Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2023 01 11

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 5 of 8 Charles said that he disliked the granularity of the ranking system and would like to see the current criteria spreadsheet removed in favor of a more holistic process. He thought assigning 0, 1, or 2 on various criteria for the parcels, then summing those numbers represented false precision, especially given what a limited number of properties are being evaluated. Helen countered that it is important to document what it is about a parcel that the board values. David said he liked the idea of a narrative for a property more than a spreadsheet, adding he thinks it will improve communication. Helen pointed out that board members being given a chance to rank property's features individually can help preclude unfortunate meeting dynamics where louder voices drown out other voices. Susan asked Councilmember Fahey what she liked or didn't like about the current process. Councilmember Fahey said that she liked to know what the vote was and what staff thinks so she can get a sense of the consensus level. She also wants to know why the board votes the way it does. She likes the idea of an individual vote that is then tabulated. Helen said whatever the process is, it should be honored once it was done. The board discussed the value of a better discussion process on the site visits, and Ember reminded the board that discussion can only happen outside of the van, to honor open meeting rules. Jessamine shared the Superior Open Space Advisory Committee's parcel ranking criteria, which are simpler and contain a few criteria that OSAB's do not, such as attainability. Jessamine suggested three criteria "buckets": resource value, cultural value, and strategic value. She also suggested a simplification of the criteria, like Superior's, adjusting the criteria weighting, and adding something about attainability and/or feasibility. Laura liked the idea of the strategic value category and thought things like how well a parcel or trail easement serves the wayfinding network and the Transportation Master Plan should be weighted highly. David pointed out that the criterion "size" is in direct conflict with "feasibility." Charles liked the idea of three buckets. He thought the board could give each parcel a score of 0-10 within each bucket. Laura liked Charles' idea, but thought a narrative statement would have to accompany each parcel's ranking so council and the public could understand why each score was given. She added that if it was too much work, some of the