The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About19981216 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) i ---------- - RegionalOpE Space s 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 98-31 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 16, 1998 i MINUTES i I. ROLL CALL B. Crowder called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. Members Present: Betsy Crowder, Jed Cyr,Mary Davey, Pete Siemens, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, and Ken Nitz. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, Deirdre Dolan, John Escobar,Malcolm Smith, Michael Williams, Matthew Freeman, and Mary de Beauvieres. H. ORAL, COMMUNICATIONS Donna Gardner, P. O. Box 415, Moss Beach, requested minutes of several Board meetings and information on the use of eminent domain by the District and other agencies. III. ADOPTION OF AGEND C. Britton stated there were no changes to the agenda. 8 IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CAL END Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including Revised Claims 98-22. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. V. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 Recommendation for the Composition and Procedure for the - Formation of the San Mateo County Coastal Advisory Committee and Authorization for the President of the Board to Send a letter to Each of the Proposed Partidpa in¢ Organizations to Request Their Representation on the Coastal Advisory Committee— (Report R-98-160). B. Crowder presented the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. 330 Distel Circle . Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 . Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 . E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org e Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz . Genera(Manager:L.Craig Britton Meeting 98-31 Page 2 N. Hanko responded to a letter from San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee recommending including professionals on the Committee with backgrounds in watershed management, forestry, creek restoration, coastal resource planning, and sensitive habitat management planning. She said they saw this committee as reaching out to all people who have something to say to the advisory committee, and noted that meetings will be public. She reminded everyone that the committee will be advisory and is made up primarily of elected officials. They felt strongly that people on the coast have put their trust in elected officials. She said they will be working with the Farm Bureau and POST. The last word will rest with the District Board of Directors. K. Nitz expressed concern about having adequate representation from the rural agriculture segment. N. Hanko said they presumed that the people who would be appointed by elected officials would have experience or would not be appointed to this committee. She said perhaps they should make that clear in their letter. K. Nitz said there should be voices on the committee who are at least in some opposition to the way the District does things now. 45%voted against it and one representative out of nine is not close to 45%. N. Hanko said when the District was requested to look into the possibility of extending its boundaries, it was at the request of public agencies. They were asking for a way to save their land. She said the letter could make it clear that those appointed to represent farming would have experience in that area. P. Siemens said he was happy with the proposed make-up of the committee. J. Cyr was informed that the Ad Hoc Committee recommendation included commentary by the consultant regarding the design of the committee. B. Crowder said the consultant had not been hired. C. Britton said they had narrowed the field down to two groups after review of the proposals and those groups gave the Board free advice based on their past experience. Jerry Donovan, 501 Main St., Mayor of Half Moon Bay, said they were looking forward to having a representative on the advisory committee. He had some concerns regarding the representative knowing the agriculture business and wondered if there had been consideration of representatives from school districts. He said they supported the annexation and would be working with the District wholeheartedly. Stan Pastorino, 12491 San Mateo Road, Half Moon Bay, on behalf of San Mateo County Farm Bureau, said they look forward to participating. He requested that there be one or more active farmers on the advisory committee, as they are the people most affected by District expansion. Marina Starhia, P. O. Box 28, San Gregorio, asked the Board to be more equitable by having representation from the canyons. In addition, the Cabrillo School District should be represented because it owns a lot of the land and may be affected by the taxation aspects of annexation. She said she was a fanner and a school board member and represented children. Donna Gardner, P. O. Box 415, Moss Beach, had questions about whether the laws under which the District was formed would allow for a separation of geological areas in regard Meeting 98-31 Page 3 to eminent domain. She asked if any Board members or staff had addressed that issue. I S. Schectman responded that this was one of the issues that the advisory committee would be holding hearings on. She said it was appropriate for the Board to adopt policies that would apply in one county or one area, or apply to one kind of use, therefore, policies in the coastal area may differ from policies in the rest of the District. Toni Danzig, P. O. Box 100, Pescadero, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council, suggested that the advisory committee be composed entirely of people who have public accountability such as elected officials and those appointed by them. She was concerned that only three representatives were designated from the coast side. Chuck Kozak, P. O. Box 370702, Montara, addressed the issue of public accountability. He said if they wanted more farmers on the committee, they should ask elected officials to appoint more. Michael Murphy, P. O. Box 308, Half Moon Bay, Rural Coast Open Space Trust, said he thought it was time to reach out to the 45%who voted against annexation. Five of the six j organizations on the list supported the measure. He said that by adding the three Ad Hoc Committee members as voting members of the Coastal Advisory Committee, the vote would be 8 to 1, and that was not fair. He said the affected area is the rural coast. He suggested making the ad hoc committee members advisory to the coastal committee, reducing the committee to representatives from PMAC, the Board of Supervisors, the Farm Bureau and Post, adding someone known to oppose Measure F, and maybe adding two other people(school board and farmer). He asked them to remember that no decisions will be made by the advisory committee and the point is to have fair representation. Peter Marchi, P. O. Box 13, San Gregorio, farmer, agreed with K. Ntz regarding more representation from farmers. As a farmer, he did not think that PMAC was representative of farmers. B. 1. Burns, P. O. Box 250, Pescadero, President of the Farm Bureau, said he thought there should be more farmers represented on the board. He clarified that the Agricultural Advisory Committee did not write the letter referred to earlier; it was written by an individual. He asked who the POST representative with experience in agriculture would be. Mary Hobbs, P. O. Box 69, Moss Beach, Mid-Coast Community Council, said they passed a resolution supporting the concept of an advisory committee and were willing to provide representation. There are many parcels in the mid-coast area between Half Moon Bay and Pacifica which she hoped would be possible additions to the District, and the area should be represented. As an individual, she echoed the concept of having public accountability. She thought it would be a good idea to have an elected official from each board on the committee and have them appoint someone who would represent the open space interests. Leni Schultz, vice president and member of the Granada Sanitary District, said she was for I - ------------- - ----- Meeting 98-31 Page 4 the advisory committee. The committee's purpose would be to elicit information, and input from all people would be sought. She said she was sure the fear level would drop as they review policies. K. Nitz agreed with M. Murphy regarding ad hoc committee members being advisory. B. Crowder reviewed the ad hoc committee's process of reaching the number of people on the committee, stating that they decided on nine because a larger number would be unworkable. Board members made the following suggestions: M. Davey: • Consider all three being members of the committee but only having one vote. • Two other board members might be appointed from the coast side, maybe a farmer or a representative of the farm community or another sector like canyon residents. N. Hanko: • Not sure one vote would work. P. Siemens: • Had been involved in 23-person committee which broke into subcommittees dealing with special issues. • Would like to see two members added, specifically one from the agricultural advisory committee. • Agreed regarding school district representative. B. Crowder: • Add to the letter emphasis that appointee should be somebody who is well acquainted with agriculture and open space issues. I Cyr: • Desire is to provide an opportunity for as much participation as possible with the outcome of majority consensus. D. Little: • Seems it is rather heavily stacked in favor of either elected representatives or professional representatives. Concerned that it under-represents the average citizen of the region. Suggested adding a couple of people who are common citizens. • Suggested that the nine individuals choose at least two more representatives from the coast with the idea of adding people who have different and even dissenting voices. N. Hanko: • Personally would not be opposed to a larger committee. She had been a member of the 2020 Task Force. Some members were elected, some were appointed. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board adopt the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation, with the addition of one member from the Agriculture Meeting 98-* Page 5 Advisory Committee, and one from Cabrillo Unified School District;Apdd two members which may be chosen by the advisory committee at their pleasure; and specify in the letter from the Board President that representatives should be knowledgeable about open space and agricultural issues. J. Cyr seconded the motion. Amendment: D. Little asked that the motion be amended to state that the two other community members ah"be selected (rather than may), with the intention of adding diversity. P. Siemens and J. Cyr accepted the amendment. Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0. There was a recess from 8:08-8:15 P.M. B. Agenda Item No. 2—Review of Basic Policy:Miective I Q= Space Management_ Policy"c", Recreational Use and Improvements;Adoption of the final Basic Policy Document Tentatively Adopted July 8, 1998 —%sport R-98-159) R. Anderson presented the report which included three alternatives and the previous version of the basic policy from 1980. In summary, he stated that the District's mission has always been focused on the long-term protection of the continuous greenbelt on the Peninsula and the District has always placed resource protection ahead of public access. He said the District will continue to be committed to working with different user groups, in an effort to be fair and up-front about the basis of decisions. B. Crowder said they had received 170 written and email comments which she found surprising since they were just putting past practice into writing. She said they were there to listen to 120 for and 50 against, and those who came tonight. She said she would like to reaffirm the Board's support of the basic policy document with the exception of the section on open space management. Motion* J. Cyr moved that the Board confine discussion to the section on resource �I management. K. Ntz seconded the motion. Discussion: N. Hanko said she would like to leave the possibility of re-opening other parts of the document open. Y=: The motion passed 7 to 0. K. Nitz reiterated that the District's main goal is to acquire and preserve open space land. C. Britton read from a letter from Carol Peterson, 585 Kingston Road, Belmont, expressing support for hikers being able to enjoy the trails without fear of being run over by bicycles. Wim de Wit, 1514 Mitchell Way, Redwood City, Outdoor Education Docent with the District, said he was in favor of the draft policy. He quoted John Muir, stating he thought i I Meeting 98-31 Page 6 i Muir's philosophy had been carried out with the re-election of B. Crowder. He cited this as proof that the electorate was in favor of the division of basic use and special use. He urged a yes vote. Linda Elkind, 14 Hawk View, Portola Valley, said she enjoyed using trails for jogging, hiking, and mountain biking, and was grateful for access and grateful the Board had been true to thew mission She thought policies as drafted allow the greatest flexibility for the District to be true to its mission, and urged that the District retain basic policies as drafted. i Marilyn Walter, 20 Coyote Hill, Portola Valley, chair of San Mateo County Trail Advisory Committee, urged the Board not to change the basic use policy which gives District staff the means to develop recreational trails in an orderly fashion, within its staff and budget limitations, and with the overall goal of accomplishing its mission. Sharon Niederhaus, 8 Coalmine View, Portola Valley, a seventh generation Californian, expressed support for keeping the policy as it is. i Elly Hess, 2411 Graceland Ave., San Carlos, said she thought of open space as islands of serenity where you can get away from gridlock and chaos. She talked about ECDM and how bicycles go off trail and cause erosion. She expressed support for keeping the basic policies. Denise Williams, 25462 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills (PADS), said she was very concerned about Alternative 1 but was interested in Alternatives 2 or 3. j Peter Donohue, 792 Arguello St., Redwood City, said he liked Alternative 3 but could support Alternative 2. Erik Goetze, 724 Arastradero Road#116, Palo Alto, said one of greatest values of the District is to provide wilderness. He said everyone agrees there is value to wilderness but different groups want to use it differently. He supported the basic draft review. He quoted Aldo Leopold regarding mass use of land. George Sublett, 3027 St. James, Belmont, volunteer horseman, suggested leaving the wording as it had been in the past, as it seemed to have worked. He suggested that they not differentiate between groups, and not limit diversity but encourage diversity. He said he enjoys serenity but enjoys passing people who are smiling. He quoted from the brochure which said"Escape to your Open Space," and said they should convene a task force on rules if they are not being abided by. Anne Curran, 201 Loma Verde#A, Palo Alto, supported Alternative 1 as a rational and fair approach and one which does not limit or prohibit equestrians and biking but requires more thought and analysis of those higher impact uses. i Ernst Meissner, 1327 Johnson St., Menlo Park, said he was grateful for the existence of the District. He agreed with the District objective of obtaining and preserving open space and making linkage of individual areas a top priority. He described experiences in the preserves and said he was happy that part of the District mission was to provide low I Meeting 98-31 *ge 7 impact recreation to make those experiences possible. He said he can no longer hike and depends on a horse to get him there. Fred Stanke, 22873 Longdown Road, Cupertino, said he preferred to be considered a basic user as a taxpayer and a cyclist. He did not think crowding was the issue. He agreed with a previous speaker and supported Alternative 2 or 3. Charles Fry, 807 San Ramon Ave., Sunnyvale, ROMP cyclist and hiker, echoed P. Donohue's comments and stated his preference for Alternative 2 or 3. He said Alternative 1 created needless divisions in the community. Paul Koski, 22030 Regnart Road, Cupertino, said he cycles with his daughter, and urged the Board to keep the original wording or use Alternative 2 or 3. He said Alternative 1 was personally unacceptable. Christopher Hoover, 741 Pollard Road#4, Los Gatos, spoke against Alternative 1 and proposed 2 or 3. Mary Bernstein, Palo Alto, said she was in favor of Alternative 1. Stuart Whittelsey, 180 Fox Hollow Road, Woodside, one of founders of Los Altos Hills Horsemen, said the policy has worked and the Board should leave it the way it is. He said designating horse riding as a special use shocked him because the trails were originally established by horsemen. Mary Beth Stucky, 180 Fox Hollow Road, Woodside, a multi-trail use person, nature photographer, and president of the San Mateo County Horsemen's Society, said she was representing 650 taxpayers who own horses and do not want Alternative 1 which made everyone but hikers a special use. Carleen Whittelsey, 180 Fox Hollow Road, Woodside, member of Los Viajeros Riding Club and volunteer for San Mateo County Horses in the Park, said horses require open space and should not be limited by being designated as a special use. She said horses will not hurt open space and are a special resource themselves. Don Pugh, 231 Glenwood Ave., Woodside, said Muir and Portola both used horses. He said everyone in the room agreed that taxpayer money should be used to fund open space and stop the developers. He said they should be working together. However, if the policy goes through, it would be years before bikers and horsemen will have access. He said he was tired of hearing that the District's job was acquisition, not access, and it may be time to put an initiative on the ballot. He said their common enemy is developers and urged them to vote for the alternative that did not discriminate against certain users. Hans Hull, 329 Albion Ave., Woodside, said he was a biker and was in favor of Alternative 1. He said there were good reasons that uses were differentiated, including safety concerns. In addition, horses cause a greater degree of erosion on land than hikers. Mieke Dankers, 800 Bear Gulch Road, Woodside, said she was thankful for the District. i I Meeting 98-31 Page 8 I I She expressed support for basic use policy Alternative 1, adding she thought there were times when access should be shut off even from hiking. She said they need to look at each piece separately. I Eric Lutkin, 247 Covington Road, Los Altos, said there should be basic fairness. He supported the current policies and said if they have to be changed, go with Alternative 3. He noted that one way to address the cost of maintenance would be a use fee. I Jim Lauth, 622 N. Garland Tern, Sunnyvale, said he was a multi-user. He was strongly opposed to Alternative 1 and asked the Board to consider Alternative 2 or 3, or keep as is. i j Stephen Buckhout, 1389 Heckman Way, San Jose, said he was very pleased with a number of things in the plan. He said the concept of basic use was brilliant. He asked that the Board think about the ultimate impact of all uses they consider. He said it was easier to go slowly and more difficult to reverse the impact. Gordon Brown, 3704 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto, horseman, said he was a geologist at Stanford and commented on impacts by users. He said nature has a huge impact which is difficult to measure. He asked them not to adopt Alternative 1. Melody McGruder, 305 Easy St., #1, Mountain View, docent and hiker, said Alternative 1 was the best solution. Berry Stevens, 3265 Fair Oaks Ave., Redwood City, member of ROMP and San Mateo County Trail Advisory Committee, expressed support for Alternative 2 which he said puts users on equal footing. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, Los Altos Hills, California Native Plant Society, hiker, and native plant lover, said if a special use category is made it does not deprive them from using trails, it just deprives their bike or horse from using them. She said they all want to get along together, but there are times when weather conditions make it bad to be out on trails with horses or bikes. The wider trails can be maintained mechanically, so they could be used by bicycles and horses instead of the narrow winding ones. She urged that the Board protect all the plants and animals as best they could. Geoff Fanning, 1464 San Antonio #1, Menlo Park, said he loves the open space preserves and is a hiker and mountain biker. He would like to continue to use the open space as a bicyclist. He thought Alternative 2 or 3 would help not a drive wedge between users. Eric Jewett, 295 Snow Crest Road, Los Gatos, hiker, nature photographer; and back packer, said he was against Alternative 1 as it created two classes of users. While it might express the current implementation of the uses on preserves, it should not be imposed in the basic statement of policy. He strongly preferred Alternative 2 but would like it better if it used some of the language of the existing policy which talked about low-intensity uses such as hiking, riding, picnicking, photography, and so forth. Chris Macintosh, P. O. Box 802, Menlo Park, hiker, supported the basic plan. He said he thought resource protection came before private enjoyment by everyone. There are more Meeting 98-31 * Page 9 people using trails so they all have to make compromises. He said he had nothing put I pleasant encounters with bikers at ECDM. He agreed that some users have a higher impact and thought Alternative 1 was appropriate. i i Ross Finlayson, Mountain View, ROMP, supported Alternative 2 or 3 because they specify criteria. The District's primary goal will always be to acquire and preserve. He asked that they choose the wording of the basic policy carefully so it reflects what the District should be. i Clara Buellesbach, 1577 Villarita Drive, Campbell,MROSD trail patrol, asked if they used j the reports turned in by the volunteer patrol. She thought the terms"basic" and"special" should be eliminated from all policies. As long as everybody obeys the rules, they get along fine. Board members said they had not seen the volunteers' reports. Jo Barrett, 12344 First Fork Road, Los Gatos, South Skyline Equestrian Association, turned in a card but did not wish to speak at the time. Adda Quinn, 3027 St. James Road, Belmont, volunteer trail patrol, thanked the Board and staff. She expressed three concerns about Alternative 1: It has already created fragmentation within user groups;MROSD is art of larger stem of open ace and � 8t' P , P 8 system P P public trail resources and Alternative 1 would put them out of step with policies of other land agencies and groups seeking trail integration such as the Bay Area Ridge Trail 8 81' P g 8i' Y g Council; and Alternative 1 would impose a narrow, restrictive, and potentially exclusive definition of how public land should be used. She urged the Board to do three things: provide a forum in which trail users can meet to discuss differences constructively, create a vehicle that allows users to help with the difficult issue of enforcement since underlying differences between uses may be enforcement issues, and adopt either Alternative 2 or 3. Roger Myers, 3507 Altamont Way, Redwood City, MROSD docent, said he was in favor of the basic policy. He said he was there to speak for reptiles and amphibians. He said 80-90% of cyclists are courteous but the other 10% make it miserable. He asked that when the Board allows bikers, they consider the needs of native residents. Judi Baskin, P. O. Box 620108, Woodside, trail patrol volunteer, said she rode horses for MROSD, and thought the problem was that equestrians got grouped with bikes. She said hikers love to see horses. She asked that they make horses a basic use if they are going to segregate. She was in favor of Alternative 2. Jeff Hane, 682 Danforth St., Sunnyvale, said the District has done a good job of saving open space. She said Alternative 3 was her favorite, and Alternative 2 offered a compromise. David Houer expressed concern about the proposed language. He said there seemed no reason to continue the current practice and encouraged the Board to adopt more even- handed language. Nancy Brown, 3704 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto, Los Viajeros and San Mateo County Horsemen's Association, said she enjoyed open space. She urged consideration of Meeting 98-31 Page 10 Alternative 2 or 3. Frances Reneau, 229 McKendry Dr., Menlo Park, MROSD outdoor education leader, said she thought the Board would make a good choice. She said she wanted them to make the best choice for the land. Thomas Schoderbek, 1208 Arbor Court, Mountain View, MROSD docent, said he had ridden bikes over the years, and he had seen a difference between bikers, pedestrians, and P horses. Bicycles have more impact. He said he had not read any of the proposals, but it seemed the intent of Alternative 1 was reasonable. He said he preferred to see the District have very low-impact trails. He said it seemed that Alternative 1 was reasonable. Charles Doland, 2556 Monte Linda Court, San Jose, said Alternative 1 is a common sense approach. He said this is a policy about uses, not users. There is a difference on impacts on h n the environment. Bill Korbho 640 Lake Mead Wa Redwood lz, y, City, said one thing the Board had lost sightf o was that this discussion was not about excluding people from using trails, but about putting in lace machine h p g p machinery that managers of open space need to do the job of ma naging open space effectively, putting resource protection ahead of access. He said Alternative at ve 1 did this. Bill Bauriedel 3673 h Sout Court Palo Alto, the highways were once horse trails and wagon roads. He said they need to look ahead 50 years because the decisions they make now about limiting uses are going to be very important. He supported Alternative 1. Roger Alleman, 1640 Elmhurst Dr., Los Altos, hiker, said the Board realizes they have a responsibility to control trails. Some trails make multiple uses, at the same time, incompatible. He said if a large group of people stay away from a given preserve, it will affect the District's ability to collect money and obtain more land. i Rob Krnsky, volunteer horse patrol in San Mateo County, clarified that bikes are allowed on paved roads at Huddert Park. He had 33 letters from people who supported Alternative 2 or 3. One letter represented 250 people. I Julie Muir, Mountain View, MROSD docent, said one thing she enjoys about the District is that it is here to preserve land, and preserves are not parks. She said there are different impacts from uses, and expressed support for Alternative 1. She suggested that the Board look at docent reports as well as trail patrol reports. j Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos, said the District was segregating some of the uses and none of the users want to be segregated. He said hang gliding is referred to as a special use, yet has no impact on trails. He said the definitions need work. In addition, he said his wife is handicapped and asked what was meant by reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. N. Hanko said it was necessary for the District to include the words regarding reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities to conform to District policy and Federal law. i Meeting 98-31 Page 11 is Ellie Gioumonsis, 992 Loma Verde Ave., Palo Alto, California Native Plant Society, said they were particularly concerned about the many uses of the land on which plants grow. She said the purpose of the District is primarily to protect open space, as well as plants and animals that have no place else to go. She said she was in favor of Alternative 1. Jan Garrod, Garrod Farms in Saratoga, described selling land to the District with the provision that they could use the land as they had in the past, which was for equestrian riding trails. He said they have had a wonderful relationship with the District over the last 16 years. C. Britton said he was not aware of specific agreements with regard to the Garrod property. He said typically they continue the historical use. He thought they were happy with present policies. Robert Dryall, 18591 Runo Court, Cupertino, said he uses District lands for hiking, biking, and horseback riding, and thought Alternative I made the most sense. He compared making highways larger with making trails bigger. R. Anderson said there was not a lot of functional difference between Alternatives 1 and 2. He said staff was committed to Alternative 1 because it had been tentatively adopted and was closest to the literal existing pattern of practice and policy that receded the new P Y P language. D. Little said Alternative 1 seemed to offend parts of the community and did not necessarily add to the ability of District staff to protect trails. R. Anderson said all uses could"require special planning and management" (Alternative 2, last sentence) depending on the setting and the pattern of use. J. Cyr said he has seen more conflict issues come to the surface during the two years on the Board, but thought they needed to provide some kind of reasonable way to let people onto the land without destroying resources in the process. He said he was leaning toward Alternative 2 at this time. R. Anderson said the difference between the original policy adopted in 1974, amended slightly in 1980, and this document, was an attempt to clarify that the District needs to make use-specific decisions and Alternative 1 listed the criteria. N. Hanko said she would like to study the issue some more and was concerned about special uses. She said she would prefer that it be called"other permitted uses"rather than "special uses". She was in favor of having three categories. She said everyone has a right to be on District trails. She did not see the Board changing their minds about what is permitted. P. Siemens said typically they have not opened up any newly purchased properties except for an historic use. He heard tonight that people were concerned. He said he would like to accomplish their objective without putting people in separate categories. M. Davey said staff had tried to put into written form what practices have been since 1980 and words have been used that have been interpreted to be divisive. She thought this was Meeting 98-31 page 12 an attempt to consider each use and how it affects the land. She said Alternative 1 is the best because it states what the District actually does. B. Crowder said she did not believe anybody intended that the wording of Alternative 1 was to discriminate but was intended to provide a tool for deciding how each trail should be used. She expressed the opinion that mixed use can be accommodated but not all uses on all trails. This document was to create policy, and the use of each trail had to be decided by the trails policy revision which should take place in 1999. She said she would be happy with Alternative 2 but thought it was a little cumbersome. C. Britton said staff were looking at basic policy and how to conform to current practice. He said they did not bring it to the Board to create controversy. He recommended that if they wanted something simpler and less divisive, they send it back to committee. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board adopt Alternative 2 modified as follows: Change the first sentence to read, "The timing of, and access to or public recreational use of, District land for each type of use will be evaluated . . . " Next paragraph, change the word"allowed"to"provided." Eliminate the next paragraph except, "The District is committed to working with different trail user groups to find practical uses and mitigations with the understanding that some trails may not be open to all uses." Change "avoid"to"avoidance" and"mitigate"to "mitigation" in numbered paragraphs. J. Cyr seconded the motion. Vote: Following discussion, the motion passed 6 to 1 (Director Nitz voted no, stating that the alternative did not protect as much as he would like it to and adding that he was not in favor of building more trails now). VI. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -None VII. ADJO-UNMENT At 10:45 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary i