Open Space Advisory Board Minutes 2021 02 10 REVISED

Home Browse Search

expressed through the public comments are best presented later in the process, particularly those outside OSAB's jurisdiction. c. Quality of Public Comments. Public comments were thoughtful, well -articulated, and appreciated by both OSAB and the applicant. The public is encouraged to continue their participation in the process, particularly where those comments speak to issues beyond OSAB's jurisdiction. This will improve the project's final result. d. Purchase of Property. Members of the public obviously desire more public open space from the application lands than that offered in the applicant's proposal. Paying market rate prices for prime commercial property at this location is beyond the city's financial capability. If a benevolent third party would purchase a portion of the property and dedicate it to the city, such an acquisition would be welcomed. However, caution would still be required as significant portions of the property were previously developed, but not sufficiently reclaimed to a condition suitable for city open space. Costs of reclaiming such land could be an unbearable burden. G. Clustering. OSAB supports clustering buildings and parking to the extent possible, to minimize the project's developed area footprint and maximize open space and other open areas. Recognizing that at the GDP stage, building height restrictions cannot be waived, OSAB supports increasing building heights in exchange for clustering as the project proceeds. Further, if or when clustering is proposed, OSAB would like to review and comment on any such proposal. H. Pond in Northeast Portion of Property. At its December 11, 2019 approval, OSAB expressed its interest in preserving the area surrounding the pond in the Northeast as a publicly accessible area. OSAB remains strongly interested in this concept. Action taken at this meeting is not intended to amend OSAB's prior decision on the matter, only to supplement it. XII. Action Item: Herbicide Campaign. Presented by: Nathan Mosley, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space and Ginger Cross, City Marketing Specialist Staff is looking for board feedback on the 2021 herbicide campaign (starts on 146 in the packet). City Council has banned the use of two major herbicides (glyphosate and 2,4-D) on city -owned Parks and Open Space. Use of these herbicides on Open Space was always very minimal, but on park fields the impact might be more noticeable. Peter thought the literature looked good. Ginger took over the presentation. She talked about how citizens often don't know the difference between Parks and Open Space land, and noted that citizens may still see spraying but other, non -City, entities (another point of confusion). They're hoping to minimize questions and trying to show a popular "good" thing the City is doing. Jessamine opened the meeting up to any public comment. No comments were made. Nathan complemented Ginger on the visuals and has said the comments have been positive. David thought they looked good, but wondered whether people know that glyphosate and RoundUp are the same thing. Ginger said she added the word "herbicide" to teach what they are. Anneliese asked if it was okay to use the commercial name RoundUp. Nathan commented on the struggle of being precise about language, given that some sorts of herbicides will still being used. Anneliese thought it might be good to have the word RoundUp included. David asked about whether there was discussion about this rule on the golf course and whether you can point to this debate on the flyers. Nathan was cautious about the golf course. Jessamine suggested mentioning volunteer weed pulls. Laura liked the signs, especially the dandelion and bees and they emphasized that herbicides represent a tradeoff between perceived safety and weeds. She also cautioned against too many words. XIII. Discussion Item: 2021 Open Space Education & Volunteer Plan. Presented by: Ember Brignull, Open Space Superintendent