Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19751022 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) AA. Meeting 75-23 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S October 22 , 1975 745 Distel Drive Los Altos , CA I. ROLL CALL President Duffy called the meeting to order at 7 :33 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin. Personnel Present: Edward Jaynes , Jon Olson, Anne Crosley, Robert Garcia, Carroll Harrington , Jennie George , Stanley Norton and Del Woods. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of October 8 , 1975 were approved as presented. III . ADOPTION OF AGENDA N. Hanko asked that the Board consider a letter received from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters under New Business Requiring Action. K. Duffy stated the consensus that the agenda be adopted with that addition. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications at this time. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The written communication from the Registrar of Voters is con- sidered under New Business Requiring Action. VI . NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION A. Letter from Registrar of Voters N. Hanko referred to a letter dated October 10 , 1975 which the District received from Mr. Hans Harder , Assistant Registrar of Voters for Santa Clara County, enclosing a copy of proposed new i y II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of October 22, 1975 B. Green called attention to an error in the second paragraph on page three of the minutes of October 22, 1975. She recalled that N. Hanko asked the question. K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of October 22, 1975 be approved as corrected. 0 Meeting 75-23 Page two sections of the Public Resources Code which would change the election procedures of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. She expressed concern that this action might be contrary to District policy. S. Norton said it was his opinion that Mr. Harder had ini- tiated the proposed legislation in order that the District' s election procedures were like the procedures of other special districts. In such a case, the name of an unopposed candidate for a Board seat does not appear on the ballot. He said other regional park districts would also probably be concerned about the proposal. He added that references to a "supervising auth- ority" were unclear and that the proposal seems to conflict with recently adopted amendments to regional park district enabling legislation. He suggested the Board instruct staff to find out more about the proposal and indicate to the Regis- trar' s office that the District is concerned about it. Ms. Laura Lundy, 736 Coastland, Palo Alto, spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She said the League had recently completed a study on special districts and had concluded that visibility and responsibility to the public were very important. One of the ways in which special districts can support this concept, she said, is through placing Board candidates' names on election ballots even when the candidate (s) may be uncon- tested. She urged the District to maintain its present policy and to oppose the proposed legislative changes. K. Duffy stated the consensus that staff be directed to reply to the letter from the Registrar of Voters ' office and to state the Board' s position that the proposed legislative changes are contrary to Board policy. Any written communica- tion, if appropriate, would be sent by Legal Counsel. VII . OLD BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION A. Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District L. Anderson introduced a revised draft of the Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, which was accompanied by a memorandum (M-75-151) dated October 16 , 1975 from the General Manager. L. Anderson noted that previous drafts had been circulated to Board and staff and the Master Plan Sub- committee for review, and it appeared as if the proposed draft represented a consensus. The Master Plan draft includes a brief description of the District and a map showing its bound- aries. The introduction gives an overview of the Master Plan process and describes the three major sections of the Plan, which are (a) Open Space Acquisition Policies - a presentation of policies which will help guide the District in determining which open space lands to acquire, (b) open Space Lands Evalu- ation - identification of areas which have high composite open Meeting 75-23 Page three space value and areas which have high value for individual open space functions (these factors will also be considered in land acquisition decisions) , and (c) Implementation - a discussion of the District's open space preservation powers and factors which affect land acquisition decisions, as well as a discussion of the open space preservation powers and roles of other agencies and organizations. L. Anderson pointed out that a discussion of urban open space of regional signifi- cance was included in the draft. He said he envisioned that the Master Plan would include a folder with the District' s Basic Policy brochure and a composite map inside. He suggested an appendix should be available to members of the public who wish to study the background of the Master Plan report. He noted that the General Manager ' s suggestion was for approval of the draft Master Plan by the Board, then printing and dis- tribution of the document to public agencies, private organiza- tions and citizens for review and comment. The Board may wish to hold one or more public hearings to consider comments before final adoption of the Master Plan. N. Hanko asked if a statement could be included on page 22 of the draft Master Plan which would indicate that the District' s trails plan would be a consideration in land acquisition. K. Duffy suggested the sentence "Importance of the area in per- forming individual open space functions" could be considered to include the trails function, but that perhaps the sentence could be clarified by adding " . . .as discussed within the docu- ment. " or words to that effect. K. Duffy suggested that the background information on the inside front cover of the Master Plan include a reference to the Board of Directors ' four year terms. N. Hanko asked if Board members wished to be more specific on the cooperative efforts referred to in the Trails Acquisition Policy No. 2 on page seven of the Master Plan. Board members agreed that they wanted to remain flexible and therefore did not want to change the policy. B. Green asked if the figure of $2 ,000,000 on page 2 of the Master Plan for expected revenues during the 1975-1976 fiscal year was correct. She was advised by E. Jaynes that it was correct. Don Weden, Santa Clara County Planner, suggested the following amendments might be appropriate: (a) on page 22 of the Master Plan, the words "considered in the District' s acquisition policies" be added to the sentence "Importance of the area in performing individual open space functions. " and (b) that the words "for four year terms" be inserted after the word "elected" in the second line of the paragraph entitled Governing Body on page 2 of the Master Plan. Meeting 75-23 Page four Motion: N. Hanko moved approval of the Master Plan, as amended, as a draft, and that it be sent to governmental agen- cies, private organizations , and members of the public for review and comment. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VIII . NEW BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION A. Site Naming Policies K. Duffy introduced a memorandum (M-75-152) dated October 16 , 1975 , from the Site Naming Policies Subcommittee, consisting of Directors K. Duffy and D. Wendin. The Subcommittee recommended naming policies for three types of open space areas : Open Space Preserves; Units; and Trails , Use Areas and Topographical Fea- tures. Recommended for names in all categories are geological features or historical persons , uses or events. Units and Trails , Use Areas and Topographical Features could include donors or donor-designated names. Trails, Use Areas and Topographical Features could include honorary or memorial names. N. Hanko said she thought members of the Trails Task Force might have some ideas for naming Trails, Use Areas and Topographical Features. She noted there was a possibility that a trail or use area could be named for a person who would later serve on the Board or staff of the District. Dr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, said he was disturbed that a poor trend might be started because of donor or donor- designated and honorary or memorial names for Units or for Trails , Use Areas and Topographical Features. D. Wendin suggested the words "Present or former" be inserted in front of' the ' sentence "Board or staff members of the District, living or deceased" under C (2) (a) of the recommended site naming policies. The Board agreed to this change. Motion : K. Duffy moved adoption of the site naming policies contained in M-75-152 , dated October 16 , 1975, as amended. B. Green second the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IX. CLAIMS Motion: K. Duffy moved acceptance of the revised claims (C-75- 20) dated October 22 , 1975 . N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board recessed at 8 :37 P.M. and reconvened at 8 :50 P.M. Meeting 75-23 Page five X. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 8:50 P.M. to dis- cuss land negotiations. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 9:37 P.M. Anne Cathcart Crosley District Clerk