The following notes were taken by Catherine Fabio of CDOG at the April 26 Ordinance Committee meeting.

ORDINANCE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2007

Regarding:
Off–leash regulations for Fresh Pond and the City of Cambridge

Location:
City Council Chambers, Cambridge City Hall

Facilitated by:
City Council Ordinance Committee
• Councilor Michael Sullivan, Chair
• Councilor Brian Murphy, Ordinance Committee member

Other City Councilors Present
• Tim Toomey (present for overview by city officials; not present for public comment and ensuing discussion)
• Craig Kelley
• Anthony Galluccio
• Henrietta Davis

City Manager Rich Rossi began the meeting by describing his work on the Fresh Pond Master Plan (FPMP) ten years ago. He explained, “The city adopted an ordinance that dogs could be off leash at Fresh Pond,” adding, “even when people complained, the city stood firm against opposition by folks to put dogs on leash.”

He further described the role of the Fresh Pond Advisory Board (FPAB). “It was formed to serve as stewards of Fresh Pond Reservation. The Advisory committee has worked hard since 2000. “The medallion program was discussed way back in 2000,” he stated. The FPAB believes that, with proper management, people can continue to keep dogs off- leash at Fresh Pond Reservation. However,” he said, “we completely support the medallion program.”

Nancy Schlacter, attorney for the city, stated that there needs to be “some clarification of language” in the ordinances. She also added that there has been some discussion about the possibility of making the medallion a requirement for all off leash spaces in Cambridge.

Janice Snow, of the Fresh Pond Advisory Board, stated that she worked on the medallion program and the master plan. She stated that the FPAB helps support the implementation of the master plan. She added that the master plan was approved in 2000. “The issue tonight,” she stated,” is really about the implementation of policy of the master plan. The medallion program has been a part of the Master plan since 2000.”

Ann Roosevelt, acting president of the FP Water Board and Co-chair of the “Dog Subcommittee" prefaced her statements with an avowal that she is indeed a “lover of dogs.” She then stated that the “rationale for the medallion program is in the FPMP, which city council passed.” She then read a portion of the FPMP rationale for the medallion program (see p. 113 of master plan), emphasizing the statement that the medallion program’s purpose is to, “prevent overuse and to protect the groups that use Fresh Pond Reservation."

Paul Ryder, Recreation Director and member of the Fresh Pond Advisory Board, confirmed the dates and rationale for the program’s development.

Councilor Michael Sullivan, chair of the ordinance committee, asked, “Why no dogs on mown grassy areas? What is the rationale?”

Sam Corda, Managing Director of the Water Department, explained the need to “cordon off areas to allow for growth of plants/vegetation/grasses.”

Councilor Craig Kelley inquired about “data, regarding grassy areas.”

Assistant City Manager Rich Rossi responded by stating, “You can’t get that kind of data…”

Councilor Kelley restated the question to Mr. Rossi.

Mr. Rossi said, “I don’t see it as a data argument.”

Councilor Henrietta Davis asked about the quality of water at Fresh Pond and if that had anything to do with the regulations regarding dogs.

Mr. Rossi stated, “There’s no data that shows there’s been any problem with water quality. ‘I don’t think water issues are a concern to us. We just want to eliminate as many negatives as we can. I don’t think water quality is the issue.”

Mr. Corda added, “Philosophically, you want to prevent over use of land, so that there isn’t water problem or degradation for the reservation.”

Councilor Henrietta Davis replied, “ I understand that sensitivity of balance is necessary, but there are other grassy areas at the reservation that are not as sensitive.” She inquired about whether areas of the reservation that might allow for “less tight fencing” and “more dog-friendliness.” She stated that some paths are so narrow that two owners with dogs on leash cannot comfortably pass one another. I’d like to know,” she continued, “if there are areas that are more flexible.”

Mr. Rossi then suggested use of the piece of land at the Huron Ave/Fresh Pond Parkway intersection, an area which is about an acre in size.

Councilor Davis asked about “Weir Meadow.”

Mr. Rossi replied, “we could look at other areas, but I wouldn’t guarantee it.”

Councilor Sullivan called Officer Mark McCabe, Cambridge Animal Commissioner to the microphone, asking him about the regulation regarding number of dogs permitted per person.

Commissioner McCabe stated that he doesn’t see how a person could manage to control 3 dogs off leash and another one or two on-leash.

Ms. Schlacter stated that the ordinance intended the regulation to mean “three dogs per person, regardless of whether they were on or off-leash.”

There was some mumbling in the room, both among city officials staff as well as the general public about people’s meaning-making of the ordinance and its intent.

Officer McCabe did not comment on what his perception of intent of the ordinance was.

Councilor Sullivan asked whether the Water Board has control over the reservation.

Nancy Golver responded, “No, the city manager has control. The Water Board advises the City Manager.”

Mr. Rossi added, “I don’t think the Water board has authority over all uses of the Reservation. The city manager has control of the reservation.”

Councilor Sullivan asked, “Is it possible that the Water Board could adopt his ordinance its own, without Council approval?”

Mr. Rossi: “Yes.”

Councilor Sullivan discussed the issue of fairness of people from different towns using Fresh Pond. He cited how he likes that Belmont has a place his son (living in Cambridge) can go to skate board, adding that if every town only permitted their own citizens to use recreational facilities, this kind of opportunity would not be possible. He stated that he “hopes that in a one year period of time, a complete study can be done,” adding that there needs to be “some sort of sunset clause.” He also lamented, “I don’t know if we can get the data in advance…” He further suggested the possibility pf a "quid pro quo" program which would allow residents of towns which allow use of open spaces by off-leash dogs belonging to Cambridge residents to, in turn, use our off-leash spaces legally. He admitted that he didn't know whether this was realistic and that it might make enforcement difficult.

Councilor Brian Murphy, member of the Ordinance Committee, asked, “How will enforcement of these regulations be managed?” He suggested the possibility of charging a fee for out of town people to use the reservation. He asked, “What is the goal for grassy areas?” and “what is the definition of ROMP?” Is there a difference between the regulations at Fresh Pond and the regulations of off-leash activity in other areas of the city?” What about the 3-dogs-only ordinance? How will we enforce that?”

Councilor Sullivan ordered “an audit to the City Manager in consultation with the Water Board that a dog run be created at the reservation for dog romping. “A grassy area should be set aside,” he stated. “There has to be a place in that 300+ acre expanse that can be set aside.”

Councilor Murphy brought up the topic of Binney Street. He has proposed this be reviewed for dog park space two years ago.

Mr. Rossi stated, “We will talk to them” [It is unclear who “they” are- DCR?] about giving us a portion or all of it for a temporary dog run.”

Councilor Murphy asked, “Can you have that conversation tomorrow?

Mr. Rossi, replied, “Yes.”

Meeting outcome:
1. Regulations were discussed but not voted on.
2. It’s still not clear what the intent was regarding the 3-dog rule.
3. Rationale was provided for the “no dogs on mown grassy areas” rule, although it is a “preventative” rather than an intervention strategy. Dogs are not causing environmental degradation, but the feeling seemed to be that they might in the future.
4. Water Quality is not a current concern or rationale for the Medallion Program. Cambridge water is not a factor in the medallion debate.
5. Councilors had mixed reactions related to no-medallions-for-out-of-towners rule.
6. Councilors were in agreement that more data needs to be provided, in order to understand the rationale for the program.
7. Mr. Rossi agreed to get information regarding possibility of Binney Street serving as a “temporary” dog run/off-leash area.
8. Councilor Sullivan requested the clerk “put in an order to audit to the City Manager in consultation with the Water Board, that a dog run be created at the Reservation for dog romping.”

Respectfully Submitted,

Catherine Fabio,
Cambridge Dog Owners’ Group