HomeMy Public PortalAbout19750312 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) AA.
of Meeting 75-6
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
March 12 , 1975 745 Distel Drive
Los Altos, CA
I. ROLL CALL
President Duffy called the meeting to order at 7 : 34 P.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 and Jennie
George.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of February 26, 1975
B. Green pointed out that the word "policy" should read "police"
in the eighth line of paragraph three on page six of the min-
utes.
E. Shelley suggested that a comma and the word "one" be inserted
at the end of the sixth line of paragraph two on page seven of
the minutes.
D. Wendin asked that the first sentence in paragraph five on page
seven be changed to read as follows : "D. Wendin said he thought
the citizens' committee should be established as soon as possible.
He thought it might be difficult to find representatives with a
regional perspective for the permanent committee. "
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of February 26,
1975 be accepted as amended.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications at this time.
Meeting 75-6 Page two
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Board agreed to discuss a letter received from the Bay Area
Air Pollution Control District under New Business Requiring
Action.
At the suggestion of N. Hanko, the Board agreed that the Sub-
committee on Annexations should make its report to the Board
at the April 9, 1975 meeting.
In response to a question from K. Duffy, H. Grench advised that
the Board had previously decided that the revisions to the Rules
of Procedure were to be agendized at the President' s discretion.
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were no other written communications.
VI. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Open Space Resources Program
1. Recommended Ranger Job Description and Salary Range
H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-75-46) dated
March 7, 1975, which suggests the salary range for a
new District Park Ranger from $931 to $1208 monthly.
He explained that the salary range had been arrived
at from a comparison of salaries for similar positions
at other public agencies in the Bay Area.
J. Olson referred the Board to the proposed Job De-
scription for the Park Ranger, and said it covered
a broad range of duties because the Park Ranger for
the District would be expected to perform more func-
tions than at other public agencies.
H. Grench said there was a possibility that the Park
Ranger would live on one of the District' s sites. He
also indicated that he was especially interested in
implementing the District' s Affirmative Action Program,
and would make the effort to do so with the Park Ranger
position.
Motion: N. Hanko moved adoption of the Job Description
attached to memorandum M-75-46 and of the
salary range of $931 to $1208 monthly for a
Park Ranger position with the Midpeninsula
Regional Park District. B. Green seconded the
motion.
Discussion: H. Grench pointed out that the
salary range for the park ranger is current, but
Meeting 75-6 Page three
other employees' salary ranges may not be and
those will be discussed at the time the budget
is being prepared. The motion passed unanimously.
In response to questions from N. Hanko and D. Wendin, J.
Olson said the Park Ranger may end up being responsible
for the coordination of volunteers, but there is suffi-
cient work in other areas without that involvement.
2. Alternative Storage Recommendations for Fire and Mainten-
ance Vehicle
J. Olson referred the Board to his memorandum (M-75-43)
dated March 6, 1975, which outlines alternative means of
storing District vehicles. His recommendation for long-
term storage was that vehicles be kept on District-owned
property. For immediate purposes, the vehicle(s) might
be kept at a garage near the District office or at an
employee' s place of residence if appropriate. The plan
was accepted without formal action.
3 . Ordering of Fire and Maintenance Vehicle
J. Olson referred to his memorandum (M-75-47) dated March
7, 1975, which recommends that the District purchase a
four-wheel-drive pick-up truck through the State of Calif-
ornia General Services Administration. He said the State
GSA has a program for adding special equipment to trucks ,
and many public agencies do their vehicle purchasing
through this department. He said the approximate cost of
the vehicle would be $8,500, including fire equipment.
The State charges 1% of the price it paid for the vehicle.
4. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Park District Authorizing the Department of
General Services of the State of California to Purchase
a Certain Item for the Midpeninsula Regional Park District
Motion: E. Shelley moved adoption of Resolution No. 75-5,
a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Park District Authorizing
the Department of General services of the State
of California to Purchase a Certain Item for the
Midpeninsula Regional Park District. B. Green
seconded the motion. The motion passed uanimously.
VII. OLD BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION
A. Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District
1. Revised Draft Acquisition Policy Statements
K. Duffy referred Board members to H. Grench' s memorandum
(M-75-45) dated March 7, 1975, with attached revised pages
Meeting 75-6 Page four
of the Master Plan acquisition policy statements, which
were made at a Subcommittee meeting held on March 4 ,
1975.
D. Wendin advised that the Subcommittee had struck out
acquisition policy statements which singled out gifts
to the District in favor of the broader statements en-
compassing gifts and other methods of acquisition. He
also pointed out that the recommendations of the Trails
Task Force had been incorporated in the Trails section
of the draft policies. Discussion of Urban Service Area
boundary designations and urban open space of regional
significance had been postponed, and the Subcommittee
planned to prepare a report on those items for the March
26 Board meeting if possible.
K. Duffy observed that the use of the Urban Service Area
boundary as a specific definition in the District' s
Basic Policy might have to be changed. N. Hanko sug-
gested the phrase "urbanized area. "
Action: K. Duffy stated the consensus that the ques-
tion of changing the Basic Policy statement with
respect to urban open space of regional signifi-
cance and Urban Service Area boundaries be con-
sidered at a future meeting.
Action: Following discussion, K. Duffy stated the con-
sensus that the "THE" in the heading "THE SCENIC
BACKDROP" be deleted from the draft Master Plan
acquisition policy statement, and that references
to "for the wilderness experience" on page 5 of
the statement should be changed to "wilderness
experience" , omitting "for the."
Motion: D. Wendin moved approval of the draft acquisition
policy statements as amended by the Subcommittee
on March 4, 1975 with changes agreed upon by the
Board at this meeting, for inclusion in the draft
Master Plan. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
Discussion: K. Duffy stated the consensus that
staff make minor editorial changes deemed appro-
priate in the draft acquisition policy statements.
2. Review of Maps Depicting Scoring of Open Space Values
H. Grench referred to his memorandum (M-75-44) dated
March 7, 1975, which advises that maps have been prepared
and are displayed in the District office which show the
results of the scoring of the landscape provinces based
on different open-space-value categories. He noted that
Meeting 75-6 Page five
Jennie George had coordinated the volunteers who had
helped in coloring the maps, and she had done a great
deal of the map work also. H. Grench explained that
each open space value had been put in quantitative form
by the County. Then a map had been prepared with 391
landscape provinces that reflected the different areas
of.,.open space within the District. After designating
some landscape provinces as District-owned land, other
park land and "junk" provinces (those lands whose present
use preclude them from being considered for acquisition
by the District) , about 300 landscape provinces remain.
The remaining provinces were divided into six groups ,
according to how high the scoring was. The groups are
reflected on the colored maps. Each map, he added, took
approximately seven hours to prepare. He asked that
Board, staff and audience members examine the maps on
display and note any anomolies, mistakes or questions
about the information given. He said the District could
only expect one more computer run from the County if
the Board wished to change its weighting of open space
categories somewhat for the composite map.
In answer to a question from Robert Mark of 725 Cowper,
Palo Alto, Don Weden of the Santa Clara County Planning
Department said that the scale for the maps had been
based on USGS maps. He said that an overlay could have
been prepared to show topography and geographic points
of interest, but time and expense have not allowed it
yet. C. Harrington advised that the final printed maps
would have more detail.
K. Duffy noted that provinces rating high on guiding
urban form did not always appear at the edge of the
urban area. D. Weden advised that this was probably
due to a province' s score based on several factors:
(1) type of development, (2) accessibility, (3) role in
agency plans and (4) threat of loss. Provinces were
weighted with a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic
factors.
K. Duffy also noted that some areas which were given
high scores on intensive recreation were given low
scores on low intensity recreation. H. Grench said
this could be the result of similar scoring distribu-
tions. D. Weden reiterated that a number of different
factors affected the scoring of each province.
H. Grench said there would be a topographic overlay
for Master Plan presentations to other agencies.
The Board recessed at 8: 35 P.M. to review maps that
were displayed, and reconvened at 9 : 10 P.M.
In response to Board questions, D. Weden explained the
easiest change in scoring would be to change the overall
Meeting 75-6 Page six
weights assigned by the Board. He said there was not
a great deal of flexibility in other areas. H. Grench
said that if after the Master Plan hearings there seemed
to be a need for critical changes, the changes would
simply have to be made.
Dr. Robert Mark said the Master Plan mapping process
appeared to be an unsatisfactory one to him because of
its inflexibility. He said he was afraid the results
would hinder the Board' s decisions.
D. Wendin replied that the maps were simply a guide, and
there was flexibility because a parcel could be purchased
if it scored highly in any one of the categories listed
in the acquisition policy statements. It was important
that the Master Plan be completed as quickly as possible
at minimal expense. H. Grench noted that the Master Plan
maps could be used in connection with grant applications.
H. Grench referred Board members to a chart which showed
current weightings given to open space categories in
one column, and his proposed set of new weightings in
another column. The new weightings would give a "0"
to those categories with Master Plan acquisition policy
statements that use the language "will consider acquiring"
rather than "will acquire. " He said this weighting assumes
the District has a given amount of money to spend on the
most important items. He noted one technical problem -
the acquisition policy statement categories differed from
the scoring categories in some instances.
K. Duffy, E. Shelley and D. Wendin felt that the guiding
urban form category should receive a higher weighting.
D. Weden said the scoring of guiding urban form for the
landscape provinces was determined as follows: (1) type
of existing development - 10% , (2) accessibility - 40% ,
(3) role in plans (how important to other agencies in
their plans) - 30%, and (4) threat of loss - 20%. He
said threat of loss included three factors: distance
from urban area, whether or not publicly-owned and whether
area is under Williamson Act.
Motion: E. Shelley moved adoption of the following weight-
ings:
Natural Vegetation 15
Wildlife 15
Low Intensity Recreation 10
Intensive Recreation 5
Wilderness Experience 5
Guiding Urban Form 25
Scenic Backdrop 15
View from Scenic Highways 5
Agriculture 5
Meeting 75-6 Page seven
Production of minerals 0
Water Quality 0
Geological Hazards 0
Flooding 0
K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: H. Grench said he felt uneasy about
the emphasis on guiding urban form in that it
might give the impression that that category was
more important to the District than any other.
E. Shelley suggested the use of main categories
for presentation to other agencies, for example:
Wildlife and Vegetation 30
Recreation 20
Guiding Urban Form 25
Scenic Backdrop & View 20
Agriculture 5
Amendment: N. Hanko moved to amend the motion
to change the weighting of the recreation cate-
gory from 20 to 25, and the guiding urban form
category from 25 to 20.
Discussion: S. Norton suggested a weighting of
5 should include agriculture, minerals , water
quality, geological hazards and flooding. N.
Hanko said she would include that in her amend-
ment. B. Green seconded the motion. It was
pointed out that the categories which N. Hanko
proposed to change were not a part of the original
motion. N. Hanko withdrew her motion.
Amendment: N. Hanko moved to amend the motion
by changing the weighting of wilderness experience
from 5 to 10, and changing guiding urban form
from 25 to 20. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion to amend failed on the following vote:
AYE - N. Hanko and B. Green; NO - K. Duffy, D.
Wendin and E. Shelley. The motion passed on the
following vote: AYE - K. Duffy, D. Wendin and
E. Shelley; NO - N. Hanko and B. Green
VIII. NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Letter from Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
H. Grench referred the Board to a letter dated February 27, 1975,
which had been received from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control
District advising that a vacancy exists in the regional park dis-
trict category on the Advisory Council to the BAAPCD. He said
he had been urged to submit his own name for consideration; how-
ever, he had mixed feelings about serving on the Advisory Council
due to the time it would take away from MRPD duties. He felt it
Page eight
was important to the District, however, to be represented on the
Council and have some regional exposure. He said he was told
that the Advisory Council meets about once every other month
on the last Wednesday of the month, with occasional subcommittee
meetings. He suggested one of the Board members might be in-
terested in serving on the Council.
K. Duffy said she would be interested, and that she did have a
chemistry background which might be helpful to the Council. H.
Grench advised that the BAAPCD needed a resume, and he suggested
that K. Duffy emphasize her technical background. He pointed
out that, if selected, she would represent all the regional park
districts, not just the MRPD.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board of Directors of the Midpen-
insula Regional Park District nominate Kay Duffy as the
regional park district representative on the Bay Area Air
Pollution Control District' s Advisory Council. B. Green
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Meeting with R. Diridon
K. Duffy advised that she and J. Olson had met with representatives
from the Santa Cruz County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County
Boards of Supervisors to discuss possible joint efforts at preserv-
ing areas in the Santa Cruz Mountains. She said the outcome of
the meeting was that the Skyline Scenic Recreation Route Joint
Powers Committee should be rejuvenated. She felt the meeting had
been a beneficial one.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion: B. Green moved acceptance of the claims (C-75-6) dated
March 12, 1975. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 10: 20 P.M. to discuss
land negotiations.
XI . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11: 30 P.M.
Anne Cathcart Crosley
Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of March 12, 1975
N. Hanko said she did not recall making the statement attributed
to her in the last sentence of the third paragraph on page four
of the minutes of March 12, 1975. E. Shelley said he had made
the statement, and the consensus was stated that he be given
credit for it.
N. Hanko said she would like the minutes to reflect the reason
she made an amendment to the motion, and suggested the fol-
lowing sentence be inserted on page seven after the paragraph
beginning "Amendment" :
"N. Hanko stated that although she personally
favored equal ratings of 15 each for Wilderness
Experience and Guiding Urban Form, she said
she was offering the following amendment be-
cause it best represented the combined opinions
of the five directors and would therefore be
consistent with the rest of - the weighting sys-
tem. "
D. Wendin said he objected to the change because the general
discussion had been broad, and the minutes should not necessarily
reflect the individual opinions of each Director.
E. Shelley suggested the tapes be reviewed to determine if the
proposed additional sentence did actually reflect statements
made by N. Hanko, and that the matter be considered at the next
Board meeting. He stated the consensus that this was agreeable.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of March 12, 1975
K. Duffy referred the Board to a memorandum (M-75-5 9) dated
April 2, 1975 from the Administrative Secretary regarding
a review of statements made by N. Hanko at the March 12 , 1975
meeting in explanation of her amendment.
E. Shelley proposed that the following sentence be included
in the minutes: "N. Hanko said she was offering the follow-
ing amendment because it best represented the combined opin-
ions of the five directors including minority opinion. "
D. Wendin said he objected to the phrase "best represented"
and suggested the minutes be left unamended.
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of March 12 ,
1975 be approved as presented.