Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2021 04 14

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

City(f Louisville COLORADO • SINCE 1878 Discussion cannot be done in the van, as all discussion must be done in open, public meeting. Charles asked Helen if the list included just about every possible piece of land. Helen answered not necessarily. For example, OSAB was recently asked to evaluate particular small parcels land by a City Council member. Peter said that the van tour would probably not work this year and suggested two -person teams could do evaluations together, perhaps pairing longer- and less- tenured board members together. Jessamine said this could be a two -meeting process. Laura agreed it would probably be a multi -meeting process, as it had been in the past. She added her opinion that compiling this list is one of the very most important tasks the board does, so it was worth pushing it back until later in the year, if that meant it could be done well. Helen asked if the board could consider filming the site visits. Jessamine suggested a holding a two -meeting structure where the first meeting would explain the procedure. Jessamine led the discussion on Trails. She said that there hadn't been a trails goals in the 2020 document, as it was nested under wayfinding, but the topic popped up in other goals and was a big part of staff work plan, so she thought it was worth its own goal area topic. She said several board members had suggested forming a trails tiger team. She was concerned that there could be overlap between the purview of the wayfinding tiger team and a trails tiger team, so she wanted to make sure they wouldn't duplicating work or double staff work. She asked for comment on this proposal. Peter thought a trails tiger team made sense. Charles agreed. Laura commented that creating a trails master plan document had been discussed in 2020 and wondered if the board would like to continue that idea or drop it. David thought a trails master plan might be overkill. Laura brought up the board's trails evaluation list and commented that it should be a part of trails goal setting. David liked the idea of revisiting the list. Laura added that the wayfinding tiger team will be focused on signs this year, so she thought a trails tiger teams wouldn't overlap too much. Charles and David volunteered for the trails tiger team and said they would explore their priorities for Q2 or Q3. David led the discussion on Resource Management. He commented that he was trying to trim and reorganize the list into two focus areas: dog issues and management/restoration projects. Anneliese is going to be the point person on dog issues and would try to coordinate with PPLAB. Ember commented that there will be weekly meetings between staff and CU graduate students working on a management plan for the new Mayhoffer open space. Ember said they will present this plan as a proposal to OSAB at their work's conclusion. She added that prescribed fire will not be occurring in 2021. Helen led the discussion on Wayfinding. She explained the goals and action items. Jessamine asked about the proposed study session with City Council, and whether it would be a single -issue discussion or encompass a wider swath of topics. Peter said wayfinding is the board's highest priority and he'd be okay with the wayfinding tiger team taking the lead on this study session. Laura added that there often isn't bandwidth for too many topics at one of these council study sessions. Helen said that the wayfinding tiger team would either write a document for council or present at a study session, but it would be great to do it as a study session because study sessions have been rich and productive discussions in the past. Laura led the discussion on Education and Outreach. The only comment was that the farmer market booth is unlikely to occur this summer, due to the pandemic. 6