Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760603 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) eting 76-16 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I__'N U T E S June 3, 1976 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I . ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Hanko at 12 : 20 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes and Jon Olson. Members of Trails Task Force Citizens Committee Present: Betsy Fiksdal, Artemis Ginzton, Alan Grundmann, Tony Look and Sheila Manchester. DISCUSSION N. Hanko said she would bring everyone up to date on the pro- gress of the Trails Task Force in completing the original charge assigned to it by the District. A corridor map has been pre- sented to the Board and sent to all jurisdictions which have land in the proposed trail area. Replies have been received. The Trails Task Force will consider recommendations from the cities at its meeting next Tuesday night; these will be by then incorporated in the corridor map. The Board will then consi- der adoption of the corridor map. N. Hanko said the question to be considered at this point is whether the original charge of the Trails Task Force has been completed, and whether they will continue as a group on any other tasks that should have been part of the original charge but have not been completed. This will be discussed under Agenda item No. 2 . The other alter- native is whether the Trails Task Force or other citizens ' group might continue in another role to accomplish tasks that the Board thinks need to be done in the area of trails. Agenda item No. 3 deals with what policies would exist in regard to imple- mentation of the corridor map. The Trails Task Force has never been certain as to what would be the outcome of their labors and they feel a need for policy direction as to how to imple- ment the plan. N. Hanko asked for discussion on Agenda item No. 1 - "Is Additional Citizens' Help Desired and If So What is to Meeting 76-16 Page two be Accomplished and How is it to be Structured?" A. Grundmann felt that additional citizens' help should indeed be sought both as a resource pool for the, staff and for the Board. Individual Board members will not be able to invest sufficient time to satisfy vigorous trail advocates, and there are many people willing to volunteer their time to do this. The recommendation of the Trails Task Force at this time would be that the Board renew the present Task Force and that a spe- cific set of charges be set forth, with necessary limitations. The Task Force would like reassurance that the Board is gen- uinely interested in trails and that further effort on Task Force members part would be well spent. T. Look stated his feeling that the Board has not given the Task Force direction on the Board' s policy on trails, and he would like to see the Board discuss its position on the matter. B. Fiksdal said she felt the Task Force is in the peculiar posi- tion of having completed one task and now the Board does not know what to do with them. She would like to see a position taken by the Board that says they are in favor of a trails sys- tem and want to work with the Trails Task Force on it. B. Green said the Task Force is a group that has gained exper- tise and knowledge in the course of working with the public body, and faces the possibility of being shut out and never witnessing the implementation of its work. A. Grundmann said perhaps it is just feedback that has been lacking. B. Green said she felt this type of citizens' group is a valu- able resource that she would like to continue to pursue. It must be given more structure. N. Hanko said she would have preferred to have a more definite role and expectations for the Task Force, but other Board members felt that this group should not be given direction. She felt this has worked out well, and a plan has been devised by the Task Force. Now the question is, if the Task Force is to continue, the Board must give some direction as to what it feels the completed task should be. E. Shelley asked for clarification of the word "additional" under No. 1, and whether it refers to additional help beyond the Task Force. H. Grench said he is not implying that the Trails Task Force be continued. He is simply asking if "more" citizens' help is needed in the future. Meeting 76-16 Page three B. Green felt the need for trails is recognized by everybody, and the Task Force people should remain interested and involved. The question is to what extent will the District utilize citizens. The District has the unique capability of condemnation for trails. Also, as soon as trails are acquired, the matter of patrol of these trails must be considered. Cooperation must be maintained with other agencies who do have patrolling resources. D. Wendin said the question has not been whether there should be a trails group. The question is whether it is a Board-appointed advisory group, a staff support group, or an ad hoc citizens ' committee. He said he favored continuation of the group in some form, but not as a Board-appointed group with responsibility to the Board. The Trails Task Force cannot be compared to a planning commission. The staff is the District' s planning com- mission. E. Shelley said he disagreed. The Trails Task Force could be retained as a "planning commission. " It would be an advisory group on park development, with trails as the major component. He said he would like to see citizen input directly to the Board. It would be more efficient to have a standing body to represent the District at large than to find individuals for planning on each site. D,.: Wendin pointed out that the planning commission in a city has the authority to approve or disapprove a plan. In the model for the District, staff has that authority. N. Hanko said author- ity does not always rest with the planning commission. They are simply advisory to whatever body they represent. B. Fiksdal suggested that the Board first address itself to what kind of help is desired, and then a group could be devised to fill that need. K. Duffy felt the question is more basic than what kind of a group will be utilized. A commitment to trails must be made, and it should be included in the budget. E. Shelley replied that it is covered in the budget under land management for planning. A. Grundmann said that goals should be defined before the struc- ture is talked about. A. Ginzton said she had a great deal of confidence in what the District and the Trails Task Force could accomplish in setting up trails corridors. She would like to see the District help jurisdictions that are unable to put in a trail for one reason or another. B. Green mentioned that there is the capability for funding from some other sources. Sometimes there are funds available and cities don't apply for them. Meeting 76-16 Page four S. Manchester said there must be some commitment from the Board on the matter. H. Grench pointed out that it is not only a question of adopt- ion of the corridor map, but one of implementation also. He said the plan is already being implemented, as evidenced by the latest acquisition of the Gunetti-Larrus property. The question is to what extent does the Board want to make further statements. N. Hanko suggested that Agenda item No. 2 be discussed to decide what has been accomplished so far. This item asks "Does Pre- sentation of the Corridor Map Complete the Original Assignment of the Trails Task Force?" A. Grundmann said that as far as the question (2a) "Should the Trails Task Force recommend priority projects for implementation of the Corridor Map?" , more information is necessary before this can be discussed. In relation to question (2b) "Should the Trails Task Force develop planning documents for implemen- tation of priority projects. . . " someone should develop these documents. The staff should be the primary organizer of (2b) . Finally, in answer to (2c) "Should the Trails Task Force con- tinue planning for the newly annexed area of San Mateo County. . . " , if the area is annexed it seems obvious that a corridor map must be planned with this in mind. B. Fiskdal commented that she has heard that the advisory com- mittee for San Mateo County has been very successful and she assumes the District would work closely with people like that. A. Ginzton pointed out that Tony Look and Maurice Tripp know every one of the trails from north to south. A. Grundmann said it would be difficult for anyone among the Task Force to evaluate one trail against the other, if the Board requested that. N. Hanko asked for the staff' s opinion as to whether the Task Force should be continued. J. Olson felt that a priority list submitted by the Task Force would be helpful, but pointed out that trails is one of the items that has already been considered when the Board decides what parcels are to be purchased. As far as developing plan- ning documents, he said legally he wasn't sure the group could develop confidential documents. As for (2c) , if the San Mateo County area should be annexed, it should be incorporated into the corridor map and the citizens' group already there and some of the San Mateo Park and Recreation people should all be involved in that. Meeting 76-16 Page five B. Green asked what is meant by a priority project - does that mean a certain corridor is to be implemented and what owner- ships should be bought? S. Manchester asked if the priority list would be submitted to staff or to the Board. Also, she considers the ease in which a property can be acquired as a factor in determining priority. She said she does not see the Task Force seeking out and talk- ing to property owners. D. Wendin said the level of detail being discussed is adequately covered by staff. The corridor map is acceptable as a sche- matic plan, but once you get down to analyzing individual par- cels an ad hoc citizens' committee can do all they want, but there are problems as soon as this group represents staff or the Board. He said specific trail planning, as mentioned in item 2b, is one of the things that a volunteer group should be able to assist with. B. Green pointed out that even walking or exploring by the group can be a delicate matter. N. Hanko asked if there was general agreement on the possibility of the Task Force recommending priority projects to staff or serving as an advisory group in this area. H. Grench said such an advisory group might not necessarily be the present Trails Task Force. N. Hanko replied that it is important to include these people who have been involved, when staff is working out plans for the corridor map. B. Green added that this would be when acquisi- tion of parcels is taking place along the recommended corridors. At that point plans would have to be coordinated through E. Jaynes and J. Olson. Also, there is still the possibility of a citizens ' group investigating routes on existing public property. S. Manchester pointed out that the Task Force does not have access to some of the public lands. J. Olson felt that was a small hurdle that could be overcome. D. Wendin felt the question of timing should be discussed. There is no question that when staff begins to plan a trail along the corridor, Task Force members will be consulted. N. Hanko asked that this be brought up again when Agenda item No. 3 is discussed. She said there seems to be agreement by the Board that the Trails Task Force will not necessarily recom- mend priorities to the staff. As trail corridors are being developed, individual Task Force members will be consulted for information on specific ownerships. D. Wendin said he did not believe there is a consensus. Meeting 76-16 Page six E. Shelley felt that it must first be decided whether such a group will be a staff advisory committee or a Board-appointed committee. N. Hanko said she feels there is agreement that there is a task that needs to be done, and an advisory group would report to ". the staff. In addition, there ought to be some development of trails on the properties the District now has which form a corridor. D. Wendin pointed out that this is automatically in the plan- ning process for individual sites. J. Olson commented that there are two factors involved - one is the site plan for individual sites and the other is site planning for the regional trails plan. Mrs. Lucille Gould, 26815 Ortega Drive, Los Altos Hills, said she had several concerns. In 1966 when trails were first addressed by the County and other interested citizens, it was mentioned that Santa Clara County had seven miles of paths for bikes, horses and hikers, contrasted with San Mateo County, which had 96 miles. The corridor trail being discussed in many areas includes difficult terrain that cannot be used by bikes. She said she felt it is not being clearly defined what the District means regarding laying a route across a city. She felt citizens at large in a city know nothing about it. She asked how far the District' s confidentiality goes in talking about priorities. She asked if the District is setting priorities regardless of the ramifications to the municipality. N. Hanko replied that the District' s proposed corridor map has been sent to all of the cities and replies have been received from most of them. She said it is expected that the cities will link up to the District' s trails system in whatever fashion they deem proper. L. Gould said she herself and Los Altos Hills would like to see what the District' s plans are regarding the proposed Arastra- dero Trail. N. Hanko pointed out that the trail cannot proceed without cooperation from the cities to which it will be connecting. D. Wendin mentioned that an earlier edition of the map included trails what went down into the cities, which have been eliminated. There is no longer a trail in the corridor map called the Arastra- dero Trail. The Black Mountain Trail stops at the edge of the urban service areas. The Shannon Trail comes through the back of the hills behind San Antonio Hills. In reference to the school district property on Page Mill Road, the proposed trail doesn't come close to it; this would be up to the city of Los Altos Hills. Meeting 76-16 Page seven L. Gould said Mr. Grench came to Los Altos Hills two weeks ago to have put back on the agenda an item which the school dis- trict said should have been on the agenda in the first place. H. Grench said he did not invite himself to Los Altos Hills in connection with the school district property. He was in- vited to attend the meeting by a citizen of Los Altos Hills who possibly wanted the item on the agenda. J. Olson said setting priorities is part of the planning pro- cess. Whenever a site is considered, it is discussed in re- lation to the regional trails plan. With the acquisition of the Gunetti property, this is the first time a viable link can be made because of the physical public ownership of land. He said he does not think it is necessary to prioritize any- thing. T. Look said he would object if he was asked to prior- itize. A. Grundmann said perhaps not enough attention is being given to the south District, and he does not feel he knows enough about potential usage in the south. Most of the planning has been in the north. He said he never imagined the Task Force would be producing a public document that would create any PP on municipalities or that the Task Force would ap- proach landowners. N. Hanko said there seems to be a consensus that the Trails Task Force members who have been involved to date on the development of the corridor map will advise staff of prior- ities and specific routes to implement the corridor map. B. Green pointed out that there are two areas of effort acquiring more property to implement a route, and, once a property is already acquired, implementing a trail that utilizes those properties. E. Shelley said he felt that as far as prioritizing for fut- ure acquisition, the corridor map was as far as the Trails Task Force should go in setting specific acquisition prior- ities. As citizens, they will advise on implementation. N. Hanko said it seemed the consensus is as follows: "The group will help advise staff in the evaluation of the corri- dor map and implementation of a trails system through public property. " J. Olson pointed out that what occurs first is field work. Then once the plan has been adopted by the Board, there is the question of implementation - actually developing the trail. Meeting 76-16 Page eight B. Green said it seems what the Task Force envisions for them- selves is to do the field work, find a route and then deter- mine how people get to it. D. Wendin said there never has been any question that the members of the Task Force would be asked to participate in detailed planning and trail layout when the time came. T. Look said in trails planning there are lots of things be- sides going out on the ground and doing it. There are stan- dards for trails, improvements of trails, bills in the Senate and Assembly and federal government, lobbying. D. Wendin replied that trails standards are clearly Jon' s re- sponsibility. There are other citizen activities that could be engaged in. T. Look said he is generally saying that there is a need for a citizens' group to help the staff and the Board in all types of trails. The Task Force should be kept going and there should be clear direction from the Board on what needs to be done. A. Grundmann said he felt the people on the Trails Task Force are more interested in the longer distance integrated con- cept with regard to trails, and a statement that the Board would be amenable to receiving further suggestions from the Task Force would be helpful. K. Duffy wondered what the level of effort the staff would put in and what the budget would be, directly or indirectly. A. Ginzton felt the corridor map should be accepted as a completed project, and then if a Task Force of some kind is desired, the present one can continue as it is or it can be regrouped. N. Hanko then stated the consensus, "Trails Task Force mem- bers, and other, (used in the past) will help advise staff in the evaluation and participation in specific trail plan- ning. " There was also agreement that if the annexation succeeds, the matter will be considered then and it will be decided how to proceed. N. Hanko introduced Agenda item No. 3 , "What is the District' s Position Regarding Implementation of the Corridor Map?" Meeting 76-16 Page nine Motion: K. Duffy moved that (3a) and (3b) be accepted as follows: The Board expects to adopt a Corridor Map after review of cities (completed) and incorporation of cities' recommendations, and intends to use the Corridor Map to assist in pur- chase decisions of lands for District sites. N. Hanko seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin said the corridor map can- not be accepted without major public hearings. Substitute Motion: N. Hanko changed the motion to read, "intends to use and adopt Corridor Map to assist in purchase The substitute motion passed on the following vote: AYES: N. Hanko, K. Duffy, B. Green. ABSTAIN: D. Wendin. E. Shelley wanted further clarification and discus- sion. He asked if the cities' recommendations must then be incorporated or will they be considered. K. Duffy pointed out that the motion passed with three people voting "aye. " E. Shelley then asked that he not be recorded as voting "aye" on the motion. It was then agreed that this would be stated as a consensus rather than a motion, subject to further discussion. K. Duffy then suggested the topic for discussion next should be what the group wanted. E. Shelley commented that all the discussion did not suggest something in the form of a planning commission. It seems that what is acceptable is a rather loose citizen' s committee to advise staff. K. Duffy replied that she sees some potential problems with that, in that the group may not feel they are getting enough help from staff, or that staff feels that too much time and effort is being taken up. E. Shelley said the discussion should be essentially between the staff and the citizens ' group, with no direct communica- tion with the Board. B. Green suggested the group be left as loose and informal now, and it can be formalized if neces- sary at a later date. A. Grundmann agreed with that concept. He said some of the frustration of both the staff and Task Force relates to the lack of specific direction from the Board. D. Wendin said that will be a staff job. T. Look felt the Board must go on record as having a trails group within the District. Meeting 76-16 Page ten E. Shelley said this has been faced in the budget area. The amount of money to be allocated in the general area of land management has been discussed. It is up to the staff to come up with specific recommendations. At that time, the Board will take action. He said it is just getting to the point now where staff can start on area planning as opposed to site planning. That is the time when it is appropriate for the Board to take action on it. T. Look said he felt that though the money is allotted for the Trails Task Force "under a wedge" in the budget, the decision is left to J. Olson as to how he allocates the time to it. D. Wendin commented that he personally feels that J. Olson cannot accomplish what needs to be done without the help of a group of citizens. J. Olson said the factors that come under trails as he sees it are planning, construction, maintenance, and patrol. With- in those categories, he would like to see a permissive struc- ture for the planning and construction in particular. He envisioned an ongoing relationship with certain individuals on a certain site. He would like to establish a list of people that he could consult. B. Fiksdal asked how interested citizens would find out what is going on. J. Olson replied that during the planning process, it is de- cided that a piece of property will be acquired. At this point on a site plan is developed. An advisory group is formed to aid in the plan, which is presented at neighborhood meet- ings to the community near the particular site. The plan is presented to the Board for consideration, and a public hearing is held. There is limited public contact with the advisory group, but there is open as possible public contact with indi- viduals in specific communities or neighborhoods, and again when the plan is presented to the Board. T. Look felt that if J. Olson has a list of people he works with, there is no incentive for other people to meet as a Trails Task Force for this District. H. Grench commented that regional trails are part of the site planning process. E. Shelley felt it is appropriate that what is now the Trails Task Force does become a citizens' advocacy group. T. Look commented that he would hate to see a resource like the Trails Task Force put aside. Meeting 76-16 Page eleven D. Wendin suggested that A. Grundmann and T. Look come back with a proposal that they think will work in light of what was discussed at this meeting. It was agreed that D. Wendin and N. Hanko would work with them, B. Green asked that one subject to be considered would be how much staff time will be involved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2: 15 P.M. Barbara Mahoney Recording Secretary