Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19730926 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meting 73-20 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Board of Directors Amended Minutes September 26, 1973 Sunnyvale Community` Center I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice-President Hanko called the meeting to order at 7 : 25 p.m. Members present: Daniel Condron, Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, and William Peters. (Daniel Wendin arrived at 7 :30 p.m. ) Personnel present: Herbert Grench, Stanley Norton, Carroll Harrington Audience of 10 persons j II . MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 1973, MEETING K. Duffy moved that the minutes of the August 22 meeting be approved as mailed. D. Condron seconded, The motion was approved. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19 , 1973, MEETING K. Duffy moved acceptance of the minutes of the September 19 meeting be approved as mailed. W. Peters seconded. The motion was approved. III. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution Authorizing Signing and Endorsing Checks and Other Instruments Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of Resolution 73-28 as stated above. N. Hanko seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: D. Wendin moved that Resolution 73-28 supercedes Resolution 73-15 adopted June 13, 1973 . W. Peters seconded. The motion passed unanimously. IV. CLAIMS Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of the claims as submitted. W. Peters seconded. The motion passed unanimously. V. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Land Acquisition Workshop D. Condron requested that the minutes of this workshop be in as• much detail as possible. The specific questions that each speaker was requested to address are repeated later in the minutes. Speakers for the Land Acquisition Workshop were Mr. Roy Cameron., Director of the Santa Clara County Planning Department; Mr. • Lawrence W. Livingston, Jr. , Livingston and Blayney, San Fran- cisco; and Mr. William Spangle, William Spangle & Associates, Portola Valley. I Meeting -20 . . . page 2 W. Peters prefaced his introduction of the speakers for the evening by stating that since the formation of the MRPD one of the goals has been how to plan effectively to meet the principle aim which is control of open space land in its natural state. Policy and/or direction that the District might take has already come from the East Bay Regional Park District, the enabling leg- islation, and information used during the Fall 1972 campaign. The fact that there would be no tax revenues for the District until December 1973 has given the Board and staff an opportunity to formulate a plan to achieve the goals. He requested that the invited panelists carry on an open dialogue with the suggested questions as a guideline. He also pointed out the necessity of informing constituents of the direction which the District is taking. He mentioned the July 15, 1973, Goals and Objectives Workshop in which the preservation of open space land in its natural state was considered a first priority for the District. Introductory Remarks: Mr. Livingston began the discussion by stating a few of his basic thoughts. He took the campaign promises and literature seriously. He feels that there is a clear mandate from the voters, and the Board does have their charge about setting general policy. It is his general view that as little time and as little money as the law allows should be used for planning. Efforts should be in the direction of developing an acquisition strategy. If the constituents can be told that there are the general boundaries (if the Board wants to draw them) that the District is interested in, but it' s obviously not possible to acquire all that land, in fee at least, for many years, then it's possible to establish general intentions. Instead of making grandiose plans, the approach should be in the direction of acquisition of as much land as possible with as little money as possible. As an example, he suggested reading the San Diego County Open Space Element Plan. Mr. Spangle agreed that the general policy for the District had been clearly stated during the campaign and therefore the District should move as expeditiously as possible to preserve open space lands through all means available. In his opinion the District would need to do considerable planning but this should not be directed towards preparing a plan like a city or county general plan. In reply to a question from K. Duffy about strategy for acqui- sition, Mr. Livingston said that land acquisition strategy is a decision about which lands you are trying to acquire first with- in the areas of interest. What means should be used, i.e. , options, life estates? There is also the possibility of advo- cacy with local legislative bodies for preservation of open space by means other than acquisition. As far as a specific plan is concerned, he suggested waiting until after the 1974 Bond Measure is passed before worrying about what kind of plan is needed to apply for these funds. Meetir 3-20 . . . page 3 W. Peters remarked that because the District does not yet have tax revenues available, there has been an opportunity for both the Board and the Legal Counsel to study the problems involved in land acquisition. Mr. Spangle urged that the District have a considerable amount of information available in a usable form so that there can easily be an evaluation on the impact of an acquisition. The District does not need to be in the business of generating much new information, because most of this is already available from other city and County sources. How this information is put together for District use is important. W. Peters asked about the importance of acquiring information about areas around a particular parcel of land or just consider- ing the single parcel. Mr. Spangle .replied that it is necessary to have certain information about all lands in the District, but more detailed information will be needed about the particular parcel, i.e. , character of the land, the nature of the land ownership, and probable cost. He also stated that there are two ways to look at the first acquisitions: 1. To focus on low cost parcels even though this might not be strategic in a total program (opportunity purchases) . 2. Scrutinize each purchase in relation to impact on total program and purchase the parcel giving greater strategic . advantage. There might be three oppor- tunities coming up and there might not be ample funds available for all three, therefore, a choice would have to be made. W. Peters asked about the shortest time frame for responding to an opportunity and what level of data collection should be available. Mr. Cameron said that this would differ depending on the situation. As an example, he cited the purchase of 3,600 acres by the Board of Supervisors only two weeks after learning that it was to be up for auction, because they realized that it was too good an opportunity to pass up. H. Grench commented that one of the land strategies that has been suggested is to spend the money on opportunity purchases in order to get the land in the shortest amount of time. Mr. Cameron stated his view that it is necessary to set up certain criteria based on goals and policies of the District. The critical parcels or areas need to be identified, then a priority list developed so that when an opportunity arises, there can be adequate information for an evaluation of the importance of the parcel. Mr. Livingston suggested the development of a matrix which would consist of setting up a list of all property that is of interest to the District and this matrix would then be used when making decisions about acquiring a parcel of land. There would be weighted criteria by which the District could judge every piece of property under consideration for possible purchase. He further emphasized the important first step. The staff should gather as much precise information as possible. Even- tually there should be a file on every parcel, but it's more important to start with the most important parcels of land. Mr. Cameron said that he felt the District had been formed at a very opportune time. The County was already working on open Meeting .20 . . . page 4 space and recreational planning in the northern part of Santa Clara County. In addition, there is the State law requirement that open space and conservation elements have to be part of the General Plan. This previous work can form a basis for the present planning by the District. It is unnecessary to do another general plan, because one is already available. The County General Plan defines various categories of urban and open space areas. The MRPD should be most concerned with the areas designated long term open space. Once these are identified, it will be necessary to go into an evaluation process to decide priorities and which areas meet the most number of general criteria. He briefly described the grid system used in the Santa Cruz Mountains study. He reinforced Mr. Spangle's comments about the need to amass as much information as possible. Most of this information is already available from other agencies, but one thing that is not generally known is the attitudes and intentions of the land- owners about their property. A relationship has to be developed between the District and the landowners to help them make decisions about their land. H. Grench asked about the problem of handling conflicts such as when the goals of a community and of the District do not agree. Mr. Livingston replied that a lot of the work that has pre- viously been done by the County would be helpful for the District in making decisions on priorities, but he added that it's also important to balance the various interests. The situation of the MRPD is different because the role of the District as seen by the public is to keep all of the land in open space. W. Peters commented about the urban service areas and the need to begin to do some buffering in areas where the District does not want development. This would be a factor in deciding what lands to buy for the MRPD. Mr. Livingston said that conflicts between the cities and the District are inevitable and compromises will have to be worked out. Mr. Spangle added that County and city plans predate the forma- tion of the District, but with the District becoming operative, there maybe a chance to modify land use within urban service areas. Mr. Cameron said that urban service areas are to be re- viewed each year by LAFCo. W. Peters asked if the District should prepare a set of recommendations to have ready at the time of LAFCo evaluations of urban service areas . Mr. Cameron pointed out that urban service areas were determined by the cities and they have legitimate goals and policies for urban development, but just because it' s an urban service area does not mean the land cannot be acquired for open space. Mr. Livingston said that the Santa Clara County LAFCo has done the most conscientious job in the State, and yet for good and suf- ficient reasons LAFCo has left open space planning to the cities. This could cause problems because the cities are interested in growth. N. Hanko asked for comments about the ultimate size of the MRPD. Mr. Livingston replied that the north boundary of the MRPD should be contiguous with the south boundary of the San Francisco water- Meetinu' -20 . . . page 5 shed lands in San Mateo County because that iand is considered the Midpeninsula foothills. Mr. Spangle feels that right now it would be premature to consider this question because the District is still in the process of being organized, no funds have been spent, and no land has been acquired. Mr. Cameron's opinion was that once the District record is established and there has been success and accomplishment, there would be more interest by residents of other areas in annexing to the District. H. Grench added that the District may have to face this question in the near future. For example, there is presently a group in San Jose that is investigating both annexation to the MRPD and the creation of an open space district in that area. W. Peters turned to the questions that had been submitted to the speakers in advance and summarized the previous comments as follows: 1. Should the MRPD develop a general plan which includes general land acquisition goals? W. Peters stated that the general feeling was that there was not a need to do a general plan comparable to a city or county general plan, but that it is necessary to plan strategy for land acquisition. 2. How should the land use and land acquisition policies of the cities, other districts, and the county(s) be utilized in planning the land acquisition activities of the MRPD? How should this information be collected? W. Peters said that Mr. Cameron in particular had in- dicated that the District should start by collecting all the open space and conservation elements from the cities and the County. This information would provide the data base for the initial planning. W. Peters asked for other major sources of information. Mr. Spangle replied that the County Planning Department has a publication that identifies many of these sources. N. Hanko said that she felt there was not a consensus that these plans collected from the cities and County should be used as a basis for District strategy, but instead thd information would be used as input for planning. Mr. Spangle sug- gested that the County Planning Department could act as a liaison in the collection of this information. In response to a question from H. Grench about the. utili- zation of this information, Mr. Livingston said that there are information specialists who can advise on how to organize this information so that it can be easily retrieved. Mr. Spangle described two kinds of informa- tion: 1. basic land condition, i.e. , water, vegetation, etc. , and 2 . dynamic information, i.e. , status of owner- ship, land costs, land use. Mr. Livingston said the District shouldn't avoid talking to landowners, but this information isn't reliable for the data base because it is constantly changing. D. Wendin asked if after the collection of the infor- mation, should the District plan to hire an assistant Meetin,_ j-20 . . . page 6 general manager whose skills are in the area of infor- mation use, and, if so, what else should he do. Mr. Spangle replied that the way that the collected infor- mation is used by the staff is central question, and it may be necessary to use outside services from time . to time. Mr. Livingston added that technical questions will arise that could be answered by other public agencies at no cost. D. Wendin concluded the discussion about this question by stating that it will be necessary to get information specialists to advise on the classifying and retrieving of the collected data. 3. Should data be collected on the entire District regard- less of potential for acquisition? If not, which por- tions of the District should be included or excluded, e.g. currently developed areas, properly belonging to other governmental agencies, etc.? Mr. Livingston advised that the District start with the areas which the criteria indicate are the most important ones, and the gathered information should be as specifia as possible. Mr. Spangle added that this specific data should include information about the tax base, possible changes in the tax base, things that will affect the tax base, changes in zoning, etc. 4. What are the variables which should be considered by the MRPD in evaluating a parcel of land? Which of these are essential and which are desirable? Mr. Livingston again suggested the use of a matrix. Mr. Spangle added that this could be done by the staff, and then studied at a later time by the Board. The following studies were recommended as examples : the Santa Crux Mountains Study, the Santa Clara County Urban Development and Open Space Study, and the open space and conservation plans developed by the cities. Mr. Livingston suggested another approach. He recommended Professor Robert Twiss, University of California at Berkeley, and Professor James Pepper, University of California at Santa Cruz, as outstanding authorities on the classification of lands. Professor Pepper is presently working on a study of the north coast of Santa Cruz County and would be helpful in finding the best system of decision making as far as environmental factors are involved. W. Peters stated that questions #5 and #6 were not particularly relevant at this time. 7. Based upon your knowledge of available information, will it be necessary for the MRPD to do original data collec- tion, e.g. mass assessments of selected areas, rating of aesthetic features of parcels, etc.? If so, which data? Mr. Cameron described a grid system with overlays as used Meet­q 73-20 . . . page 7 by the County in its study on the Santa Cruz Mountains. His example was done on an area by area sampling, but this same approach could be used on a parcel by parcel sampling (including assessment and other data) . Mr. Cameron said that there is also information regarding the Baylands that is available from the County. W. Peters summarized by saying that there is fixed in- formation available in the District's area of concern, and it can be generalized to parcels that the District may be interested in. Changing information can be collected and updated as needed. 8 . How should the secured infoimation be stored and what type of data retrieval system should be developed, e.g. , computerized, microfiche, etc.? Mr. Spangle advised that the District not hire an ex- pert in this field until the nature of information needed and its application to the MRPD program is better defined. W. Peters asked about the availability of computer time from the County. Mr. Cameron replied that this might be available, but it has to be negotiated. Mr. Livingston said that the District should get pro- fessional assistance (i.e. , a computer specialist) from public agencies whenever possible. 9 . What is a reasonable time frame (within which adequate information can be collected and analyzed) to initiate acquisition or other steps to gain interest? What level of manpower is assumed in this calculation? Mr. Livingston said that the amount of time needed has to do with the availability of manpower. Mr. Spangle added that it is also necessary to consider the form the information is in and how much time it will take to put it in a form that is usable for the District. He urged that the time frame be kept reasonably short so that the District can take advantage of any oppor- tunities that arise. The District should plan to be operational in 3-6 months with the amount of information that is presently available. There may be mistakes, but the District can learn from these. W. Peters asked the speakers to comment on the kind of staff and the skills that are needed for planning and negotiating for the District. Mr. Spangle said that experts will have to be consulted, i.e. , appraisers and people skilled in land negotiations. Mr. Living- ston said that assessors can give a large amount of information about land values. Mr. Cameron commented that the County has computerized information about land in the County, but it's out of date. The County Assessor has current information about the assessed valuation, area of the lot, name of the property owner, etc. The County Assessor' s office updates and controls Meeting 73-20 . . . page 8 this information. Mr. Spangle suggested that the Board be aware of Tax Code Areas. These are sub-areas of the County within which the tax rate is identical for all properties. The Boundaries of each Tax Code Area reflect boundaries of combinations of taxing agen- cies, i.e. , city, school districts, and special districts. 10 . Should the MRPD undertake the development of the land acquisition program as an in-house project? If not, what aspects of it should be contracted for? Mr. Livingston reiterated that the development of such a program must be done in-house. The Board had pre- viously agreed that the land acquisition program will be the single most important job to be done, and it will be an ongoing task as the District continues to update the information. Mr. Spangle agreed that it has to be ongoing and assistance may be needed at the beginning. A concise work program is needed when making decisions about the additional staff for the District. N. Hanko asked about a general plan versus a strategy plan. Mr. Spangle said that a plan for action is what is needed. In reply to a question from N. Hanko about the need for other consultants, Mr. Livingston said that there may be a need for a consultant in land ac- quisition strategy. He cited as an example the planning done for the development of the State Capitol complex in Sacramento. Mr. Cameron stated that there are special- ists who are concerned primarily with the planning for the preservation of open space. Mr. Spangle added that a land acquisition strategist has to be knowledgeable about land value, land acquisition strategy, and alterna- tives (in addition to full fee acquisition) available for the preservation of open space. Mr. Livingston suggested Mr. Huey Johnson, Trust for Public Land, as a consultant, and N. Hanko replied that a representative of Trust for Public Land will be invited to speak at a future workshop. N. Hanko suggested the difference between someone who knows the best methods to go about acquiring the land and someone else who knows how to put together the ac- quisition strategy of one parcel of land vs. another. Mr. Livingston said that. the latter is the responsibil- ity of the General Manager. D. Wendin defined strategy as the way in which the District plans how to go about deciding on the lands to be purchased and tactics is how to go about buying it. Professor James Pepper was suggested as the expert for the former (strategy) , and a representative from Trust for Public Land for the latter (tactics) . Mee,. g 73-20 . . . page 9 11. What are possible sources of funding for this effort and what might be a reasonable budget? Mr. Livingston advised that the District do as much as possible within the budget to cooperate with the County Planning Department. Mr. Spangle said that there is already good information available from the County, and since they are developing new data, it will be possible for the District to utilize this. President Wendin recessed the meeting at 9 :15 p.m. , and the meeting was reconvened at 9 :30 p.m. The discussion turned to a question from N. Hanko about how the District should decide on which lands to acquire and in what priority. After the establishment of a matrix, Mr. Livingston suggested that the next step would be a chart that would list all the criteria by which the actions of the District would be gauged. There would be assigned weights which would enable the District to make decisions. He gave as examples Part I of the Palo Alto Foothills Study and the Santa Cruz Mountains Study. Mr. Spangle cited the open space study of Woodside as another example. It also is a multiple factor type of study. The next - effort, according to Mr. Livingston, would be to learn where the critical areas are in the County. The County Planning Department could be of assistance here. Mr. Cameron said that the District would have to define those factors which are the critical ones. Usually different weights are given to different factors. One factor to consider is closeness to urban areas. Perhaps the District would want to give greater weight to these parcels. Some of the other factors would include preservation of scenic quality, vegetative cover, etc. Maps are available from the County showing these factors. D. Wendin expressed his concern for identifying parcels as special interest areas as soon as possible. Some of these are obvious areas, but there are others not as obvious. He is con- vinced that the Board and staff can work out a system for deter- mining which areas are most important for the District. Mr. Livingston suggested a game playing method by which all par- cels would be listed and then weights would be assigned to them. This would help formulate policy for the District. Mr. Spangle added two major factors to consider in the categories open space lands that are already defined in the County and cities open space elements. These are: 1. valuable resources on the land that need to be protected, and 2. land that should be kept in open space because of geologic features or hazards. W. Peters described another type of strategy which would be to identify and area ( i.e. , a two-mile strip down the base of the foothills) and then attempt to acquire all of the property within this strip. Mr. Livingston questioned whether this type of design Meeting 73-20 . . . page 10 kind of strategy would work. W. Peters suggested as another strategy the acquisition of lands near other recreational areas (i.e. , Foothill Park) thereby eliminating the possibility of developments near these lAnds. Mr. Livingston replied that in some cases this may be an excellent strategy, and other times it wouldn't work at all'. He furbher stated that strategy approaches consider that every parcel is a special case and requires spe- cific decisions. Mr. Spangle said that it may be necessary to run through a number of trial-and-error games on strategy and from these develop a set of strategies and sub-strategies. Then generalizations can be made about the next step. i N. Hanko asked for opinion on joint acquisition with other agencies. Mr. Cameron pointed out the possibility of working with the County in the development of a trail system. Mr. Liv- ingston reminded the Board that the campaign literature had promised cooperation with the County Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Spangle mentioned the following ways of working with other agencies: 1. act as an acquisition agent for other agencies as the Nature Conservancy does; 2. purchase-lease agreement or other specific kinds of operating agreements. In discussing the preservation of prime agricultural lands, it was agreed that this is a low priority for the District because of the absence of such lands within the District. The County presently implements the preservation of agricultural lands in the conservation element of the General Plan by zoning and is considering the use of land banking. K. Duffy asked the speakers about policy on responding to op- portunities or creating these opportunities. Mr. Livingston said that after the criteria is set, then it will be possible to act quickly if there is an opportunity in a critical area. He also pointed out the importance of keeping some reserve funds in the budget at all times. W. Peters said that 10% of the budget has been reserved for opportunities and emergencies. N. Hanko pointed out that the District's borrowing powers could be used as a reserve fund. Concluding Remarks: Mr. Cameron stressed the idea of cooperation and coordination. He offered the services of the County and is willing to help in an advisory capacity. The staff and the Board can explore these possibilities. Mr. Spangle said that it' s important to become operational and develop the criteria and strategy as soon as possible. Land acquisition and management is the real key to what the District is doing. Decisions about land management will also be impor- tant. The initial thrust has to be to keep as much as possible Meeting 73-20 . . . page 11 in the budget for land acquisition. The District also needs to have information about plans and trends in the areas surrounding the MRPD in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties. Mr. Livingston stated that grand strategy is more important than grand design. He pointed out the importance of gifts of land and the necessity of informing landowners about the MRPD. It's vital to have something that shows and operates. After the critical areas have been decided upon, the District should meet with the Board of Supervisors and the cities councils and become more informed about their plans. A liaison system should be worked out with them. In addition, since the MRPD is a govern- ment agency, it should work closely;with other agencies at the policy making levels. W. Peters and the other Board members thanked the speakers for their presentation. IV. REPORTS Open House H. Grench referred to the memorandum of September 141 1973, about having an open house in November at the new office. After brief discussion, it was decided the proposed date of November 11 would be too soon because the office would be only sparsely furnished. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the General Manager be given the discretion to have an open house when the office is furnished. N. Hanko seconded. D. Condron amended the motion to leave the date entirely to the discretion of the General Manager and omit the portion about waiting until the office is furnished. K. Duffy seconded. The amendment failed. Ayes : Condron, Duffy. Noes: Hanko, Peters, Wendin. The original motion passed. Ayes : Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Abstention: Peters. President Wendin left for the evening. Vice-President Hanko continued the meeting. VII.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Elizabeth Kniss presented information about Proposition 1 on the November 1973 ballot. After brief discussion, N. Hanko stated that the Board had been advised by Attorney Norton that there was no problem for the MRPD if Proposition 1 passes, and that the Board had agreed that unless there was a problem directly affecting the District that no position would be taken. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board recessed to Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and reconvened to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Carroll Harrington Secretary MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Memorandum October 16 , 1973 To: Board of Directors From: C. Harrington, Administrative Secretary Subject: Minutes of September 26 , 1973, Meeting Since there was some question about the accuracy of the minutes of the September 26 meeting in the discussion regarding Proposition 1, and in the intent of the Board regarding Proposition 1, 1 have re- viewed the tape recording in greater detail, as follows : Kniss: I have passed out some information on Proposition 1. 1 think it could have some long range implications for any government agency that is particularly new to the state. . . . Hanko: We have already been alerted to Proposition 1 and we've received recommendations and exposition of the problems at our last meeting. I believe that the consensus of the group at that time was that there was no problem for us, and we therefore have no reason to take a position on this particular measure except as individuals . In the fact that it did not affect the District, it would be unwise for us to do so. Kniss: In that case I would suggest that some ramifications might affect you in the long run even though it may seem a bit circuitous. If this were indeed to pass, you realize that certain programs will probably not be cut off, but probably can ng longer be funded through State funds. . . . This means most probably. . .that most likely what will occur is that taxation would become regressive and start falling on the property tax and sales tax areas of the County. When this happens, the County tax rate will go up as such a rate that things that we thought of as very desirable types of programs may not be thought of as so desirable. . . . Hanko: I ' ll have Mr. Norton address himself to that but my under- standing is that the District was founded by the voters and we can't be disbanded. The District Directors have the power to levy up to 104� and this isn't going to change unless the State legislature destroys our ability to tax. . . . Stan Norton said that Liz was saying that a lot of things unforeseeable -could happen and there would be problems for cities, counties, and districts-) Page 2 He further said that he had given the Board his appraisel of the legal implications of the measure and that as of today there didn't seem to be any problem. He mentioned his discussion with Bill Siegel, County Counsel. Liz Kniss said that she felt there might be long-range implications for the MRPD. Stan Norton reminded that right now the legislature is authorized to raise the tax rate 20G, 30�, whatever. If Proposition 1 passes , they would not have that power. Nonette Hanko said that she felt the Board didn't have a basis for taking a position. . . . She would like to have some solid reasons for taking a position. Brief discussion between Liz and Nonette about State parks system. Bill Peters said that there had been a clear division among the Board members on whether the Board should take positions that are not directly related. Have to look out for the voters of the District because it is a special purpose district. . . . That' s not to say that from time to time the Board won't take positions. End of discussion. Recommendation: That the minutes of the September 26, 1973, meeting be changed to read: "Elizabeth Kniss presented information about Proposition 1 on the November 1973 ballot. Vice-President Hanko stated that the Board has previously discussed this proposition and the consensus at that time was that there was no need for the Board to take a posi- tion on this particular measure except as individuals. "