Loading...
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