Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2022 02 09

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 6 of 9 David suggested that the city-wide maps should be updated to be more current for OSAB packets. David said he didn't have a strong feeling about the feedback at Bullhead Gulch for sites 65 & 66 because he felt that they wouldn't match well. Peter said he agreed with Ember's comments. He thinks the scale and scope of this proposal are appropriate and adequate. He wondered about how close the Bullhead Gulch benches were to houses. Deborah said the intention was to push those benches as far as possible from houses, but pointed out that there are plenty of benches already installed that are similarly close to houses and it doesn't seem to generate complaints. Helen agreed that this current proposal probably represents saturation for the system. She thinks it is a good proposal. She thinks the pressure will come from people about future opportunities for memorial dedications. Laura agreed that city may need to devote some time and resources to coming up with an alternative to the memorial bench program for people. Peter moved for approval for the plan as written with the understanding of some flexibility of the final placement of the benches. Helen seconded this motion. Jessamine replied that she wasn't done discussing the citizen's concern about Bullhead Gulch benches. Peter thought the citizen's concerns about privacy were understandable, but not convincing, given other benches in the system. He was also not concerned about the bench location's impact on wildlife and dog leash compliance beyond the current impact of the trail. David asked if there was an expedited process if a situation like the recent Hecla request occurs again. Peter said he thought people looking for exceptions should have to follow the standard process. David asked if there were benches that could be removed from the list. Ember said that it is easy to move exact locations of a specific bench by 20-30 feet, but it will be hard to remove a bench from the map once it has been published. Nathan suggested that this discussion could be tabled to give people more time to consider the finer details of each proposed bench site. Charles asked for more time to develop specific bench -level feedback. Helen agreed but also asked for a process, so staff will not be expected to respond to individual request for exceptions, suggesting that they could review such requests semi -regularly. Jessamine articulated the board's choices: 1) accept Peter's motion; 2) accept Peter's motion but except a few bench locations; 3) postpone this vote to give board members the chance to look at the locations. She just requested that the board be mindful the time staff has already taken and asked the board to look closely at the sites for a meaningful motion. Charles moved for option #3, to table this discussion for the February meeting. David seconded the motion. Jessamine asked if this would be a problem for staff. Ember said the old map would be in effect until the board changed it. The motion passed unanimously.