Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19770510 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 77-13 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors May 10, 1977 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Wendin at 7 : 40 A.M. Members Present: Richard Bishop, Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley, Harry Turner and Daniel Wendin. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Jon Olson, Jennie George, Phyllis Lee and Del Woods. OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED 1. Proposed Revision of the Land Management Planning Process. D. Wendin stated that the Special Meeting had been called for the purpose of discussing the Proposed Revision of the Land Management Planning Process . He introduced J. Olson, Land Manager. J. Olson introduced his report (R-77-16) dated March 24, 1977 regarding the Proposed Revision of the Land Management Planning Process. He said he was trying to establish an appropriate way of making decisions about public land and including the public in this process. He compared the processes of other public agencies: 1. National Park Service - their initial planning for Yosemite National Park had excluded public input pro- ducing negative results; therefore, another master plan was done. 2. State Parks - three public hearings throughout the State were held for their low-key planning process for the Santa Monica Mountain area. J. Olson said the State planning process has a much larger perspective. 3. East Bay Regional Park District - their 1974 Compre- hensive Master Plan involves a planning process that addresses each site. They have been working to update their master plan for each site and spend over $1 million per year for planning. They have reviewed one site since 1974 . J. Olson said their resource analysis Minutes of May 10 , 1977 D. Wendin said he would like the minutes to be corrected on page four, paragraph 1, second line, to accurately reflect his state- ment regarding planning procedures. He said that it should be changed from "staff is continuing to follow the original planning procedures" to "staff is following the new procedures" . D. Wendin stated the consensus of the Board that the minutes of May 10, 1977 be approved with the above correction. I Meeting 77-13 Page two is the outstanding feature of their process; however, he questioned if the effort they expend is necessary for an agency such as the MROSD. K. Duffy asked what public input East Bay Regional Park District receives regarding their site planning. J. Olson replied that the staff does a draft plan which is then presented to the public for comment. However, he said they are considering involving the public prior to writing the draft. J. Olson reviewed the MROSD planning process which had been adopted by the Board July 23 , 1975. The plan consists of the Pre-Acquisition Phase and Post-Acquisition Phase. J. Olsen read the list of procedures of the Pre-Acquisition Phase which include: 1. Site analysis - general 2. Interview with property owners and others familiar with the site 3 . Determination of compliance with political and plan- ning jurisdictions 4. Reviewing of title policy and tax assessments 5 . Determining of boundaries 6. Studying cultural history 7 . Determining potential uses 8. Potential management considerations 9. Indicating relationship to Regional Trails Plan and other parklands 10. Terms 11. Other - factors land tours and public hearings 12. Public input from hearing 13. Recommendation 14. Environmental assessment or determination on acquisition 15. Negative Declaration or EIR if required 16. Staff recommendation and Board concurrence on time framefor development of interim use and management plan H. Turner inquired if there is a preliminary site analysis report, and what has been the role of the staff and public prior to that analysis report. J. Olson responded that there is a pre-acquisition report when a property comesbefore the Board for consideration. Prior to writing that report, he and the planning department staff have looked at the site and discussed its features, which then are generally described in the report. He said that since many acquisitions don't follow a regular sequence, usually there isn't much public involvement until the acquisition con- tract or agreement is finalized and sent to the Board in their Meeting 77-13 Page three meeting packets. A public hearing is held at the meeting. He added that most of the public involvement is at the time the site use and management plan is reviewed by the Board. J. Olson said that for the post-acquisition phase all of the categories of the pre-acquisition phase are reviewed and staff does a more thorough study of the property regarding vegeta- tion, wildlife, and access prior to the preliminary public meeting. He said that the process is strictly followed for major pieces of property; however, on smaller properties where little use is expected, some categories may be omitted. Neigh- borhood meetings are held to present the draft use and manage- ment plan and to obtain information and comments that should be incorporated into the draft plan. Sometimes additional neighborhood meetings are held and the refined draft plan is presented to the Board. At that time a Negative Declaration or EIR, whichever is required, is attached to the plan. J. Olson remarked that, in the past, Board and staff have been reviewing the use and management plans annually; however, as the District continues to acquire land, he expressed the need to simplify the planning process and restructure the grouping of sites into a geographic relationship so that there would not be so many reviews of independent sites but rather a collection of sites in a given geographic area. He also felt that the California Environmental Quality Act requirements should be clearly identified in the process; the report-writing phase itself needs streamlining; and a system of recording cumulative site information for use by land management staff is needed. J. Olson referred to his report and reviewed the specific recom- mendations for revision which were as follows: 1. Application of compliance with revised CEQA require- ments should be inserted into the planning process. 2. The District should be divided into ten geographically coherent open space units that would be called O,pen Space Preserves. All use and management plans for acquisitions within the large open space preserves would be reviewed at the same time unless the period between acquisition and review is unreasonably lengthy. 3. Emphasis of the use and management plans should be on policy rather than physical improvements. A clear distinction should be made between long range and immediate projects depending upon available budget; however, safety hazards would be eliminated as soon as possible. Only individual physical improvement projects costing over $3500. 00, should be itemized in use and management plans . If the estimated budget for a site totals more than $3500. 00, even though no Meeting 77-13 Page four single item does, then general categories with related costs would be included. 4. The review of use and management plans should be based on open space planning areas and should occur biennially (every two years) ; however, the Board, public or staff can raise an issue related to that particular site plan at any time. 5. The Land Management staff should establish a cumulative site information filing system indicating what has happened, what is happening and what is planned for each site and also assimilate data received from the cooperative research program with San Jose State Uni- versity and other educational research. 6 . After adoption of the use and management plan, a list of projects and their priorities should be established by staff. D. Wendin said he observed, except for rescheduling of reviews, staff was continuing to follow the original planning procedures. The pre-acquisition reports presently contain an interim use and management plan for Board adoption and that staff is pro- posing that this interim plan be acceptable until the time for the preserves ' regular review unless it is a major site which will have significant impact on neighbors. In that case, the specific sites ' interim use and management plan would cover important points that could wait for a reasonable period of time before review. E. Shelley asked if incorporating the interim use and manage- ment plan in the pre-acquisition stage before the public meet- ings presents any problems. J. Olson said it depended upon the degree of changes and that interim use and management recom- mendations rarely have significant changes that might cause concern. K. Duffy suggested that on page five, paragraph 3 , under Use and Management Plans for Individual Sites, the word "optional" be deleted and the words "such as neighborhood impact, it is a major site or the status quo is not acceptable" be added at the end of the sentence. Referring to page five, 2 (f) , D. Wendin suggested stating that the emphasis of the interim use and management plans in the pre- acquisition reports is to maintain the status quo if it is a proper level of impact on the environment. Referring to page two, 3 (a) , J. Olson said the intent of the statement is when the initial use and management plan for a site is done, the emphasis would be on policy; then, as the use and management plan for a preserve is reviewed, the emphasis would be on physical improvements, taking into consideration the policies previously agreed upon. Meeting 77-13 Page five D. Wendin said he felt the emphasis in the interim use and management plan would have to be on both policy and physical improvemnt, otherwise, it might be difficult to implement the recommendations on a large geographic area basis. J. Olson said as significant numbers of lands are acquired, some areas could possibly be put in a land bank due to budget limitations, but this would be a policy decision. B. Green expressed concern that various sites within a given area might have different identities requiring separate planning. J. Olson responded that the basic policies would be reconsidered if a major acquisition should be acquired in an area, and it is foreseeable there would be different policies for different units in an open space preserve. In response to Board inquiry, J. Olson said he defined the word "policy" as the District' s attitude towards a particular area, for example, public access, environmental protection, budgetary decisions and possibly land banking. He added he was trying to clarify the basis of decisions for plans, and suggested that perhaps "philosophy" would be a better term to use than "policy. " H. Turner recommended the term "guidelines" to realize the ob- jectives for a specific site or area. Referring to page three, 3 (c) , "Only physical improvement projects costing over $3500 should be itemized in use and management plans" , D. Wendin stated he would like to keep the level of detail presently being used in the pre-acquisition plan the same. D. Wendin stated Board consensus that the report (R-77-16) needed revisions on page 2, 3 (a) reflecting statement of Board policy; on page 5, number 3 , addition of the agreed-upon language; and on page 5, 2 (f) clarification in the interim use and management plan and the pre-acquisition report regarding policy statements of status quo and public access. N. Hanko recalled that at a previous Board and staff workshop, the Board felt the need of a reporting system on individual sites. She suggested that the Board could approve a biennial review as a procedure but perhaps an annual progress report or update could be included in the Board packets specifically addressing status of physical improvements projects and data on visitor use and activities. She did not feel this could be adequately handled during regular Board meetings under Informa- tional Reports. Meeting 77-13 Page six D. Wendin said he did not feel a two-year reviewing cycle would be realistic because additional sites would be acquired within an area. He recommended a one-page "Status Report" annually, if the area had not otherwise had a review, address- ing physical improvements and statistics on use. K. Duffy asked if there is a schedule for reviewing signs, permits, vegetative management and similar types of projects. J. Olson responded there is a need for a series of land manage- ment policies and staff is presently working to establish them. K. Duffy said she would like to define the types of policies and added there might be a need of an annual review of larger policies. The Board agreed by consensus that if a planning area or major site had not been otherwise reviewed, an annual status report would be presented to the Board and if there were any items generating specific concern, they could be placed on a future agenda for further discussion. N. Hanko said for the public' s convenience, Board meetings should not be held at 7 : 30 A.M. E. Shelley and D. Wendin said they preferred a morning meeting rather than a noon meeting. R. Bishop said if Special Meetings were required, he preferred additional evening meetings which might also be more suitable for public attendance. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 06 A.M. Jennie George Deputy District Clerk