HomeMy Public PortalAbout19731212 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Ling 73-25
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Board of Directors
Minutes
December 12, 1973 Sunnyvale Community Center
I . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Wendin called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p.m.
Members present: Daniel Condron, Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko,
Daniel Wendin
Member absent: William Peters
Personnel present: Herbert Grench, Carroll Harrington, Stanley
Norton
Audience of 3 persons
II . MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28 , 1973 , MEETING
Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of the minutes of the November
28 , 1973 , meeting. D. Condron seconded. The motion
passed. Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Absent:
Peters.
III . REPORTS
A. District Master Plan
H. Grench referred to his report of December 3, 1973 , in
which he delineated his ideas about a District master plan.
He mentioned the suggestions given by Roy Cameron, Lawrence
Livingston, and William Spangle at the September 26 , 1973,
meeting on land acquisition and planning. He also referred
to the MRPD applications for a HUD 701 grant and for Revenue
Sharing funds. Shortage of funds, combined with many pro-
posals from various agencies caused the project of the District
to rank too low in priority for such aid. Thus, although the
proposal of the District has received considerable favorable
comment, no direct outside funding has been offered. H.
Grench summarized five main reasons for coming up with a
District master plan. They were as follows :
1. To provide the public with what is essentially a statement
of policy on lands to be preserved.
2 . To provide a framework within which wise land acquisi-
tion can be made by the District.
3 . To coordinate the objectives and program of the Mid-
peninsula Regional Park District with those established
by the cities and County.
4 . To meet the requirements for grants under the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Act, the proposed State
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of the minutes of the meetings
of December 12, 1973, and December 20, 1973, as presented.
N. Hanko seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
�ting 73-25 . . . page 2
Beach, Park, Recreational, and Historical Facilities
Bond Act of 1974, and the California Local Park and
Open Space Acquisition Fund (Assembly Bill 920) .
5. To provide the staff with policy guidance needed in
day-to-day operations of the District.
As far as the scope of the plan was concerned, he added that
it would be useful to consider as minimum the requirements
of the Department of Parks and Recreation of the State of
California in applying for funds from the State Park Bond
Act.
In discussing the difference between a master plan and strategy
plan, he stated that the strategy plan would consist primarily
of the ways in which the staff would implement the master plan
under policy direction from the Board. It would include
collection of data on extrinsic characteristics, such as
ownership, assessed valuation and market value of parcels,
timing of potential development, intentions of landowners,
zoning, general plan designations, and utilities. Types of
preservation techniques, such as fee acquisition, bargain
purchase, gifts, purchase of conservation easements, purchase
and leaseback arrangements, etc. , would be explored on a
parcel-by-parcel basis. The potential for preservation by
private or other public agencies would be explored. The
impact on development of other lands by acquisition of
certain areas would be another important factor to investigate.
H. Grench described one method of developing a master plan
as follows:
1. choose the planning area; according to the policies now
being developed, this area would probably include the
baylands and foothills outside the urban service areas,
2 . develop a list of intrinsic criteria to apply to the
area,
3. attach weights to the list (could be equal weights) , and
4. apply (weighted) criteria to the planning area.
Hesaid that another approcach to the development of a master
plan would be to combine conservation, open space, and park
and recreation elements of city and County general plans.
A set of intrinsic criteria could be used in connection with
that process to develop a broad priority system. This approach
would take the other studies and plans into account as finished
products and should be a shortcut over the first alternative.
H. Grench went on to discuss the implementation of the study.
He suggested that an arrangement be made with the County
Board of Supervisors and Planning Department to provide
Oting 73-25 . . . page 3
planning staff assistance to do the necessary gathering and
compiling of information and production of maps and some
documentation. The County staff would work in cooperation
with the planning consultant whose role would be to oversee
the technical aspects of the study, exchange information
with the MRPD staff and Board, and gain further policy direc-
tion from the Board. The master plan would be a District
plan, but the great involvement of the County would help
assure that the interests of other agencies are considered
fully.
He added that input from the public would be advisable at an
early stage. The draft plan could also be subject to public
hearing (a State Department of Parks and Recreation re-
quirement if an original plan is done) and later adopted
after possible modification.
H. Grench further recommended that the Board of Directors
decide:
1. to develop a master plan for the MRPD,
2. that the planning area be the foothills and baylands
outside (or just within) the urban service areas,
3 . that its scope would be simple in nature, relying upon
existing general plan elements, reports, maps, etc. ,
combined with intrinsic criteria adopted by the Board,
4 . that a master plan map would be produced which would
show priority areas in "broad brush" fashion,
5. that the Board of Supervisors and County Planning
Department be approached to see what arrangement could
be implemented in providing County planning staff help
as outlined above, and
6 . that a planning consultant be employed to provide
continuity and technical assistance on behalf of the
District.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the General Manager be directed
to take the initial steps towards the development
of a master plan for the MRPD as outlined in his
report of December 3 , 1973. K. Duffy seconded.
The motion passed. Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko,
Wendin. Absent: Peters.
President Wendin recessed the meeting at 8 :40 p.m. , and it was re-
convened at 8 : 55 p.m.
IV. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolution Amending Policy for the Duplication and Dissemination
of Agendas, Supporting Materials, and other Public Records of
the District
Oting 73-25 page 4
Motion: N. Hanko moved acceptance of Resolution 73-33 as stated
at the bottom of page 3. K. Duffy seconded. N. Hanko
noted the change in the deadline for availability of
the minutes. The motion passed. Ayes : Condron, Duffy,
Hanko, Wendin. Absent: Peters.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Basic Policy Draft, No. 2
After discussion about the December 3, 1973, memorandum
from D. Wendin to the Board about the Basic Policy Draft,
No. 2 , D. Wendin stated the following consensus: there will
be two meetings dealing with the Basic Policy Draft, one of
which will be in the Monte Bello Ridge area. The meeting
in the Monte Bello Ridge area will hopefully be the January
23, 1974 , Board of Directors meeting. After a critique
of the Basic Policy Draft, No. 2 , there will be another
public meeting, possibly February 27, 1974 . K. Duffy will
draft a statement on eminent domain for the December 20 meeting.
Other minor changes were suggested for #4 (b) .
B. Possible Changes in Regional Park District Enabling Legislation
H. Grench referred to the December 5 , 1973, letter from
Donald D. Gralnek, Consultant, Assembly Select Committee on
Open Space Lands, in which Mr. Gralnek asked for specific
proposals from the MRPD about possible changes in the en-
abling legislation. In referring to the November 26, 1973,
memorandum from S. Norton to the Board, D. Wendin suggested
that the Board decide which items need immediate attention,
and which items need further study and discussion. After
discussion about the various items in S. Norton' s memorandum,
the Board allocated priorities as follows (the numbers corres-
pond to S. Norton' s November 26 , 1973, memorandum) :
1. Items which need immediate attention:
(1) Clarification of the need for, responsibilities of,
the Director-Secretary and Director-Treasurer.
(2) Clarification of Section 5552 which prescribes the
"warrant" system.
(4) Clarification of Section 5547 which states that
"the Board of Directors shall act only by ordinance or
resolution. "
(7) N. Hanko asked that this be continued until the end
of the discussion.
(9) Clarification of Section 5553 which authorizes the
Controller to pay claims made against the District.
(10) Clarification of Section 5554 which requires the
annual publication in a newspaper of a certified audit
of the financial condition of the District.
�ting 73-25 . . . page 5
(11) Deletion or amendment of Section 5567 which deals
with conflict-of-interest restrictions.
(13) Improvements in Sections 5523 and 5533 which
establish the term of office for officers of newly
created districts.
(15) The Board suggested the following clarification
to Section 5544 .2 which deals with indebtedness: "Interest
rate limit should perhaps be raised. "
(16) Clarification of authorization for RPDs to call
themselves "Park and Open Space Districts" or "Open
Space District. " (Sections 5500 , 5501, 5518)
2. Items which need further study and discussion:
(3) Section 5544 which deals with the use of the
term "funded indebtedness . "
(5) The use of eminent domain by Regional park
district.
(6) Government Code Sections 53090 and following which
subject Regional Park Districts to city and county
zoning ordinances.
(8) Change of name of a regional park district.
(12) Sections 5509 and 5512 which require approval of
the Board of Supervisors before creation of a new regional
park district.
(14) Section 5541 which deals with public access.
The discussion returned to item (7) , which deals with pro-
cedures for annexation to a Regional Park District. After
discussion about this item, the following motions were made:
Motion: N. Hanko moved that Directors Condron and Hanko be
directed to study impacts to the District of various
annexation proposals; such proposals to include:
a. Original MRPD boundaries in San Mateo County
b. Remainder of Santa Clara County
C. Other areas that the staff deems appropriate
for consideration.
D. Condron seconded. The motion passed. Ayes :
Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Absent: Peters.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that Directors Condron and Hanko be
directed to report on advantages and disadvantages
to the District of annexation of remainder of
Santa Clara County versus formation of a new district
in that area. D. Wendin seconded. The motion passed.
Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Absent: Peters.
leeting 23-25 . . . page 6
Motion: N. Hanko moved that S. Norton be directed to report
on annexation procedures, timing of annexation, and
on procedure for filling Board positions if a new
area is annexed which requires enlargement of
existing wards. K. Duffy seconded. The motion
passed. Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin.
Absent: Peters.
In discussing how to proceed with this information, N.
Hanko suggested that $. Norton communicate with Donald
Gralnek and the other regional park districts about the
interests of the District. The items listed under V. , B, 1.
in the minutes will be sent to Mr. Gralnek with copies
to the other regional park districts; the items listed
under V. , B. , 2 . will be sent to the other regional park
districts with a copy to Mr. Gralnek.
VI . NEW BUSINESS
A. H. Grench announced that today the Santa Clara County Board
of Supervisors voted to approve the rezoning plan for the
Monte Bello Ridge Study Area which had previously been
supported by the MRPD Board of Directors.
B. H. Grench referred to his December 6 , 1973, memorandum
dealing with the budget for the third quarter of the 1973-74
fiscal year. After discussion of H. Grench's recommendations,
the following motions were made:
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the General Manager prepare
a ,recommended budget for the third quarter of the
1973-74 fiscal year for consideration by the Board
at the January 9, 1974, meeting. D. Condron seconded.
The motion passed. Ayes : Condron, Duffy, Hanko,
Wendin. Absent: Peters.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the General Manager be authorized
to spend unspent funds from the operating funds of
the current budget period for carryover into the
first part of January 1974. K. Duffy seconded. The
motion passed. Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin.
Absent: Peters.
C. H. Grench referred to his December 6, 1973, memorandum which
referred to the review of the MRPD attorney's compensation.
It was decided that the board will consider this as well as
the General Manager review in Executive Session at the
December 20, 1973 , meeting.
D. H. Grench noted the announcement from the Planning Policy
Committee of Santa Clara County, Hillside Subcommittee,
about a meeting on Tuesday, December 18 , 1973, which will
focus on the Monte Bello Ridge Mountain Study. He will give
a report that night on the open space program for that
area.
Meeting 73-25 . . . page 7
E. H. Grench mentioned previous discussions with the Board about
the purchase of a vehicle. It was decided that this matter
will be on the December 20, 1973, agenda.
F. After discussion about the December 26 , 1973 , meeting, the
following motion was made:
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the meeting of December 26 be
cancelled and that a Special Meeting be held on
December 20 for the purpose of discussing the
General Manager' s vehicle, the suggested changes to
the Basic Policy Draft, a work priority list, and
intrinsic criteria for the District master plan.
Personnel matters will be discussed in Executive
Session beginning at 7 : 00 p.m. , and the business
meeting will begin at approximately 8 : 00 p.m.
D. Condron seconded. The motion passed. Ayes:
Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Absent: Peters.
G. H. Grench mentioned the December 12 , 1973, memorandum to
him from S. Norton which stated that Directors! compensa-
tion is subject to state and federal income taxes and to
applicable laws on withholding.
VII . CLAIMS
H. Grench referred to a letter dated December 11, 1973, from
Harold J. Bakke, representing the BLS Building, the lessor
for the MRPD. Mr. Bakke stated that payment of the last
month's rent by the MRPD was apparently overlooked in the
original lease. H. Grench suggested that this item be
added to the claims for December 12, 1973, and be paid
after the improvements to the office space are completed.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the General Manager be authorized
to pay the lessor the last month's rent of $486.00
contingent on the completion of the improvements
of the District office space, and that the lease be
amended by a letter to Mr. Bakke. K. Duffy seconded.
The motion passed: Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko,
Wendin. Absent: Peters.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the claims be accepted as presented.
N. Hanko seconded. The motion passed. Ayes : Condron,
Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Absent: Peters.
VII . ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Carroll Harrington
Secretary