Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2020 05 13

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes March 11, 2020 Page 3 of 6 6. Board Updates A. OSAB Study Session with City Council is scheduled for May 26, 2020. Helen brought the study session template she was given to prepare for this meeting. She said she would develop a draft for this document based on the priorities we identified in the Jan/Feb meetings. She passed out hard copies of the template. B. Helen thanked Nathan for the discussion, his ownership if the issue, and continued dialog. She offered to put the issue on a future meeting agenda. Helen asked to work on process, asking to give OSAB and the public both a chance to provide feedback before regulation. Peter said he has toured City Open Space and looked at gated access and saw a lot of it. He hoped the City doesn’t try to regulate existing gates, he doesn’t think it would be useful fighting for it. David said he likes where the board landed: focusing on impacts and encroachment and social trails rather than the gates per se. Laura emphasized that the concern is impact, encroachment, and social trails, not gates, so rules and announcements should talk about the issue we directly care about, rather than the proxy (gates). Tom commented that he sees people mowing more than they should from their gates and thinks being off-trail is the more important issue. Jessamine agrees that the focus should be on impacts to public property more than on private property. She added that she had people reach out to her for information on the City’s formal communication and had a hard time knowing where to point people, finding City communication is difficult. Helen pointed out that there are some legitimate reasons for people to access Open Space, such as mowing a 10 feet strip parallel to the fence line barrier for fire and weed control, and if a ball goes over the fence, etc. She thinks people need to be able to legitimately access the Open Space, while we still need to work on encroachment and social trails. Charles commented that he agreed with what board members said. He said he was accosted by neighbors saying that OSAB was taking away gates, and he wanted to clarify that OSAB was never consulted on this process. He felt like it undermines the Board’s credibility because of misperceptions. Helen re-iterated that the intension should always be conservation but would like the Board and the public to have warning and a chance to comment. 7. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Chris Karnanskos 1022 W. Alder—He thought the Board was involved with the decision and he appreciated Nathan’s comments and apology. He shared that he went around and knocked on 100 doors to talk about the issue with his neighbors. He said most people hadn’t heard the ruling and everyone bought their houses for the Open Space. He lives on Harper Lake. They walk through their back gate to school every day. He says he cherishes Open Space and access was a major factor in why he bought that house. He thinks taking away his gate is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Natasha Bond 1841 Sweet Clover Lane—She backs to a trail that leads to Hecla Lake. She thanked people for turning up and not sweeping the issue under the rug. She thinks that removing gates will diminish property value and will wreck school bus routes. She thinks removing gates isn’t viable, but she also thinks all the social trails aren’t desirable either. She thinks people don’t want to damage Open Space. She said she was here