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