Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760228 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) AAL Meeting 76-7 *IVA= MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S LAND USE WORKSHOP Bldg. 2 , , Rm. 2A-1, February 28, 1976 Syntex, 3401 Hillview Palo Alto, CA I. CALL TO ORDER President N. Hanko called the meeting to order at 9 : 30 A.M. She expressed thanks to Syntex Corporation for allowing the use of their facilities for the Land Use Workshop. INTRODUCTION TO THE DAY AND OF PERSONNEL N. Hanko reviewed previous MRPD Goals Workshops. The first, held in 1973, led to the development of the five basic goals as the Basic Policy statement of the District. The 1975 Goals Workshop led to the development of a revised Action Plan for the implemen- tation of each goals and called for yearly review of the Action Plan before budget preparation. For this 1976 workshop, the Board of Directors selected public access and trails (as referred to in Basic Policy goals No. 3) as subject matter for discussion. The Board Subcommittee, composed of D. Wendin and B. Green, provided a list of premises which will be used as basis for discussion for this workshop. It was emphasized that the premises did not represent proposed policy, but were meant to provoke discussion. Each member of the Board and staff rated his/her degree of agree- ment to the premises independently. The survey results were available. N . Hanko asked Board and staff members to introduce themselves. Those attending were Board members K. Duffy, B. Green, N. Hanko, E. Shelley and D. Wendin, and staff members A. Crosley, J. Frosch, J. George, H. Grench, C. Harrington, E. Huggins , E . Jaynes, N. Kelly, P. Lee, S. Norton, J. Olson and D. Woods. N. Hanko introduced Robert Gaertner of Saga Corporation who would act as facilitator for the workshop. R. Gaertner described the schedule for the day, the statement of objectives for the day, description of the facilitator ' s role and instructions to the group as outlined on the blackboard. Schedule for the Day 9:30 Premise ILA 2 : 00 Break 10 : 30 Break 2 : 30 Premise IIIA 11 :00 Premises IIA-IID 3: 00 Premises IVA-IVB 12 : 00 Lunch 4 :00 Adjournment 1: 00 Premises IIE-IIG Meeting 76-7 Page two R. Gaertner said the objectives for the day are to (a) develop a statement of the issues facing the District, (b) agendize future action on the issues, and (c) to identify a consensus where one exists. He said workshop participants should avoid (a) working on interpersonal issues and (b) using large amounts of time to advertise one' s position. He described his role as keeping track of the time, summarizing the discussions, helping participants stay on the issues, and testing for any resolution of an issue. He asked that audience members complete identifi- cation forms before speaking so their statements can be recorded in the minutes. Premise IV - During the next eight years, the amount of public access allowed should be limited as much as possible H. Grench stated that he did not like the wording of the premise and therefore had rated it neutral. He felt he could have agreed if the statement had read "During the next eight years the amount of money spent for the Open Space Resources Program should be limited as much as politically feasible. " E. Shelley felt this premise was totally negative, and that the MRPD should maximize the degree of openness of lands to the public, consistent with protection of the lands and consistent with a limited budget, but not an absolute minimum expense. K. Duffy expressed agreement with E. Shelley's position and pointed out that the statement assumed "allowed" would be more expensive than "not allowed. " D. Wendin felt it would be useful to discuss the statement "If the budget did not allow unlimited public access, would the Board adopt the policy of virtually no access?" He said he felt the Board should discuss whether it is prepared to limit access. He said his opinion was that to open lands to "anybody" was to open them to "everybody" and that it would not be possible to provide this service within the District ' s budget. E. Shelley said he seriously doubted there would be such heavy use if the amenities were not provided. Mr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, gave two examples in support of E. Shelley' s statement: (a) Stanford foothills lands and (b) Wunderlich property of San Mateo County. He said these lands are open, known but unadvertised, and overuse is not a problem. Ms. Sheila Manchester, 13777 Redwood, Saratoga, asked if the Board felt the District is heading toward public use of its lands, or the "benefit of the land" use. N. Hanko said that if the MRPD still subscribes to Basic Policy goal No. 3 as it is stated, it must balance access with the Meeting 76-7 Page three protection of District lands. She said she feels it is the facilities which are provided that attract people and suggested the District experiment with one opening one parcel in order to study the impact of increased use. J. Olson emphasized the individuality of District sites and that particular needs must be considered. He pointed out that current sites located on the fringe of the urban area do not lend them- selves to good access. He agreed that a trial of some sort should be developed. Mr. Matt Allen, 325 Chatham Way, Mountain View, asked that since the MRPD sees itself as an open space agency, would its policy allow another agency to operate a site which would lend itself to more intensive use. E. Shelley answered that the District 's policy did allow this possibility, if the use were consistent with protection of the environmentally sensitive portions of the land. Mr. Allen asked if dialogue had been started with the Santa Clara County Department of Parks and Recreation. H. Grench replied that it had; however , each agency is faced with budgetary problems which make it difficult to run their own parks. The County is particularly strapped for operations funds. Discussions have occurred with respect to Permanente Creek Park and the County' s interest in the adjoining Catholic Church property. J. Olson said one proposal which is being discussed would allow city recreation departments to carry out day-camp programs on District lands. Mr. Allen said the City of Mountain View is currently struggling with what should be done with the regional park it is developing in the baylands. He said the suggestion had been made that Moun- tain View approach the District. There was no positive response to his statement. K. Duffy stated that today's discussion arises because of the District ' s policy of maximizing acquisition of open space. She wondered if the District could use some of its money for manage- ment and allow the County to acquire open space since it has acquisition funds. This might be in keeping with the goal of maximum open space acquisition. Mr. Harry Turner, 481 La Mesa Drive, Menlo Park, stated three points regarding Premise IA: (a) as the Citizens Committee for Annexation approached city councils in San Mateo County, he became aware that people wanted to believe there would be public access to MRPD lands. People did not want to be shut out, but they also were not interested in intensive use for open space lands; (b) he favors an access policy which fosters respect for District parcels, including the use of permits, Meeting 76-7 Page four docent programs, and signs. He would like to have the public brought to the same level of respect for the land that the District has; and (c) he found that a "good neighbor policy" would have to include concern for neighboring landowners with regard to access by the public. B. Green asked where the largest expense is incurred by public use of the land. J. Olson replied that patrolling is by far the greatest cost, in order to maintain the integrity of the site. The primary dangers are from motorcycles and fires. If the number of users increases, then protecting the ecology of a site becomes a greater concern. B. Green asked if the District had encountered very many problems thus far. J. Olson replied there had not been, with the exception of considerable problems with motorcycles and some poaching. B. Green asked if Saratoga Gap or North Foothills have given particular problems. H. Grench responded the problems on these sites would be much greater if the sites were signed. Mr. Gordon Jennings, 441 East Meadow, Palo Alto, said horsemen had been using the lands for some time that are increasingly being closed off. He pointed out the agricultural nature of the horse business. He raised the question of cost and "patrol over- kill" , stating it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy if so many rangers made the cost of public access too great. He felt that horsemen may not be able to wait for the development of a three year program. He said the San Mateo County Park and Recreation Department has a far better record with respect to trail develop- ment than Santa Clara County. K. Duffy asked for clarification of the statement made previously that "advertising" of a site such as Saratoga Gap would make it more costly to run. E. Jaynes observed that the statement "to open sites to anybody is not necessarily to open them to everybody" is not necessarily true. However, advertising is directed to "everybody" and there- fore costs would increase. He felt "unlimited" and "open" were not interchangeable terms. A parcel could be "open'! but at the same time not withstand "unlimited" use. N. Hanko clarified for G. Jennings that when she suggested a parcel be opened on a trial basis, she did not mean only one site . She pointed out that all District lands are open in some manner. K. Duffy stated that "open by permit" status of some lands might become very costly in terms of staff time, and perhaps the Dis- trict should re-evaluate the permit system. J. Olson said per- mits for groups are more easily managed than permits for indi- viduals. Meeting 76-7 Page five Mr. Alan Grundmann, Chairperson of the Trails Task Force, 2491 Greer, Palo Alto, pointed out that the District 's most signifi- cant function is to acquire open space no other agency will or can acquire. He would be happy with a statement that read "public access would be permitted when consistent with. . . (fol- lowed by a list of qualifiers) . " However, he said he does feel the District made a commitment to the voters that some public access will be allowed. Ms. Artemas Ginzton, 28014 Natoma Road, Los Altos Hills , said the Stanford lands are accessible to the public on a permit system, and therefore she has never used them. She described the Los Altos Hills Burns Park system of locked gates for which residents can get keys after making a deposit. B. Green felt that the public would be uncomfortable thinking the District was intending to close property. since lands are open, the question becomes who will use them. For example, the person who wishes to picnic under a tree is different from the one wanting tables. If tables are not provided, users would be different. A. Crosley said a favor for consideration is the continuing cost to the District if it does nothing but acquire land. Admini- strative costs will increase even if sites are not developed or advertised, and if the public access policy is not changed. N. Hanko expressed amazement that on Thanksgiving Day a District ranger was asking a person to leave a particular site rather than issuing a permit on the spot and spending some time describing the District and its policies. She acknowledged that the ranger was carrying out the existing policy for that site, but still would have preferred a different approach on the part of the ranger. Mr. Alex McKinnon, 83 Paul Avenue, Mountain View, stated that the District is a public agency, lands are publicly owned, and they should therefore be open. Mr. Joe Hootman, 20335 Hickory Hill Way, Saratoga, observed that the MRPD needed to (a) define the term public access or categories of public access, and (b) define different types of land to develop a matrix of access after determining cost figures. Mr. Ed Schell, Box 1345, Los Gatos, said he failed to understand the problem of access. He questioned why land could not be just left along and why a permit system is needed. In order to protect sites, he felt the District should get more interested people involved who would help with patrol and litter problems. He said he did not think the El Sereno Open Space Preserve needed a permit system. Meeting 76-7 Page six N. Hanko explained that when she voted for the permit system, she did so on the basis that it would be used to educate the public about its responsibility to care for open space lands. Ms. Dorothy Jennings, 441 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, said lack of access is not a reason to close land. Mr. Lewis Reed, 225 Lindenbrook Road, Woodside, said he sup- ported the idea of involvement of users to assist in patrolling District lands. Mr. Allen stated he felt "non-advertising" was a myth, since the media can publicize lands without having been solicited by the District. He expressed his hope that administrative costs would be kept down as much as possible. The workshop participants adjourned for a break at 10 :30 A.M. and reconvened at 11: 00 A.M. E. Huggins said access considerations had to be site specific since each site is distinctive. Mr. Hootman reiterated the need for a definition of public access. R. Gaertner summarized statements made about premise IA: Maximize access consistent with budget and land quality. Unadvertised land limits access - can also b,e a myth. Experiment to gain experience with one piece of property. Fear that lands will be locked. Fear that land users will violate neighboring lands. Budget vs. access Patrol may be excessive, hence self-fulfilling. Public access is implied in charter of land acquisition. Costs will grow just with acquisition activity. Public owned, public paid - should be open to public. No data, hence speculation. Lack of access not a reason to close the land. Consider assistance by user groups, i.e. , horsemen. Site specific considerations are required. Need to define public access. IV. Premise IIA - During the next eight years, no more than five percent of the District' s annual tax income should be allocated to the Open Space Resources Program which includes all capital improvements, maintenance, patrol and related activities. H. Grench said %5 of the current budget is roughly $100,000 at this time. He wondered how many would disagree with a specific percentage figure as opposed to the concept of a limit. He felt a more appropriate statement might be "a maximum 5% limit next year increasing to X% in eight years. " He did not have a suggested figure for "X" , but estimated it might increase to 15%. He asked if the group was willing to talk about some dollar limits. The question is, are people willing to put a dollar limit on this program to protect the acquisition program. Meeting 76-7 Page seven Ms. D. Jennings asked for a description of the Open Space Resources Program. H. Grench replied that it refers to everything having to do with land management including capital improvements, patrol, maintenance, site planning and salaries. E. SHelley felt that costs of maintenance and patrol which would be incurred just by having acquired the land should be separated from those required by improvements. The District should iden- tify fixed limits that would be allocated for improvements and patrol and maintenance associated with those improvements. D. Wendin said a fixed limit would be difficult to determine. He said he felt the question in premise IIA is "how much money are we willing to take away from land acquisition?" Mr. G. Jennings asked for a breakdown of the current 5% budget figure. H. Grench said 80-90% of the budget is devoted to land acquisi- tion costs. Breakdown of the budget for the Open Space Resources Program is as follows: $60 ,000 - Salaries and benefits 13,000 - Vehicles 8,500 - Field equipment 5,500 - Environmental Volunteers and other programs 2 ,700 - Vehicle operation 2 ,700 - Maps and mapping 200 - Training 2 ,600 - Field supplies, tools 2 ,500 - Operating maintenance and repair Mr. G. Jennings asked if this budget was within the 5% agreement with Santa Clara County. H . Grench said yes, the District budget was well below the 5% limit for capital improvements. N. Hanko explained the history of the agreement of the steering committee with Santa Clara County regarding a 5% limit on District expenditure for capital improvements during its first ten years. She said that while the steering committee had no legal status to bind the District, the points of the agreement were subse- quently incorporated into the Basic Policy of the District. D. Wendin said he felt Board members had arrived at agreement with the 5% limitation independently when the Basic Policy was being developed. H. Grench explained that 80-90% of the budget (part of which goes into reserves) is used for land acquisition, about 6% is used for general administration, and the remainder is used for land management costs. K. Duffy said she wanted to answer D. Wendin's question about how much she as a Board member was willing to spend, and that she felt there is an amount which the District may be required to spend. Meeting 76-7 Page eight E. Shelley said land use costs could be viewed as a wedge which would steadily grow to 100% at the time when all of the appropriate open space lands have been acquired. D. Wendin said it could be looked at in that way, and could also be structured so that all of the lands are never acquired. He said another way is to be certain costs are kept to a minimum and that all appropriate lands are acquired as quickly as possible. B. Green said if land began to receive use by large numbers of people, the District might be obligated to provide certain facilities. Mr. Robert Hanko, 3172 Emerson, Palo Alto, said he felt that if too many people were using District land, access could then be restricted. He said all of the 5% should be used to encourage public access. He said maximizing acquisition was probably a good aim, but one should know why this was a goal . The District should not build up opposition in the community by excluding people from its lands. D. Wendin expressed concern that the District would make commit- ments which at the present time seem to require a low cost, but in a relatively short number of years, say five, will mean the District will never reach its acquisition goals. As an illus- tration, he said, take the number of acres in the foothills and baylands, multiply it by the average cost per acre, and divide by the number of dollars available each year. The result is that in fifteen to twenty years the District could acquire all of its desired lands. If viewed over the long run, fifteen to twenty years is not that long to wait. R. Mark said he felt a distinction should be made between "open- ing" and "developing" District lands. J. Olson said this could be done on some parcels, but not on others. N. Hanko said she did not feel it was possible to agree on a specific percentage, and that it will be necessary to examine specific sites, develop plans for them, and gain some experi- ence. She felt the Board did not want to spend a great amount of the budget on land improvement, maintenance, and patrol , but the problem was in striking a balance. R. Gaertner summarized statements made about premise IIA: Maximum 5% next year increasing to X% in eight years. Separate capital improvements from maintenance and patrol. Dollars spent is a function of degree of public access. Conflict between goals of acquisition and maintenance func- tions. V. Premise IIB - The Trails Task Force has successfully completed its charge, and further activity in this area should be handled by independent citizens committees. Meeting 76-7 Page nine N. Hanko stated she strongly disagreed with premise IIB. Since she had started the idea of the Trails Task Force, she felt she was in the position of knowing whether or not it had completed its charge, which she felt it had not. The TTF is currently submitting a corridor map to cities within the District for their review. After receiving comments, the TTF will come to the District Board for approval and will present a list of priorities. It may be appropriate at that time for the Board to give priority direction to the TTF. The TTF has been eval- uating its potential and has recommended to the District that they should serve as an advisory group on interior trails developed by staff for District lands. D. Wendin suggested the real issue in this premise is the role of the TTF in the future. The TTF was created by the Board and responsible only to it. In his view, once general planning has been completed and only details remain, the Board would be impinging on the staff function by having such a group. How- ever, a citizens advisory group available to the staff, rather than to the Board, would be appropriate. Mr. G. Jennings concurred with D. Wendin's view. He felt the plans f he TTF could interfere with la nd q g acquisition dealings. o t On specific sites, it might be useful to have appropriate mem- bers of the TTF join with the local committee for trail planning. His greatest concern is that an extra body would confuse the relationship between staff and Board. Mr. Allen felt some confusion of roles existed. The Board sets policy and staff is responsible for implementing it. The Board if the only body that can take action but can have another body to advise them. The question, he said, is whether the Board would want a permanent advisory commission on trails. He felt the more public input, the better off the District would be , as long as the Board protects the staff function. B. Green said she felt the Trails Task Force members are capable volunteers who could be very useful to staff . She said she did not feel the corridor maps drawn up by the TTF would inter- fere with acquisition activities. A. Grundmann said the TTF feels the Board needs a planning commission type of advisory group. There are two reasons for this : (a) to represent user interests and (b) to represent a set of interests of a relatively small constituency. He asked the Board to assign a staff person to the TTF. B. Green said the District may spend more money on trails in years to come, and it may be more important that a staff person be assigned at that time, because the cost of using a person for this person may not be to the best advantage of the District now. i Meeting 76-7 Page ten Mr. Hootman felt there were four issues to be considered: (a) does the Board want an advisory group of some kind, (b) if so, what form should it take, (c) what does the Board want the advisory group to do, and (d) how can one insure and maintain good relations between the advisory group and staff . Ms. Ginzton said she was concerned with the remark that the TTF would be low-key for a number of years. She felt anything the TTF did was an integral part of every land acquisition made. She felt the 5% figure allowed the flexibility to spend more money on implementing the trails plan. R. Hanko proposed the Board consider expanding the TTF function to include potential land use. If the decision is made to encourage more use, he felt the District would be surprised at the number of ways this could be done at minimal cost, i.e. , using horsemen 's associations. The problem is, he said, the District is not committed to supporting human beings. Once that commitment is made, an excellent job can be done within the 5% limit. R. Mark said with limited staff and limited budget there is a place for volunteer help. For example, volunteers could assist in doing preliminary trail and site plans. He pointed out that the state park system makes good use of volunteers to save on staff time. J. Olson reported that current Board policy for site development provides several steps which include citizen and volunteer input and use. In addition, site plans are reviewed at the neighbor- hood level and twice by the Board, at which time citizen input may be given. He expressed reservations about the parallel nature of the structure of the Trails Task Force if it is formalized. There would be potential problems in that both entities would have to communcate with the Board and each other, and both might have parallel tasks. If there is to be a citizen advisory body, he said, it should have a broader base than trails since other factors need to be represented in such a group. Ms. D. Jennings observed that the TTF has been weak in the development of its own direction and goals. To a large extent, the TTF has manifested this weakness because the Board does not have a firm policy on public access . The TTF can only be effective if the Board has an open viewpoint on public use of its lands. E. Schell commented that the Board needs a commission or task force for local areas. He said he did not feel one task force could be familiar with the entire District. D. Wendin suggested this item be agendized for consideration at a future Board meeting. Meeting 76-7 Page eleven E. Shelley commented that the reason a group like the TTF is needed is to counter the immediate interests of a neighborhood group. It is important, he said, to have the viewpoint of the public at large in the Board's consideration of policies. R. Gaertner summarized statements about premise IIB : Trails Task Force should not be a Board committee. Trails Task Force may disrupt Board/staff relationship. Trails Task Force should not be specific about activities because of impact on acquisition. Trails Task Force could be advisory commission to Board. Expand role of Trails Task Force. The workshop participants adjourned for lunch at 12 :10 P.M. and reconvened at 12: 50 P.M. VI . Premise IIC - During the next eight years , the regional trails plan will be one factor in evaluating lands for acquisition, but the DistrIE't-7—will place no special emphasis on acquiring the land or land interests required toimplement the plan. H. Grench said he strongly favored this premise. Over the next several years, implementation of portions of the Trails Plan would be a natural outgrowth of the open space acquisition effort. He felt that while the Plan should be an important factor in acquisition decisions , it is only one factor to be considered. To turn this around would put focus on the District as a trails-implementing agency, rather than as an open space acquisition agency. E. Schell said he felt the District is an appropriate size and should not be distracted by little things. Its main purpose at this point should be to see how much land can be acquired rather than tying itself down to a specific plan. A. Grundmann said he basically agreed with H. Grench but feared that statement might de-emphasize the Trails Plan. The District is uniquely capable of fulfilling the Trails Plan, unlike other agencies. While he did not want the Trails Plan to override in acquisition decisions, he felt the statement does not imply emphasis . N. Hanko said whether a parcel fits into the Trails Plan could be the single most important factor in her decision as to whether it should be acquired. E. Shelley said this question was discussed at length at the time of the adoption of the draft Master Plan. He felt it was clear that this item was to be given some weight and was im- portant, but was not overwhelmingly important. J. Olson said he felt the long-term recreational possibilities of the foothills are important land the Trails Plan should receive considerable weight. Meeting 76-7 Page twelve D. Wendin said he tended to agree, but the discussion was in the wrong time frame. Other factors may play a more important role at this time. Later, as a patchwork of park and open space lands begins to occur, the Trails Plan may take on greater importance. The question is should the importance of the Trails Plan be emphasized today. K. Duffy said she felt the answer depended on specific parcels. E. Shelley reiterated that unless the Board wants to increase the emphasis on this factor from the statement in the draft Master Plan, then the premise is not an important one to dis- cuss. VII . Premise IID - In the long run the District will take the lead in acquiring the interests necessary to implement the Tri-a-1-1s plan. D. Wendin said there seemed to be two questions in this premise: (a) what is the "long run" and (b) what is meant by "taking the lead. " . N. Hanko said she felt the District 's previous reponses to Santa Clara County had indicated the District would take the lead in implementing trails. H. Grench said there was a discrepancy between the earlier responses to the OS Action Plan and the later draft Master Plan, but that he interpreted the draft Master Plan to be a more specific statement of Board policy. D. Wendin said the UD/OS statement placed the District in an initiative role in planning and action programs , not in an initiative role in acquiring land for trail purposes. E. Shelley said the present policy of the District is to take a lead in implementing the plan; not to take a lead in acquiring land. N. Hanko felt the language of the UD/OS response was strong on the point that the District would be an initiator in acquisition of lands needed for a county-wide trails system. E. Shelley said the Board specifically avoided such a position when the language for the draft Master Plan was considered to eliminate wording that implied the District would take the lead in acquisition. A. Grundmann said he felt that in the long or short run there is no other agency which will take the lead in acquiring inter- ests for implementing the trails plan. A. Crosley quoted the Master Plan statement and said it seemed that acquisition was implied. Meeting 76-7 Page thirteen E. Shelley said "participating in implementation" of the plan was quite different from "taking the lead" in acquisition. In the long run, the District might have to take the lead to develop the Trails Plan. N. Hanko said she felt the semantics of the premises led to confusing discussion. R. Gaertner said he was hearing two questions being raised: (a) is the District acquiring land for open space generally and if the acquisition fits into the Trails Plan the District will head in that direction, or, (b) is the District acquiring land to satisfy the needs of the Trails Plan rather than just as open space. R. Gaertner suggested the Board review the Master Plan statement of priority for land acquisition to see if Board members still agree with it. VIII. Premise IIE - Historical hiking and equestrian trail use of a regional nature will be continued consistent with protection of the site. Premise IIF - During the next eight years , historical hiking and equestrian trail use of a local nature will be continued only when a volunteer group agrees to assume substantially all the responsibility for patrol and maintenance. Premise IIG - Unless such agreement is reached, during the next eight years local use will be allowed onlZ-a responsible organ- izations on an occasional basis or by individuals who can show special circumstances, and then only by permit. Mr. G. Jennings said he felt it was important to define "regional" in considering premises IIE, IIF and IIG. D. Wendin said the idea behind IIE is that the Board would define regional. The Board would strive to continue use when it served a group larger than the local neighborhood. In IIF, historical local use would be continued if a volunteer group could be found to support such use. In IIF, the issue was discussed at length earlier and probably does not require further discussion. E. Shelley asked if the group could agree on IIG if it stated that when a volunteer group could not be found, it might be necessary to limit use if budget limitations required. He felt this was a more positive statement. D. Wendin said he did not think consensus was desirable because the statements as phrased leave out the issue of non-local per- sons using trails in the way they were used historically. It is fine to say the District will continue historical use, but if it excludes those not in that privileged group, it is a problem. Meeting 76-7 Page fourteen A. Ginzton said she would like to see the phrase "next eight years" taken out of the statements. Local trails are important and if focus is only on regional trails, then significant use is left out. She said she would prefer that the distinction between "local" and "regional" be left out. Mr. G. Jennings cited the example of trails he uses in riding from Saratoga to the Duveneck property. Some intersect local trails which then become important in the use of regional trails. A. Ginzton pointed out that one reason that people asked the District to acquire the Fremont Older Ranch was because it serves as an important link for several regional trails. A. Grundmann asked if IIF referred to neighborhood use of an isolated site that does not provide a regional link, and if this was how Board and staff viewed it. Several persons responded that this was a correct description. E. Shelley said he assumed that if a trail is used to get from point A to point B across a site, the use was regional in nature. If the trail is used to walk/ride in and walk/ride back out, the use was local in nature. N. Hanko asked J. Olson if the idea of volunteer groups taking over all patrol of certain areas is contrary to his opinion that it is better for the District to be represented by a ranger or someone trained to represent it. J. Olson replied that it depended on how the patrol agreement is structured. Problems that might arise include the follow- ing: (a) it is difficult to control the quality of public contact with volunteers, and (b) it is difficult to get volun- teers to conform to a fairly regular time schedule. He does believe the potential is there to develop good volunteer services if the District is prepared to spent a good amount of time to develop the program properly. A. Grundmann asked if a private, absentee owner has a large holding and it is used with no cost to the owner, and if the District acquires that holding, could the District continue the policy of "non-patrol. " J. Olson said if the land is not on the urban fringe and is isolated, then limited use could make it possible. However, liability is another question. H. Grench said liability is becoming an increasingly large factor for all governmental bodies because decisions are going against them and large sums are being awarded. Insurance rates are going very high. It is a greater worry for the District than it is for the private owner because in the latter case the user had trespassed onto the land in order to use it. Meeting 76-7 Page fifteen K. Duffy asked what would happen when trails of a regional nature continue on private lands, as this might be a concern when the District is planning for its sites. H. Grench said he had no difficulty with IIE, but with IIF he wished there was a way of assuring it was true so he could agree with it. He said he ended up being neutral because he does not think it will be possible to get a volunteer group to assume this kind of responsibility. Regarding premise IIG, he felt it was not realistic politically. Mr . G. Jennings said that in respect to volunteer labor, the top of the iceberg has not yet been touched. Volunteer labor sometimes get the impression they are working against a bureau- cracy. K. Duffy wondered what Board and staff views would be if IIF were like IIE, without qualifications. J. Olson said that would mean every existing trail in the foot- hills would be kept open. K. Duffy said she would add "consistent with protection of the land. " J. Olson felt the District' s commitment in that case would be to keeping every trail open, since in generaly trails have naturally developed on the ridgetops. E. Shelley asked if the following were the key questions: (a) is the District only opening historically used trails, or open- ing them to historical use? (b) is the District opening trails only to those persons who have made use of them in historical ways, or (c) is the District taking all historical trails and making them generally open? R. Gaertner asked if the budget were the issue or if open or closed trails was the issue. S. Manchester said historical use can be looked at in two ways: (a) the way land was used prior to time of acquisition, and that is the way it should be used, or (b) the way land was used illegally prior to acquisition. She said the question should be what use will protect the land. She added it was more diffi- cult to stop a use once it has been allowed rather than stopping use at the beginning. R. Hanko disagreed and said it would be worse if the District stopped all use because it was afraid use could get out of hand. The workshop participants adjourned at 2 :00 P.M. and reconvened at 2 :15 P.M. Meeting 76-7 Page sixteen Ms. K. McCann, 783 Garland Drive, Palo Alto, said it bothered her that there seemed to be an indication that historical trails should be kept open, but those using the trails in a historical manner would prefer that the public not find out about it. She said that is not a valid position for a public agency to have. E. Schell said that while group use is acceptable, individual use should not be ruled out. N. Hanko agreed with his statement. E. Shelley felt group use may be more appropriate on certain sites because they would tend to be self-policing. He added that he felt it was possible to have a more liberal policy in issuing group permits rather than individual permits. Mr. G. Jennings said horsemen' s groups were not elitist and are willing to help. R. Mark said the District should consider the possibility of asking users to contribute toward costs. He stated that the potential for a volunteer program is high. A. McKinnon said users other than hikers and riders should be considered in allocating funds for recreational uses, such as picnickers. R. Gaertner summarized statements regarding IIE, IIF and IIG: Support regional use Do not support local use Open trails now if cost is low Open later if cost is low Publicly owned land should be open to public IX. Premise IIIA - Staff resources should be allocated to enforcement of the District' s ordinance and policies only to the extent necessary to protect the site. E. Shelley asked if staff felt this was the present practice of the District. J. Olson felt that latent in the question is access. At this time staff is taking a low-key approach when someone is found on District land without permit. Staff enforces those ordin- ance violations which are destructive to the land. This may not be strictly in accordance with Board policy and may need discussion. H. Grench said he felt the question was one of allocating re- sources. With limited staff, only those more serious types of violations may be dealt with. If the Board wishes to have strict enforcement of all regulations, it must allocate greater resources to do so. Meeting 76- 7 Page seventeen E. Shelley said this was a problem for him, since he felt any regulation or ordinance that is adopted should be enforced. J. Olson felt ordinance requirements could be assigned as individual site plans are developed. H. Turner wondered if it would be possible to have a policy of discretionary enforcement. ordinances could be used by the staff when necessary to bring order. E. Shelley said he could not personally support such a policy. For example, if the District has a permit system, but allows users without a permit to use District land, then it is the law-abiding user who is penalized. R. Hanko said the function of the permit is to allow the law breaker to be removed from the land when he/she is abusing the privilege. D. Wendin said he placed premise IIIA on the list in order to discuss the permit system. J. Frosch said the system currently used, assuming no serious violations, is to inform a user what the Distrct is, what land the user is on, and to ask that in the future the user get a permit from the District office. S. Norton said it was his understanding that the permit system be a hassle-free as possible and provide minimal control . He felt a system of issuing permits on-site might help. E. Shelley asked if there are some sites where the permit system is meant to control use, such as the Perham property. J. Olson replied that in the case of Permanente Creek Park, the permit system is meant to control use. He said his view was that the original intention was that sites were to be used by groups rather than individuals. He felt vehicle access should be the basis for permit requirements, and that an individual permit system could become expensive and burden- some. K. Duffy asked if the purpose of a permis system is to limit vehicles, then is it possible for individual hikers or riders or bicyclists to obtain a permit. She suggested the permit system may need review. D. Wendin said he would like to agendize the permit discussion in light of the District 's experiences with it. J. Olson advised that when the permit system was adopted, it was intended that it be reviewed after a year. Meeting 76-7 Page eighteen It was the consensus of the Board and staff that a discussion on the permit system be agendized. Mr. G. Jennings supported the idea of not passing ordinances if the District does not intend to enforce them. He felt horsemen in the Cupertino area have been harassed and that having a staff person on a site for eight to ten hours was "overkill. " B. Green said that in the future, permit systems should be used for the purpose of educating people about the District and its lands rather than for control. Perhaps printed material could be placed in a box on site and a sign-in system used. R. Gaertner asked if it is legal to discriminate between groups and individuals through a permit system. S. Norton replied that it probably is not. X. Premise IVA - During the next eight years, District sites should not be advertised, but information regarding them should be made available upon request. C. Harrington asked for a definition of "advertising" as opposed to providing public eduation and information. E. Shelley said he felt the premise asks if the District is going to try to inform the public at large that sites are available, or is it going to keep quiet in the hope that not many people will show up. He felt the latter would be contrary to Basic Policy statement No. 4 . The District, he said, has the responsibility to inform all people that its lands are open. R. Hanko said it is possible to effectively control behavior through the use of "negative" advertising, such as including a description of inadequate parking, etc. N. Hanko asked if city libraries and city governments should be provided information so persons wanting to know about sites can become informed. H. Grench felt a push to advertise might be a mistake at this time since the District is feeling its way and gaining exper- ience as to what the cost implications and environmental effects are of public use and its impact on the acquisition program. K. Duffy said there is a difference between pushing and doing nothing. The District could be involved in a step-by-step process, evaluating as the program progresses. E. Shelley said he did not feel the proper way to limit use was to fail to inform the public. It is appropriate to have brochures available in places like city park and recreation Meeting 76-7 Page nineteen departments where people looking for this kind of information could find it. The information could also describe the limita- tions people will find at specific sites; for example, that there is not parking and a different method of reaching the site must be used. A. Ginzton thought listing other means of transportation to reach a site, besides the private vehicle, would be appropriate. Also, having information available only at libraries is limiting access to information to the literate public. K. Duffy pointed out that each site plan approved so far has included plans for preparation of a brochure, and this could be made available. B. Green said she sensed reluctance to take the step of inform- ing the public because of a lack of knowledge of the conse- quences. She suggested one site be used experimentally first. J. Olson said one problem with site that are close to the urban area and attractive is the lack of access to them. There is no way at the present time to get more than ten to fifteen people into them. Attempts to solve access problems may not be simple. He agreed that a model site could be chosen for a trial, and money could be allocated for allowing access. R. Gaertner said he did not hear anyone saying that if the cost becomes too expensive we could stop, rather than if it becomes too expensive we can charge for it. D. Wendin said he does not know how he stands regarding the opening of sites. If a site is opened, however, he felt it was fair that the entire public should know about it, rather than just a few. E. Jaynes asked to what extent the Board wanted advertising, and to keep in mind that the Public Communications Coordinator is only a part-time staff position. D. Wendin said he was speaking on a general philosophical level, but to do what he described might entail hiring more staff. E. Shelley compared the idea with a public hearing. Does the District want to publish a legal notice only, or does it try to get news coverage in order to really inform the public. Is it District policy to inform the public at large, or is it policy to keep activities quiet. E. Jaynes felt it was not possible to develop policy without a clear picture of the effect it will have at the staff level. r Meeting 76-7 Page twenty D. Wendin said that should have been an issue throughout the day' s discussions -- what are the effects of Board decisions on budget, staff, etc. C. Harrington asked how aggressively the Board wants staff to pursue the public information program, especially with respect to nature study programs, pilot programs, contacting groups about hikers and tours, or with other means. B. Green asked what the timing is in the premise - this year, next year? R. Hanko asked if advertising should be matched to what facilities are and what the land can take. If land is not being used, it should be advertised; if the land is over-used, advertising should be limited. As each piece of property is opened, a full disclosure should be made, the effect should be evaluated, and reaction can then be made . The objective should be protection of the land with maximum use. Ms. K. McCann said it is to the District 's advantage for the public to feel it is doing something for people , rather than simply banking land. R. Mark suggested coupling advertising of lands with fund- raising, and he urged the District to ask for more money if land use is costly. E. Shelley asked if there was a consensus on the general philosophy of keeping advertising low-key, or if some rea- sonable effort to inform the public would be made . N. Hanko said she felt the District should move slowly. For example, when a site is opened, it could be announced in the newspapers, and brochures should be available on site and in libraries and city government offices. H. Turner observed that some people in the audience seemed to be treating the Board as if it had made up its mind to close down sites or be conspiratorial . He felt this was a distortion, since it was clear to him that the Board is taking very seriously its responsibility to be a good steward of its lands . He also felt the Board might be moving a bit too slowly in reconciling conflict between public use and caring for its lands. In general, he suggested the Board agendize the question of how it could produce more of the information it needed to answer questions that had been raised. H. Grench said the issues raised at the workshop would be scheduled for the next two Board meetings (March 10 and March 24) for consideration. Meeting 76-7 Page twenty R. Mark pointed out an example in the Santa Monica Mountains when advertising of a park site created a disaster when over 10 ,000 people showed up for a one day hike. He cautioned that a careful approach should be made. D. Wendin said one of his major concerns was what would happen when Sunset Magazine printed an article about the District' s lands. K. Duffy said that after initial reaction, use would probably diminish. It seemed to her that decisions on advertising could be made as each site is discussed, subject to a yearly review. E. Shelley said he hoped the Distrct would not be too cautious. He supported increased advertising while keeping it consistent with the level of use the land can support. He felt that inter- ested people would find the information. K. Duffy expressed concern that the docent program would have selective advertising. N. Hanko wondered if the docent report should be placed on the agenda for discussion. She said she found it an interesting report of which the public is probably not aware. J. Olson pointed out that the report is a recommended training program. When training has been completed and the docent program has been started, then there could be a report on the workings of the program. Mr. G. Jennings expressed his feeling that the public is not well-informed about the District, and that advertising could take care of this . K. Duffy said the Distrct has worked very hard through its public communications program to keep people informed about the District. E. Schell said the District does not presently have the repu- tation, knowledge or support in the Los Gatos area that it should have. C. Harrington asked what specific ways he could suggest to help inform Los Gatos residents. E. Schell replied that there could be a tour of El Sereno Open Space Preserve or other sites, since that is what caught his interest. Mr. G. Jennings said it did no good to advertise District meetings, but that the District should inform people about its lands. C. Harrington said the next step would be printing brochures about the sites, since newspapers are unlikely to print more articles about specific sites. Meeting 76-7 Page twenty-one L. Reed suggested if use is aimed at certain types of users , then the newsletters and secretaries of specific groups could be sent information. R. Hanko said the Board must first decide if it will encourage the use of its lands. E. Huggins said she felt the issue was a site-specific problem. Until site plans exist, much of what has been discussed cannot be decided. She did not hear the Board saying it wanted to close a site if there were people who wanted to use it, but rather that it would be open consistent with the amount of money available and the ecology of the land. Mr. G. Jennings urged the Board to have the courage to take a few risks. XI. Premise IVB - During the next eight years, the only signs will be informational signs necessary to protect District sites. E. Shelley said he felt informational signs are an easy way to advertise. The only reason he could see for not using informational signs would be to not inform the public. L. Reed said another reason for signs is to mark trails ade- quately and thus reduce liability. R. Mark said that although North 'Foothills Preserve is open without a permit, it is really only available to those who can read a topographical map to find out where it is. If it is intended that people should use the trail, a sign would be helpful. E. Shelley said signs could also carry information about the land and a summary of the District ' s rules. The signs should be by entrances declaring that the land is owned by the MRPD. J. Frosch said advertising of sites would require informational signs . E. Shelley said the question is does the MRPD want to hide the fact of its ownership or let it be known to the public. H. Grench said in his mind the signing of District lands is site specific. Some can be signed without creating problems and others would invite problems, such as Saratoga Gap. K. Duffy said if that is the case, the site should not be open. H. Grench felt signing was a site specific consideration. Some sites should be open but not advertised; others could be open and signed. Meeting 76-7 Page twenty-two E. Shelly said the question is what advertising will get the level of use up to what the site can support. D. Wendin said he felt the discussion should include the use of all District lands as a whole. If only one site, such as Saratoga Gap, has special problems , he saw no reason why it could remain unadvertised. His concern is that District lands as a whole are advertised. E. Shelley said he was not saying every open site must be signed. Rather, if an open site is used to its maximum level without signing, then it should not be advertised. K. Duffy said she felt if land is open, it should be signed regardless of the amount of use. She asked why the District accepted the gift of Saratoga Gap land if it will not admit it is there. J. Olson said the question goes back to the purpose of the agency - is the District in the park business, or the open space business, or the open space business with some use. The reason for acceptance of the gift is to ensure there will not be a house or gas station on the site now. That in itself is important. K. Duffy stated there were other reasons for its acceptance, such as it location adjacent to a scenic highway. R. Gaertner summarized statements for premises IVA and IVB: Be more aggressive in settling on policy. Try opening one site to get data. N. Hanko reminded the workshop participants that decisions on what to do about these issues would be discussed at the next two meetings of the Board of Directors. XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3 :45 P.M. Norma Grench Volunteer Secretary A. Minutes of February 2,8, 1976 N. Hanko called attention to an error on page two, item III of the minutes. Premise IV should be corrected to read "Premise IA." on page nine, paragraph seven, the word "purpose" should replace the word "person. " N. Hanko suggested that Mr. Jo.e Hootman' s issues on page ten, paragraph one be included with Robert Gaertner' s summary on page eleven, paragraph two of the minutes. N. Hanko pointed out a typographical error on page seventeen, paragraph eleven in the word "permit. " N. Hanko asked J. Olson for clarification of a statement on page nineteen, paragraph five. He said that the second is sen- tence, the word "cars" should replace the word "people. N. Hanko stated the consensus of the Board that the minutes of February 28 , 1976 be approved as amended.