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