Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20231019 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Annual Retreat Held on October 19, 2023 8:00 am at Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Hallam Lake City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Brian Long, Micah Davis , Steve Barr Adoption of the Agenda: Adam clarified the following agenda changes: move acquisitions strategy to Executive Session, move New Castle Creek Bridge to a later date, and add a review of open meetings and records laws, and ethics/conflict of interest. Dan made a motion to approve the amended agenda; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Dan made a motion to approve the minutes (there was no second), and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: None. New Business: Leashes: John presented the question for this discussion: should staff update City codes related to the leash policy, and if so, how? John provided current City code, noting that the most recent code update was made in 1973. Current code states that all dogs must be leashed City-wide when off the owner’s property. He noted that the department has adapted this, developing guidelines for three categories for dog/leash protocol: 1. Watchful off-leash play (Rio Grande Park, Wagner Park, Smuggler Mountain Road, Marolt Open Space, Roundabout pond). 2. Dogs strictly prohibited (Aspen Golf Course, Cozy Point Ranch, North Star Open Space, Maroon Creek Wetlands). 3. Leash law enforced (downtown, Heron Park, Hunter Creek Trail, Jennie Adair Wetlands, Marolt Wetlands, playing fields at Aspen Public School campus and Aspen Recreation Center). In general, as people travel about town, their pets must be leashed. John noted that there are certain challenging scenarios including people letting their dogs off leash before arriving at off-leash areas. He also mentioned conflicts with the adapted language, including the prohibition of dogs on the golf course in summer, while in winter dogs are permitted on the Bernese Boulevard Trail. Matt added that many residents exercise their dogs on the golf course prior to open hours in summer. Howie added that Jeff Woods redefined the golf course as a park that has a golf course on it, so that when golf is not being played, the space may be used as a park. John commented that the current protocol seems to be working well; Matt added that there are more conflicts involving dogs in winter in terms of safety and dogs impacting grooming quality on ski-only trails. A trial protocol was conducted at Herron Park this year, excluding dogs from the park and water between 9am and 5pm. Signage prompted public comment; John said that comments were split 50:50 in support and opposed. John queried the Board for comments on what people want in terms of dogs off leash. Julie commented on the exercise component of being off leash and that the owner’s experience is better when the dog is off leash. She mentioned that the ordinance references a 10-foot leash, while other information states a 6-foot leash. Dan commented that play is a big part of the experience for dog owners and dogs. Julie added that interaction with other dogs is important. Ted added that socialization among dog owners is another component. Howie mentioned that it is difficult to run with a dog on leash. John commented that certain experiences are not available to a dog on leash, such as water play and exploration. Julie added that sometimes dogs can be friendlier off leash than on leash. Matt added that certain dogs need to be leashed because they may not be comfortable with socialization. Howie asked if this discussion includes the dog-walking industry. John explained that the dog-walking industry is not part of today’s discussion, noting that Pitkin County rule states that an individual may not have more than three dogs on leash under their control. Matt asked for a discussion of what non-dog-owners are looking for in areas used by dogs/dog- owners such as parks and trails. Julie mentioned fear of animals. Adam mentioned parents and safety of children. Dan commented on the nuisance of dogs getting into personal space or approaching to eat people’s food. Howie said that safety for cyclists and spaces free of dog waste are important. Adam added that dog-owners are more likely to pick up dog waste when the dog is on leash because they see it, and that people may wish to experience wildlife and that dogs impact this. Julie commented that people also impact wildlife. Adam explained that people stay on trail corridors and dogs explore away from trails; Matt added that dogs chase deer and catch and injure or kill wildlife. Austin cited studies that show exponentially greater impacts to wildlife by off-leash dogs than on-leash dogs. John prompted the Board with the question of updating code. Julie commented that policy needs to be updated to current times, mentioning there are more dogs at work, emotional support dogs, etc. today. Julie said that there should be more flexibility for dogs as they are companions more often. Adam commented that this supports the need for more regulations simply because there are so many more dogs in the community. Howie added that exponential growth and cultural changes create more opportunities for positive and negative interactions; leash laws are like speed control in the road, for safety and a more pleasant experience. Howie expressed support for retaining leash laws in the urban environment. Mike commented that at Burlingame dogs are prohibited due to the wildlife corridor; but the reality is that there are many dogs at Burlingame because federal law recognizes emotional support dogs. Mike posed the question of bringing code up to date in light of the dichotomy between dog-prohibited areas and the needs of people with emotional support animals. Julie recognized the need for leash laws and mentioned her desire for more flexibility. John expressed that there is a need for greater clarity, both for the public and for rangers and police officers who are tasked with enforcing leash laws. Dan commented that the code is used to bring about desired behaviors; the Board should define that and make code reflect that. Howie mentioned that what was written 50 years ago is still largely applicable; it should be cleared up for consistency in leash length. He also commented on the emotional support animal issue. Dan added that emotional support dogs receive special treatment in the home but not in parks; emotional support dogs are not ADA animals as service dogs are. A discussion followed about the challenges of enforcement. Howie suggested that consistent rules on public and private property could be easier from all perspectives, including management. Austin brought up the topic of dedicated dog parks and code’s role in conversations with the community about this idea that comes up regularly. Aspen does not have dog parks, instead there are areas where watchful off-lease play is allowed which currently satisfies needs. Brian commented that the current policy seems to be working; not everything is perfect, but compliance is greater than in many other communities. Brian mentioned Parks’ dog guidance brochure as balancing the wall-to-wall leash law, however this is not in the code. Micah added that twice/week trash collections support compliance because people see the program working. He added that free leashes provided by the County at certain trailheads is something the City could do. Adam commented that the status quo seems to be working well. He said that without dedicated off-leash places, dog owners would still have their dogs off leash anywhere. For comparison, John explained the County’s blanket policy requiring dogs to be leashed at all times and that a single person may walk no more than three dogs. The County further defines where dogs are allowed through management plans, including seasonal dog regulations on certain properties. Snowmass Village uses the term “circle of control,” which is a 10-foot radius in which dogs much be under leash, visual, voice, or electronic control. In addition, there are mandatory leash zones in Snowmass Village such as the mall. The U.S. Forest Service specifies a 6-foot leash must be used at all times. Dogs seem to be allowed off-leash outside Wilderness; within Wilderness dogs much be leashed at all times. Conundrum is a no-dogs zone. Park City describes their dog-friendly culture online, although they technically require dogs to be leashed except when on private property or in dog parks. Vail has similar policies, with the 10-foot circle of control and designated off-leash areas. Breckenridge has similar policies, including control by a competent person. Policy is similar in Telluride and Steamboat Springs. John outlined potential options: 1. do nothing, 2. codify the status quo, or 3. expand or contract the status quo. Howie asked about dog waste rules in the other communities; John explained that it is required everywhere. Ted asked if staff is hearing strong sentiment from the community for any certain changes. Brian said that rangers receive feedback at every contact and sentiments are all over the place. Matt suggested tackling this to set up long term success. Howie suggested that the policy should be updated so it is not dismissed; make it a 2023 ordinance. Howie said that wildlife should be included in dog-related code as a critical factor in approaching dog control. Ted said that he supports codifying existing policy with minor changes. Julie said that that an update is needed and expressed support for option three; she said that e-collars should be included in policy as well as education. Julie suggested a trial at one area as a starting point. Dan commented that existing code is still mostly valid and that areas where dogs may be off- leash are comparatively small. He suggested a balance where some things are kept fluid. Matt explained that enforcement can only be done per code; code could for example state that Marolt, etc. are watchful off-leash dog areas. Herron Park is nuanced and needs further discussion, and other open space parcels may also require conversation. Adam said that he leans toward option 2; he suggested that off-leash dogs harassing wildlife should be a ticket- able offense. Dan said that code could be updated with voice and e- control, and asked how this would be enforceable. Matt said that the status quo is watchful off-leash control; the question is whether we should have a different definition for leash zones. Julie suggested adding a QR code to the map to provide dog information. John explained that Ordinance 7 amends code to permit dogs off leash within town so long as the dog is within control of the owner by other means; and Ordinance 10 deals with leashed areas. Matt asked how leash is defined; John said he believes it means a physical leash. Matt asked the board if e-collars and voice control regulations should differ between multi-use trails and single-track trails. Brian added that currently, if moving, dogs must be on leash. Julie said that the definition that best suits enforcement would make most sense, and then educate the public accordingly. OST recommended that the leash rules be updated to reflect the status quo. Staff will come back to OSTB with a draft update to the leash law for their review. Accessibility John opened this topic, sharing the accessibility focus of a recent Colorado Open Space Alliance conference presentation. He asked the Board to consider: as parks come up for renovation/updating, which ones should be prioritized for accessibility? John prompted Board members with an exercise about evaluating accessibility at open spaces, parks, and trails. The group then visited Jennie Adair Park to practice identifying and scoring accessibility factors in the field. (The field visit to Jennie Adair Park was not recorded.) When the group returned, a discussion followed in which reflections on accessibility with regard to City Open Space, parks, and trails were shared. Comments included noting accessibility needs for all types of impairments, communication of accessibility information, noting certain settings where accessibility may not be possible or appropriate, and noting that accessibility is an important topic for parks and open space. Howie commented that while accessibility is important, wildlife habitat is also an important function of open space, citing seasonal closures and limited/no access areas where wildlife habitat is preserved and protected. He said that wildlife habitat is a criterion that affects accessibility; not everything needs to be accessible 24/7 by everyone. John added that not every park or open space can do everything, and that it is important to look at which sites are appropriate for certain accessibility goals. Mike added that accessibility is considered when designing trails, but that it is not always considered when designing wall heights, for example. He said that it is a positive step to take accessibility considerations to the next level. Steve commented that better accessibility exists within certain more recent projects such as Promontory Park at Burlingame, noting the growth in accessibility focus over the years. John showed a video about accessibility experiences for families. John commented that he would like the Board to help determine which types of experiences should be prioritized. Howie asked John if he would change anything where recent park improvements have been made. Mike said that recent projects have been thoughtfully designed; he mentioned that Ute Park is intended to be a more natural park and it is inherently more difficult to access. He noted grades and wood chip materials at Herron Park, commenting that accessibility is an important topic to discuss. Steve commented on the importance of considering financial and design aspects of accessibility in advance for best success. Adam suggested prioritizing diverse experiences so that we have one site across a spectrum of accessibility levels as a starting point. He suggested Wagner Park or the Yellowbrick playground as possibilities for a highly accessible park, given their high visibility and accessible settings. Matt mentioned that the Yellowbrick playground is in the long range plan, coming up in the next couple of years. It is the most visited and largest traditional playground, with areas for ages 2-5 and 5-12; there is a lot of opportunity to improve these in terms of accessibility. Dan commented that accessibility should be a top priority when the next appropriate park gets redesigned. He mentioned that some of the most special open spaces should be considered for accessibility design as well, to provide equitable access to these gems. He also suggested bringing people with disabilities into the conversation to ensure meaningful change, suggesting Challenge Aspen. Austin echoed the idea of bringing in people with disabilities to inform the process. Brian commented that he knows a consultant for accessiblity design. Matt shared his experience with modern sit bikes during the COSA conference, commenting that trail width is important. He suggested retrofitting Maroon Creek Gorge Trail and incorporating accessibility into the proposed skills trail at the Marolt Open Space. The group worked in pairs to prioritize properties to consider for accessibility improvements. John proposed moving the topic of Trail Use Trends to later in the retreat or another date. Board Comments: Julie: None. Dan: None. Ted: None. Howie: Howie asked if a study of impacts to Deer Hill related to the Lumberyard development was being conducted; John said that a study is underway and will continue into winter. Howie asked how this information will get to the developer. Adam said that the report serves to inform the Board and open space is management instead of influencing the development. Howie also mentioned having questions about the Castle Creek Bridge project. Open Meeting Law Review Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney, presented a review of legal aspects of Board activities: Colorado open meetings law, Colorado open records law, and conflict of interest ethics. Kate began with open meetings law, explaining that state statues requirie public business to be conducted in the public sphere; the public must be noticed 24 hours in advance with agenda information. A meeting is constituted when more than two Board members get together to speak, including text and email conversations, even if the members are not directly together. Howie asked how noticing is to be done. Kate explained that posting is done via the City of Aspen website. Matt said that Open Space Board meeting posting is typically done on the Friday prior to a Thursday meeting. Kate reviewed the open records act, mentioning that emails and all other records are available to the public and subject to open records requests. Colorado law provides for three days to respond to open records requests. Julie asked for clarification about sharing information related to an open space topic on her facebook page; such communication is subject to open records law. Kate elaborated on open records situations. Kate spoke about the ethical code of conduct, Chapter 2 Section 02. She highlighted that it is not allowed to use information gained from being part of this Board for personal financial gain or interests. Board members cannot vote on a matter in which they have personal or private interest. Austin asked about the leash law conversation, and whether personal interest comes into effect. Kate said that legislative acts such as leash law code do not fall within the realm of conflict of interest unless the Board member could potentially profit from the code decision. Gifts of substantial value may not be accepted. Kate mentioned that conflicts of interest need to be stated at meetings and that board member must then leave the meeting. Dan asked for guidance for organizing around things like the half-cent reauthorization or Castle Creek Bridge, asking for reminders about such situations. Kate explained that Board members cannot use the resources they have as Board members to further a ballot issue. Actions taken on ballot issues must be clearly made as a private individual. Board members may attend a party or gathering, but they must not discuss City business. Adam asked about immunity from liability; Katie said that generally Board members are immune. Adam asked how far conflict of interest may go. Kate provided examples. Adam asked about potential conflicts of interest related to serving on other Boards. Kate explained that employment is different from Board service, and conflicts are typically clear in these cases. Generally there is not a conflict of interest with regard to Board service, unless there could be any financial interest. Matt commented that the City grants funds to community non-profits from the Parks fund. Kate said that it would be advisable to contact her office in such situations to discuss whether a potential conflict of interest could exist. Austin mentioned Howie’s County Open Space Board membership and whether he would be allowed to vote on whether funding should be granted in either direction for an acquisition. Kate said that this does not constitute a conflict because it would not involve personal gain. Recommendations and decisions carry different weight in terms of conflict of interest. Matt commented that unique special event requests could present conflict of interest situations. Kate explained due process rights related to decisions such as event permits. Kate encouraged calls with questions. Kate explained the rationale and Colorado law for holding executive sessions; she read this language. Howie moved to go into Executive Session; Dan seconded and all were in favor. Julie made a motion to leave Executive Session; Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. Old Business: Trail Use Trends Brian presented an analysis of trail use trends. Overall use is up; this is a new norm. Use has increased the most on main arterial trails, use on bike-pedways has increased, shoulder season use has increased, winter use has risen more slowly, and speeds are greater. Brian presented numbers from various counters; the greatest numbers come from the 7th Street end of the Marolt Pedestrian Bridge. Howie asked if Brian has data indicating destinations of people using the Marolt Pedestrian Bridge; Brian said he could try to correlate data among adjacent counters, but there isn’t a counter on the trail that goes to Marolt Place. Strava heat maps can show some of this information. Howie suggested WeCycle data. Brian showed 24-hour profiles, revealing commuting and recreational use patterns. Matt added that AABC Trail use has greatly increased, related to eBike rental users going to the Bells and Owl Creek Trail. Brian showed winter trends on the Marolt Pedestrian Bridge, noting pandemic-related increases. Howie asked how Marolt Pedestrian Bridge use compares to Castle Creek Bridge use. Brian said data is difficult to gather on Castle Creek Bridge, but that use of the West Hallam Bike Pedway is about one-fifth of use on the Hopkins Bike Pedway. He showed hourly and daily counts to illustrate patterns related to events such as the pandemic, holidays, seasonal weather, etc. He showed counter data from West Hallam revealing changes spanning the period before and after Castle Creek Bridge construction, revealing a steady rise in use. Brian reported on speed control efforts. Speed limit signage has been installed. Most limits are 15 mph; a radar speed trailer is in use. Matt added that this information is a precursor to more discussions on eBikes and general trail issues. Micah mentioned several open, full-time Parks positions: Assistant Nordic Coordinator, Ranger/Groomer, Administration. Next Meeting Date(s): Next meeting is November 2nd with the County at noon. Next regular meeting is November 16, 2023. Adjourned: Ted made a motion to adjourn; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous.