Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2023 10 11

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Charles asked if trails would be part of this plan or part of the transportation master plan. Adam said this decision would be made based on the survey results, but his opinion was that it should be included in the department master plan. Jessamine asked to what extent the existing master plan will be the basis for the new plan. Adam said that the Open Space -specific master plan from 2004 is very dated and Open Space issues deserve a level of higher expertise and a deeper dive than the 2012 plan gave them. Ember added that the 2004 Open Space master plan reads more like a management plan and the plan from 2012 is more high-level vision. Michiko asked if they will throw out the old master plans and create a new one based on new needs. Adam answered that the old plans will guide the next iteration and still have some good things in them, but they definitely need to be updated and revised. He specifically called out the need for a wildfire mitigation strategy and the new budgeting required if the sales tax ballot issue passes. Michiko asked how often master plans usually get revised. Adam said master plans are generally 10-15 year guiding documents, but land management plans might last about a decade. 9. Discussion Items: Review and Finalize Results of the 2023 OSAB Potential Open Space Candidate Recommendations to City Council. Presented by Laura Scott Denton and Michiko Christiansen, Acquisition OSAB Tiger Team Michiko and Laura led the discussion of the spreadsheet that ranked the candidate open space parcels. The spreadsheet was created based on the individual rankings that board members gave the properties that were (and were not) visited during the August meeting road tour. Board members ranked each parcel according to their perception of its Natural Resource Value, its User Experience Value, and its Strategic Value. They also noted observations about the land and listed potential management or conservation goals for the land. The Tiger Team and staff combined those individual rankings into a composite spreadsheet. Michiko and Laura wanted OSAB to designate the board's level of interest in the properties, but noted that the "Totals" column for the properties didn't show significant breaks. The board discussed what the levels of interest should be called, eventually deciding on High, Medium, and Low Priority parcels. The board also decided which parcels should be given which level of priority. High Priority parcels were: CC, DD, WW, WW.1, ZZ.1, D.1, BB, N.2, N.3, DA, MM, WW.2, D.5. Medium Priority parcels were: D.2, AA.1, AA.2, D.3, N.1, XX, F. Low Priority parcels were: B, J, G, H, I, K. The board discussed the value of having staff research the conservation status of the land. Some of the parcels cannot be further developed due to conservation easements or other regulations and may be adequately conserved without further expenditure by the city. The board wants to produce a map with properties indicated as High, Medium, or Low Priority, a master spreadsheet as currently written, and individual property detail sheets with conservation status and goals on them.