people and property from the impacts of flooding, through
implementation of high priority flood mitigation projects, while considering equity, ecosystem
impacts and climate change, and through outreach and education to improve community
preparedness. To protect the natural functions of floodplains, they will be preserved or restored
where feasible, and major drainageways will be appropriately maintained. Infrastructure in the
floodplain will be made more resilient to climate change.
47. Air Quality Protection
The city and county seek to reduce emissions and improve both indoor and outdoor air quality
to protect public health, enhance community well-being, and support climate goals. Actions will
include local and regional strategies to address everyday pollutants as well as acute risks such as
wildfire smoke.
48. Fossil Fuel Consumption & GHG Emissions Reduction
The city and county innovate and will act to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions to improve public health, strengthen community resilience and meet climate goals.
The city is advancing renewable energy generation and efficiency, sustainable transportation,
sustainable land management and land planning practices that lower carbon emissions while
supporting equity and economic vitality.
61. Visitor Economy
The city supports a visitor economy that contributes to Boulder’s vitality while ensuring that
benefits flow back to the community. The city will balance the positive impacts of tourism with
potential challenges, emphasizing local business support, workforce opportunities, natural
resource protection, and long-term economic resilience.
87. Hazard Safety
The city and county work together to prepare for, respond to and manage hazards to reduce or
eliminate risk to people and property. Following disruptions, the city and county facilitate a
supportive and efficient response and recovery.
88. Fire Adapted Communities
The city and county are committed to creating and sustaining a fire adapted community through
a coordinated, region-wide approach to wildfire resilience and prevention throughout the
Boulder Valley. Strategies will address the full spectrum of wildfire risk while enhancing public
safety, promoting equitable protection and supporting efficient and effective response and
recovery.
91. Nature Everywhere
Agenda Item 5A Page 10
The city supports the creation and care of natural places throughout the community that offer
equitable access for community members to live, learn, and play within a natural environment.
92. Trail and Path Networks
The city and county work to connect trail and path systems and expand connections to adjacent
systems to further regional connectivity. The city and county coordinate with each other, other
providers and private landowners in trail and path system planning, design, construction,
management, maintenance, and programming. Trail and path connections will be developed to
enhance local access and overall functioning of the network.
93. Local Food Production and Access
The city and county support farms, businesses, nonprofits, and programs throughout the region
that grow, produce, process, and sell fresh local food and facilitate greater community access to
these products.
94. Urban Agriculture
The city supports urban agriculture in community and private spaces, including greenhouses, to
increase food security, extend growing capacity in Boulder’s climate, and promote equitable
access to healthy, locally grown foods.
95. Infrastructure for Local Food Systems
The city supports expanding opportunities for facilities that sustain the local food system,
including cold storage, processing, greenhouses, commercial kitchens and retail sites. The city
and county encourage improvements to irrigation ditch infrastructure, including water use
efficiency to support local agriculture.
96. Sustainable and Regenerative Agricultural Practices
The city and county support and promote sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices on
publicly-owned lands and encourage such practices on private lands to maintain the long-term
viability of farms and ranches in the Boulder Valley. The city and county will foster collaboration
with the agricultural community to employ and improve practices that integrate ecological
conservation, enhanced soil health, responsible water use, water quality protection, biodiversity
and humane treatment of livestock.
97. Agriculture Workforce Support
The city and county support local agricultural workforce and encourage training, apprenticeship
and skill development programs. The city and county support exploring options to increase
Agenda Item 5A Page 11
housing opportunities and transportation options for agriculture workers and land stewards in
the Boulder Valley.
98. Community Engagement
The city is committed to meaningful, inclusive, and equitable engagement to lead to better
decision-making and outcomes. The city supports engagement of all community members in
decisions that may impact them. The city supports elevating youth engagement and input in
long-range policy making as they may be disproportionately affected by decisions that take
decades to realize. The city recognizes there are communities that have been historically
excluded from engagement and decision-making processes, and enhanced efforts and resources
are needed to include them. Meaningful and inclusive engagement requires a variety of formats
to be accessible to everyone in the community. The city supports volunteer programs that
engage community members in activities to improve the Boulder Valley and participate in
addressing local issues.
99. Federally Recognized American Tribal Consultation
The city supports actions that encourage understanding and appreciation of American Indian
Tribal Nations, their traditions, culture and our shared history in these ancestral lands known as
the Boulder Valley. The city respects Tribal sovereignty and self-determination and follows
federal and state consultation guidelines. The city follows a formal government-to-government
consultation process to receive input on important topics from Tribal Nations.
100. Engagement with Local Indigenous Peoples
The city and county acknowledge that local Indigenous community members face distinct
hardships and barriers rooted in historic and ongoing inequities. Their voices, knowledge, and
priorities are central to shaping a more inclusive and just future for the Boulder Valley. The city
and county are committed to strengthening and improving ongoing engagement with these
community members in planning and decision-making processes.
Agenda Item 5A Page 12
Appendix B. Proposed “Regional Connections” section of the BVCP
The Future of Regional Collaboration
Through this plan and associated Intergovernmental Agreement, the city and county have
worked collaboratively to achieve shared goals over the last 50 years. Looking towards the
future, this valuable partnership will continue to be essential to the future success of managing
environments that do not recognize boundary lines between entities and planning for the
movement of wildlife, people and goods that are in constant motion. The city and county work
together with the following major partners to achieve regional and statewide goals:
• State of Colorado
• University of Colorado
• Regional Transportation District
• Colorado Department of Transportation
• Denver Regional Council of Governments
• Boulder Valley School District
• Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership
Regional Connections
Proposed regional connections represent important links for the future of the Boulder Valley.
These conceptual connections have been agreed upon through the BVCP four-body approval
process and represent agreements made between agencies involved in comprehensive planning
in the Boulder Valley. They are used by the city and the county to advance regional connectivity
that public agencies hope to provide in the future.
The city and county continue to support and collaborate on the realization of the following
regional connections which are formally recognized within this major update:
• Northwest Rail/ Front Range Passenger Rail
• CO 119 Bus Rapid Transit
• CO 7 Bus Rapid Transit
• US 36 Boulder to Lyons Safety Improvements
• South Boulder Road multimodal improvements
The following conceptual regional trail connections describe a general direction for potential
connecting trails. Specific alignments or trail corridors have not yet been selected, often
because there are still issues that need to be resolved through further study or public process
and usually require resolution of environmental, ownership, neighborhood or other concerns.
However, the concept for the trail connection itself is supported by the signatories of the
comprehensive plan. To realize these connections, trails should be implemented as one of the
following: designated unpaved off-street paths, paved off-street paths and/or multi-use paths.
Agenda Item 5A Page 13
• Joder Ranch to Heil Ranch
• Boulder Reservoir to Niwot Road
• Boulder to Erie Regional Trail (BERT)
• East Boulder Trail (South Boulder Creek Trail Connection to Teller Lake)
• East Boulder Trail (Teller Lake to Callahan Trail Connection)
• Boulder to Lafayette/Louisville Connection
• Boulder to Jefferson County Connection
• Western Connection
• Boulder Creek to Betasso Connection
Update Process
Each mid-term or major update to the comprehensive plan provides an opportunity to assess
the need to update the conceptual connections listed above. The status of these conceptual
connections will be determined as part of the BVCP four-body approval process, and any new
connections for future consideration will be identified. Any additions to the current list of
regional connections will also occur through this process. Changes may be warranted if there
has been new information or changed circumstances regarding a proposed connection,
connections are completed and no longer reflect a future vision, or new connections have been
identified and agreed upon.
Agenda Item 5A Page 14
Appendix C. OS-O and History of Mapping Open Space
• Prior to 1981 there was a hand drawn Open Space Map which only included one
category of “open space”. At that time, the land use designations of OS-A, OS-DR and
OS-O did not exist. The reason for how the boundaries were defined or the type of
natural resource values associated with the designations were not recorded.
• In 1990 the open space map was combined with the Comprehensive Plan land use map.
• Around 1995 the Plan’s land use map was digitized. During this process staff copied what
was a hand drawn, broad land use map on to mapping software that was parcel based
and very accurate. This process led to mapping errors and created issues with overlaying
the old paper macro scale open space map onto a micro scale digital mapping platform.
This is one of the major reasons why there are misalignments and other types of errors
in the land use map.
• In 2000, as part of the Comprehensive Plan major update, OSMP worked with planning
to split out the existing open space land use designation to reflect acquired open space
and open space development rights holdings. Three more specific open space land use
designations were created: OS-A, OS-DR and OS-O were created for the other “open
space” that was identified pre-1981. Along with creating OS-O for the not acquired or
development restricted “open space”, two new land use categories were created—
Environmental Preservation (EP) and Natural Systems Overlay—which have not been
widely used.
• Currently, the OS-O land use designation boundaries remain the same hand-drawn
shape from before 1981. When development is proposed on a private parcel with an OS-
O land use designation, planning and OSMP staff evaluate the natural resource values
and City Charter purposes for Open Space on the property. Planning staff then consider
and issue development permits considering OSMP staff opinions on the property
accordingly. This has been done collaboratively through the Development Review
Committee (DRC) process for more than 20 years. The OS-O land use designation has
created confusion among the community with regard to the natural resource values
present and OSMP’s interest in acquiring and managing the land in perpetuity.
Agenda Item 5A Page 15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jeff Haley, Deputy Director, Visitor Experience and Infrastructure
Adam Gaylord, Recreation Stewardship Manager
Lisa Goncalo, Recreation Stewardship Senior Program Manager
DATE: March 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Update to City Manager Rule 8-3-3.G(03) to allow for precautionary landing
for paragliders and hang gliders
________________________________________________________________________
Purpose
The purpose of this agenda item to the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) is to update the
existing regulation that governs launching and landing aircraft on Open Space and Mountain
Parks (OSMP) to permit precautionary landings by paragliders and hang gliders. Over the
past few years and as recently as 2025, there have been discussions with the OSBT and local
pilots about clarifying regulations for pilots to land safely on OSMP property as precautionary
or in times of emergency situations. Peer communities across the Front Range allow this
option for pilots within their regulatory framework and since hang gliding and paragliding are
allowed activities on OSMP, this is an opportunity to support the visitor use in a safe and
responsible manner. Staff have collaborated with the hang gliding and paragliding community
as well as internal teams to determine a solution that would support the visitor use while
ensuring responsible recreation and protection of the ecological resources across the OSMP
system.
Background:
Paragliding and Hang Gliding on OSMP and Boulder Parks and Recreation Property (BPR)
dates to 1975 and is an approved passive recreational activity in compliance with allowable
uses in the Boulder Revised Code and City of Boulder Charter. The Visitor Master Plan
(2005) called for providing a designated launch and landing area(s) for their use and to work
with community groups to determine if other OSMP sites could be designated for sustainable
hang gliding and paragliding activities. The only location this activity is currently designated
for is west of the Foothills Trail on the Erni, Pine Brook Hills No. 6, and Wonderland
Development Corporation I and II Open Space Properties, managed by OSMP ("OSMP
Property"), and the Foothills Community Park, managed by the city’s Parks and Recreation
Department.
On April 29, 2019, OSMP and Rocky Mountain Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association
(RMHPA) entered into a 3-year agreement formalizing the existing uses and use areas and
clarifying communication protocols and maintenance expectations through a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). This MOU was amended in 2023, extending the term to April 29,
2026.The relationship between OSMP and RMHPA has been a positive one.
Agenda Item 5B Page 1
Paragliding and Hang Gliding:
Paragliding is a foot-launched, non-motorized form of flight using a fabric wing (airfoil) that
inflates with air, a harness, suspension lines, and brake toggles to control speed and direction.
Hang gliding is also a foot-launched, non-motorized form of flight but uses a fixed-wing
made of aluminum alloy or composite frame covered with synthetic sailcloth to form a wing.
Due to the weight of a hang glider, between 45-80 pounds, the pilot uses a trailer to transport
the hang glider, and parks relatively close to the launch site. While there is currently no
designated launch site on OSMP property that allows for hang gliders to launch, Jefferson
County does offer one site, on Mt Zion, that meets these requirements.
Pilot Ratings and Behavior:
Pilots are governed by the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA),
a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing the sports of hang gliding, paragliding, and
speed flying in the United States. The USHPA developed pilot ratings to reflect a pilot’s skill
level and decision-making skills. Below are the skill levels:
- P-1/Beginner Pilot: This rating identifies a student who has demonstrated the basic
ability to fly in a straight line. The Beginner Pilot is not yet ready to fly
independently, but can take off, fly straight and land. They also understand the
basics of glider setup and breakdown.
- P-2/Novice Pilot: A Novice has learned about turns, maneuvering and landings.
They have flown from higher ground under supervision and demonstrated
confident handling of the glider in flight, as well as operation in stronger winds.
They have had some training about meteorology, air movement, clouds and other
environmental factors, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
They may be approved to fly with more experienced pilots but have not yet gained
the skills needed to operate independently.
- P-3/Intermediate Pilot: The Intermediate Pilot has gained further experience and
training in flight skills and decision making. An Intermediate Pilot's focus is on
refining their ability to make good decisions and correctly interpret the site and
conditions for flying. They have received additional training about weather
forecasting, micrometeorology and airspace regulations. They are now able to
effectively operate independently and make decisions with good judgment.
- P-4/Advanced Pilot: Pilots at this level have gained the skills necessary to handle
conditions at a wide range of flying sites. Advanced Pilots know when and where
to fly, and when and where not to fly. They often serve as mentors and role models
to less experienced pilots. At some sites, Advanced Pilots are empowered to close
the site or limit flying if they feel conditions are unsafe for lower-rated pilots.
Advanced Pilots are eligible to obtain instructor certifications and appointments.
- P-5/Master Pilot: A pilot with a Master rating has demonstrated outstanding skill
in flying over a long period. They have flown many different sites, in varying
conditions, on a broad range of wings and performed different launch methods.
Agenda Item 5B Page 2
They have received a Bronze Safe Pilot Award and have the endorsement of other
pilots.
Below are the total numbers of pilots, for each rating, within the state of Colorado:
P-1: 4
P-2: 158
P-3: 130
P-4: 141
P-5: 0
There are approximately 30-50 P-3 to P-4 pilots that reside within the Boulder County area
and frequently use the Wonderland Lake site.
The launch/land site at Wonderland lake is a perfect site for beginning pilots (P1’s-P2’s) to
practice getting comfortable with the mechanics and a feel for the wind in the wing, utilizing
gravity to descend. These pilots remain largely contained within the Wonderland Lake
launch/land site as they build up their skills.
More experienced pilots (P3’s – P5’s)
learn to fly on rising air currents like
thermals and ridge lift. Extended flight
works on aerodynamic principles,
primarily Bernoulli’s principle, where the
curved wing creates low pressure above
and high pressure below, generating lift.
Thermals and ridge lift provide the
power to climb, making it a gravity-
powered extended form of flight. This
image shows how migratory birds of
prey use thermals to help them gain lift
in the same process. Experienced pilots,
under the right conditions, commonly fly
from Wonderland Lake, to Golden, and
back.
However, weather conditions change and
even with the best pre-planning, a pilot
can start to lose lift. If the pilot is unable
to locate another thermal, then they will
continue to descend and will begin
searching for a safe place to land free
from trees, buildings and power lines.
This is what the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) defines as a
precautionary landing, a type of emergency landing. An emergency landing is a “premature,
often non-premeditated landing necessitated by an in-flight emergency that poses an imminent
Agenda Item 5B Page 3
threat to safety, such as system failure, fire or critical illness. It is broadly categorized into
forced landings (unavoidable) and precautionary landings (advised, but controllable).”
Types of Emergency Landings:
- Forced landing: an immediate landing, on or off an airport, necessitated by the
inability to continue further flight. A typical example of which is an airplane forced
down by engine failure.
- Precautionary landing: a premeditated landing, on or off an airport, when further
flight is possible but inadvisable. Examples of conditions that may call for a
precautionary landing include deteriorating weather, being lost, fuel shortage, and
gradually developing engine trouble.
Problem
City Manager Rule 8-3-3.G(03), titled “REGULATION PROHIBITING LAUNCHING OR
LANDING AIRCRAFT FROM OR ON OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS LANDS
EXCEPT FOR POSTED AREAS” is the existing regulation that legally defines when and
where a pilot can land. It states the following in regard to when it is defensible for a pilot to
land outside of a posted area:
It shall be a specific defense that the landing was as a result of a bona fide mid-air
emergency or other unforeseeable event beyond the reasonable control of the pilot or
parachutist, and that but for such event the landing could reasonably have been expected
to have occurred safely elsewhere.
The regulation, adopted in 2003, has an affirmative defense for a mid-air emergency. An
example of this could be a hole in the wing or the pilot having a medical emergency like a
heart attack mid-air. In order to provide certainty to the gliding and paragliding community
and to rangers enforcing the regulation, OSMP is recommending that the regulation be
updated to specifically provide for pre-cautionary landings that are consistent with the
definition provided by the FAA. OSMP has been informed by the RMHPA President that
many pilots are choosing to land in more dangerous areas to avoid receiving a citation, which
can lead to dangerous consequences for the pilot, including serious injury or death.
Updating the existing regulation will allow pilots to choose safer landing spots without fear of
citation which will increase pilot safety. Ranger Supervisors support amending the current
regulation to specifically allow paragliders and hang gliders to perform a precautionary
landing on OSMP property. They agree that this action will improve pilot safety.
Plan Guidance:
Updating the existing regulation to allow pre-cautionary landings supports the following
OSMP Master Plan Strategies:
RRSE.6) SUPPORT A RANGE OF PASSIVE RECREATION EXPERIENCES
Agenda Item 5B Page 4
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Recreation Stewardship staff do not anticipate significant abuse of the proposed updated
regulation such as a marked increase in landings that don’t meet the definition of a pre-
cautionary landing. However, staff have coordinated with RMHPA to identify some
management actions that can be taken to ensure a successful transition.
Ranger Citations:
Landing on OSMP Property, outside of the designated landing area, is an infrequent
occurrence. According to RMHPA’s voluntary reporting system, in 2025, pilots logged 638
cross country flights originating from Boulder. Of those, 244 flights crossed over the Flatirons
(139 were out-and-back, which crossed the Flatirons twice). In comparison, in 2025, Rangers
wrote 8 citations for violation of the existing regulation. This comprises less than 0.01% of
the citations issued in 2025. Between 2022-2023, Rangers wrote only 3 citations per year.
In speaking with RMHPA representatives, it is not desirable for a pilot to land before arriving
at their intended landing zone. Landing in unknown vegetation (e.g. cactus, trees, etc.) may
damage very expensive gear and pilots must consider safety hazards when landing, like power
lines, trees, vehicles and buildings. Pilots do not want to land other than where they originally
intended to.
RMHPA:
Pilots wanting to fly from the designated launch zone in North Boulder are required to
become an RMHPA member. Membership also grants access to launch sites in Golden,
Glenwood, Copper Mountain, and Kenosha Pass. OSMP staff work closely with the RMHPA
President and Vice President to handle any concerns that come up, which are infrequent and
dealt with quickly.
Since 2019, OSMP has managed an MOU with RMHPA and has built a very positive
relationship. The existing MOU is scheduled to expire in April of 2026. Staff will amend the
existing MOU for 1 year to allow time to pilot the updated rule allowing for precautionary
landing. If any concerns arise, it will allow staff time to make any necessary management
updates to the MOU in April of 2027.
Jefferson County Open Space
Jefferson County Open Space (JCOS) allows members of RMHPA to launch from designated
Special Use Areas (North, Mid and South) at Windy Saddle Park and also allows emergency
and pre-cautionary landings.
“JCOS does not provide or manage any landing site, however, any JCOS properties
may be used for landing in emergency or precautionary/preventive situations that avert
hazardous outcomes.” (2024-2025 Jefferson County Open Space Recreation and
Activity Management Guide, pp. 22.)
OSMP staff spoke with Eric Krause, Visitor Relations Manager, with Jefferson County Parks
and Open Space, to better understand their experience with allowing precautionary landings.
Eric stated they have had one instance where a group of pilots began landing at the Rooney
Road Sports Complex, and that those landings didn’t meet the definition of pre-cautionary
Agenda Item 5B Page 5
landings, but they notified RMHPA and RMHPA handled it immediately. He also said the
number of landings they have per year is so small, they feel the most important thing is to
provide for pilot safety.
Next Steps:
Amend the current MOU and regulation 8-3-3.G(03) to allow for precautionary landings. The
new regulatory language can be viewed in Attachment A. Staff will also be communicating
with the community as appropriate to make sure pilots know of the change in rules and seek
clarification or information if needed.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: DRAFT STANDARD (NON-EMERGENCY)
REGULATION/RULE
Agenda Item 5B Page 6
ATTACHMENT A:
DRAFT STANDARD (NON-EMERGENCY) REGULATION/RULE
[do not remove space – for Clerk label]
DRAFT REGULATION PROHIBITING LAUNCHING OR LANDING AIRCRAFT FROM OR ON OPEN
SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS LANDS EXCEPT FOR POSTED AREAS
BRC Section that is the subject of this Rule: 8-3-3
1. No person shall launch or land any aircraft, including but not limited to an ultra-light,
glider, hot air balloon, powered hang glider, hang glider, paraglider, parachute, or any
other device designed to convey humans through the air from or on open space and
mountain parks lands. These prohibitions do not apply to aircraft for any open space and
mountain parks lands where the city manager has determined to allow one or more of the
otherwise prohibited activities and has posted signs specifying which activities are
allowed.
2. It shall be a specific defense that the landing was as a result of a bona fide mid-air
emergency or other unforeseeable event beyond the reasonable control of the pilot or
parachutist, and that but for such event the landing could reasonably have been expected
to have occurred safely elsewhere.
3. It shall be a specific defense that the landing of a hang glider or paraglider was as a result
of a precautionary landing, when further flight was possible but inadvisable due to, for
example, deteriorating weather conditions.
4. To the extent only of any conflict, this Rule supersedes any conflicting Rules or parts of
Rules including, without limitation, Rule 8-3-3.G(03).
Agenda Item 5B Page 7
*** NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC ***
Rule ___________________
As adopting authority, on _____________________ the Boulder City Manager filed with the
city clerk a Rule proposing to govern aircraft landing on Open Space and Mountain Parks
(OSMP) lands. The Rule continues to prohibit launching or landing aircraft except in posted
areas but creates a safety exception allowing hang-gliders and paragliders to land when
necessary for precautionary reasons.
Copies of the Rule are available for public review at the Central Records Office at the
Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, 2nd floor. Please contact Central Records at
CentralRecords@bouldercolorado.gov, or 303-441-3043 to make an appointment to review
this rule.
The public has a right to submit written comments on the proposed rule for 15 days from the
date of this publication. Please direct written comments to:
Lisa Goncalo
Recreation Stewardship Senior Program Manager
2520 55th Street
Boulder, CO 80301
Goncalol@bouldercolorado.gov
For more information, visit www.osmp.org or call 303-441-3440.
If no written comments are received, the Rule will become final when the time for comments
has passed.
Agenda Item 5B Page 8
STANDARD (NON-EMERGENCY) RULE SIGNATURE PAGE
REGULATION PROHIBITING LAUNCHING OR LANDING AIRCRAFT FROM OR ON OPEN
SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS LANDS EXCEPT FOR POSTED AREAS
Originating Department – B.R.C. Section Granting Rulemaking Authority:
Section 8-3-3, B.R.C. 1981
City Attorney’s Office – Approval as to form and legality:
The proposed Rule was approved as to form and legality for adoption on _____________ (date).
Signature: _______________________________
City Manager / Adopting Authority – Approval as to substance
The proposed Rule was approved as to substance prior to publication, and three copies were filed with the
City Clerk on ________________________ (date).
Adopting Authority Signature: _______________________________
City Clerk Publication:
The public notice will be published in the Daily Camera on ________________ (date), starting a 15-day
written comment period ending on ______________________.
__No comments were received. The proposed Rule is in effect as of the end of the comment period.
City Clerk Signature: _________________________________
City Manager / Adopting Authority - Comment Review/Effective Date:
____ Written comments were received for this Rule, and no change has been made. The Rule is in effect
as of the end of the comment period.
____ Written comments were received for this Rule. The Rule was amended and returned to the City
Attorney’s Office for review on ___________. The Rule is effective upon approval of the City Attorney.
City Attorney approval Date: ________________________________
Signature: ____________________________
____ Written comments were received for this Rule. The Rule has been amended and will be republished.
Adopting Authority Signature: ______________________________
Agenda Item 5B Page 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director, Central Services
Kacey French, Planning Senior Manager
Jena Van Gerwen, Open Space Planner
DATE: March 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Written Information: Open Space and Mountain Parks Multimodal Assessment
________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
This memo provides the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with an update on the Multimodal
Assessment, formerly referenced as Strategic Plan Item 7C. Since the December OSBT discussion that
focused on the project’s refined scope, methodology, and schedule, staff has advanced the assessment
through data analysis, review of existing conditions, active and ongoing identification of preliminary
opportunity areas across the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) system, and preparations for the
upcoming community engagement window. This work has remained centered on the project’s core focus
areas: trail connections, trailheads and access points, and education and outreach.
This memo summarizes current progress and outlines the upcoming April community engagement
window, which will include an in-person intercept survey and an online questionnaire through BeHeard
Boulder. The goal of this update is to help publicize the upcoming engagement window and to ensure
OSBT has a clear understanding of the project’s current status and next steps.
Overview
Following internal data compilation and a recent technical workshop with subject matter experts, staff
have been identifying preliminary opportunity areas where data indicates multimodal improvements could
have the greatest impact.
The workshop provided valuable insight by combining Human Dimensions data, existing conditions
mapping, and field-based expertise. While this work remains exploratory, staff are beginning to see
several promising opportunity areas that warrant further evaluation and community input.
Upcoming Community Engagement Window 1 – April
Staff are preparing for the first community engagement window, which will begin on April 1 and
conclude at the end of the month. This engagement phase will focus on gathering feedback on preliminary
opportunity areas and related management strategies. Engagement methods will include:
•In-Person Intercept Survey
o Conducted at various OSMP locations for the entire month of April.
o The specific locations will not be publicly disclosed in advance in order to reduce self-
selection bias and better capture a representative sample of visitors.
Written Information - Item A - Page 1
• Online Questionnaire (BeHeard Boulder)
o A questionnaire will be posted on BeHeard Boulder within the first half of April and will
close by the end of the month.
o The survey will reflect similar questions as the intercept survey. The online tool will
include:
Preliminary opportunity areas
Potential management strategies
Questions related to access, trail connections, and allowed uses
The intent of using both intercept and online methods is to broaden participation while balancing
accessibility and data integrity.
Communications & Outreach
To ensure community awareness of Engagement Window 1, staff will:
• Prepare a Memo for the March OSBT business meeting.
• Issue a press release announcing the engagement period.
• Utilize OSMP’s social media channels to share information about the survey and its purpose
• Utilize OSMP’s website to provide a central hub for information and resources.
Next Steps
• April Community Engagement Window
o OSMP will gather community perspectives on current multimodal access challenges and
preliminary early opportunities using an online questionnaire and in-person intercept
survey.
• June OSBT Meeting
o OSMP staff will return to the Board in June to summarize engagement themes and
intercept survey and questionnaire results. OSBT will have the opportunity to provide
input on the preliminary opportunity areas, as well as the engagement window results.
Staff will continue refining preliminary opportunity areas based on community feedback and will provide
additional updates as the project advances into its next phases.
Written Information - Item A - Page 2