Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC)

SARATOGA SPRINGS OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES, September 22,2021 3RD FLOOR, MUSIC HALL, CITY HALL, 474 BROADWAY 5:00 PM PRESENT: Mr. Tom Denny (Chair), Ms. Jennifer Hunt Dempsey, Mr. Ed Lindner, Mr. Steve Samuell, Mr. Dave Miller, and Ms. Maureen Roberts. City Staff: Ms. Tina Carton, Admin. Of Parks, Open Lands, and Historic Preservation/Sustainability. Absent: Mr. John McMahon. Recording of Proceeding: The minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings. Call to Order: Mr. Tom Denny called the meeting to order at 5:04 pm. Public comment: None. Administrative Business: a.) Approval of Minutes: There being no revisions or corrections, the minutes from the 8/25/21 meeting were approved as circulated. b.) Update on the Revised By-laws: The two City Attorneys have been sent the revised by-laws, and Mr. Tony Izzo already suggested some changes. Tina awaits approval from the other attorney before this document goes to the city council. Discussion of Open Space Plan: The consultants have been working on the development of analytical tools to deal with open space preservation and acquisition. These would be accompanied by a narrative in the final updated plan. For the analytic tool, they have divided the city into one-acre square raster units and are assessing the conservation value for each unit across 12 different categories of , some of which have sub-categories: Parks and Recreation, Flood Zones, Waterways and Wetlands, Drinking Water Resources, Forest and Shrubland, Biodiversity, Unfragmented Wildlife Habitat, Agricultural Importance, Geology, Potential for Future Development, Scenic Resources, and Large Parcels. They are also working on a series of maps that will visualize this analysis of the city’s resources (there may be 4 in total). One-acre raster units that meet a lot of conservation criteria will be darker in color than raster units that meet fewer criteria. , the square is a darker color. The 12 criteria for calibrating the map are listed above, but these are not finalized yet, and The steering committee is still working with the consultants on this. The OSAC discussed the benefits of these raster maps vs. a simpler map of the city that was in the last Open Space Plan (2002). Although the OSAC found these raster maps essential to document the value of various lands, the Committee felt strongly that it was essential for the plan to also provide the general public with a more user-friendly map of open space priorities, along the lines of the 2002 map that highlights gateways into the city and scenic resources quite clearly. Next, the committee discussed the fact that there are many existing recreational resources in the city that are unprotected. Examples would include: the SRA rowing area, Yaddo, West Side Rec. Ms. Tina Carton and Mr. Tom Denny are working with the consultants on this and coming up with a list of these areas. This would be discussed in the narrative. Next the committee discussed a comparative table presented by Mr. Denny that looked at 2002 OS Plan, 2008 open space work, the 2020 NRI, and 2022 Open Space Plan Update. This document gave us a “high-altitude view” of what priorities we would like to highlight in the 2022 OS Plan Update. Habitat and environmental resources were more implicit in the 2002 plan, but in the 2020 NRI, these two things are really outlined and elaborated upon. We discussed how NOT deforesting wetlands is really important for climate resiliency. The city may need to put money towards more permanent protection of these wetlands in the future. We discussed that a totally data-driven approach in the OS Plan Update does not work, and that a hybrid approach, incorporating local knowledge and judgement is probably needed. We next discussed developing a list of priority properties. It was clear from the 2020 NRI and Open Space survey that connectivity is a key component of property acquisition moving forward. We looked at a list of properties on “Tom’s list”: some were stand alone properties of value, and others were important due to their connectivity, linking them to other trails or recreational waterways, such as the Kaydeross creek. We also talked about improving infrastructure on existing city-owned properties, such as Blodgett Landing, Ramsdill parcel, and the Corcoran parcel. These priority parcels could be highlighted on the upcoming maps, and discussed in detail in the narrative. These raster maps are still being worked on, and in fact trails and institutional parklands have just been added. Signature gateways to the city and scenic vistas are not in the current raster maps. We looked at “Tina’s list” of unprotected lands of conservation and recreational resources. Her list was extensive and included many public and private lands that contain open spaces that are used for both recreation and open space purposes. It will be important to indicate these in a descriptive inventory that lists facilities, current use, the amount of public access allowed, and the potential for greater use of these parcels. This information would be presented in a map and matrix format, with an accompanying narrative. This will need to be worked on with the consultants. Currently there are no climate resiliency points being given in the list of criteria for the raster maps. Several (2-3) of the criteria deal with climate resiliency, however. A meeting with the steering committee and consultants will occur within the next few weeks. Public comment: None. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 pm. The next meeting of the OSAC will be on October 27, 2021.