HomeMy Public PortalAbout20000522 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Ro�glonal Open ! we
n. .
OF
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 00-12
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Monday, May 22, 2000
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
President Kenneth C. Nitz called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M.
Members Present: K. Nitz, B. Crowder, M. Davey, N. Hanko, J. Cyr, D. Little, and
P. Siemens (arrived at 7:24 P.M.)
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: C. Britton, S. Schectman, D. Dolan, R. Anderson, M. de Beauvieres, J.
Preciado, D. Sanguinetti, M. Freeman, A. Ruiz, A. Koletzke, D. Danielson,
J. Kowaleski, L. Raymaker, J. Isaacs, D. Woods, L. Zadek
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — There were none.
II1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: J. Cyr moved adoption of the agenda. B. Crowder seconded the motion. Motion
passed 6 to 0.
IV. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Agenda Item I -- Tentative Adoption of an Amendment to the Preliminary Use and Mana eg_ment
Plans for Seven Preserves: Foothills, La Honda Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch, Pulgas
Ridge Teague Hill and Thornewood Open Space Preserves, Designating the Preserves as Closed
to Bicycle Use Including Closure of 13.6 Miles of Existing Trails to Mountain Bicycle Use,
Tentative Amendment to the District's Trail Use Policies to Add a Long Range Trail Use
Designation Guideline Ratio of 60% to 65% Multi-Use (Including Bicycles) and 35% to 40%
Hiking or Hiking and Equestrian Use Only; Determine that the Recommended Actions are Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as Set Out in the Report; Tentative
Amendment to the Trail Use Policies Regarding Multi-Used Trails to Include a Policy Regarding
Multi-Use Trail Access (Including Bicycles) to Regional Trails Such as the Bay Area Ridge Trail
C. Britton was introduced. He gave a historical perspective of the issue. He stated that none of
the 24 preserves were currently closed to bicycle use. Hikers are looking for not only a
wilderness and tranquil experience, but also a safe experience. N. Hanko wrote a memo in 1996
regarding some of the preserves being hiker and equestrian only. As a result, an Ad Hoc
110 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Phone: 650 691-1200
FAX.650-691 0485 - E-mail: t7irosd@openspar:e.org Web site:www,openspace.org
t3c�zarel ut l7irectorti Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed(yr, Deane Little, Nanette Hanko, Betsy Crowder, Kenneth C. Nit/ - goner.)/M irmger:I.C rmi Britton
Meeting 00-12 Page 2
i
i
Committee was formed to address this issue. The committee found that the District has more trail
mileage open to mountain bicycles than any other agency in the Bay Area, and if the proposal is
approved tonight, the District will still be the agency with the most trails open to mountain
bicyclists.
I I
Randy Anderson gave a brief background of the trail use policies. The District first adopted trail
use policies in 1990 after extensive public input. The policies were intended to provide for safe
and enjoyable experiences for all the different users on the trail system. A key policy was policy
1.2, which called for "protecting the opportunity for tranquil nature study and observation." In
1993, trail use guidelines and mitigation measures were adopted to clarify how the trail use
designations would be implemented on a trail specific basis. It was found after a period of years
that the guidelines weren't successful in addressing the "tranquil nature experience" objective. As
voiced before, Director N. Hanko wrote a memo in 1996 asking the Board to review the trail use
policies. During 1998 and 1999, the Board took a look at its Basic Policy and reconfirmed that
the wilderness experience opportunity be preserved and that might mean that not every user could
go on every trail, especially where there were significant conflicts. The opportunity for
wilderness experiences should be preserved.
Mary de Beauvieres, planning consultant and former Senior Planner for the District, stated that
I
over the past year the Ad Hoc Committee members have been meeting with staff to research the
issue and to then develop recommendations for full Board consideration. During the course of
these meetings, the committee made a number of findings. First, they did confirm that the
District has the highest percentage of bicycle accessible trails when compared to other similar bay
area public land management agencies. Second, in the period between 1990 and 1998, the District
received 57 letters complaining of bad experiences due to mountain bicycles on District trails.
Also, between 1996 and 1999, field staff responded to 166 solo bicycle accidents. From this
information, there is a real and perceived issue of safety on the District trails that allow mountain
bikes. As mentioned earlier, there are no District preserves available to visitors wanting an open
space experience where there is no possibility of encountering mountain bicyclists. Taking these
issues into account, the committee confirmed that action was required to provide opportunities for
tranquil nature experiences and to avoid significant trail user conflicts. Working with staff, the
committee proposed to close a total of 13.6 miles of trails in six different preserves and keep one
additional preserve closed to mountain bike use to provide some places where people can go and
not encounter mountain bikes. This proposal would change the percentage of trails open to
mountain bikes from 75% to 69%. Preserves were selected to avoid the most popular mountain
bike areas and also to provide some regionally distributed areas for hikers and equestrians. The
selected seven preserves are small, average 576 acres in size, and provide a variety of trail
experiences to visitors. The proposal also includes a guideline to establish a long-range target
ratio of 60-65% multiple-use trails (including mountain bicycle use) to 35-40% trails without
mountain bike access in the future. There would not be additional closures proposed for trails that
are currently open to bicycle use that are currently designated for that use beyond what is
proposed tonight.
M. de Beauvieres showed overhead slides of each Open Space Preserve proposed to be affected by
this proposal and showed the locations: Foothills, La Honda Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch,
Pulgas Ridge, Teague Hill and Thornewood. She mentioned the maps she used are available to
the general public when they called the District office and request a map to the preserve.
Meelling 00-12 Page 3
M. de Beauvieres stated that this proposal was reviewed at a public meeting of the Ad Hoe
Committee on March 9, 2000. Nearly 2,000 people were notified of that meeting. Notice was
also posted at all major District trailheads. The Committee members approved the original
proposal to be forwarded to the Board for their consideration. Also, the Committee voted 2 to I
to include an option for Board consideration that the trail closures be in effect on weekends and
holidays only.
R. Anderson stated the report was prepared by staff to respond to some of the issues that were
raised at the March 9, 2000 meeting. Use information was pulled together from the various
preserves. As was discussed on March 9, it's difficult to very precisely survey users at District
preserves because of the multi points of entries but trail use counts have been conducted. Staff in
its report notes its strong opposition to trail closures to be in effect on weekends and holidays
only. He explained that the staff report was before the Board tonight for their consideration and
any Board decision tonight would be tentative by the Board's policy that states that any major
decision requires a final reading at least a month later. Tentatively the final reading would be July
12. Any closures would be phased in over a period of months.
K. Nitz asked for questions from the Board members.
D. Little explained the committee decision on March 9"' was really a two-prong decision for staff
consideration. The original proposal for trail closure seven days a week was forwarded as well as
the amended proposal for weekend and holiday closure. An important consideration that the
Committee reviewed was the issue of safety and perceived safety.
K. Nitz didn't have a question, but he reviewed a matrix of preserves and his understanding of
their size and their characteristics.
K. Nitz invited the public to speak. He reminded them this was a formal meeting, to keep the
proceedings orderly and civil, and to direct all comments through the chair. He asked them to
complete a name slip. He asked them to state their name and address for the record. He asked
speakers to keep their comments to three minutes.
The following people spoke in favor of the proposal:
1. Darwin Poulos, Los Altos
2. Siefken Krieger, Los Gatos
3. Mary Zuirblis, Woodside
4. Roger Myers, Redwood City
5. Marilyn Walter, Portola Valley
6. Susan Dorsey, Woodside
7. Jean Rusmore, Portola Valley
8. Bruce Rosenthal, Los Gatos
9. Rodger Alleman, Los Altos
The following people spoke against the proposal:
1. Steven Patt, Cupertino
2. Jim Sullivan, Palo Alto
Meeting 00-12 Page 4
3. Kevin Schofield, Redwood City
4. Kathleen Meyer, Campbell
5. Rod Brown, Cupertino
6. Andy Volk, Menlo Park
7. Michael Weston, Los Altos Hills
8. Michael Kelley, Berkeley
9. John Thomsen, Los Gatos
10. Dani Weber, San Mateo
11. Charles Jalgunas, Los Altos Hills
12. Lars Thomsen, San Jose
13. Fred Stanke, Cupertino
14. Cathal Blake, Woodside
15. Ross Finlayson, Mountain View
16. Frederic Lauridsen, San Jose
17. Sarah Blake, Woodside
18. Jim Bodwin, Cupertino
19. Larry Garrido, San Mateo
20. Cornelia Woodworth, Cupertino
21. Karen Morgan, San Jose
22. Don Druyanoff, Los Altos Hills
23. Geoff Fanning, Menlo Park
24. Andy Lott, Sunnyvale
25. Carlos Chang, Cupertino
26. Jim Lauth, Sunnyvale
27. Richard Treakle, Los Altos
28. Steven Banich, Menlo Park
29. Chris Brousseau, Burlingame
30. Jim de la Riva, San Bruno
31. Scott Schlachter, San Jose
32. Jeff Jones, Mountain View
33. Carol Provant, Woodside
34. Ralph Eschenbach, Woodside
35. Peter Luptovic, Mountain View
The following person spoke and did not indicate his favor or opposition to the proposal:
1. Harry Haeussler, Los Altos
K. Nitz thanked everyone for their input and expressed the Board's appreciation in hearing from
them.
C. Britton noted some questions from the audience and referred the first to M. de Beauvieres, who
answered the question regarding notice provisions. She stated that notices were sent out to nearly
2,000 individuals, including agency notification. In addition, notices were posted at all the major
trailheads at the preserves. She referenced the sign-in sheet at the back desk should anyone
present want to receive future meeting notices.
Meeting 00-12 Page 5
C. Britton stated that the District had received approximately 350 pieces of correspondence on this
issue, including emails. He told the Board these were included in their packet and also binders of
these correspondence were available at the back desk for the public. The writer received a notice
that their letter/email was included in the record, but there were no individual responses to the
letters.
K. Nitz asked for questions from the Board as they were in deliberations.
B. Crowder asked about the regulations regarding parks versus our legislation. S. Schectman
responded that a speaker had cited the District's Enabling Legislation, which provides that the
District can plan and operate its trail systems for the public enjoyment of its lands. The District
authorizes the Board to regulate the types of recreational uses that will take place on its trails. She
noted there was no inconsistency with that legislation and the Board's designating which
recreational uses would be in which portion of which preserve.
N. Hanko commented on the question of the poll survey. M. de Beauvieres stated the poll
referred to Purisima Redwoods Open Space Preserve and it was started Jan. 1, 2000 and the
numbers are presented in Exhibit 5 of the staff report.
D. Little stated he was the chair of the Trail Use Ad Hoc Committee. He explained the difficult
task of his committee. He explained that an important part of the District mission is to provide
ecologically sensitive recreational opportunities to individuals who want to use the preserves. The
committee has looked at the overall user patterns and has spoken to many individuals. At the
March 9, 2000 meeting the biking community suggested weekend and holiday closure, and he
endorsed it. Later he heard from the ROMP president who stated that both proposals were
completely unacceptable. D. Little is withdrawing his support of the weekend/holiday closure
amendment. He repeated the District's purpose was preserving and protecting open space and
balancing the needs of its users. He stated that as a hiker he understood the concern with safety
and related a personal experience with a cyclist which reflected these issues. He encouraged the
Board to vote for staff recommendations.
M. Davey thanked the public for coming and stated she appreciated their participation in the
system. She thinks there is an honest difference of opinion on what to do with this issue. She
does think mountain biking is important. She hopes the biking community understands when she
votes for the recommendation that it is not to penalize the community, but it is the Board's
obligation first and foremost to care for the land. She stated the District will have more trails
when we buy more land.
B. Crowder stated she is not opposed to mountain biking, but she does not believe they should be
on narrow trails. She referred to Exhibit 7 of the staff report and noted that East Bay only allows
bikes on trails that are 8 foot or wider. That is her objective on the Board.
At this point, the Board moved and seconded a recess for ten minutes.
The Board reconvened ten minutes later.
Meeting 00-12 Page 6
Motion: N. Hanko moved to adopt the General Manager's Recommendations I and 2 and
also the Ad Hoc Committee's Recommendations I and 2. B. Crowder seconded
the motion.
Discussion: J. Cyr stated he came onto the Board with a prejudice toward multiple-use
preserves. He states he's seen a change, there's been an impact of significantly
increased use, particularly a higher incident of bicycle use. He repeated that the
Board represented a broad constituency, not one that appears at any one meeting.
He noted the substantial public communication with the Board prior to the meeting,
all of which he had read and thought about. A number of those letters were
relatively repetitive. He considered very carefully those that provided unique ideas
and suggestions. He stated these are management considerations: There are
limited resources, limited numbers of people, and 250+ miles of trails and other
preserves. He thinks the regional approach to use would be marvelous. The Board
does have a responsibility to figure out the most reasonable solution to manage the
land to which it is charged. He stated that the Board must also look at the long-
term plans for its land. He spoke to a number of interesting ideas that were
communicated to the Board. One of his concerns was for linkage to other trails,
particularly along the Ridge Trail and he believes the proposals speak to these
issues. He believes the staff report is reasonable and he will vote for it.
P. Siemens feels the District is the most liberal in allowing bike use of any of the
park agencies in the area. Over time, he's seen many people enjoy the preserves,
and wants that to continue. What is reasonable about the proposal is the fact that
the District is ultimately providing as much as 65% of the land trails for bike use.
Over the long run, he feels the bicycle community will benefit from this proposal.
He will support the proposal.
Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0.
V. ADJOURNMENT— The meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Jenny Preciado
Recording Secretary