Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19740410 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) AA. Meeting 74-7 A]CM 9(MM MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S April 10, 1974 745 Distel Drive Los Altos I. ROLL CALL President Peters called the meeting to order at 7 :45 p.m. Members present: Daniel Condron, Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, William Peters, and Daniel Wendin Personnel present: Herbert Grench, Carroll Harrington, Edward Jaynes. Stanley Norton arrived at 8:45 p.m. Audience of 3 persons II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 27, 1974 Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of the minutes of the March 27 , 1974, meeting as presented. D. Condron seconded. Amendment: D. Wendin moved to amend the minutes by making the following changes: Page 2, V. , B. , paragraph 2 , line 3 , add: thereby establishing policy at the Board level. " Page 2, Objective 1, Land Acquisition Program, line 5, add: "Development of a master plan should also be included in this program. " Page 3, Objective 3, Open Space Resources Program, paragraph 1, line 2 , after the words "a land manager" add: "to determine whether and when a land manager should be hired. " Page 3, Objective 3, Open Space Resources Program, paragraph 1, line 6 : Delete sentence beginning "D. Wendin asked. . . . " Page 3, objective 4, Public Communications Program: The Board discussed whether or not a new halftime position for the Public Communications Program had been authorized. After discussion it was agreed that the minutes were accurate as written. Page 3, third line from the bottom: "Objective 5" should be be corrected to read "Objective 4. 11 Page 4, VI. , B. , : Change the agenda item title to read "Saratoga Union School District--Potential Gift of Surplus Land. " K. Duffy seconded. The amendment passed unanimously. B. April 10, 1974 N. Hanko asked that the following change be made: Page 1, 11 . , line 7 of the amendment: In amendments to the March 27, 1974, minutes, page 3, Objective 3, Open Space Resources Program, paragraph 1, . line 2: Strike the words "before hiring a land manager" before adding "to determine whether and when a land manager should be hired. " Motion: N. Hanko moved that the following sentence be added on 17 page 5, after line 5: "Mr. Sperry volunteered to study the Possible future use of revenue bonds by the District, and would notify us as to his findings. " D. Wendin seconded. The motion passed. Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Absent: Peters. Motion: K. Duffy moved acceptance of the minutes of the April 10, 1974, meeting as amended including N. Hanko' s requested change. N. Hanko seconded. The motion passed. Ayes: Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Absent: Peters. ating 74-7 . . . page 2 Motion: W. Peters moved that the minutes of the March 27 , 1974 , meeting be tabled until the April 24 , 1974 , meeting. D. Condron seconded. The motion passed unanimously. i III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The Board agreed to adopt the agenda as prepared. IV. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND PUBLIC HEARINGS Interim Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District H. Grench referred to his report (R-74-10) dated April 2 , 1974 , regarding the Interim Master Plan for the MRPD. In this report he discussed the adoption of the Open Space Element of the General Plan of the County of Santa Clara as an Interim Master Plan for the MRPD with the exception that the Kaiser-Permanente lands be placed in the Long Term Open Space category. The Board discussed the various designations on the map of Santa Clara County prepared by the County Planning Department. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. I V. ORAL COMMUNCATIONS There were no oral communications. VI. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION Land Acquisition Procedures f H. Grench referred to his report (R-74-7) dated March 20, 1974, regard- ing Land Acquisition Procedures. This item was continued from the March 27, 1974, meeting. E. Jaynes described the various steps f involved in land acquisition. These included: (1) initiation of a specific parcel to be considered for acquisition; (2) acquisition strategy developed by staff for a specific parcel; (3) first contact for purposes of pursuing acquisition; (4) results of contact; (5) continued contacts; (6) disposition of contacts; and (7) final property disposition. In response to a question from D. Condron h about how these procedures compare with other public agencies, E. Jaynes replied that the difference between the MRPD and other public agencies is that land acquisition is not the primary business of most agencies; therefore, their boards delegate to staff practically everything regarding land acquisition. Because land acquisition is one of the major functions of the MRPD, the Board has to be more involved in the acquisitions as they progress. Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of the Land Acquisition Procedures as Board policy with the amendment that item II. , B. , read: "May decide Board involvement desirable at this point. " W. Peters seconded. The motion passed unanimously. sting 74-7 . . . page 3 VII. OLD BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION Stevens Creek Park Chain W. Peters reported that informal conversations had been held with city council members in Cupertino and Los Altos, John T. O'Halloran (General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water District) , and James J. Lenihan (Representative, District 5, Santa Clara Valley Water District) about the possibility of multi-agency planning for the Stevens Creek Park Chain. He proposed that the MRPD initiate an effort to encourage the four cities (Mountain View, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Los Altos) , the Water District, the MRPD, and possibly the County to engage in a multi-agency planning study which would be designed to address several problems: (a) how should the land be landscaped, (b) what type of trail system should be installed, (c) what kind of neighborhood parks should be available along such a system, and (d) which additional properties should be acquired so as to make the trail links and the Park Chain more viable. After discussion about the role of the MRPD Board and staff in this matter, the following motions were made: Motion: W. Peters moved that the Board authorize D. Wendin, D. Condron, and W. Peters to select a person to represent the District in the formation of a multi-agency group to consider the establishment of a multi-agency planning study for the Stevens Creek Park Chain and that those three Directors be empowered to employ that person in that consulting task and initiate the actions to begin that group. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion: D. Wendin moved that W. Peters and D. Wendin with D. Condron as an alternate be directed to prepare a proposal for the Board for presentation at the next meeting on the leadership the Midpeninsula Regional Park District could provide for the establishment of the Stevens Creek Park Chain. W. Peters seconded. The motion passed unanimously. D. Wendin added that his making and voting for the motion does not in any way imply his support of the MRPD providing this leadership if it requires a significant amount of staff time. The meeting recessed from 9 : 20 p.m. - 9 : 45 p.m. D. Condron and D. Wendin left the meeting due to illness. VIII. NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION Affirmative Action Program Requirements H. Grench referred to his memorandum (M-74-49) dated April 5, 1974 , regarding Affirmative Action Program requirements. He stated his recommendation that the Board of Directors direct the General Manager to prepare an Affirmative Action Program and a resolution of adoption for Board consideration at the April 24 , 1974, meeting. ting 74-7 . . . page 4 Motion: W. Peters moved acceptance of this recommendation. N. Hanko seconded. The motion passed. Ayes: Duffy, Hanko, Peters. Absent: Condron, Wendin. IX. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES A. Resolution Adopting Interim Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District (Resolution 74-5) Motion: W. Peters moved acceptance of Resolution 74-5, Resolution Adopting Interim Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District with the following addition: line 6 , after "Permanente" add "and vacant urban land (map designation white) outside of the Urban Service Area. " N. Hanko seconded. Discussion: N. Hanko asked S. Norton' s opinion on why the MRPD is not required to have an Environmental Impact Report when adopting an Interim Master Plan. S. Norton replied that unlike cities and counties, the District is not required to have a general plan, and that any plan or study is done of the District's own accord and not required by law, therefore, the MRPD is exempt from filing an EIR. The motion passed. Ayes: Duffy, Hanko, Peters. Absent: Condron, Wendin. B. Resolution Adopting Guidelines Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Resolution 74-6) S. Norton referred to his memorandum which described the proposed Guidelines under the California Environmental Quality Act. He introduced Samuel Sperry of Nichols, Rogers & Schreiner, San Francisco, who worked as a volunteer for the District in developing information on this subject. Mr. Sperry and S. Norton summarized the proposed Guidelines and accompanying memoranda. H. Grench commented about about the administration of EIA' s and EII?s and how he would interpret paragraph (c) on page 6 of the proposed Guidelines. He said that presently there are no parcels under negotiation that he would consider to be projects under the definition of paragraph (c) and would require an Environmental Impact Assessment. In the future he would take into account the kind of development planned by the Board for a parcel and would then determine whether or not it would be classified as a project. When it is a close question, he stated that he would be inclined to make an EIA for Board consideration and perhaps recommend that only a Negative Declaration is required. He mentioned the examples from S. Norton' s memorandum, which were as follows: A Vasona-type park would require an EIA and most likely an EIR, a Mount Madonna Park kind of development would not be considered a project and not require an EIA, and a Lower Stevens Creek kind of development would require evaluation about whether or not an EIA and/or EIA would be required. The Board concurred in his interpretation. ating 74-7 . . . page 5 Motion: N. Hanko moved acceptance of Resolution 74-6 , Resolution Adopting Guidelines Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act. K. Duffy seconded. The motion passed. Ayes: Duffy, Hanko, Peters. Absent: Condron, Wendin. S. Norton and the Board thanked Mr. Sperry for his assistance. C. Resolution Adopting Relocation Assistance Program and Rules and Regulations to Implement Payments Pursuant Thereto (Resolution 74-7) H. Grench referred to his report (R-74-11) dated April 3, 1974, II regarding the Relocation Assistance Program and Rules and Regula- tions to Implement Payments. E. Jaynes explained the background of Relocation Assistance and the need for Rules and Regulations to administer the kinds of relocation the District is likely to encounter. Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of Resolution 74-7 , Resolution Adopting Relocation Assistance Program and Rules and Regulations to Implement Payments Pursuant Thereto. K. Duffy seconded. The motion passed. Ayes: Duffy, Hanko, Peters. Absent: Condron, Wendin. X. CLAIMS Motion: W. Peters moved acceptance of the revised claims list (C-74-7) (see attached) as presented. K. Duffy seconded. The motion passed. Ayes: Duffy, Hanko, Peters. Absent: Condron, Wendin. XI . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no written communications. XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and land negotiations at 11:10 p.m. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12: 05 p.m. Carroll Harrington Secretary