Loading...
Minutes - Open Space - December 9, 2009 Approved as corrected 111312010. OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes December 9, 2009 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Briggs Allyn Feinberg John Putnam Kay Taucher STAFF PRESENT Steve Armstead Bob Crifasi Don D'Amico Ann Goodhart Rick Hatfield Whit Johnson Jean Koszalka Dean Paschall Mike Patton Pam Prentice Jim Reeder Ronda Romero Eric Stone Delani Wheeler CITY ATTORNEY Deb Kalish CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Kay Tauscher read a proclamation for Sigrid Noll Ueblacker, founder of the Birds of Prey Foundation, recognizing her dedication and years of service to the community. Rick Hatfield, Ranger Naturalist, spoke to the family and public about his experiences with Sigrid, her teaching and her protection and rehabilitation of injured raptors. AGENDA ITEM 1 - Approval of Minutes Bill Briggs moved that the minutes for both October 14, 2009 and November 04, 2009 be approved as read. Allyn Feinberg seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Background on the Four Mile Creek Dog Regulation Changes Steve Armstead, Visitor Master Plan Coordinator, reported on the background of dog regulations in the Four Mile Creek area. The Visitor Master Plan {VMP} which was adopted by council in April of 2005 after considerable public input, had as one of its main goals to make sure the visitor experience was being enhanced across the system. This area among others, where paved Greenways areas connect with open space areas, were called out in the VMP as areas where changes would be made to insure safety and minimize conflict. The dog regulation change in this area would be to go from "voice and sight" to "on leash". The department accomplished many of the changes in the Greenways system called out in the VMP in 2007. Unfortunately, the department has learned that the Four Mile Creek area had been overlooked. There is also concern with dogs being off leash in this area due to the riparian area that is adjacent to the trail. Bill Briggs asked for confirmation of the length of trail this involves. Steve said that it is about a half mile section of open space trail. John Putman asked if the county had any regulations for dogs in public areas. Steve replied that any County Parks and Open Space areas require dogs to be on leash. For areas that fall with in unincorporated Boulder County, there are not any regulations. AGENDA ITEM 2 - Public Participation Erik Rudolph, Boulder: Erik lives in the north section of Palo Park. He asked if the change in regulations in the Four Mile Creek area are due to a specific problem or is it the perception that there might be a AGENDA ITEM I PAGE 1 problem someday down the line. Erik also asked if there is a problem with dogs going into the riparian area. He thinks that changing the regulations will be fixing a problem that does not exist. Steve Armstead responded that this change is not in response to a specific issue. Michael LeFevre, Boulder: Michael visits the Four Mile Creek trail regularly and believes that problems could be avoided by clearly posting Voice and Sight signs. He believes the department is putting the concerns of visitors before the thoughts of the adjacent community. He recommends having this trail be under the Voice and Sight program. Tom Isaacson, Boulder: Tom made a comment about the recent closure of Boulder Falls. He appreciated staff meeting the public to do a site visit to discuss climbing access. He says the access solution depends on whether Boulder Falls stays closed. Tom recommends that the board take up the issue of Boulder Falls as an agenda item. Mike Patton responded that staff would be taking a field trip to the falls to look at these issues again. This area is a popular climbing location. There are prospects for reopening the falls. There is not absolute safety, but as Jim Reeder reported, there is a plan for scaling in the area which will cost $30,000450,000 initially. It would cost approximately $5,000 to $10,000 on an annual basis to maintain. This is one approach that could reopen the falls. There are prospects for a partial reopening that would provide access for climbers and visitors. The department is working to come up with a plan that takes public safety in to consideration. Allyn Feinberg asked if the access to climbing would be significantly different if the falls were reopened as opposed to them staying closed to the public. Mike responded that he was not sure. John Putnam asked what the timing might be for the department to come back to the board with more information. Mike responded that the department will have information for the board before the spring thaw, however, if a solution to the access issue jumps out and it seems to resonate than it will be back sooner. John commented that the solutions seem to come along with a price tag. This may be a good time to look at a partnership with a foundation, a donation system or a fee system to help support this maintenance. Liz Supples, Boulder: Liz lives in the Northfield Commons subdivision. She walks her dog on the Four Mile Creek trail on a regular basis. Liz does not agree with the regulation changes in this area. She believes if there is not a problem, so why make a change? Liz's experience is that dog guardians are compliant with off-leash regulations. She supports having the area be part of the Voice and Sight program. Susann Shier, Boulder: Susann agrees with the previous speakers about the Four Mile Creek trail. Why fix something that is not broken? She believes the department should post educational signs for the bikers. The responsibility should be shared between all parties, not just the dog guardians. She believes that education is the answer, not regulation changes. Ed Mills, FIDOS, Boulder: Ed is the president of Friends Interested in Dogs on Open Space (FIDOS). Dog issues were discussed as a whole during the VMP process. Ed has visited the area and admits it is a confusing area, but doesn't remember there ever being a conversation specifically about the Four Mile Creek trail. Ann Gately, Boulder: Ann has lived next to the Four Mile Creek trail for 18 years. She is concerned that there was no public notice about this regulation change. She believes the neighbors should have been notified since this regulation change affects them directly. Ann is disappointed that she found out about AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 2 this regulation change when the department posted a sign. She would like an opportunity for the public to speak on the issue before any changes are made. John Putnam commented that since the lour Mile Creek trail regulation change did not go out in a public notice as an agenda item; he does not think the board should make any decisions or recommendations on this item at this time. Kay Tauscher recommended that this item be on the agenda for the next meeting. Bill Briggs also recommended that the regulation change be postponed until this item can come before the board as an agenda item. John Putnam agreed. Allyn Feinberg commented that decisions have been made to get to this point through the VMP process, but if the board needs to discuss this item further, then she believes the department should postpone the regulation changes until it can be discussed as an agenda item. The board agreed unanimously that this item should be listed on the agenda for the January 2010 meeting. John Putman asked if someone from Greenways could weigh in on what their expectations for this area are. AGENDA ITEM 3 - Director's Update Google Earth Presentation Mike Patton recommended the Google Earth presentation be moved to directly after the meeting is adjourned. This will give the board a chance to attend to and work with the program and not keep any members of the public waiting for other agenda items. The board agreed with Mike's recommendation. Gross Reservoir Mike Patton sent an email to the board regarding information that was sent to council about proposed modifications to Gross Reservoir and a potential intergovernmental agreement (IGA). This project is on the fast track, and it has the potential to go before council at the board's next regularly scheduled meeting. The department may be coming to the board on January 13, 2010 for approval and recommendation on the IGA. Mike introduced Bob Crifasi, Water Resources Administrator, who would be giving an update on the project. Before Bob started his update, John Putnam recused himself from this item. Bob updated the board on the history of this project. He also explained the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Denver, the City of Lafayette, and the City of Boulder. He is hoping to bring documents to the board by the next meeting, at which time there will be a more extensive presentation given. Mike Patton added that the department has set aside monies in the 2010 budget for this project. Kay Tauscher asked, if Boulder's water rights would not change, how it would benefit Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)? Bob said that when the City of Lafayette uses it"s water from Gross Reservoir, it has to travel through OSMP properties and these areas will benefit from there being a constant water flow in the creek. Bill Brigs asked how Boulder County ties into this. Bob answered that Boulder County has 1041 permitting authority, which is a State law that gives counties involvement in issues of statewide interest. AGENDA ITF,M 1 PAGE 3 Bill asked if Boulder County is going to contribute financially to this project. Bob said Boulder County has a different suite of rights. They are working with the Denver Water Board directly on different issues of concern to them. Boulder County hasn't been involved in this project other than to say they are in support of what we are trying to accomplish. Community Collaborative Group Update Mike-Patton- introduced-Dean-Paschall, Communication-and-Public-Process-Manager.. Dean-said-that-the Community Collaborative Group (CCG) is well into the collaborative learning phase of the process. The last meeting was on December 3, which covered ground rules and natural resources and cultural resources. The next meeting will be tomorrow night, December 10, at Chenyvale from 6pm-9pm. Recreational resources will be discussed at that meeting. There is a tentative date of January 16 for a CCG field trip. Dean said he thinks the process is going well. There has been about 95% attendance at the meetings and when a member can not attend, an alternate has been attending in their place. Communication seems to be flowing smoothly. Mike Patton added that the department has been asked to produce information for the Weekly Information Packet (WIP) for Council on the caucus process. Allyn Feinberg asked how much staff time is being used to produce additional documents to the CCG members. Dean responded that the work being requested is documentation that staff is already working on. Currently it has not been a huge amount of extra work. Allyn added that she thinks it's really important that this project get completed on time. Dean said that after four meetings the project is on target. There are two external criteria that help keep the project on target. One is the department has hired an outside consultant with a contract that will expire. The other is the department recognizes the amount of time the community is volunteering and wants to honor that. Kay Tauscher asked what documentation are being requested from the CCG. Dean replied that there have been requests for statistical data. Most of the information has been readily available. John Putnam asked how the coordination between the neighborhood CCG members and the neighborhood residents is going. Dean said that it seems to be going as the department hoped. The neighborhood CCG members have been reaching out to the community. The department will continue to trust but verify. AGENDA ITEM 4 - Matters from the Board John Putnam will not be able to attend the January meeting. AGENDA ITEM 5 - Title change in the SRC definition section from "voice control" to "voice and sight control." Eric Stone, Resource Systems Division Manager, introduced this item. He mentioned that Jean Koszalka, Lead Ranger/Naturalist, and Deb Kalish, Assistant City Attorney, were in attendance and available for questions. This item was brought to the department's attention because there are inconsistencies in the revised code. Eric gave a brief history of code changes dealing with "voice and sight control" (attachment B of the memo). Deb Kalish said when this issue was brought to her attention it was found that there in no definition of voice and sight control in the ordinance, only of voice control. Jean Koszalka added that there will be no change to how this ordinance is enforced. This change will help the public to better understand the ordinance. AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 4 John Putnam asked what the department's stance is on visually impaired people. Are they required to have their dogs leashed because they can not have sight control? Is there a section of the ordinance that deals with service animals or do they just have to have them leashed? Jean answered that this is another item that is being worked on for clarification. There are so many different kinds of service animals and members of the ranger staff are not permitted to ask a member of the public why they have a service animal. In Jean's experience she has never seen a service animal on the trails that was not leashed. If an individual has a service dog, the animal is allowed anywhere on open space property whether it be a leashed, off leash or no dogs permitted area. John Putnam also asked what the range of enforcement is. Jean responded that rangers try to take the totality of the situation into account before issuing a citation. Many times rangers use the situation as a chance to educate members of the public on the rules and regulations. Bill Briggs asked if this ordinance prohibits people from walking their dogs at night. Jean responded that at night the dog guardian needs to be more aware of what their dog is doing due to the lack of sunlight. Public Participation Ed Mills, FIDOS, Boulder: Ed is the president of FIDOS. Ed commented that there is public confusion on the dog regulations. He is concerned with the fact that dog situations on the trails are up to the ranger discretion as to whether a citation is given or not. Jean Koszalka gave some examples of situations when a ranger would ticket a person and when they would just use the situation for public education. In all cases the dog guardian was technically breaking the ordinance. This is where the confusion lies. Ed was disappointed that FIDOS was not notified in advance of this meeting. Ile requests that a decision on this item be postponed until he has a sufficient opportunity to have a discussion with other members of FIDOS. He believes that between FIDOS and OSMP, they can come up with some mutually agreeable language. Ed read a statement from FIDOS. Return to Board Deb Kalish shared with the board that this section of the ordinance is an affirmative defense and it would be within the judge's discretion to determine whether or not a reasonably prudent person would act in the way the alleged violator was acting. It's not necessarily up to the staff member. Allyn Feinberg said that in her experience, any policy or ordinance changes went before the public before any changes were made for comment. The language itself has always been done by the City Attorney's office and not negotiated by the public. She was not aware that this was an area for negotiation. Kay Tauscher asked if the department has a set definition on what is a ticketable offence and what is not. Allyn added that there was an agreement between the department and the dog guardians that the content of the dog video, which is required to be viewed before a person can get a Voice and Sight dog tag, is the definition of what is ticketable and what is not. Kay responded that she believes it's reasonable to ask the department for a clear definition. Mike Patton said that he believes the ordinance is the definition. Mike read the ordinance aloud. Kay Tauscher responded that she would like to see a definition that gives every one a clear understanding about what will be enforced. Deb Kalish said since the ordinance change does not change the way enforcement is handled, then if this change is approved tonight, the department could go back and meet with user groups to discuss regulation changes. AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 5 John Putnam is concerned with the language because he believes there is a disconnect between what is written on paper and what actually gets enforced. Kay Tauscher agreed with John. There is a difference between the wording of the ordinance and the understanding of the ordinance out in the field. Bill Briggs believes that it is almost a breech-in-process that-FIDOS-was not a-part of this discussion-T-he-- wording as it stands sounds to him like the department is trying to make things as tight as possible and maximize the chance of giving citations. This kind of language, even if it is legally acceptable, is not good. He recommends changing the wording of the ordinance from what a dog should not do, to what a dog guardian must do. MOTION Bill Briggs moved that the issue be tabled for a short time period until conversations can be had with user groups and language can be agreed upon. Kay Tauscher and Bill Briggs were in favor, Allyn Feinberg and John Putnam were opposed. The motion was not approved. This item will come back to the board in a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. These minutes were prepared by Pam Prc ntice. APPROVED l 1 C17 a,411 Kay " Scher tip Board hair DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 PAGE 6