2026-05-11 - Minutes DRAFT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEETING RECESSED: 11:55 a.m. MEETING RECONVENED: 12:20 p.m. 2. Discussion of site visit reporting process to identify best practices and possible areas for improvement for next year. No Testifiers Chr. Chang thanked everyone for their volunteer work on the site reports and states that the site reports are relied upon when reporting to the Mayor and wants to make sure that we are producing a quality product. Chr. Chang then asks what everyone thinks of the optional format that everyone has been following. V. Chr. Britt states that this was her first round of site visits and does not know what has been done previously, but this format seems to work fine. She adds that it would be helpful to indicate what the PONC program’s intended role is, whether fee simple or easement, at the top. She then goes on to say that she really likes some of the maps that show the properties in relation to other lands and hopes that this can be done for each report. Chr. Chang asked if she meant maps in relation to other PONC parcels. V. Chr. Britt clarified that it would be helpful to see where the potential PONC parcel is in relation to other protected lands. Cmr. Rosam suggested to add “description in proximity to other protected lands if applicable” to the template but further added that the creation of that type of map is time consuming and not everyone has that skill so she also suggests a worded description would also suffice. Chr. Chang noticed in the format under “special opportunities” it is mentioned that the writer should reference any special opportunities for acquisition including geographic proximity to other PONC acquired lands. Chr. Chang further suggests that perhaps other protected lands or state owned lands should be referenced. Chr. Chang continues that while writing a site report, she began giving detailed directions on how to get to that site and realized that she should not include that in her report as people may try to access these private properties. She suggests describing the property so that it cannot be pinpointed. Cmr. Rosam suggested that DCC Campbell adds a section about location sensitivity in her Commissioner training and continues to say that information on TMK’s are public knowledge. DCC Campell asked Commissioners to rein in the conversation as the agenda item is to discuss the process for drafting site visit reports, not whether we should have access to properties. Cmr. Rosam understands what Chr. Chang is saying, and commissioners should have a general understanding of sensitivity. Chr. Chang agreed with Cmr. Rosam’s previous point that anyone who is familiar with TMK DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 10