Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19750625 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 75-14 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S June 25, 1975 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL President Duffy called the meeting to order at 7: 28 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson, Anne Crosley, Robert Garcia, Carroll Harrington and Del Woods. Audience of four persons. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 11, 1975 K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of June 11, 1975 be approved as presented. III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA K. Duffy stated the consensus that the agenda be adopted as presented. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications at this time. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS K. Duffy acknowledged the receipt of written communications regarding the District' s tax rate from the Committee for Green Foothills, the City of Los Altos and the City of Cupertino. VI. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION A. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Providing for a System of Permits for the Use of District Lands ("Permit Standards") B. Minutes of June 25, 197 K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of June 25, 1975 be approved as presented. Meeting 75-14 Page two H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-75-86) dated June 18, 1975, regarding Permit Standards for the District. He noted that the Board had, at its June 11, 1975 meeting, directed staff to return with an addition to the proposed Permit Stan- dards which would allow the District to terminate or suspend an entry permit for reasons other than misuse of the permit privilege, for example, overuse of District lands. The addi- tion has been made as Section 70. 5 in the proposed Permit Standards. No other changes were made, he said, and he rec- commended that the� Board adopt the Permit Standards. N. Hanko pointed out that the procedures call for the General Manager and not the Board to make decisions regarding revoca- tion of permits. H. Grench said that any person dissatisfied with reasons given for the termination of a permit, after ex- hausting administrative remedies, could always approach the Board. Motion: E. Shelley moved adoption of Resolution No. 75-13, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpen- insula Regional Park District Providing for a System of Permits for the Use of District Lands ("Permit Standards" ) . K. Duffy seconded the motion. The mo- tion passed unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION A. Site Planning Procedures J. Olson introduced his memorandum (M-75-87) dated June 19, 1975, regarding a Proposed Land Use and Management Planning and Analysis Format for District lands. The memorandum was attached to a memorandum from H. Grench (M-75-88) dated June 20, 1975, recommending that the Board adopt the Site Planning Procedures proposed by J. Olson, J. Olson said the proposed structure for the analysis and planning process of potential District acquisitions was in- tended to provide an orderly and comprehensive system for making responsible and informed decisions regarding acquisi- tion, use and management of District lands. He suggested the process be divided into two phases: pre-acquisition and post- acquisition. In the pre-acquisition phase, preliminary site analysis would be initiated at the direction of the General Manager for properties which are approaching a serious nego- tiations stage. If the Board begins a strong move toward acquisition of a property, then a public pre-acquisition report would be prepared. All or some of the following steps would be taken for both the preliminary site analysis and the public pre-acquisition report: (a) site analysis, (b) interviews with property owners and others familiar with the site, (c) determine compliancy with political and planning jurisdictions, (d) review of title policy, tax assessments , and other factors influencing acquisition, use and management, (e) determine boundaries for Meeting 75-14 Page three effective use and management of site , (f) cultural history, (g) potential use considerations, (h) potential management con- siderations, (i) relationship to regional trails plan and other parklands, (j) terms, (k) other factors, (1) discussion of factors influencing acquisition, (m) recommendation, (n) en- vironmental assessment or determination on acquisition, and (o) negative declaration or EIR if required. J. Olson said he felt property owners would be cooperative regarding staff investigation except in rare instances. D. Wendin urged that public land tours of proposed acquisitions be held whenever possible. J. Olson explained the steps to be considered in the post-acqui- sition phase, which was divided intwo two categories, namely, site-specific and planning area: (a) interviews with property owners and others familiar with site, (b) classification and mapping of vegetative communities, (c) investigate accessibility, (d) monitor adjacent use, (e) preliminary public meeting, (f) draft use and management plan preparation, (g) public presenta- tion of plan, (h) other factors, (i) prepare final draft of use and management plan, (j ) presentation of the plan to the MRPD Board, (k) environmental assessment or determination on plan as required, (1) refinement of plan, (m) negative declaration or EIR on plan if necessary, (n) adoption or motion of endorse- ment, and (o) yearly review of site plans to determine effective- ness and provide for public input regarding changes in use. He said that site specific planning might change to considera- tion of a larger planning area if certain factors make it more practical to do so, e.g. , the acquisition of additional nearby land, topographical features , etc. H. Grench said pre-acquisition planning was intended to be per- formed prior to the decision to acquire land. Post-acquisition planning was intended to occur after the decision to acquire and would most likely be a process taking several months, depending upon the site. A review of the resulting interim plan would be made on a yearly basis. The review would take into account any new developments, for example, requests to use a property, that may come before the District. The plan that develops from the yearly reviews would become the long-term plan for a site or planning area. D. Wendin expressed dissatisfaction with the planning approach set forth in the report. He said he would have preferred the terms "interim" and "long-term" be used, and he did not think the yearly modification of an interim or first report was ade- quate. E. Shelley said he could see no time frame in the report for completion of planning procedures. J. Olson replied that each site or planning area would probably require different time frames . Meeting 75-14 Page four N. Hanko suggested the planning process was for the staff, and if it works for them, the Board should accept it. She said the report appeared to be a different way of putting together the same ideas. D. Wendin said he recalled the Board had decided to use the terms "interim" and "long term" at a previous meeting. K. Duffy called a recess at 8 :15 P.M. for the purpose of re- ferring to past Board meeting minutes. The Board reconvened at 8 :24 P.M. A. Crosley stated that discussion about interim and long-term planning occurred at the February 2 , 1975 Goals Workshop and at the February 26 , 1975 Board meeting. J. Olson presented a report as part of the Goals Workshop Follow-up which set forth a planning process consisting of three steps : initial study, an interim classification system, and a long range management and use plan. Action taken at the February 26 meeting was directed toward establishment of a park ranger position and direction to staff to prepare regulatory ordinances. Staff was also directed to return to the Board with a proposal for establishment of a citizens ' committee to advise the District on use and management plans. It was determined that further discussion regarding interim and long range planning occurred at a later Board meeting when the staff reported on citizens' advisory committees. D. Wendin said he would like to see another column in the post- acquisition phase, as the proposed planning process was not as he had expected from previous discussions. E. Shelley said he thought the interim plan should reflect the status quo and perhaps go a little further. H. Grench suggested a No. 16 in the pre-acquisition phase could include the scope of the initial plan and a timetable for its completion. D. Wendin said the interim plan should ask "what is the situa- tion" on a site, and the long term plan should address the site with a "what should be done" approach. J. Olson explained that planning areas would be determined by a number of factors, including location, resources, and use pat- terns. The District would be divided into geographic planning areas which would make management and patrol of District lands easier. The process would include a detailed inventory of re- sources within the planning area and the development of a use and management plan. Meeting 75-14 Page five N. Hanko said she agreed with the idea of adding a No. 16 to the pre-acquisition phase for the Board to determine the scope and timetable of succeeding reports. E. Shelly suggested the District should be cautious about planning for non-MRPD lands located within a planning area. K. Duffy noted the pre-acquisition phase did not include a public hearing, which it perhaps should. H. Grench suggested interested Board members give staff their in- put and then staff could return to the Board with a revised plan. K. Duffy stated the consensus that this was acceptable. Dr. Robert Marks, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, suggested work on an en- vironmental impact report or assessment should begin under No. 6 of the post-acquisition phase, not left to the end of the planning process as shown on the report. Study on environmental impact should be a concurrent process, not a sequential one. J. Olson added that it should be inserted into No. 9 of the post- acquisition phase. J. Olson showed Board members a map dividing the District into planning areas. He emphasized that the staff was not recommending these particular planning areas, but wanted to display the concept. N. Hanko remarked that the planning areas as shown would not be practical with respect to trails . J. Olson responded that trails would probably be an overlay to the planning areas. It was the consensus that staff would meet with D. Wendin and perhaps E. Shelley to discuss the planning procedure as set forth in J. Olson' s memorandum. Staff would them return to the Board with a recommendation. VIII. CLAIMS Motion: N. Hanko moved acceptance of the revised claims (C-75-13) dated June 25 , 1975 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote : AYES - N. Hanko, E. Shelley, D. Wendin and K. Duffy; ABSTAIN - B. Green. Discussion: B. Green explained she was abstaining be- cause of Claim No. 1145. IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 9 :13 P.M. X. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10 :05 P.M. Anne Cathcart Crosley Administrative Secretary