Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 08 09

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes July 12th, 2017 Page 3 of 6 At the previous meeting the board indicated that it liked the formatting changes developed by Fiona. Helen had asked that the "master goals for properties" list in the document be expanded. Helen directed the board to the expanded list in the packet and asked the board members for further edits or suggestions for the list. Fiona suggested starting each property goal with a verb to make them consistent. Missy suggested words about recreation use in the "large contiguous acreage" goal. Mike replied that larger acreage would also feed into the "wildlife health" goal, but he felt that "larger acreage" is a laudable goal on its own. Helen and Laura both pointed out that trails are already listed as a goal, which addresses passive recreation, though several board members pointed out there are other forms of passive recreation besides trails. Laura suggested the compromise of adding "expand passive recreation opportunities" to the list: if it's a useful goal it will get used, and if not, it won't be. Missy asked about the difference between "unique wildlife habitat" and "increase habitat health." Helen responded that some properties might have a unique feature or support unique wildlife, and this has been seen as an asset in the original evaluation matrix. Missy suggested clarifying that. Helen commented that there were several parts of the original matrix that dealt with different types of wetlands and she wondered if the board wanted to include another wetland category. Fiona responded that if there are features relevant to only a few properties it may not be worth adding such a goal to the list. The board suggested "preserve wetlands" instead of "preserve riparian zones," as wetlands include both riparian areas with surface water and areas that are saturated but may not include visible "open water." Helen had previously asked the board to email her suggestions for alternative titles for this document. The goal was to find a title that emphasized that acquisition isn't always the primary goal for the land parcels being evaluated. Helen and Ember compiled board members' suggestions into a numbered list, included in the packet. Helen wanted OSAB to choose a final name. Helen commented that she liked #11 because the word "opportunity" sounded positive. Mike liked #12. Laura commented that she liked words like "assessment" and "evaluation" because they sound more neutral. Inclusion on this list has been occasionally interpreted as implied endorsement of the land's purchase, and she wanted to emphasize that the land is simply being evaluated, not necessarily being recommended. Jim liked starting the title with the word "opportunities" because it sounded gentler to him. Jeff suggested change "creating trail connectivity" to "improving trail connectivity" in #11, and the board agreed with this. Laura thought "opportunities" seemed squishy and euphemistic: this is a list of land parcels, so the title should reflect what's actually being listed: land. Fiona agreed with Laura, but Mike and Missy averred that they rather liked "squishy" and non -threatening. The board voted between #11 and #12, and came up with a 3-3 tie. Several board members asked Helen to choose and break the tie, and she chose #11, but with Jeff's suggested re -wording. Fiona asked if the word "OSAB" should occur in the title, but Helen responded that authorship could be made clear with letterhead. IX. Discussion Item: Response from Joe Stevens, Director of Parks & Recreation, Regarding the Dog Off Leash Recommendations At the previous meeting, OSAB reviewed a document listing the Short-term Dog Issues Tiger Team's brainstormed management strategies for the Davidson Mesa Dog 4