HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20111129 ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
4:00 P.M.
4:00 I. Board Interviews
4:30 II. Quarterly Board of Health; Pesticides; AACP — Aspen Area
Community Plan
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Aspen Board of Health
FROM: Lee Cassin, Public Health Agency Director
Jannette Whitcomb, Senior Environmental Health Program Coordinator
CJ Oliver, Senior Environmental Health Specialist
DATE OF MEMO: November 21, 2011
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2011
RE: Fourth Quarterly Board of Health Meeting
Local Public and Environmental Health Improvement Plan Update
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has provided a resource that we may or may not
elect to use in developing the Aspen Local Public Health Improvement Plan ( LPHIP). It is attached as
Attachment A and is almost identical to the process Aspen has undertaken in the last three years for the AACP.
The information from the AACP will be included in Aspen's LPHIP plan: Specifically, the process used to
gather community input from various stakeholders resulted in the Environmental Stewardship and Lifelong
Aspenite chapters of the AACP. The Board of Health has directed us to use that work as the basis for the
LPHIP, and not undertake a duplicative process.
The 1,000+ residents who were surveyed or participated in small or large group sessions provide a great deal of
information about priorities. This is supplemented by the annual citizen survey, which provides other
information about goals and our success in meeting expectations. In addition, there are large amounts of "hard
data" that help us assess community health, such as cancer rates, accident rates, ambient air quality, recycling
rates, greenhouse gas emissions, long -term temperature trends, water quality, etc.
The AACP has resulted in priorities in the areas of environmental stewardship and the more traditional and
broad public health areas from indigent care to child care to education. Those priorities as adopted by the City
Council and community, will serve as the priorities of the LPHIP, unless Council chooses to add to the existing
priorities. The priorities and action plans of the AACP can form the basis of the local public health
improvement plan.
Aspen's position so far ahead of other Colorado communities by virtue of the just - completed AACP and our
strong environmental programs, will result in Aspen's local public health improvement plan being a real model
for the rest of the state and an opportunity for Aspen to demonstrate its real leadership and innovation in these
areas.
Cancer
This year, to obtain data for our Health Assessment, environmental health staff made a data request to the
Colorado Central Cancer Registry to understand how cancer rates in Aspen (zip code 81611) compare to the rest
Page 1 of 3
of the state over five years (2005- 2009). The analysis was for all cancers combined as well as the top four
cancers (breast, prostate, colon/rectal, lung) and melanoma and cervix cancer and was adjusted for age.
From the state's data, our staff can report that overall Aspen (zip code 81611) does not have a statistically
higher rate of all cancer mortality compared to the state. Aspen males and females had a lower death rate for all
cancers combined than the state. In those five years, Aspen had 196 residents diagnosed with cancer which was
a similar cancer incidence rate to the state's. The rate of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, was
higher in Aspen than the state average, but the difference was not statistically significant, partly because our
population is so small that it is difficult to observe statistically significant differences. However, the fact that
levels have tended to be consistently higher over the last ten years, means that melanoma is still considered a
public health issue for the Aspen community. Given the high altitude (less thick atmosphere to filter out UV
rays) and prevalence of outdoor activities, this high rate is to be expected and is already being targeted in our
outreach efforts.
Aspen has a higher percent of early detection of cancers compared to the state. Early detection improves a
person's survival rate. According to the state, survival rates are typically over 90% if cancer is detected early.
This analysis positively reflects Aspen's effort in promotion of early detection programs, such as this month's
focus on prostate cancer via the Movember campaign.
Eight out of ten of all cancers are related to lifestyle factors such as tobacco and alcohol use, high fat intake and
other dietary patterns, obesity, exposure to sunlight and lack of exercise, all of which are controllable. Therefore
it is staff's recommendation to continue our efforts in the promotion of healthy lifestyles, such as smoking
cessation, sun protection, and reduction of environmental exposures.
Cottage Foods Bill
State Senator Gail Schwartz introduced the Cottage Food Bill which would encourage the sale of locally grown
foods, especially limited foods like produce, eggs, salsa, and spices at farmer's markets and roadside stands. It is
likely that the bill will pass this year and there will be some impact on our workload. Environmental Health
Department staff serves on the state committee working to ensure that the bill addresses some of the food safety
concerns raised by last year's bill. This committee has worked with various interested groups and Senator
Schwartz to develop fact sheets and key issues to be considered in drafting the bill.
Public Health Agency Director
State law requires each Local public health agency to appoint a director, who then selects staff and administers
programs in the areas of food protection, air and water quality, and solid and hazardous waste. Since Lee Cassin,
the current director, will be retiring in January of 2012, and this is the last quarterly Board of Health meeting
before that time, staff asks the board to appoint CJ Oliver as the interim director until the hiring process has
been completed. We ask the Board to approve our submission of a letter and form to the state, with CJ's
additional years of experience being substituted for a masters degree, as provided in Senate Bill 194. The
following page contains a draft of the letter the Board of Health could send the state, and we will provide copies
of the completed state form at the November 29 Board of Health meeting.
Page 2 of 3
THE CITY OF ASPEN
November 29, 2011
Linda Shearman
Office of Planning and Partnerships
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80210
Dear Ms. Shearman:
Attached please find form 1014 -6 from the Aspen Board of Health identifying a substitution of work experience
for education for interim Public Health Agency Director CJ Oliver. His appointment is effective beginning
January 7, 2012. He will serve in this capacity until a permanent replacement is named for Aspen Public Health
Agency Director Lee Cassin, who will be retiring on January 6.
CJ Oliver is a particularly appropriate person to take on this role for the City of Aspen. He has many years of
experience managing Aspen's Consumer Protection Program, has provided training to Environmental Health
Specialists elsewhere in the state in food service plan reviews, and has conducted a wide range of other public
and environmental health programs. His experience in areas from air and water quality to West Nile and H1N1
incident planning will serve the community well. In addition, since Aspen and Pitkin County are unique in
having many traditional public health functions performed by non -profit entities, CJ's background in other areas
of Environmental and Public Health is especially important.
Dr. Morris Cohen, MD, serves as the Aspen Public Health Agency's Medical Officer.
Michael Ireland
Chair, Aspen Board of Health
Page 3 of 3
���
[o -
Q
>
N W
0)
da�
7 0.
C v �� c
C � x 0
CL.
_
c r
- O
<n u. ar . Q,
a, O
L
? ° : O
U C _Q
(3 laj W r ` Vf ,C (L - C
''';:t.:::-.;'''.- 1
p _ _ p -41 f.,--.15, n o c
C3 }
0
2 0_ 0 D o-0 r
p D �'3
Ln O ; - °° 0
m �U �� .
N
o O L N __ c
o_ N - N / C 4) S �
^�` rri V 0
a) a U v> a) -4—
r h N N E O
W C N N `_ ^ v U
0
N p N N O Q O ^ J
Q� WQQO_C) c O
I ° a
O - N C7 V n CEO .--1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director EC'
DATE OF MEMO: November 9, 2011
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2011
RE: Council direction, Citizen- requested Pesticide Ordinance
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests direction from Council about the general approach to a
possible pesticide ordinance for the City of Aspen. Staff specifically requests direction on three key
issues: 1) whether notification should be required BEFORE, not AFTER spraying, 2) whether minimal
restrictions should be imposed on homeowners who spray, and 3) whether Council desires a
comprehensive ordinance that would require challenging state pre - emption laws.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: A group of citizens presented Council with a proposed pesticide
ordinance that they asked Council to adopt. Council directed staff to return with an evaluation of the
proposed ordinance and recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Background information is included in three areas: 1) medical and health
information about pesticides (Attachment A), 2) legal issues, and 3) limited effectiveness of current
state and federal regulations, Also included in the packet is an email (Attachment B) and draft
ordinance (Attachment C) that Chris Wertele, who originally approached Council, asked to have
included in your packet, as he is out of town and unable to attend the meeting.
Medical and Health Information
The American Medical Association recommends reducing exposure to pesticides. Studies have shown
pesticide exposure to increase the risk of Parkinson's disease, birth defects, other neurological diseases,
and some cancers. Please see Attachment A for an example of information on studies assessing cancer
risk from exposures to various pesticides. The study found that exposure to a variety of pesticides was
associated with increased risks of various cancers, including cancers of the lung, pancreas, colon and
rectum, leukemia, bladder, and melanoma. Higher rates of overall cancers were found in children of
male farmers, and breast cancer in women whose husbands used pesticides. The situation is
complicated by the fact that there are thousands of different registered pesticides, different ones have
different health effects, people are likely to be exposed to more than one pesticide, it is difficult to
know and remember which pesticides a person has been exposed to, and individuals have different
cancer risk factors. These studies do not mean that every pesticide at any level causes these effects, but
illustrates the issue of limited testing and health information for a variety of pesticides at a variety of
exposure doses.
Pagel of 17
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that chemical- management policy in the United
States be revised to protect children and pregnant women and to better protect other populations.
Legal Issues
Colorado state law currently limits local governments' abilities to regulate pesticides in several ways.
Local governments can regulate actions of homeowners with reference to pesticide use (could restrict
or control their use), and can require homeowners or property managers to provide notice before they
use pesticides. They cannot directly regulate commercial pesticide applicators.
The City of Boulder has had a pesticide pre- notification ordinance in place since 1981. In order to
comply with the state laws, they made the homeowner or property manager responsible for pre-
notification, even though the commercial applicator may sometimes be the one who actually posts the
signs. They thoroughly researched the legal issues, were challenged by the pesticide industry and won
in court. If we pursued a pre - notification ordinance, we would be able to use the work done by Boulder
to ensure we are consistent with state law.
Limited Effectiveness of Current State and Federal Regulations
Currently state law requires that commercial pesticide applicators (but no one else) post notices on
properties AFTER they have sprayed with pesticides. That does not give others living or walking in the
area a way to close windows during spraying to avoid exposure. Nor does it give people a warning so
they can keep children, pets or themselves away from the area during spraying. Pre - notification (with
signs) is required in Boulder and many other places, to allow people who want to reduce their
exposures, the ability to do so.
Approximately 80,000 chemicals are currently in commerce and most have not been tested to
determine whether they cause cancer, because new chemicals are developed much faster than there are
resources or requirements for testing, and when the law was passed there were tens of thousands of
existing chemicals that were already in use.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has resulted in regulation of only 5 chemicals of the tens of
thousands of chemicals that are in commerce in this country.
In 2010, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) conducted one formal investigation and two
preliminary investigations. CDA has licensed one thousand one hundred thirteen (1113) commercial pesticide
applicators as of September 30, 2009. No reporting is made of chemicals used.
From October 2010 through August of 2011, here is the enforcement breakdown for the entire state of
Colorado:
Number of cases opened: 32
Number of cases Resolved: 36
•
Here is how they were resolved:
Warning letter: 3
Cease and desist order: 4
Dismissed: 10
Dropped: 3
Agreed to comply: 16
Page 2 of 17
Summary of citizen - proposed ordinance
The main elements of the ordinance submitted by the citizen group are listed below. I believe their
intent was to prevent the type of exposure that one citizen expressed concern about, and further to
reduce the use of pesticides overall in the city of Aspen. However, as written, the ordinance includes
extensive specific requirements for city departments but not for commercial applicators or private use,
which make up virtually all pesticide use in the city of Aspen. Some of the elements of the citizen -
proposed ordinance which is included as Attachment C are:
• The City is required to use only "least -toxic pesticides" and those only as a last resort.
• The City is required to use only natural organic fertilizers.
• Establishes an Organic Land Management (OLM) coordinator with the Office of Environmental
Health for carrying out the organic land management plan; and
• That person is responsible for scheduling all city pesticide applications, maintaining detailed
records, and providing data and fact sheets to the public.
• Establishes a pesticide management committee comprised of no fewer than 10 people, who are
responsible for approving and overseeing the city's plan, and approving the pesticides that may
be used.
• The OLM coordinator must notify employees 48 hours before any emergency pesticide use by
the City with eight categories of information on the pesticide(s).
That completes the requirements of the proposed ordinance. All of the requirements are directed at city
properties. However, the "purpose" section says that cosmetic pesticides may not be used anywhere in
the city limits of Aspen, so I believe that to be the intent of the citizens' group. The "Purpose" section
also states, "Private property owners shall be required to follow the same public notification rules as
the City of Aspen, and will be allowed to use least toxic pesticides only as a last resort", though that is
not a requirement of any section of the ordinance. I believe the intent is to expand the pre- notification
requirement beyond city government, though the ordinance language does not include that.
The City of Aspen has had a chemical management system in place for over ten years. In addition, the
city has recently received the Environmental Leadership Gold Award from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment for our comprehensive environmental management system. The City of
Aspen Parks Department may well operate the most environmentally - strict parks operation in the
country, with its long- standing use of integrated pest management. Many people do not realize that the
Parks Department maintains its parks without the use of herbicides. Compost is produced and used on
city parks, turf is mowed to a height that limits weeds, turf is not over - watered, mowing is done often
enough to control weeds, etc. For trees, direct injection is used in the rare times when it is necessary.
The City Parks Department has become an exceptional example of environmental excellence in its
practices due to its long- standing environmental commitment.
DISCUSSION:
The Environmental Health Department's opinion is that the focus of any needed changes should be
where large amounts of pesticides are used, on the many properties in Aspen not under the careful
management of the city. This could be done in several ways and it is staff's opinion that much
improvement could be made without significant increases in city staffing and procedures.
Page 3 of 17
Staff requests Council direction in three general areas before drafting an ordinance to bring back to
Council. These are 1) whether Council wishes to challenge the state pre - emption laws which limit local
governments' ability to regulate pesticides, 2) whether Council wants staff to return with an ordinance
that requires pre- notification of pesticide use, and 3) whether Council wants staff to also include
reasonable limits on homeowners who do their own pesticide applications. The latter two elements can
be done within the constraints of existing state law.
Health impacts and general issues
The health concerns related to pesticide use are significant and I believe warrant additional local
government protection. Despite everyone's best intentions, there is significant mis -use and over -use of
pesticides, and lack of knowledge about the many studies that raise concern about links between use of
certain pesticides and some cancers, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses. Sometimes pesticides are
used when it is too windy, sometimes a more toxic pesticide is used when an alternative exists, and it is
human nature to feel that if a little pesticide works, more will work better. There are effective
alternatives for almost all pests, especially in this climate with Aspen's cold winter temperatures. There
are a small number of situations in which careful use of pesticides may still be warranted, including
treating fungus on golf courses, preventing West Nile Virus, and meeting legal requirements to
eliminate noxious weeds.
Pre - notification
Pre - notification is a requirement the city could impose for pesticide application in the city, with
reasonable exemptions that would have a large effect relative to its burden on users. Boulder's
ordinance, in place since 1981, could be used as a starting point. The goal would be to let people know
of pesticide spraying ahead of time so they can take steps to reduce their exposure, without imposing a
significant burden on private or commercial applicators. There are several details that could be
included in an ordinance staff could bring back to Council. For example, small areas could be exempt,
and posting could be at the obvious entrances to the area instead of requiring more costly and difficult
posting signs on doors of adjacent residences or phone calling. Pre - notification could indicate that
spraying is planned in 48 hours, but with an ability to extend that time for a week if weather conditions
warrant. That would keep commercial applicators from having to make extra return trips to properties
based on weather delays, so would increase their flexibility and minimize added cost.
There is fairly widespread confusion about the "pesticide sensitive registry". Commercial applicators
are required to pre - notify persons on the state's pesticide sensitive registry. However, a person cannot
be placed on this list if they are concemed about their risk of cancer or other diseases. To get on the
list, a person must incur the cost of a doctor's visit and the doctor must find that the person has a
particular sensitivity to pesticides. Not only does it put the burden and cost on the individual, but it
does not provide for someone who may have a family history of cancer or Parkinson's disease and
wishes to reduce their risk. Requiring pre- notification is the only way the City can provide that
protection for residents. Notifying the public after spraying has just been done does not allow them to
take measures to reduce their exposure. Staff recommends that pre - notification be required for
larger pesticide applications within the city of Aspen.
Legal issues
Whether or not the city prevailed in an attempt to challenge the state pre - emption statutes, the effort
would be substantial. This is true whether or not an outside entity offers to help with a legal challenge,
since city attorneys would still be taking on a significant portion of the effort. If the city were to decide
Page 4 of 17
to challenge the state statute, that could be undertaken separately after a pre - notification requirement
went into effect.
Possible requirements for individual homeowners
Individual homeowners who do their own pesticide applications would be expected to be less educated
about proper use than a licensed commercial applicator. Reasonable restrictions could be included in an
ordinance, such as (in addition to requiring pre - notification), requiring that individual spraying not be
done when it is very windy so to not drift onto adjoining properties. Enforcement would need to be on
a complaint basis, as is the case for many city laws. The number of individuals who apply their own
pesticides may be small, but if regulations are not unduly cumbersome, there would be protection for
nearby residents that is lacking now.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Financial impacts will depend very strongly on which elements
are included in any ordinance. Pre - notification will have minor impact on city operations, but this will
be easily manageable with existing staff. Burden on commercial applicators can be minimal if posting
requirements are kept simple. If minimal requirements for homeowner spraying were imposed and
enforcement was on a complaint basis, existing staff could implement that provision. Annual
education/outreach campaign will be very important for the first couple of years at least, so depending
on Council's decision, there may be a need for a small additional expense for publicizing the
requirements.
Determining which pesticides should be used and staffing a committee to manage applications is
significantly beyond existing staffing and budget resources.
The cost of challenging the state pre - emption law, if Council chose to regulate what pesticides
commercial applicators use is unknown.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Eliminating use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes would have a
significant environmental and public health benefit if the city were successful in challenging the state
statute. The same is true for requiring only least -toxic pesticides only as a last resort. Letting people
know ahead of time that pesticides will be used would enable people to significantly reduce their
exposure and risk. Restricting how individual homeowners can use pesticides would reduce exposures
but since most aerial spraying is probably done by commercial applicators, the benefit might be small.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends a two - pronged approach at this time. 1) Pre-
notification should be required for pesticide applications. Staff can return as soon as time allows with a
proposed ordinance to accomplish this. 2) Outreach and educational efforts already done by the city
should continue to include information on safer alternatives to pesticides, proper use, and best
practices. It will be important to keep the initial approach simple if a requirement is implemented for
the upcoming season, since the Environmental Health Department may be operating with reduced staff
for some time in 2012. After these two measures have been implemented, staff and council can
evaluate whether additional steps are warranted.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Council could challenge the state pre - emption law. Specifically, it would be
beneficial from a public health standpoint to prohibit pesticides used for cosmetic purposes. These
have negative health impacts on residents and such a limit would not harm the urban forest. 2) Council
could impose requirements on individuals doing their own applications, knowing that while the
Page 5 of 17
numbers may be small, the burden would not be great, so some regulation may be appropriate. 3)
Council could direct staff to expand its education program without adopting any ordinance. 4) Council
could adopt the citizen - proposed ordinance, with or without some modification.
PROPOSED MOTION: NA. At this worksession, staff asks Council for direction about what to bring
back in the form of an ordinance.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 6 of 17
Attachment A
A Review of Pesticide Exposure and Cancer
Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study
Cohort
Conclusions: Continued follow -up is needed to clarify associations reported to date. In
particular, further evaluation of registered pesticides is warranted.
Study Summaries
Lung cancer. Applicators with the highest LDs of exposure to chlorpyrifos (Lee et al.
2004a), diazinon (Beane Freeman et al. 2005), dieldrin (Alavanja et al. 2004; Purdue et
al. 2006), metolachlor (Alavanja et al. 2004), and pendimethalin (Alavanja et al. 2004;
Hou et al. 2006) had increased lung cancer incidence relative to nonexposed
applicators.
Pancreatic cancer. Applicators in the highest categories of intensity- weighted EPTC
and pendimethalin exposure -days had an increased risk of pancreatic cancer relative to
nonexposed applicators, and we observed significant exposure— response trends for both
pesticides (Andreotti et al. 2009).
Colon and rectal cancer. Applicators with the highest LDs of exposure to aldicarb (Lee
et al. 2007b), dicamba (Samanic et al. 2006), EPTC (van Bemmel et al. 2008),
imazethapyr (Koutros et al. 2009), and trifluralin (Kang et al. 2008) had increased colon
cancer incidence relative to nonexposed applicators. Applicators with the highest
lifetime exposure -days for chlordane (Purdue et al. 2006), chlorpyrifos (Lee et al.
2004a; 2007b), pendimethalin • (Hou et al. 2006), and toxaphene (Lee et al. 2007b) had
increased rectal cancer risk relative to nonexposed applicators.
All lymphohematopoietic cancers. Applicators in the highest category of intensity -
weighted alachlor exposure -days had an increased incidence of all
lymphohematopoietic cancers relative to low- exposed applicators (Lee et al. 2004b).
Leukemia. Applicators with the highest LDs of exposure for heptachlor /chlordane
(Purdue et al. 2006), diazinon (Beane Freeman et al. 2005), and EPTC (van Bemmel et
al. 2008) had increased leukemia incidence relative to nonexposed applicators.
Non - Hodgkin lymphoma. Applicators in the highest category of intensity- weighted
exposure -days for lindane had increased non- Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) incidence
relative to nonexposed applicators, and a significant exposure— response trend was
observed (Purdue et al. 2006).
Page 7 of 17
Multiple myeloma. Applicators in the highest categories of permethrin exposure had an
increased incidence of multiple myeloma relative to nonexposed applicators, and we
observed significant exposure— response patterns (Rusiecki et al. 2009).
Breast Cancer: Although few women personally applied many of the pesticides
examined, breast cancer incidence was increased among women whose husbands
reported ever use of aldrin (RR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3 -2.7), carbaryl (RR = 1.4; 95% CI,
1.0 -2.0), chlordane (RR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 -5.5), dieldrin (RR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 -3.3),
heptachlor (RR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 -2.4), lindane (RR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 -2.5),
malathion (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0 -2.0), 2,4,5 - trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2,4,5 -
TP) (RR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2 -3.2) or captan (RR = 2.7; 95% CI, 1.7 -4.3).
Bladder cancer. Applicators in the highest category of intensity- weighted imazethapyr
exposure -days had an increased incidence of bladder cancer relative to nonexposed
applicators,
Prostate cancer. Applicators in the highest categories of fonofos exposure who also
had a family history of prostate cancer had increased prostate cancer incidence relative
to nonexposed applicators (Mahajan et al. 2006a). Applicators in the highest category
of intensity - weighted exposure -days for methyl bromide had increased prostate cancer
risk relative to nonexposed applicators, and a significant exposure— response trend was
observed (Alavanja et al. 2003).
Brain'cancer. Lee et al. (2004a) examined brain cancer incidence in pesticide
applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos.
Melanoma. Applicators in the highest categories of lifetime carbaryl (Mahajan et al.
2007) and toxaphene (Purdue et al. 2006) exposure -days had an increased incidence of
melanoma relative to nonexposed applicators.
Childhood cancer. Flower et al. (2004) examined cancer incidence in children of male
farmers in Iowa. Overall cancer incidence was increased among children of pesticide
applicators
Page 8 of 17
Attachment B
Dear Aspen City Council,
I, Chris Wurtele, unfortunately will not be able to attend the work session scheduled for November 29th
concerning a pesticide ordinance for the City of Aspen. As you may recall, I was severely poisoned by pesticides
in September, 2010 right here in the City of Aspen. As a result, I drafted and presented a proposed pesticide
ordinance to the City Council in June. I was hoping that we could have scheduled a work session back in July.
Lee Cassin, the Environmental Health Director at the City of Aspen, suggested I write this letter to urge you to
support a strict ordinance so that human health and that of the environment at large can be protected from the
harmful effects of pesticides. Lee Cassin can provide extra copies of the Proposed Pesticide Ordinance for the
City of Aspen to anyone who may have misplaced the one I handed out to the City Council in June.
Here are the most important elements of an effective pesticide ordinance:
1. The use of toxic pesticides should be banned from the City of Aspen and used only as a last resort to save a
tree or shrub from imminent death if all organic alternatives have already been attempted. This exception also
applies in the case of a public health emergency.
2. If a toxic pesticide must be used under these extenuating circumstances, a thorough notification must be
provided to all adjoining properties. If there is an inhalation hazard, it absolutely must be listed as such. An
abbreviated M.S.D.S. and a toll free number should be included so that additional information regarding the
health hazards is readily available. A skull and crossbones also needs to be visible as well.
3. At least 48 hours of notice needs to be provided and the signs need to remain posted for at least 4 days after
the application has taken place. The signs must be visible from all points of access such as public and private
roads and sidewalks.
4. No pesticide should be applied within 6 feet of any property line and within 15 feet of a bus stop or mailbox.
5. Wind velocity must be less than 6 mph to apply a pesticide by means of spraying or fogging on trees or shrubs
of a height equal to or greater than 5 feet. For trees of a height less than 5 feet the wind velocity should not
exceed 12 mph.
6. No pesticides should be applied when it is raining or if it has not rained for seven consecutive days. Also, the
temperature must be less than 80 degrees.
7. The ordinance must be enforced with penalties which are a deterrent.
8. Education should be a key component of success for this ordinance and a community outreach program
should be established to further educate the public.
Here are a couple of other points to keep in mind: Most of the major cities in Canada have already passed laws
which severely restrict the use of pesticides. The U.S. is behind in this effort partly because pesticide
manufacturing companies have much more power and influence in this country. A number of cities in this country
are starting to challenge this corrupting influence.
Lee wanted me to document the number of notices which I received from Earthwise Horticultural regarding
pesticide applications on properties adjacent to mine in the West End of Aspen. From June 14th, 2011 until
September 21st, 2011, I received 14 notices. Do you really think all of these applications are really needed?
Absolutely not! That's precisely why the City of Aspen needs to regulate all of these unneeded applications.
Thank you with all of my heart for carefully considering all of these important aspects of an effective pesticide
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Chris Wurtele
Page 9 of 17
Attachment C
Proposed Pesticide Ordinance for the City of Aspen
Section 1. Purpose
The City of Aspen hereby finds that it shall be the policy of the City of Aspen to
eliminate the use of toxic pesticides on City owned and leased property in order to
promote a healthy environment free of the risks of pesticides. The use of cosmetic
pesticides within the city limits of Aspen shall be prohibited. Private property owners
shall be required to follow the same public notification rules as the City of Aspen, and
will be allowed to use least toxic pesticides only as a last resort. The City of Aspen, its
departments and contractors, shall be required to implement an organic land
management (OLM) program at all city owned and leased properties.
Section 2. Findings
WHEREAS, scientific studies associate exposure to pesticides with asthma, autism,
Parkinson's disease, cancer, developmental and learning disabilities, nerve and immune
system damage, liver or kidney damage, reproductive impairment, birth defects, and
disruption of the endocrine system;
WHEREAS, infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with compromised
immune systems and chemical sensitivities are especially vulnerable to pesticide effects
and exposure;
WHEREAS, pesticides are harmful to pets, wildlife including threatened and
endangered species, soil microbiology, plants, and natural ecosystems;
WHEREAS, toxic runoff from chemical fertilizers and pesticides pollute streams and
lakes and drinking sources;
WHEREAS, the use of hazardous pesticides is not necessary to create and maintain
green lawns and landscapes given the availability of viable alternatives practices and
products;
WHEREAS, people have a right not to be involuntarily exposed to pesticides in the air,
water or soil that inevitably result from chemical drift and contaminated runoff
Page 10 of 17
WHEREAS, the use of an organic land management (OLM) program that emphasizes
non - chemical methods of pest prevention and management and the use of the least -
toxic pesticide as a last resort, will eliminate the use of and exposure to pesticides while
controlling pest populations;
WHEREAS, numerous communities and municipalities are embracing a precautionary
approach to the use of toxic pesticides in order to adequately protect people and the
environment from pesticides' harmful effects;
WHEREAS, the City Parks Department already uses OLM practices.
Section 3. Definitions
Pesticide: Any organism, substance or thing that is manufactured, represented, sold or
used as a means of directly or indirectly controlling, preventing, destroying, mitigating,
attracting or repelling any pest or of altering the growth, development or characteristics
of any plant life. This includes fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides,
defoliants, hematicides and any fertilizers containing pesticides.
Cosmetic Pesticide: A chemical or biological substance used to destroy living things
such as: insects (insecticides), plants (herbicides) and fungi (fungicides) for the purpose
of enhancing the APPEARANCE of a lawn or garden. They are sold commonly as
sprays, liquids, powders or combined with chemical fertilizers.
Least -Toxic Pesticide: Any pesticide product or ingredient that, at a minimum, has not
been classified as, or found to have, any of the following characteristics or ingredients:
A. Toxicity Category I, II, or III by the EPA (pesticides identified by the words
`DANGER' or `WARNING' on the label);
B. A developmental or reproductive toxicant as defined by the State of
California Proposition 65 Chemicals Known to Cause Developmental or
Reproductive Harm;
C. A carcinogen, as designated by (i) EPA's List of Chemicals Evaluated for
Carcinogenic Potential (chemicals classified as a human carcinogen, likely to
be carcinogenic to humans, a known or likely carcinogen, a probable human
carcinogen, suggestive evidence or a possible human carcinogen); (ii) the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (chemicals classified as
Page 11 of 17
carcinogenic to humans or probably or possibly carcinogenic to humans); (iii)
the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP) (chemicals classified
as known or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens); or (iv) the
State of California's Proposition 65;
D. Nervous system toxicants, including chemicals such as cholinesterase
inhibitors or chemicals associated with neurotoxicity by a mechanism other
than cholinesterase inhibition;
E. Endocrine disruptors, which include chemicals that are known to or likely to
interfere with the endocrine systems in humans or wildlife, based on the
• European Commission (EC) List of 146 substances with endocrine disruption
classifications, Annex 13 (and any subsequent lists issued as follow -up,
revisions, or extensions or based on any list created by the EPA that identifies
endocrines disruptors);
F. Adverse affects on the environment or wildlife, based on any of the
following: (i) Label precautionary statements including `toxic' or `extremely
toxic' to bees, birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, wildlife or other non - target
organisms, unless environmental exposure can be virtually eliminated; (ii)
Pesticides with ingredients with moderate or high mobility in soil, or with a
soil half -life of 30 days or more (except for mineral products).
Organic Land Management: A managed pest control program that:
A. eliminates or mitigates economic and health damage caused by pests;
B. eliminates —(i) the use of toxic pesticides; and (ii) the hazards to human
health and the environment associated with pesticide applications.
C. incorporates preventative practices that build soil health to enhance plant
health, and adopts series of management and cultural practices that prevent
pest problems.
OLM Coordinator: An individual who is designated by the City of Aspen to oversee
implementation of the integrated pest management plan for the City.
OLM Committee: A group of people, of not less than ten, appointed by the mayor or
his or her designee from the following categories: consumer(s), environmental group,
medical field, toxicologist or related scientist, pest control industry with OLM
experience, organic land care professional, city council member or representative, and
Page 12 of 17
other related individuals. At least one member from each category shall be represented
on the committee. With the exception of industry positions no member of the committee
shall have a conflict of interest.
Natural Organic Fertilizer: Fertilizers that contain nutrients naturally derived solely
from the remains or a by- product of an organism, or from a mineral. The term includes
cottonseed meal, fish emulsion, compost, and composted manure. The term does not
include any fertilizer containing biosolids or synthetic ingredients, natural minerals or
substances that are reacted with acids or produced in a petrochemical process.
Synthetic Fertilizer: A substance containing a plant nutrient created by a synthetic,
chemical process, including triple super phosphate made by treating rock phosphate
with phosphoric acid, potassium chloride, urea quick release synthetic fertilizers,
petroleum -based fertilizers. The term does not include natural organic fertilizers that
are made from naturally occurring materials, such as fish or kelp, or manure based
organic compost.
Section 4. Organic Land Management Components
(1)1n General —Each City department shall implement an organic land management
program, that at a minimum —
A. Applies to City controlled, managed or owned buildings and grounds;
B. Establishes an OLM coordinator with the Office of Environmental Health
for carrying out the organic land management plan; and
C. Follows an organic land management plan for addressing pest problems.
(2) Duties of the OLM Coordinator. —The OLM coordinator shall —
A. Oversee the implementation of the organic land management plan;
B. Act as a contact for inquiries about the organic land management plan;
C. Maintain and make available to any person upon request material safety
data sheets, labels and fact sheets or other official information related to
the pesticides, for all pesticides that may be used in the City buildings or
grounds;
Page 13 of 17
D. Be informed of Federal and State chemical health and safety information
and contact information;
E. Maintain scheduling of all pesticide use;
F. Maintain contact with Federal and State integrated pest management
system experts;
G. Obtain periodic updates and training from State integrated pest
management system experts;
H. Pre - approve any public health emergency pesticide applications; and
I. Maintain all pesticide use data for each pesticide used at City buildings
and grounds for at least 3 years after the date on . which the pesticide is
applied.
(3)Duties of the OLM Committee. —The OLM committee shall—
A. Approve the OLM plan
B. Work with the OLM Coordinator to oversee the implementation of the
OLM plan.
C. Approve the allowable list of least toxic pesticides and pre- approve a
public health emergency pesticide application.
(4)Use of Pesticides. —The City of Aspen shall only use a least -toxic pesticide as
part of the integrated pest management program. The least -toxic pesticide may
only be used as a last resort and only if the area or room treated is unoccupied or
not in use by an employee or the public. Pesticides are only to be applied by
certified commercial applicators.
(5) Use of Fertilizers. —The City of Aspen shall only use natural organic fertilizers.
The use of a synthetic fertilizer is prohibited.
(6)Public Health Emergency.
A. In General. —If the OLM coordinator determines that a pest in a City
building or on City grounds cannot be controlled after having used the
organic land management program and least toxic pesticides and it is a
Page 14 of 17
public health emergency, the City may use a pesticide in accordance with
this subsection.
B. OLM Coordinator Approval Required. —The OLM Coordinator shall
approve, after identifying the pesticide product ingredients and acute and
chronic adverse health effects, the pesticide product before any public
emergency application can be made.
C. Area Use Limitation. —The use of an area or room treated by an
emergency pesticide, other than a least toxic pesticide, shall not be
occupied or used at the time of application or during the 24 -hour period
beginning at the end of the application .
D. Authorized Applicator. —The pesticide application shall only be made by
a State certified pesticide applicator.
E. Notification of Occupants and Users. —The OLM Coordinator shall
provide to each employee of the facility /grounds where the application is
to take place a notice of the application of the pesticide for emergency pest
control. Notification will be provided at least 48 hours prior to the
application. The notification shall include —
i. The common name, trade name, and Environmental Protection
Agency registration number of the pesticide;
ii. A description of the location of the application of the pesticide;
iii. A description of the date and time of application;
iv. The statement, "The EPA cannot guarantee that registered
pesticides do not pose risks, and unnecessary exposure to pesticides
should be avoided ";
v. A description of potential adverse effects of the pesticide based on
the material safety data sheet of the pesticide and any additional
warning information related to the pesticide;
vi. The name and telephone number of the OLM Coordinator;
vii. A description of the problem and the factors that qualified the
problem as an emergency that threatened public health; and
viii.A description of the steps the City will take in the future to avoid
emergency application of a pesticide under this paragraph.
F. Method of Universal Notification. —The OLM Coordinator may provide
the notice by—
Page 15 of 17
i. written notice provided to each employee;
ii. a notice delivered electronically (such as through electronic mail or
facsimile);
iii. a telephone call; or
iv. direct contact.
G. Posting of Signs. —If applying a pesticide under this paragraph, the
OLM Coordinator shall post a sign warning of the application of the
pesticide in a prominent place that is in or adjacent to the location to be
treated; and at each entrance to the building or ground to be treated. A sign
required for the application of a pesticide shall remain posted for at least
72 hours after the end of the treatment; be at least 8'/ by 11 inches; have a
skull and crossbones on it at least 4 inches in diameter; and state the
same information as that required for prior notification of the application
under subparagraph E.
H. Modification of Organic Land Management Plan. - -If the City of Aspen
applies a pesticide under this paragraph, the OLM Coordinator shall
modify the Organic Land Management plan to minimize the future
applications of pesticides under this paragraph.
Section 5. Exceptions
(1) The use of an aerosol product with a directed spray, in containers of
eighteen fluid ounces or less, when used to protect individuals from an
imminent threat from stinging and biting insects, including venomous spiders,
bees, wasps and hornets. This section shall not exempt from notification the use
of any fogger product or aerosol product that discharges to a wide area;
(2) The use of non - volatile insect or rodent bait in a tamper resistant container;
(3) The use of horticultural soap and oils that do not contain synthetic pesticides
or synergists;
(4) The application of a pesticide by direct injection into a plant.
Section 6. Enforcement
Page 16 of 17
The first violation of this chapter within a three -year period shall constitute a public
nuisance. The second violation within the same three -year period shall constitute an
infraction. The third violation within the same three -year period shall constitute a
misdemeanor and the penalties will be applied according to existing law.
Section 7. Education.
Education will be a key component of success for this ordinance. A community
outreach program will be established to further educate the public.
Section 8. Enactment
This ordinance shall take effect as of the date of three months from its passage.
Page 17 of 17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 18, 2011
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2011, 5pm, Council Chambers
RE: Review of 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No action is requested at this time. This is the fourth of six
work sessions to review the 2011 AACP. This meeting focuses on reviewing the West of
Castle Creek Chapter.
REVIEW SCHEDULE: There are two additional work sessions scheduled:
• Dec 5: Review Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
and Housing chapters.
• Dec 6: Review Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability
and Housing chapters. Wrap up.
First reading is tentatively scheduled at Council on December 12, and second readings
are tentatively scheduled for January 9 th and 23`d
REVIEW OF AACP' CHAPTERS: Each chapter review is organized in the following
format:
1. Overview of the chapter's main concepts and policy direction.
2. Review the evolution of the chapter's major policies and themes over the past
three years.
3. Highlight changes the P &Zs have made to the chapter since Council received the
August 15 draft.
4. Staff recommendation on changes to the chapter. Each chapter will be attached to
the work session memo and staff changes will be incorporated into them using
track changes.
West of Castle Creek Corridor:
1. The West of Castle Creek Corridor chapter is a new chapter to the AACP. It covers
the area on Highway 82 from the Castle Creek Bridge to the end of the UGB (by the
airport). The chapter addresses issues ranging from land use to scenic considerations
to transportation. The chapter calls for a future county Master Plan for the area.
2. This chapter has remained consistent throughout the P &Z's review.
Page 1 of 2
3. The P &Zs made some language changes related to future annexations in the area.
The P &Z recommended that no annexations occur until a master plan for the area is
completed by the Pitkin County P &Z and revised zoning based on that plan is in
place.
4. Staff has no suggested changes to the chapter. Council may want to discuss the
master plan process and how annexations play into that. Staff will present a draft
outline of the master plan process at the meeting.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: West of Castle Creek Corridor Chapter
Page 2 of 2
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
L Vision
0 The West of Castle Creek Corridor area should provide a transition
from the rural expanses of Pitkin County to the urbanized atmosphere
MO of downtown Aspen. The area should feature separate and
recognizable nodes of unique uses and functions, and maintain a land
- ,- use pattern and scenic quality along the Highway corridor that creates
?. . a distinct series of visual experiences that signal arrival to the Aspen
L Area.
gks:
L
Q 1.. Philosophy
V 'Sc: t The success of the West of Castle Creek Corridor area relies on
y enhancing our transportation system and a comprehensive planning
, effort that strives to maintain a distinct and memorable arrival
experience. We are committed to including all of these goals in a
! • :. comprehensive land use Master Plan for the West of Castle Creek Area
as a follow -up to the adoption of the AACP.
Critical to the success of the West of Castle Creek Corridor area and
the entire Aspen Area is improving our transportation system. A
M . seamless connection between the City of Aspen and the West of Castle
' Creek Area can be achieved by improving transit services, integrating
L ___ bike and pedestrian paths, implementing innovative Transportation
Demand Management concepts and potential physical improvements
to the Entrance to Aspen between the roundabout and 7th and Main.
V The West of Castle Creek Corridor area is the "gateway" to Aspen,
providing both the physical entrance to Aspen and the transition from
a rural landscape to the more urban townsite. The visual experience of
.1. this gateway corridor is of critical importance, and the many different
views of our natural surroundings are paramount when it comes to
future planning. Density, size and scale of the built environment must
complement rather than detract from the natural setting. We should
jJ preserve and prioritize views of ski areas and open space in order to
maintain the transitional character of the area.
The West of Castle Creek Corridor area is home to a variety of
important uses that define the gateway experience - the airport, a
IC community college, a local business center, a ski area, Community
Workforce Housing (CWH), and golf courses - all of which are
V irreplaceable uses in our community. Each use is different in character
and purpose, representing distinct, physically separated nodes of
activity.
4 To maintain these separate and distinct uses, planning for this area
should support a well- defined visual pattern and a defined set of
O prescribed and limited uses for each node. This area should not
become an urbanized tunnel like corridor, with repetitive development
and the feeling of "sameness" that define the worst kind of urban
sprawl.
M
imi N0.400 It is important to define and maintain the relationship between the
q West of Castle Creek Corridor area and Aspen, with the core of Aspen
remaining the primary commercial center for tourism, employment,
- goods and services. While convenience and land cost may encourage
A \ a increased development in the West of Castle Creek Corridor, putting
W pressure on unique and important uses, development should be limited
to existing nodes in order to maintain undeveloped spaces between
them.
The Airport Business Center (ABC) should remain a business service
and limited light industrial area for Aspen residents and businesses.
West of Castle Creek Corridor
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
The ABC should include basic commercial services for residents that
reduce the need for unplanned trips into Aspen. The Base of Buttermilk
should continue to function as a vital recreational and lodging Airport
component of the Aspen resort community.
We are committed to developing a West of Castle Creek Corridor Land
Use Master Plan that incorporates all aspects of this philosophy. The ABC
Master Plan will address appropriate zoning designations for this area.
We recommend no annexations in the West of Castle Creek Corridor
area prior to the adoption of the revised zoning contemplated in this
plan.
What's Changed Since 2000
The last decade has seen substantial activity in the West of Castle
Creek Corridor area.
Facility improvements include the Aspen /Pitkin Animal Shelter,
constructed in 2005 and the North 40 Aspen Fire District Station,
constructed in 2009 to ensure that emergencies within the district
outside of the Aspen core could be readily served. With respect to
transportation, the Airport extended the runway to 1,000 feet in Burlingame
length to better accommodate existing air service, and bus -only lanes
were constructed from the Airport to the round -about to ease traffic
congestion on Highway 82 as it enters Aspen. As part of an overall
plan to improve transit service in the region, the Roaring Fork Transit Base of
Authority completed planning for a Bus Rapid Transit program which , Buttermilk
will include improvements to bus stations at Buttermilk and at the
ABC. Given the high level of auto and pedestrian and bicycle traffic
in the area, plans were initiated for development of safe pedestrian
access across Highway 82 in at least one location in the vicinity of the
ABC.
To help ensure that traffic continues to flow as efficiently as possible
given anticipated improvements in the area, Pitkin County initiated
a Highway 82 access control plan study in conjunction with the
Colorado Department of Transportation to determine the best location Maroon
for intersections and turning movements along Highway 82 from the Creek Golf
round -about to Owl Creek Road. The Stapleton Lot, located adjacent Course
to Buttermilk Ski Area is jointly owned by Pitkin County and CDOT.
It was acquired for the purpose of scenic corridor and open space
preservation; to facilitate use of public transportation; for the potential City Golf
of a transit station or multi -modal facility; parking for recreational Course
• users; and for access to public lands.
The area continues to provide a somewhat less expensive alternative
to land prices in Aspen, which has resulted in the purchase of lands
for, and the development of, Community Workforce Housing in close
proximity to Aspen. The first phase of Burlingame Community
Workforce Housing was built in 2006. The City of Aspen purchased
and annexed the Harbert Lumber Yard with the intent of building
Community Workforce Housing. Also, a new and expanded grocery
store opened to meet demands of the growing local resident �\
•
population in the immediate vicinity of the Business Center and in Roundabout
nearby Burlingame.
The West of Castle Creek Corridor
is located from the round -about
to the end of the UGB on Highway
82. It includes all parcels of land in
proximity to the highway right -of-
way.
West of Castle Creek Corridor
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
•
What's New in the 2011 AACP
As development in the West of Castle Creek Corridor area continues to
evolve, so too has the desire to balance and better define its role as
the entrance to Aspen, and as it related to the Aspen core. The West
of Castle Creek Corridor chapter is new in the 2011 Plan. Though
aspects of this area were addressed in broad terms in previous Aspen
•
Area Community Plans, this new chapter provides a framework for
direction as we move forward, and recognizes the need to follow up
with a subsequent Master Plan for the area to provide more detailed
direction.
West of Linkages
Castle Creek
Corridor Growth The new West of Castle Creek Corridor Master Plan will seek to identify
and balance a wide range of factors that contribute to the success of
. . the area, including air and ground transportation, preventing sprawl,
retaining scenic views, important institutional and commercial uses,
recreational opportunities that include a ski area and trail system,
sa l(
Community Workforce Housing, a positive "gateway" experience and
protecting the natural environment. Also critical to this planning effort
Housing is understanding and addressing how this area relates to the Aspen
core.
Transportation
West of Castle Creek Corridor
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
West of Castle Creek Policy
Corridor Policies Categories
I.1. Planning for the West of Castle Creek Corridor area should support Community Goal
a well- defined visual and functional pattern for a series of distinctly
different "nodes" of activity supporting limited uses that are physically
separated by open space.
II.1. The density, size and scale of all new development and Community Goal
redevelopment in the West of Castle Creek Corridor area should
maintain and, if possible, enhance the views of the natural environment
seen as one travels through this portion of the Highway 82 corridor.
III.1. Improve the convenience, reliability, comfort, affordability, safety, Community Goal,
capacity, and quality of experience of transit services and improve Collaborative Initiative
efficiency and coordination between all related aspects of transportation
in the West of Castle Creek Corridor area.
III.2. Ensure safe and efficient pedestrian and bike connections exist Community Goal,
within the West of Castle Creek Corridor area and connect the area to Collaborative Initiative
the downtown Aspen.
West of Castle Creek Corridor
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
West of Castle Creek Corridor Implementation
Steps
Rh
I.1. Planning for the West of Castle Creek Corridor area should support a well- defined and
functional visual pattern for a series of distinctly different "nodes" of activity supporting limited
uses that are physically separated by open space. (Community Goal)
I.1.a Create a comprehensive Land Use Master Plan and Future Land Use Map for the West of Castle
Creek Corridor that ensures planning in the area is coordinated and recognizes the need for improved
transportation services in the corridor before significant growth is allowed to occur in the area. The Master
Plan should preserve uses, while allowing for upgrades to existing uses to maintain their functionality,
vitality and longevity. (I - P)
I.1.b Amend City and County Land Use Codes to implement the findings of the Land Use Master Plan. (LT
- P)
I.1.c Amend City and County zoning in the area to discourage additional development of new free - market
single family and duplex homes in the Highway 82 Corridor. (I - P)
I.1.d Explore the creation of joint City and County Design Standards for the area that reflect the diversity
of uses within the nodes in the corridor. (LT - P)
I.1.e Ensure zoning reflects and will maintain the existing use mix and balance at the Airport Business
Center. (I - P)
I.1.f Maintain the Buttermilk /Inn at Aspen area as a lodge /ski /recreation area. (I - P)
I.1.g Ensure any redevelopment of the Inn at Aspen and the Base of Buttermilk is coordinated in terms of
pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, mass transit, utilities, etc. (LT - P)
I.1.h Ensure that the Airport Master Plan limits uses at the Airport site to transportation and supporting
uses rather than expanding into lodging and other non - airport uses. (I - P)
I.1.i Identify "pockets" of land or parcels within the West of Castle Creek area that should remain as open
space buffers between activity nodes, and zone as appropriate. (I - P)
I.1.j Create a master sign plan for pedestrian and vehicle traffic for the West of Castle Creek area to
facilitate user - friendly access and circulation for residents and visitors, and coordinate the sign plan with
other signage in the UGB. (I - P)
II.1. The density, size and scale of new all development and redevelopment in the West of Castle
Creek Corridor area should maintain and, if possible, enhance the views of the natural environment
seen as one travels through this portion of the Highway 82 corridor. (Community Goal)
II.1.a Visual modeling should be undertaken for the West of Castle Creek Corridor to provide a baseline for
the existing visual aspects of bulk, height, density, setbacks, land use patterns, and scenic view- corridors
worthy of protection. This should provide a basis for amending the City and County Land Use Codes, as
necessary, to guide and /or regulate the visual aspects of future development and redevelopment in the
area. (I - P)
II.1.b Amend the City and County Land Use Code as necessary to require development and redevelopment
to utilize existing topography such as natural ridges and hills to screen development. Large landforms,
earthmoving and landscaping to create continuous man -made visual barriers to screen developments
should not be relied upon to allow development in visually prominent areas. (LT - P)
II.1.c Update Pitkin County lighting regulations to specifically address a limitation on glare from exterior
and interior lighting associated with new development viewed from the Highway 82 corridor. (LT - P)
West of Castle Creek Corridor - Appendix
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (11.15.11)
II.1.d Maintain the 200 foot setback from Highway 82 at the Airport Business Center and the 100 foot
setback in the rest of the corridor. (LT - P)
II.1.e Update the City's Annexation Plan and Land Use Code, as needed, to ensure annexation agreements
maintain the setbacks along the corridor. (LT - P)
II.1.f Evaluate and update the City and County Land Use Codes as needed to maintain scenic view corridors
from Highway 82. Explore creation of new scenic viewplanes along Highway 82. (LT - P)
III.1. Improve the convenience, reliability, comfort, affordability, safety, capacity and quality of
experience of transit services and improve efficiency and coordination between all related aspects
of transportation in the West of Castle Creek Corridor area. (Community Goal, Collaborative
Initiative)
III.1.a Create a comprehensive transportation Master Plan for the West of Castle Creek Corridor based on,
but not limited to, existing planning efforts, including the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision, a Highway
82 access control plan study and RFTA's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program. The purpose of such a plan is to
coordinate and improve all aspects of auto, air, transit, parking and trail function in the context of planned
development or redevelopment of activity nodes in the corridor. (I - T, RFTA, PW, A)
III.1.b Obtain updated data regarding daily traffic levels, including volume and time of day, between the
edge of the Urban Growth Boundary (Airport area) and the Castle Creek bridge. (I - T, PW)
III.1.c Complete and implement a Highway 82 access control plan study to ensure that design and
location of intersections, access and signalization facilitate, rather than impede, the highway's status and
function as the main, year -round access to and from Aspen. As a part of that Plan, improve the safety of
the signalized intersection at the entrance to the Aspen Business Center and ensure that the location of
signalized intersections support effective mode transfers from transit to Park and Ride facilities. (I - PW,
CDOT)
III.1.d Determine the parking need in the ABC, with an emphasis on encouraging transit and trails as
preferred modes of transportation where possible. Develop and implement a plan to accommodate needed
parking on individual parcels and streets within the ABC. (I - PW)
III.1.e Explore the creation of a transportation district in the West of Castle Creek Area to ensure that
development pays its proportional share of transportation improvements in the corridor. (LT - T, PW)
III.1.f Create a transit shuttle in the West of Castle Creek corridor, connecting the City of Aspen to
Burlingame, Truscott, BMC, the Airport Business Center and North 40. (I - RFTA, T, PW)
III.1.g Coordinate the location of RFTA BRT stations at Buttermilk and at the Pitkin County Airport with safe
pedestrian access across Highway 82. (I - RFTA, PW)
III.1.h Explore options for enhancing the transition between transportation modes at Park and Ride
locations that would improve the quality of the transit experience. As one option, consider a frequent
shuttle from Park and Ride locations. (I - RFTA)
III.2. Ensure safe and efficient pedestrian and bike connections exist within the West of Castle
Creek Corridor area and connect the area to downtown Aspen. (Community Goal, Collaborative
Initiative)
III.2.a. Explore and implement funding options for building a safe pedestrian crossing on Highway 82 at
the Airport Business Center. As one option, consider a grade- separated crossing, with preference for an
underpass. (LT - A, CDOT, RFTA, ABC Group, City Manager, County Manager)
III.2.b. Connect all West of Castle Creek residential development within walking or bicycling distance by
trail to the Airport Business Center. (LT- P, P /OS)
III.2.c. Improve trail connections from the Airport Business Center and the immediate environs to the
Highway 82 bike path, the Roaring Fork River and to the Down Valley area. (LT - P, P / /OS)
III.2.d. Improve pedestrian safety and circulation within the Airport Business Center. (I - PW)
III.2.e. Improve summer and winter pedestrian access from the Airport Business Center, North 40 and
Colorado Mountain College to RFTA bus stops on Highway 82. (I - PW)
West of Castle Creek Corridor - Appendix •