HomeMy Public PortalAbout19750202 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) 1 Meeting 75-3 ,
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Special Meeting
Goals Workshop
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
February 2, 1975 745 Distel Drive
Los Altos, CA
I. ROLL CALL
President Duffy called the meeting to order at 10: 07 A.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette
Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson,
Anne Crosley, Stanley Norton, Carroll Harrington, Jennie
George, Norma Kelly and John Melton.
Audience of four persons at opening of meeting, up to
35 persons during the day.
II. INTRODUCTION
H. Grench reviewed the last District Goals Workshop of July,
1973 and reported that since that time the District has acquired
five parcels of land totaling 1600 acres and that progress in
all goal categories was evident. Today' s workshop was intended
to review the goals adopted by the Board with consideration
of possible revision for the coming year, and to update the
Action Plan. Budget implications would follow from these re-
visions. H. Grench stated that he saw the day's discussion as
informal with freedom for public participation.
III . LAND ACQUISITION
D. Wendin led the discussion of the land acquisition policies.
He stated that the Board at a previous meeting had tentatively
adopted most policies as outlined, but had agreed to discuss
the following today in more detail:
1) Open Space for the Protection of Agriculture
2) Trails (to be discussed under the Land Management
agenda item)
3) Gifts of land which did not fulfill general open
space requirements but had limited or specific re-
sources, such as possessing only historical or
archeological significance
Meeting 75-3 Page two
He expressed the hope that, in addition, the term "regional
significance" would be discussed at some point during the day.
There would also be discussion of Short-term Financial Manage-
ment under this agenda item.
A. Short-term Financial Management.
D. Wendin turned the discussion over to J. Melton, who
pointed out that to date the District has relied upon
the methods of tax revenue, borrowing power and gifts
for financial resources. It has applied for and received
grant funds. He expressed the belief that in the near
future the District would continue to rely on these as
the only sources available. He asked for any ideas for
other short-term financing sources.
D. Wendin asked if there was an advantage to borrowing
from banks rather than on an installment plan with a seller.
J. Melton replied that an advantage would exist when the
District could receive a lower interest rate from a bank
than it could from the seller. To date this has not been
the case.
J. Melton then presented an update of the December 31,
1974 financial report. He said the District had roughly
$1, 750,000 in the bank, plus $3, 000, 000 in borrowing power
(of this amount $800,000 is committed, with $600, 000 due
within a year) . In addition, grants from Proposition 1
funds and Land and Water Conservation funds should be re-
ceived soon. By June 30 , 1975 the District should have
over $3, 000, 000 in cash. If the Older-Seven Springs option
is exercised, an additional $600,000 will be used. There-
fore, it would be reasonable to think in terms of having
$1, 750, 000 available for acquisition. In the short term,
the traditional sources will continue to give $4 to $5
million in purchasing power.
E. Shelley asked if the anticipated funds from the State
were "one time only, " to which J. Melton replied affirmatively.
H. Grench pointed out that Land and Water Conservation
funds can be applied for each year, but there is no assur-
ance they will be granted.
H. Grench stated, in response to J. Melton' s request for
additional sources of financing, that he would like to
reintroduce the possibility of a non-profit, private
foundation - like "Friends of MRPD" - which would work
for contributions of cash and other assets. He felt it
was harder for the staff and District to solicit gifts
of money or other property such as stocks than it is for
them to work for gifts of land or bargain purchases.
Meeting 75-3 Page three
K. Duffy said she supported this idea because it would
provide an opportunity for persons who feel freer deal-
ing with non-governmental officials. She expressed con-
cern that such a foundation might be in competition with
similar existing groups such as the Sempervirens Funds.
H. Grench said that, while competition might be a factor,
he felt it would be important if people were motivated
to give who would not contribute to other similar causes.
J. Melton wondered if it would be possible to put together
a gifts task force similar to the Trails Task Force.
D. Wendin asked if there is a long term possibility for
the Trust for Public Lands or the Nature Conservancy to
act as an intermediary. H. Grench replied that they could
do so in some cases, but he felt there is a need for
another group to be soliciting in the interests of the
MRPD specifically.
N. Hanko reminded the Board that Larry Klein had contracted
to submit a tax advantages research and documentation
report. She asked about the current status of his work.
H. Grench said Mr. Klein is again working on it, and the
brochure will be implemented by staff. E. Jaynes pointed
out that Mr. Klein said most available literature relates
to federal tax advantages, and he would like to develop
material on State-related advantages.
K. Duffy noted that a group was to be formed for the City
of Saratoga to perform the functions suggested by H.
Grench, but their goals were not accomplished.
J. Olson reported that the East Bay Regional Park District
has such a foundation, but it is staffed by the EBRPD
and performs more of a bookkeeping function than acting
as a separate organization. H. Grench said he was not
suggesting the EBRPD foundation as a model.
K. Duffy asked if the District could contribute to the
funding of such an organization. S. Norton said that was
possible under a contract arrangement for specific serv-
ices.
D. Wendin suggested the idea be placed on a future meeting
agenda for further discussion.
A. Crosley asked if conflicts would arise between an in-
dependent foundation and the District' s program. D. Wen-
din said he thought the possibility existed, but since
the goals of the two organizations were the same, it would
not be a great threat.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Meeting 75-3 Page four
E. Shelley asked if the group might have the independence
to donate to other agencies. H. Grench said this arrange-
ment could work to the District' s advantage.
K. Duffy suggested the idea of agifts foundation be agen-
dized at a time when L. Klein could attend a Board meeting.
B. Acquisition Policies
D. Wendin said he thought items (1) and (3) of his intro-
duction could be covered if the Board began a discussion
of agricultural lands. He read the suggested policies
for acquisition of open space for the protection of agri-
culture and said the key to the second policy was that
it would be sufficient if agriculture were the only open
space use.
K. Duffy said she felt agricultural land is valuable enough
to be considered on its own merit. N. Hanko reminded the
Board that a planned workshop on the viability of orchard
lands as open space has not yet taken place, and that bet-
ter answers could be reached after such a meeting was held.
She said she thought the statement " . . .the District will
consider. . . " was appropriate.
D. Wendin said the basic question was this: If the Dis-
trict is presented with the opportunity to purchase a par-
cel of land which has agricultural use as its only poten-
tial, would the District even consider the purchase. The
question, he said, assumes the parcel under consideration
meets the requirement of "regional significance. "
Mr. William Peters, Buena Vista del Rio, Carmel Valley,
said that the answer should be yes, and he used El Retiro
as an example. D. Wendin pointed out there were other
justifiable open space uses for that parcel. He added
that the lack of an answer to his question indicated to
him that the Board would not consider purchase of agri-
cultural land suited for that purpose only.
H. Grench expressed his belief that the District should
stay with its present policy, which has basically defined
the District' s area of interest as being outside the
Urban Service Area, although allowing for some cross-over.
He said he would exclude orchards within the Urban Service
Areas which possess regional significance, because he
sees the District' s role in such cases as that of an
advocate to urge the cities to implement their own open
space programs within their Urban Service Area boundaries.
D. Wendin stated that he felt there was a consensus among
Board members that the District will consider acquiring
Meeting 75-3 Page five
land or rights in land which is used for agricultural pro-
duction if such land also has other substantial open space
value. He suggested the second policy - that the District
will consider accepting gifts of land or rights in land
in order to preserve and protect agricultural production -
be discussed at this time.
It was agreed that implicit in all of the policies was the
consideration of ongoing cost factors and the weighing of
this with all other factors.
E. Jaynes pointed out that the policy discusses rights in
land as well as gifts of land, and considerations might
be different in each case. For example, the District may
very well accept a gift of development rights.
K. Duffy suggested the District develop further statements
on gift giving. D. Wendin said the item could be placed
on a future meeting agenda.
D. Wendin said that he hoped the group would discuss the
term "regional significance" later in the day if time per-
mits.
IV. GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON
K. Duffy reported that this goal had been placed on the "back
burner" by the Board because of other priorities, and it was
therefore important to review what has been accomplished in this
area and what should be done in the future.
H. Grench said the staff generally reviews agendas from other
agencies, but often this is too late to become involved. For
example, this year the District was caught short on Urban
Service Area considerations. He said he would like to discuss
Board involvement in the review of Environmental Impact Reports
affecting their respective wards. He said he did not wish to
see additional staff devoted to this area, but at present staff
simply doesn 't have the time available to handle it more
thoroughly. He asked if it would be possible for Board members
to become more active in this review process.
Mr. William Peters said when he was a Director, he often felt
himself caught between District business and city matters. He
did agree that the staff, as it was now composed, probably would
not be able to handle more.
Mr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, suggested the District
use community volunteer observers.
N. Hanko said she felt Board members could be more active. She
suggested regular luncheon meetings between city officials and
District Board members. She also felt land tours would be useful.
Meeting 75-3 Page six
H. Grench said he often felt frustrated because he would like
to meet regularly with representatives from the cities, but
he has been unable to find enough time. He said he would pre-
fer that the District use its money for land acquisition rather
than additional staff for this purpose.
K. Duffy suggested Board members should receive agendas, review
them and check with staff on items of interest to the District.
A. Crosley said she often needs to explain who the District is
when speaking with staff members of various cities and other
agencies. She said staffs have a great deal of influence on
boards or councils, and suggested they also be invited to the
District office to learn of our goals and interests.
N. Hanko said informal meetings with city council members could
include a staff member, also. She suggested the possibility of
conducting such meetings be agendized for consideration at a
future Board meeting. Until then, she urged that Board members
actively review Environmental Impact Reports and agendas.
S. Norton suggested each Director could be responsible for
monitoring the actions of agencies in his or her own area. E.
Shelley said they would have to be careful to coordinate their
individual efforts with the efforts of staff. D. Wendin pointed
out that receiving all agendas could be costly.
K. Duffy asked Board members for agreement that each would re-
ceive and review agendas from agencies in their respective wards.
No one voiced disagreement. J. George asked if staff should
continue reviewing also. K. Duffy said she felt it was a good
idea to reduce the possibility that an important item would be
missed.
K. Duffy asked if environmental impact reports could be sorted
out by the staff so only items pertinent to the District would
be reviewed by the appropriate Director. H. Grench suggested
the staff allocate a little more time in its efforts to receive
reports and then distribute them to the Director of the ward
which would be affected.
D. Wendin said he did not personally feel he could assume the
responsibility for reviewing reports for a minimum of two, and
a maximum of five, cities. E. Shelley said the responsibilities
could be divided among the Directors so that no one Director
carries a large burden.
During the discussion that followed, other suggestions included
the use of volunteers or adding a part-time staff member.
Meeting 75-3 Page seven
K. Duffy said the problem might be partly solved by better con-
tact with other agencies ' staffs. J. Olson said his experience
with East Bay indicated the most productive method was the
establishment of informal, personal contacts with other plan-
ning staffs.
N. Hanko suggested the District staff prepare a proposal for
the improvement of intergovernmental relations, and that the
proposal be placed on the agenda of a future Board meeting.
Mr. William Peters said he agreed with the ideas of inviting
agency staffs to the District and of conducting land tours for
both council and staff members.
H. Grench said he would summarize the discussion by noting that
many of the ideas mentioned were being pursued by the staff
and Board on a minimal level, but all felt that more should be
done to improve relations with other agencies.
Mr. Robert Mark said there were a number of people in the various
communities who are already monitoring agencies who could be
used by the District. D. wendin said his past experience had
been that it was difficult to organize and depend on a independent
observer group. He suggested that a list be compiled showing
what existing groups already monitor other agencies on a regular
basis.
V. REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
D. Wendin quoted the Basic Policy statement of the District:
"The District will use its available resources primarily to
acquire open space outside the urban service area boundaries of
the cities rather than within the cities. " He felt that each
Board member put his or her own meaning on the term "primarily"
and under what circumstances the District would consider buying
land located within the Urban Service Area. In an attempt to
define more clearly the intent of the District, the words
"urban open space of regional significance" have been studied
by the staff, and defined in a report (R-74-17) as follows:
"Urban Open Space of Regional Significance is
undeveloped or essentially undeveloped land or
water area located within the boundaries of an
Urban Service Area with unique or unusual charac-
teristics of sufficient natural value and import-
ance to transcend its relevance to the immediate
locality. "
J. Melton said that in addition to items (a) through (g) of the
staff report, the additional criteria of "guiding urban form"
might be listed.
Meeting 75-3 Page eight
K. Duffy said she thought this definition should be included in
the District' s Master Plan. N. Hanko disagreed, stating that
she did not want to see it included at all because it might
get the District involved in areas that were city responsibility.
D. Wendin said he felt one of the roles of the District was to
look at regionally significant parcels even if they did fall
within an Urban Service Area.
H. Grench pointed out that people in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Los
Gatos and elsewhere have asked the District to spend money in
their cities for land. K. Duffy asked if he was arguing against
inclusion of a statement about regionally significant lands in
Urban Service Areas. H. Grench said he was, because he felt
urban open space acquisition should be the program of other
agencies and not the MRPD.
S. Norton said the question was whether the District wanted an
adopted policy to show as its final statement, or does it wish
to consider each proposal that may come from cities as an indi-
vidual matter.
Mr. Kermit Smith, 864 Orange Avenue, Sunnyvale, urged the Dis-
trict to take a flexible view and review proposals on a case-
by-case basis. He said this was also the most politically viable
position.
E. Shelley said he was uncomfortable with the use of the phrase
"Urban Service Area" as a definition and would rather use the
word "urbanized. " D. Wendin said he felt LAFCO' s definition
of Urban Service Area was valid, although some cities have not
adhered to that definition.
K. Duffy suggested the Board consider the question of including
a definition of urban open space of regional significance. She
stated that the use of Urban Service Area would be placed on
a', future Board meeting agenda.
A recess for lunch was taken at 12 : 24 P.M. The meeting was re-
convened at 1: 06 P.M.
VI. LAND MANAGEMENT
N. Hanko introduced Jon Olson, the District's new Land Manager.
She read objective No. 3 from the District' s Basic Policy: "The
District will follow a land management policy that provides
proper care of open space land, allowing public access appropri-
ate to the nature of the land and consistent with ecological
values."
J. Olson said the essence of developing the District' s land manage-
ment and use programs will be balancing the various kinds of
public and private use against the start-up and operating costs
of such uses. He felt this balance must be kept in mind during
the discussion of the items outlined.
Meeting 75-3 Page nine
A. Patrol and Public Safety
J. Olson said agricultural land was an example of land
requiring the least expense for the District in the
category of patrol and public safety. The patrol is
built in, and there is some revenue return. However, most
lands will require patrol and maintenance services. He
felt the District would have to develop regulatory ordin-
ances for the use of its lands. He said he felt strongly
that the major emphasis of the District should be on
educating users of the land rather than on enforcing laws
rigidly.
K. Duffy asked if the County could enforce District ordin-
ances. J. Olson said the District could enter into an
agreement with the County for such services, but he said
this might be awkward. He added that it might mean sacri-
ficing the type of policing that the District would prefer.
Mr. Robert Marks cited the example of the Santa Monica
Mountains area, where policing problems led to reduced
public access, leaving bad feelings on the part of the
public. He urged the Board to try very hard to allow at
least limited public access, especially in areas which
have previously been used by the public.
H. Grench pointed out that the Fremont Older Ranch was an
example of the problem cited by Mr. Marks. Past users
of that land include horseback riders and hikers who are
strong supporters of the District' s acquisition of the
Ranch.
D. Wendin asked if there was a rule-of-thumb cost per acre
for patrol and maintenance services. J. Olson said there was
no useful rule, since the kind of use for a parcel of land,
as well as the topography of the land, determines what
problems and costs will be necessary.
B. Green asked how much authority a District patrolperson
would have if someone were discovered to be violating the
District' s ordinances. J. Olson pointed out that the Dis-
trict's enabling legislation allows: full police powers.
C. Harrington suggested keeping in mind other methods of
educating the public rather than distribution of printed
materials at the time of an incident. As examples, she
cited contact with schools, clubs and associations, news-
papers and magazines.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Meeting 75-3 Page ten
N. Hanko asked what the procedure would be for develop-
ing ordinances for the District. J. Olson advised that
H. Grench, S. Norton and he have already begun review-
ing ordinances, and a draft for Board consideration
would be forthcoming.
B. Green asked when the District would begin its pro-
gram of public education. H. Grench said he thought
it should begin when ordinances and land use policies
are adopted by the Board.
N. Hanko asked to what extent the District might con-
tract for patrol services by other agencies. J. Olson
said this would depend on the particular parcel, its
location and use. He emphasized that he hoped the
District would have high quality public contact.
B. Planning, Management and Use Program
J. Olson stated that the District must go through a
planning process for each parcel before management and
use can be determined. The process should include
consideration of resource inventories, potential public
and private uses, relationship to uses of other parcels,
and the cost of the program. He envisioned the Dis-
trict developing interim policies for a year or so to
gain experience.
Mrs. Linda Stuckey, 22600 Prospect Road, Saratoga,
asked if there was a time frame for developing use
policies for the Fremont older Ranch. J. Olson said
there was none at this time. Mrs. Stuckey noted there
was a June 1, 1975 option date for that property, and
said she hoped a policy would be developed by then.
Mr. Robert Marks suggested a citizens advisory committee
for each parcel, similar to the committees used by
the State Parks System, could be used.
D. Wendin asked what the District' s liability is for
its land and the acts of those using the land. S.
Norton said the principal area of concern was in terms
of fire damage. An individual can be held liable for
resulting costs, but the District would only be held
liable if it were shown to be negligent. D. Wendin
asked if the District was only keeping a property clear
of litter, and if a hiker injures self, others or
adjacent land, is the District liable. S. Norton said
the District would be liable only if it could be shown
that an employee or agent of the District acted in a
negligent manner. In general, he said, the more per-
sons as are admitted onto the land, the greater the
Meeting 75-3 Page eleven
responsibility of the District for conditions on that
land. Also, natural conditions which exist on the
land (e.g. , a fallen log or a body of water) do not
constitute liability. However, as one begins "improv-
ing" natural conditions, added responsibility is taken
on for proper maintenance.
D. Wendin noted there were a number of existing trails
on the Black Mountain property. Would the District be
liable, he asked, if it were unable to provide suffi-
cient patrol. S. Norton stated that the District has
liability insurance, and if and when judgments or claims
became so great as to require rate adjustment, the
District could decide if it would be cheaper to add
extra patrol personnel.
N. Hanko asked for more discussion of the idea of using
citizen advisory committees in planning for the use of
District lands. J. Olson said he foresees staff, volun-
teer and intern involvement in the following areas:
(1) inventory of resources and (2) identification of
possible uses for a particular parcel.
D. Wendin suggested the current use of a parcel could
be better defined by using citizen input. He said he
felt that once the District has obtained an option for
the future purchase of a parcel, planning efforts
should begin. J. Olson and D. Wendin said they felt
the Board should adopt a procedure for planning, even
if it is only a broad outline, so at least the public
would be aware of the process.
D. Wendin said it seemed there was a need for two
interim plans before arriving at the long-term planning
stage: (1) a pre-acquisition plan which defines use
of land immediately after transfer of title to the
District, and (2) an interim plan for use while the
long-term plan is being developed.
K. Duffy urged citizen participation be encouraged from
the time a parcel is chosen for acquisition. She felt
that many citizen groups have a great deal of informa-
tion to offer, and they need to receive information
from the District in return.
H. Grench said he could envision two types of citizen
involvements: (1) formalized citizen advisory groups
and (2) informal contacts by staff with interested
citizens, particularly neighbors, from the very begin-
ning.
Meeting 75-3 Page twelve
N. Hanko said she felt there was a consensus by the
Board that citizen participation is needed early in
the planning process. She asked J. Olson to incorporate
this into the forthcoming staff report. It was agreed
that citizens committees would be beneficial and that
guidelines for composing such committees should be
developed.
C. Trails
N. Hanko introduced members of the Trails Task Force
who were in attendance at the workshop: Artemas
Ginzton, Tony Look and Alan Grundmann. Mr. Grundmann
gave a brief history of the Task Force and said the
one specific recommendation it had made thus far to
the Board of Directors was that the District examine
the feasibility of developing a Stevens Creek Trail
System.
N. Hanko asked Mr. Grundmann if the Task Force wanted
any policy direction from the Board. He said the
Task Force would like to know what the Board wants
it to do.
J. Olson defined the categories of trails, stating
that he sees the current interest in trails as a
reaction to automobiles and urbanization:
1. Regional Trail System: This concept has been
discussed by many groups over the United States.
Regional trails would be used for more than a day' s
hike. One of the charges of the Trails Task Force
is to identify appropriate regional trails for
our area.
2. Feeder Trails: These are local trails leading
to a particular area or center, or connecting
regional trails to these sites.
3. Internal Trails: These are trails which are
established within lands owned by the District.
J. Olson said he saw the District as being most
committed to this category of trails at the present.
K. Duffy read the background statement and proposed
trails acquisition policies for the benefit of the
audience. A. Grundmann urged the Board to more clearly
state its interest in transportation - particularly
biking - trails. N. Hanko pointed out that the Board
has asked the Task Force to comment on the proposed
acquisition policy statements. Mr. Grundmann said he
Meeting 75-3 Page thirteen
personally accepted the final statement of the background
material and the two acquisition policies.
A. Ginzton asked if acquisition policy No. 1 might seem
presumptuous, since it appeared to be saying the District
would develop a regional trail system rather than empha-
sizing that the District would cooperate with other
agencies such as the County in this kind of development.
E. Shelley said he did not think the statement excluded
cooperation. K. Duffy felt the Statement referred to a
regional trail system, not necessarily a District trail
system. D. Wendin noted that the subcommittee had pur-
posely left the statement rather loose, and perhaps it
should be stated more clearly that the District does not
intend to duplicate other regional trail systems.
Ms. Lou Middleton, 22044 Creekside Court, Cupertino, asked
if the District would solicit the opinions of people whose
land may be acquired for a trail system. A. Ginzton
noted that the purpose of today' s workshop was to consider
general policies for trail acquisition, and not a specific
trail. K. Duffy pointed out that the District holds
publicly announced hearings for every acquisition it pro-
poses to make.
Mrs. Pat Maguire, 1013 East Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale,
asked if the County of Santa Clara' s trails committee
would have authority over District proposals. It was ex-
plained that the County' s committee is just now being
formed, and it would be concerned with trails in the entire
County, and would be separate from the MRPD.
In response to a question from the audience asking if the
$87, 000 figure was intended to be used for trails, A.
Grundmann explained that his understanding was that the
Board had agreed to limit spending on all types of
development to 5% of its income during the first ten years.
H. Grench advised that the $87, 000 would be used for all
types of park development, including laying-in of trails,
but not for trails acquisition.
K. Duffy said she felt the words "regional trail system"
needed further definition. D. Wendin suggested the last
statement in the background material of the trails sec-
tion be made a part of the acquisition policy: "The
District intends to take a lead in planning and to parti-
cipate in the implementation of recreational trails of
regional significance. " He also thought. acquisition
policy No. 1 should be changed to reflect that the Dis-
trict will participate in a regional system in the baylands
and foothills. N. Hanko asked if there was consensus for
this change. T. Look suggested the Board and Task Force
should meet together to work on the definition. K. Duffy
Meeting 75-3 Page fourteen
said she felt the District needed to develop a policy
statement covering the whole concept of trails develop-
ment.
Mr. Peter Daley, 1573 Ashcroft Way, Sunnyvale, referred
to a letter by Mr. Stocklemeier concerning the impact
on Stevens Creek of a proposed trail system. He said
he was concerned about the existing wildlife along the
Creek. He said he thought the District should concern
itself with trails outside the urban areas.
Mr. Dan Baer, 1380 Rosalia Avenue, Sunnyvale, said the
previous discussion had mistakenly assumed there was
no environmental impact on Stevens Creek at the present
time. He suggested there has been some impact by the
present landowners along the Creek, and that public
ownership might improve the area.
D. Volunteers
J. Olson noted there has been discussion of the use of
volunteers and student interns by the District, and he
felt this was a good idea from a financial viewpoint and
as an educational tool. He cautioned, however, that
volunteer efforts are not always fruitful. He proposed
that staff inventory the needs which could be met by
volunteers.
Ms. Betsy Fiksdal, 11271 Magdalena Road, Los Altos Hills,
said volunteers could be of tremendous help to the Dis-
trict. K. Duffy agreed, but pointed out that some staff
time would still be necessary to guide volunteers.
Ms. Jeanne Pinneo, 3347 St. Michael Court, Palo Alto,
said she thought the District should have modest expecta-
tions of volunteers.
N. Hanko asked how soon a list of volunteer needs could
be expected. J. Olson replied that a policy should be
developed for volunteer programs. Then a draft of volun-
teer needs could be expected about three months after
that. He said the list would be an expanding one.
VII. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
C. Harrington reviewed the progress on implementation of the Basic
Policy goal which states: "The District will educate and make
clearly visible to the public the purposes and actions of the Dis-
trict, and will actively encourage public communication and in-
volvement in District activities. " She said the District has had
good cooperation from newspapers . She noted that the District
has distributed over 2, 000 brochures and prepared an official
District map in cooperation with Santa Clara County. The District
Meeting 75-3 Page fifteen
has fulfilled a number of requests for speakers, and has prepared
a slide presentation for use at such speaking engagements.
A. Newspaper Advertising of Elections and Meetings
B. Green pointed out that the estimated cost of adver-
tising District meetings is $7, 000 per year. K. Duffy
noted there is a problem with a number of special dis-
tricts regarding lack of visibility to the public, and
she felt serious consideration should be given to adver-
tising.
Mrs. Maguire said she thought it very important that
Board meetings be advertised. C. Harrington noted that
it is easier to get meeting information into the news-
papers "after the fact" than beforehand.
N. Hanko suggested the Board consider a six-month trial
of advertising Board agendas.
S. Norton said it might be important to distinguish be-
tween two types of advertising: (1) advertising so the
District can say that it has advertised, or (2) adver-
tising that the District hopes people will read. He
said that if the Board hoped to do the latter, the public
might react rather negatively since the agendas do not
necessarily always reflect the most important activities
of the District.
Mr. Robert Marks suggested the District advertise in the
two major newspapers within the District only.
K. Duffy asked if C. Harrington could prepare a specific
trial advertising proposal and place it on a future agenda
for Board consideration. N. Hanko said the forthcoming
League of Women Voters consensus report on special districts
might offer good input. The report is scheduled to be
available March 1.
D. Wendin pointed out that even on an experimental basis
the advertising could cost $1,000 for six months, and
said he was opposed to the idea. He said he would prefer
the District advertise only when it wishes to call special
attention to a particular meeting.
B. Two Term Limit
E. Shelley said he favored a two term limitfor Directors,
especially because the lack of a limit would lower special
district visibility and a few people would become entrenched
in their positions indefinitely, causing the District to
stagnate.
Meeting 75-3 Page sixteen
N. Hanko said she objected to a two term limit for the
following reasons: (1) it would attempt to take away from
the voters the right of choice; (2) it is not generally
imposed on legislative offices because power is limited;
(3) since the enabling legislation does not limit terms,
it would be an individual choice anyway; (4) it could
mean lame-duck terms for half the Board; (5) the District
needs stability in its early years; and (6) annexation
problems (i.e. , the change in wards and forced retirement
might come at just the wrong time) .
E. Shelley said the need for a limitation is greater when
the District is older, and he would like to see a legis-
lative remedy to enact a limit. D. Wendin said he felt
a two term limit was the only way to insure limitation
of a-concentration of power.
Mr. Robert Marks pointed out that the visibility of a
District Director was not as great as political figures
in more well-known offices.
E. Shelley said he believed the District could benefit
from "new blood" and that because of the incumbent advantage,
a limit is necessary.
K. Duffy asked that the positive and negative views, as
well as a specific proposal, be placed on a future Board
meeting agenda for consideration.
C. Conflicts of Interest
D. Wendin suggested the District wait as along as possible
regarding a conflicts of interest policy in order to
determine the outcome of legislative and court tests.
N. Hanko said she would like the District to work for
inclusion of special district director
under the disclosure provision of the law.
S. Norton suggested the Board wait until the State Commis-
sion prepared the model code, since time spent before
that could be wasted. He suggested attempting to con-
vince the State Commission to include candidates in the
model code on disclosures.
D. Funding of Candidates' Statements
S. Norton stated that the Board has the option to pay or
to bill candidates for campaign statements. K. Duffy
said this question is related to District visibility, and
that it is important, even in uncontested elections, to
take the opportunity to inform the public about the Dis-
Meeting 75-3 Page seventeen
trict and its Board members. She said she felt it is
the obligation of the District in either contested or
uncontested elections to pay for candidates ' statements.
H. Grench said he hoped the Board would conduct future
discussion of this item at another meeting, so that
staff could prepare a report on the cost involved.
K. Duffy said she would like to see a statement of the
pros and cons of the idea, as well as a specific proposal.
D. Wendin agreed to write the cons, and K. Duffy the pros.
VIII. ADMINISTRATION
A. Board-Staff Relations
H. Grench said he had asked that this item be a part of
the agenda since two new Directors and staff have been
added since the original Goals Workshop. He reminded the
group that at that time the Board set the policy of a
strong General Manager system with policy input suggestions
from the Legal Counsel also welcomed. There would be
initiation of programs by the General Manager with Board
approval in all areas of the District' s program. Specific
assignments involving more than minimal time are not to
be made by individual Board members on the General Manager,
Legal Counsel or the Controller. Although the General
Manager may give assignments to the Legal Counsel or the
Controller, these should not be major ones, which would
require Board approval. He reiterated the policy that
the remainder of the staff is not given assignments
directly by individual Board members or by the Board as
a whole, but rather these requests are made of the Gen-
eral Manager, who may then assign staff to them. K.
Duffy reminded the Board that the General Manager is hired
by the Board and that in general the remainder of the
staff is employed by the General Manager.
S. Norton described the problem of elected officials
asking lower-level staff to do jobs. He suggested that,
as a rule of thumb, the Board might use staff members
as an information source, but specific action requests
should go through the General Manager.
A. Crosley said she felt the District was very fortunate
in that its Board-staff relations were excellent, especially
in comparison to many other agencies she has observed.
She expressed the hope that the groups would remain close
and- would cultivate good relations with other agencies
and citizens, so that conflicts would not occur, and,
if they did, they could be resolved easily.
Meeting 75-3 Page eighteen
H. Grench distributed copies of the analysis of Board
and staff views on acquisition priorities for the Dis-
trict. He pointed out that there seemed to be con-
sistency in the views.
K. Duffy said that although Board-Board relations were
not a part of today' s agenda, she felt the President of
the Board should be careful not to use that position to
further personal views.
J. Olson remarked that other Boards he was familiar with
had experimented with daytime as well as nighttime meet-
ings in order to attract different audiences. He asked
if a combination might be worthwhile for the District to
try. Some Board members expressed negative feelings
about the possibility. C. Harrington suggested it would
be a good idea to schedule at least one of the hearings
on the Master Plan during the daytime.
B. Long-Term Financial Strategies
J. Melton said that, while no specific decisions were
made during the day, several areas that were discussed
reflect on long-term financial considerations. He asked
the Board to start considering how the District will use
its $1, 750, 000 each year. As an example, he pointed out
that alternative use proposals prepared by J. Olson will
include financial implications. He could foresee the day
when all of the $1,750,000 could be used for operating
costs instead of acquisition. He asked that a decision
on percentages of such items as management and acquisi-
tion be made.
H. Grench felt that part of the long-term financial
policy might be a request for a tax increase if and when
it would be justified. He thought the timing of such a
request would be very important.
D. Wendin noted that several proposals discussed during
the day had to do with District visibility. He said he
would like to consider these as a package, and would like
to consider the cost/benefit relationship of the various
proposals.
K. Duffy asked that the Budget Subcommittee of the Board
cooperate in the long-term planning process.
N. Hanko asked if there was a periodic review of the
status of District funds so the best interest rate accrues.
J. Melton said a review is made on a quarterly basis,
and so far the County fund seems to offer the best ad-
vantages.
Meeting 75-3 Page nineteen
E. Shelley asked if the District was making application
for all available grants. H. Grench said he would like
to have more time devoted to it, but at present the Land
and Water Conservation funds are the best possibility
for the District. C. Harrington suggested that smaller
projects may be able to receive grants, such as specific
educational projects.
IX. CLAIMS
N. Hanko moved approval of the claims (C-75-3) dated February 2,
1975, as presented. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
X. SCHEDULING OF FIRST REGULAR MEETING IN FEBRUARY
H. Grench reported that prior to today' s discussion there were no
agenda items scheduled for the first regular meeting in February
(February 13, since February 12 is a holiday) . There is a slight
possibility, he said, that the Master Plan maps would be ready
for the February 26 meeting, but it did not appear very likely
at this time. A discussion of the items from today' s workshop
and the scheduling of these for further consideration would be
forthcoming.
K. Duffy said her preference is to hold meetings when they are
normally scheduled.
After discussion, the consensus was to cancel the February 13
meeting, utilize February 26 as a clean-up of today' s discussion,
and, if necessary, call a Special meeting for consideration of
the Master Plan.
XI . ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5: 04 P.M.
Norma Grench
Volunteer Recording Secretary
L
Meeting 75-5 Page two
B. Minutes of February 2, 1975
D. Wendin pointed out that the introduction on page one of the
February 2, 1975 minutes indicates that the District owns
1, 600 acres of land. It was the consensus of the Board that
the words "has acquired" be changed to "has interests in. "
D. Wendin, referring to page six of the minutes, said he wished
to make it clear that he preferred the staff review city
agendas prior to sending pertinent items to him.
D. Wendin suggested the first paragraph on page nineteen of
the minutes did not reflect the concern of some Board members
that additional staff time spent on applying for grants would
be justified by the return to the District. No change in
wording was made.
N. Hanko said she did not ask the question reflected in the
first sentence of the last paragraph on page eighteen of the
minutes, and suggested the words "N. Hanko asked" be changed
to "It was asked. . . "
E. Shelley said he did not make the statement attributed to
him in the second sentence of paragraph eight on page six
of the minutes. N. Hanko advised that she made the statement.
E. Shelley said he would like the minutes, on page eleven, to
reflect his reservations that neighbors of District-owned land
would have a strong role in planning for the use of the land
inasmuch as they would be unlikely to have a regional per-
spective.
E. Shelley asked that page sixteen of the minutes include the
statement made by A. Ginzton that qualified conservationists
might be hesitant to challenge an incumbent Director who had
served the District well, because such a challenge would be
interpreted as indicating that the incumbent had not, in fact,
done a good job. He said this would be an argument in favor
of a two-term limit for Directors.
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of February 2,
1975 be approved as amended above.