Loading...
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.