Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2023 07 12

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes June 14, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Jojo had a concern about the survey results. They were worried that the survey was biased towards people who are interested in Open Space and City issues and that the real support for the ballot measure might be lower. Adam replied that the Magellan consultants seemed very sanguine about the results, but added that they will be at the meeting on Tuesday and could be asked directly. Susan added that people who were against the tax would also be motivated by the survey, so these groups might balance out the bias. Jessamine reported that Magellan had explained to the task force how they weigh these sorts of public surveys with published information about voter affiliation and other metrics to try to correct for this sort of bias. Helen agreed, adding that the Magellan consultants seemed to feel that there is already strong public support for the tax even before an education campaign. Adam agreed. David mentioned that five of the seven current City Council members will be on the ballot this fall, which should turn out voters who are interested in city issues. 9. Discussion Item: Land Acquisition Process and Timeline. Presented by Laura Scott Denton and Michiko Christiansen, Acquisition Tiger Team Michiko introduced the document describing the priority ranking process that she and Laura wrote (see page 289 in the packet), after the discussion at the January 2023 meeting. Board members will be asked to score proposed parcels on the property tour according to three criteria: "natural resource value," "user experience value," and "strategic value." Michiko asked whether the board liked the term "user experience," saying that she didn't love it. Charles suggested "visitor experience value" and the board liked that term better. The January minutes included discussion about board members wanting a more "holistic" approach to property ranking, and Michiko asked the board if this proposed process adequately addressed that concern. Charles said he wanted to avoid too much detail and granularity, but giving scoring 0-10 in the three categories would be acceptable. The board still liked the three -category system. Michiko asked about the property profiles, and whether staff had made recent updates to those documents. Jessamine said that staff should have worked on the profiles before the property tour. Adam wasn't sure about the status of the property profiles. Helen had a concern about listing "recreation potential" under the "user experience" category: she thought it should be "passive recreation potential" to match the wording in the city charter. David said that previous rankings were focused on privately -owned properties, but the board can also consider city -owned land and decide whether it should be re -zoned as open space. The board agreed that these parcels should be considered. Laura added that that sort of land has been considered in the past, too. Laura said that the July meeting packet should include the city target property map and the property profiles, in whatever state that they are in. The board will discuss which properties they would like to visit on the property tour in August. She asked the board to brainstorm properties they would like to visit, both ones on the list and ones not on the list, including land that is already city -owned.