Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19980506 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Regional Op. Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 98-10 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 6, 1998 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL Vice President David Smernoff called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. Members Present* Mary Davey, David Smernoff, Pete Siemens, Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, and Ken Nitz. Members Absent: Betsy Crowder Personnel Present* Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, Mike Williams, John Escobar, Deirdre Dolan, Randy Anderson, Susan Dale, Del Woods, and Jodi Isaacs H. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. 1111. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motions N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt the agenda. M. Davey seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Motion* M. Davey moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including agenda item No. 3, Authorization for General Manager to Grant Prorated Management Administrative T.,eave to Plannine ProLyram Team Leaders and Lon2-Term Actin2 Program Manag=and Revised Claims 98-09. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. V. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 - Review and Comment on the Results and Draft Products 12 the Regional Q= Space Study Process; Review and Confirm the Next Steps and Schedule Additional Meeting(, to Finalize the Study Products and Review the Financial Implications - (R�purt R-98-59). 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 * E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton L i i Meeftg 98-10 Page 2 0 R. Anderson outlined the order in which the review would take place as follows: (a) Introduction and background. (b) Overview of issues that came out of participation process (attachment 1 of report). (c) Review of basic policies and responding to issues. (d) Study map (attachment 2 of report). (e) Overview of financial implications. (f) Next steps - schedule meetings, identify tasks. (a) Introduction and background R. Anderson reviewed the staff report and stated that all documents would be returned to the Board for confirmation and no final decision would be made at this meeting (b) Overview of issues that came out of participation process (Attachment 1 of Report) R. Anderson reviewed the issues and ideas arising out of public participation including responses to the informal survey, the results of which were contained in Attachment 5. C. Britton explained that Attachment 1 had been put together so that each basic issue that was derived from the survey results and comments at the workshops could be debated further by the Board as part of the Basic Policy. In other instances staff thought basic policy already incorporated the suggestions, as noted. Discussion followed regarding the two suggested alternatives for the Mission Statement. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board approve Alternative 2. M. Davey seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. (c) Review of basic policies and responding to issues. Issue 11 Definition of "natural" - By consensus, Board members agreed that there needed to be more discussion as recommended by staff. Issue 1 Acquisition priorities - Board members expressed agreement with the staff recommendation. Issue 2 San Mateo County Coast - R. Anderson said this had been included to express support for the study. Meeting 98-10 Page 3 Issue 3 District's role on the Bay - N. Hanko said she thought it would be wrong to say they weren't going to be acquiring baylands any more unless they asked the voters if they wanted them to change their original promise. D. Smernoff agreed, stating he thought it wAs important for the District to maintain a presence along the Bay. J. Cyr agreed as well. C. Britton responded to a question from the audience regarding this issue. He said managing the baylands is a stretch for staff. In addition, the Federal Wildlife Refuge is managing some baylands areas and there is an opportunity for them to step in and manage the Ravenswood Preserve. Regarding the Stevens Creek Shoreline, J. Escobar said the nature study area can't be managed by others unless there is a formal agreement with them. C. Britton said there are many grants and a number of agencies involved in the baylands and maybe the District does not have to be so involved. P. Siemens said he did not think the District should change what it is doing now. Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board direct that Issue 3 be deleted. P. Siemens seconded the motion. Discus Glen Lyles, City of Mountain View, reminded the Board that the city council went on record as conceptually approving assuming responsibility for the part of the Bay Trail that intrudes into Moffett Field adjacent to the District's property. Y-Q= The motion passed 6 to 0. Clarification of language of eminent domain pWicy S. Schectman said the proposed wording is generally in compliance with the District's adopted policies. Discussion followed regarding whether to include the policy verbatim or by reference. C. Britton stated that if the District annexes the coast, the basic policy will be changed and changes in the eminent domain policy could be incorporated at that time as well. The following wording was proposed: "Eminent domain will be used only as a last resort, in strict compliance with the District's eminent domain policies, and except in rare instances where a property straddles those boundaries, only within the District's boundaries and sphere of influence." S. Schectman cautioned them about the wording because there might be an access easement or something they would need to acquire by eminent domain that is wholly without the boundary but for some reason is essential to connect a state park with a District preserve. Staff will come back with language for consideration. Issue 13, Clarification of use and updating of Regional Open Space Study - After discussion the following changes were made to paragraph d.: Meeting 98-10 Page 4 ► Change the last word from "policy" to "policies. Change the second sentence to read, "The Regional Open Space Study shows the general extent of lands and public access improvements existing and under consideration to complete the District's mission." Change the fourth sentence to read, " The Regional Open Space Study is subject to periodic technical updates." Issue 1 Mission Statement- R. Anderson said this had already been covered. In addition, he explained that staff recommended switching Objectives 2 and 3 which had resulted in reference to the wrong section in some instances. Staff also recommended switching Research to Inter urisdictional Relationships and Neighbor Relations to Public Involvement. Issue 4 Constrain rate of public access - N. Hanko suggested changing this to add the word "additional" so the sentence would read, "Constrain the rate of additional public access and associated costs to provide . . P. Siemens asked if they should say something about the Board establishing the growth rate of the operations budget. C. Britton said there are no longer land management budget guidelines, but perhaps it could be put in the administrative portion of basic policy. He read from Policy 5.A., Cost Restraints. N. Hanko said she had qualms about the issue of cutting down the amount of financial resources for the development of trails. She said she did not think they should overlook the results of the scientific survey. She said they have to look ahead to representing all taxpayers, including those who don't use the preserves. C. Britton explained that all ideas will be brought back for Board debate. Staff members thought the ones brought up at this meeting affected the wording of basic policy. Issue 5 Access and improvements - R. Anderson explained staff s recommendation. Issue 8 Wilderness areas - N. Hanko said she did not agree that the District does not have real wilderness. R. Anderson outlined staffs recommendation. Issue 14 Guidelines for developing and managing preserves - N. Hanko suggested that the wording of the next to the last paragraph under i Meeting 98-10 + Page 5 "Recreational Use and Improvements" be changed to read, ". . . expenditure guidelines shall be established for the amount of funding. " Issue 15 Operations and management cost impacts - R. Anderson explained the meaning of"standard of care." C. Britton said the suggested wording change under Recreational Use and Improvements had been brought up because they thought perhaps horseback riding and bicycling should be considered as special uses. Board members agreed that this issue merited further debate. Paragraph c., Recreational Use and Improvements, will be amended to remove the word "be" and read, "Improvements on District lands are generally limited . . ." Issue 10 Impacts of"special uses" - Board members affirmed they would like further study at a Board meeting. Staff said it would take place at a June meeting. Issue 12 Definition of agricultural policies - N. Hanko said she thought the word "shall" instead of"may" should be used in paragraph e, Cultural Resources, which should read, "Historic structures and sites shall be protected . . ." and in paragraph f., Agriculture and Revenue- Producing Use, which would then read, "Agricultural use of District land, such as grazing, orchards, and vineyards shall be permitted. . " C. Britton described the process proposed for evaluation of structures prior to destruction. J. Cyr suggested that paragraph e., Cultural Resources, should read, "Historic structures on sites will be considered for protection by the District. . ." C. Britton suggested that this should be cross referenced with the structures policy rather than resource management policies. Motion; J. Cyr moved that the Board change wording of paragraph e., Cultural Resources, to read, "Historic structures on sites will be considered for protection by the District. . ." P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. Discussion followed regarding the policy on agricultural use. C. Britton said that staff recommended going ahead with this, knowing the Board will probably consider some other policy statement for the coast. Meeting 984b Page 6 Motion: N. Hanko moved that the agricultural section be held off until such time as the Board develops policies for the difference between the coast and the current District so there is no question as to what District policy would be. The motion was not seconded. Discussion followed. C. Britton said May 20 is when the Board will decide the direction the Board will follow on the coastal annexation question. By consensus, Board members agreed that they did not want to finalize the agricultural policy at this time. R. Anderson said the section was consistent with Resource Management policies which had been adopted after approval of the current basic Policy. Following comments from the audience, C. Britton mentioned the District is a public agency not a non-profit group. He thought agricultural and revenue producing uses should be separate. He suggested certain changes to the footnotes. N. Hanko suggested that they be specific about no logging. C. Britton said he thought current wording could be interpreted as saying no logging on District land. Staff members cautioned the Board about being too specific in one area. P. Siemens said he thought they should be able to ten the people on the coast what their policy is for agricultural land. Board members concurred. Items 6, 7, and 9, attachment 1 R. Anderson said these were some issues that were not imbedded in the policies because they weren't considered pertinent to the basic policy but were issues to be covered in other policy review projects. N. Hanko said she thought the survey, though unscientific, was important because of questions having to do with the use of District lands. N. Hanko asked that item 4 of attachment 1, Public Access and Improvements, be changed to read, "Constrain the rate of increased (or additional) public access . . Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board continue Item 1 and move the agenda to Item 2. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 to 0. B. Agenda Item No. 2 - Proposed Approval of Assignment of Lease to I-PAie Pan ling and Thomas Kreidler for the Historic Picchetti Winery; Monte Bello Q= SJ= Preserve - (Report R-98-58). r 1 Meeting 98-10 page 7 f M. Williams presented the staff report and introduced Leslie Pantling. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board approve the "Approval of Assignment of Lease for the Historic Picchetti Winery to Leslie Pantling and Thomas Kreidler." P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. A. Agenda Item No. 1 — continued (d) Study map (attachment 2). R. Anderson presented overview f so p ese ted an o ery ew o the study map. He proposed that staff come back at a subsequent meeting with the map revised to reflect most of the comments contained in attachment 2. He said the ma was considered very non-controversial P ry by other agencies that had reviewed it. N. Hanko expressed concern that there was no indication of which field offices, education and interpretive facilities, and historic structures were District facilities. D. Smernoff made the following suggestions: 1. The map should include a potential new education and interpretive facility on Arastradero Preserve. 2. There should be a red W near Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area. 3. The map should delineate major watersheds within the District. The use of overlays was discussed. N. Hanko said she thought a hearing on the coast regarding the regional open space map would be a good idea. C. Britton said he assumed if the Board goes forward, you would be looking at master plan policies to see if those were appropriate for the coast and then do the master plan update and the regional open space study. K. Nitz said MROSD administrative offices should be changed to "office." He also suggested that the gray area be lightened. N. Hanko said she would provide corrections to the map regarding the Stanford lands west of The Alameda. (e) Overview of financial implications. R. Anderson reviewed the staff report, stating staff had quantified and analyzed the numbers reflected by what is shown on the map. Staff had tried to put together a financial model that assumed which property the District would acquire. This will be considered at the next meeting on the study, perhaps at the second meeting in June. Meeting 9 10 Page 8 t (f) Next steps - schedule meetings, identify tasks R. Anderson said he hoped to be able to print the map in large quantities after final approval. VI. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS P. Siemens said he met with C. Britton and K. Nitz to discuss the evaluation of board appointees. C. Britton will come back with a list of goals, etc., and schedule the evaluation. K. Nitz attended a meeting of the coastal committee. Sixty people attended and voiced their concerns. C. Britton reported as follows: 1. The upcoming planning meeting for docents was changed to Jul 21. 2. The Attorney General's opinion is that San Mateo County can put the I h cent Y Y P h' sales tax for parks, libraries and schools on the ballot without the aid of additional legislation. 3. FYIs contained a memo from R. Anderson on the Cora Older trail alignment. 4. Letter in FYIs from Bill Korbholz regarding the Hikes and Walks planning meting. 5. Notification letter in FYls regarding Cooley Landing project. P. Siemens said he and M. Smith had gone to Sacramento to the Special Districts meeting with legislators. They had received information about the state budget including the large surplus. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary