Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19750326 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) lof Meeting 75-7 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT I Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S March 26, 1975 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I . ROLL CALL Vice-President Shelley called the meeting to order at 7 : 41 P.M. I Members Present: Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin. Member Absent: Katherine Duffy I Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson, Anne Crosle StanleyNorton and r Harrington. Y o n Ca roll Audience of three persons. II. 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. " i Minutes of March 26, 1975 K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of March 26 , 1975 be approved as presented. I Meeting 75-7 Page two 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. III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA E. Shelley asked that SB 476 and AB 523 be considered under New Business Requiring Action, and that the subject of Joint MRPD- County Action be considered under New Business Not Requiring Action. He stated the consensus that this was acceptable. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, said he had been studying the weightings that had been used in preparing the Master Plan composite map. He was in the process of determining correlations that may or may not exist in the different categories , and he . asked that Board members take a few minutes at some point during the meeting to fill out forms he had prepared which would reflect Board opinion regarding how much categories relate to one another. E. Shelley said he thought the information which Dr. Mark was working on could be very valuable, inasmuch as present data does not show correlations. N. Hanko suggested the Board listen to Dr. Mark' s presentation after the Claims were considered. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS H. Grench referred the Board to a letter dated March 24, 1975 , which had been received from Mr. Alan E. Ellis regarding District support for the "Save the Canyon" committee which was trying to establish a nature preserve on property owned by the Los Gatos Union High School District. H. Grench advised that the District had sent a letter in support of the committee on May 23 , 1974 , and he suggested the Board might want to reiterate its position in another letter. N. Hanko said that it seemed appropriate since the Board had not changed its position on the matter. There was a consensus that H. Grench send an appropriate letter to the Los Gatos High School District and the involved cities reminding them of the Board' s support for the goals of the "Save the Canyon" committee. VI. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION A. Citizen Participation in Site Planning H. Grench referred the Board to his report (R-75-2) dated March 19, 1975, regarding citizen participation in the planning for Meeting 75-7 Page three the maintenance and use of District lands. One of the ideas that had been discussed at the February 2, 1975 Goals Workshop was the establishment of formal citizens ' committees to advise the staff and Board. Under that structure, there would be a five- member committee for each site and a five-member regional com- mittee for all sites which would presumably provide a regional perspective. H. Grench said he felt a formal citizens' committee structure would be very cumbersome in terms of the number of meetings the staff would be committed to attend, and that it might be difficult to find five people with the commitment to serve on the regional citizens' committee. He thought it was important that staff have the flexibility of establishing meet- ings with neighbors and interested citizens to fit work schedules. Staff members should also have the option of working with individuals or with groups, whichever might seem most appro- priate and effective. H. Grench recommended the Board adopt the informal approach to citizen participation in site planning rather than a formalized structure. B. Green suggested that Directors could help the staff in meeting with neighbors and interested citizens. She also thought there should be a time limit set on the site planning process. E. Shelley suggested the possibility of a single site advisory committee which could form subcommittees for individual sites. He said the Board should consider carefully what the charge of any citizens' committee would be, as it is the staff and Board who have prime responsibility for the planning of the use of Dis- trict lands, not local citizens. D. Wendin said he thought interim use of District lands - which will generally reflect the status quo - is a concern to local residents. Long-term use, also concerns neighborsi especially if traffic might increase significantly. When citize ns come forward with questions and suggestions, he said, they should know how they can be a part of the planning process. He thought perhaps the citizens ' committee concept could be started on a site-by-site basis as needed. H. Grench noted that a sketch plan for use of District land is set forth in a report at the time the Board considers acquisi- tion. Then, interim use plans will generally reflect the status quo. Long-term use plans cannot really be considered by the staff until it has had a year or two of experience in studying the property and its potential uses. Dr. Robert Mark said he thought it was important to have the regional outlook for District lands through citizens that do not have a local interest in a particular parcel. He felt the Board should not overlook the possibility of using volunteer resource people to study the District' s land. He cautioned Meeting 75-5 Page four the District that sometimes continuation of the status quo on land is not necessarily good. H. Grench said that staff would meet with neighbors and interested people to determine present land use, and any report from the staff would reflect citizen input. The Board would then be responsible for making a final decision as to interim or long- term use. Motion: D. Wendin moved that staff be directed to begin informal contacts with individuals and known groups with respect to Permanente Creek Park and Fremont older Preserve, and that a citizen' s committee be established at the earli- est practical time to assist in the interim planning process. N. Hanko seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Grench commented that, as a result of initial meetings, a core group of interested people would probably become evident, and these would probably be representative of different local viewpoints. J. Olson agree, adding that the staff would draw from this input for its report and submit it to the Board for consensus. Then public hearings could be held prior to adoption. D. Wendin thought the interim use report should be a report and not a plan. He said citizen' s committees will probably evolve for some Dis- trict properties but not for others. The motion passed unanimously. VIII . OLD BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION A. Draft Regulatory Ordinances J. Olson introduced the memorandum (M-75-54) from the General Manager dated, March 20, 1975, regarding the draft regulatory ordinances for the District. He noted that ordinances were based primarily on East Bay Regional Park District' s Ordinance 38; however, other sources were considered. He said the most important aspect about the District' s ordinances was that inter- pretation of the severity of the violation was left to the court or other appropriate official. He emphasized that he saw the park ranger' s function with respect to the public as an educational one, rather than punitive. S. Norton advised that one who violates the ordinance would not have the right to a jury trial for an infraction, but also could not be sentenced to jail as with a misdeameanor. He stated that the proposed ordinance called for a permit system for use of District lands. H. Grench said the ordinances were preventative in nature until the District had some experience with land use. S. Norton added Meeting 75-7 Page five that the ordinances would automatically apply to lands presently owned by the District or those acquired in the future. He said any change in the ordinance would require publication and posting, and any change in District rules or regulations would require the same procedure. E. Shelley said he thought some District lands should be open to casual public access without requiring a permit, and suggested that this option be inserted in the ordinances. Dr. Robert Mark urged the Board to consider those people who have been using the land for a number of years already. D. Wendin said the only feasible way to protect the District' s land with the present limited staff is through a permit system. He said the District has an obligation to protect its lands and know what kinds of activities are occurring and what effect those activities have. In response to a question from E. Shelley, S. Norton advised that East Bay Regional Park District' s ordinance prohibits activities and then amends its ordinance as appropriate for particular sites to allow specified actions. H. Grench suggested that permission to enter without a permit could be granted by the Board, but people must abide by the ordinances also. J. Olson cautioned that posting ordinances or rules obligates a certain amount of patrolling by the District, since the posting assumes the public will be using the land. D. Wendin asked if staff could return with a plan for allowing access without a permit or with a permit on designated properties. S. Norton pointed out that some ordinances are included to call attention to presently existing laws in the State Penal Code. Following discussion, the Board directed staff to return with the following changes: SECTION 103. The possibility of oral permission rather than only written permission to enter onto District lands should be addressed. SECTION 400. Item 400. 2 (c) should be deleted. SECTION 405. The title should be changed from "NUDITY" to "INDECENT EXPOSURE. " Board dismissed for a brief recess. SECTION 406. The reference to Section 706 should be corrected to read Section 806. Meeting 75-7 Page six SECTION 408. The wording should be changed to allow staff to determine if assembly is appropriate for an open space operation, whether or not the other requirements have been met. SECTION 410. Item 410. 1 should be worded in a more positive way. SECTION 603. Item 603. 3 should be simplified or included as an appendix. J. Olson explained that the reason for Section 406 "Metal Detect- ors" was that some people hunting artifacts do so with such items, dig up the earth to uncover them, and leave. J. Olson explained that Section 603 "Trespasses" was included to make the ranger' s job of advising and enforcing both District and State regulations easier. It would also be helpful when the District is making arrangements regarding maintenance and patrol with neighboring landowners. J. Olson noted that the Board was responsible for entering into contracts regarding grazing and harvesting (Sections 701 and 702) . J. Olson advised the Board that Section 801.1 regarding prohibi- tion of dogs was included because domestic animals have, in the past, killed deer and other wild animals on park lands. Palo Alto Foothills Park was an example. B. "Friends of MRPD" Foundation It was the consensus of the Board that this item be postponed to the April 9, 1975 meeting. VIII. NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION A. Invitation to Tour Jasper Ridge N. Hanko advised that Alan Grundmann had invited the Board to tour the Jasper Ridge area on one of the following dates : April 7, April 11, April 12 or April 13. Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board of Directors call a Special Meeting for 10: 00 a.m. on April 11 for the purpose of touring the Jasper Ridge area. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion: It was determined that the meeting place would be given on the Special Meeting notice when available. Meeting 75-5 Page seven B. Senate Bill 476 E. Shelley introduced his memorandum (M-75-55) dated March 24 , 1975, which described the possible effects that passage of SB 476 might have on the California Environmental Quality Act and the State' s timberlands. He suggested the Board direct the General Manager to send a letter to the appropriate committee expressing the District' s opposition to the bill. He added that a similar bill in the Assembly, AB 655, should receive the same opposition. B. Green suggested a copy be sent to Claire Dedrick, Director of Resources. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the General Manager be instructed to send appropriate letters expressing the Board' s opposition to SB 476 and similar bills to the proper committees. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Assembly Bill 523 H. Grench advised that staff had received that afternoon an amended version of AB 523 from Assemblyman Calvo' s office. He said Assemblyman Calvo had requested that a representative from the District be present at the April 9 hearing on the bill before the Revenue and Taxation Committee to express the Dis- trict' s support. S. Norton explained that the bill would allow Boards of Supervisors who had met specific qualifications (i.e. , had adopted an open space element) to establish an "agri- cultural reserve fund" for the purchase of land or interests in land in order to preserve it. The money could be used to compensate landowners whose land had been, in effect, downzoned. The money would come from an additional 554 per $500 in real estate transfer tax (the current 55� tax was unstructured and could be used for general purposes) . The land could be released from the agricultural reserve upon a 4/5 vote of the Supervisors. N. Hanko, E. Shelley and B. Green said they felt the bill was a good one. D. Wendin said he disagreed with the "special purpose" aspect of the tax, and said he thought the money should come out of a general fund. Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board of Directors support Assembly Bill 523, and that the General Manager be directed to make this known to the Revenue and Taxa- tion Committee on April 9, 1975. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES - E. Shelley, B. Green and N. Hanko; NOES - D. Wendin. Meeting 75-7 Page eight D. Meeting With Supervisor Steinberg and Bob Amyx H. Grench advised the Board that he had met with Supervisor Steinberg and Bob Amyx of the County Parks and Recreation Depart- ment to discuss County and District plans. He referred the Board to a memorandum from Mr. Amyx to the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding 5-year proposals for park acquisition and development. On page 8 of the memorandum, it is stated that the County should consider acquisition of parcels along the creek connecting Upper and Lower Stevens Creek Parks in order to form a trail link. The acquisition would be accomplished as the appropriate parcels become available. He said Supervisor Steinberg asked about the possibility of a joint effort between the County and the District to acquire the entire Stevens Canyon area, with the County concentrating on the creekside parcels and the District concentrating on the steeper slopes above the creek. N. Hanko noted that this kind of joint effort is consistent with the District' s Action Plan and the UD/OS plan . Motion: D. Wendin moved the the Board of Directors support the concept of joint District-County efforts to form a connection between Upper and Lower Stevens Creek Parks, with the County' s interest primarily in creekside land and the District' s interest primarily in the upper slopes. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IX. CLAIMS Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of the revised claims (C- 75-7) dated March 26, 1975. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 11:43 P.M. to discuss Land Negotiations. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12: 10 P.M. Anne Cathcart Crosley Administrative Secretary