Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760219 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) I Me`_ing 76-6 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S February 19 , 1976 Menlo Park City Council Chambers, Ravenswood and Laurel, Menlo Park, CA I . ROLL CALL President Hanko called the meeting to order at 7 :35 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, Carroll Harrington, Jennie George, Stanley Norton and Del Woods . II . PUBLIC HEARING A. Proposed Annexation of a Portion of Southern San Mateo County to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District N. Hanko welcomed the audience and described the existing boundaries of the District. She further described the area of southern San Mateo County which was included in the annex- ation proposal, and advised that testimony regarding the annexation would be heard by the Board this evening and on March 3 1976 at the District office. She intr oduced the Board and staff of the District to the audience , and noted that two new directors would be added to the Board in the event annexation was approved by the voters of southern San Mateo County. N . Hanko stated that the purpose of the District was to acquire open space lands with an emphasis on low-intensity types of development such as hiking, horseback riding , environmental education, etc. She pointed out that the District had acquired nearly 3 ,000 acres in less than two years throughout its boundaries . She said the District had been able to almost double its annual income through federal and State grants and gifts of land. N. Hanko advised that the February 19 and March 3 public hearings were being held pursuant to the conditions set forth in the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 76-18, adopted on February 4 , 1976 , which directed the MRPD to proceed in determining whether or not J Meeting 76-6 Page two the proposed annexation should occur. She then read LAFCO Resolution No. 76-18 in its entirety and stated that copies of the Notice of Public Hearing had been posted and published as required. H. Grench introduced his report (R-76-6) dated February 10 , 1976 , regarding the Proposed Annexation of a Portion of Southern San Mateo County to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. He said that the original boundaries of the MRPD had included southern San Mateo County, but the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors had decided not to allow that County's citizens to vote on the creation of the MRPD. Consequently the MRPD included only northern Santa Clara County, but since that time San Mateo County citizens have remained interested in the District. H . Grench explained that interested citizens had approached the Board about a year ago regarding the possibility of annexa- tion . The Board appointed an Annexation Subcommittee to study the matter. At its April 9 , 1975 meeting , the Board approved tentative annexation boundaries, directed that a professional opinion survey be taken, and determined that a move to annex should be carried out by southern San Mateo County residents rather than the District. It was further determined that the annexation should be voted on by residents of the proposed annexation area only and that two additional wards would be created as the result of such annexation. In July, the results of the public opinion survey showed that nearly 65% of the residents of south San Mateo County favored annexation. At its August 13 meeting , the Board passed a resolution unani- mously supporting the efforts of the Citizens Committee for Annexation. On August 27 , Santa Clara County LAFCO authorized the Committee to circulate petitions, and on February 4 , 1976 , LAFCO approved the petition and directed the District to pro- ceed. The District responded by setting two public hearings to consider testimony regarding the proposed annexation. H . Grench said that after the public hearings the Board would decide (1) whether the annexation election should be allowed, and if so, (2) when such election should be held. The conclu- sions of staff regarding the costs and benefits of such an annexation are as follows: (1) citizens in the proposed an- nexation area have a community of interest with the residents of the present District; (2) the proposed annexation boundaries are logical from political, topographical and open space resource points of view; (3) the benefits in preserving open space in the proposed annexation area through additional tax revenues outweigh the added costs of administration and oper- ation; and (4) the District 's open space program and land use policies complement, rather than compete with, the parks program of San Mateo County and cities . Meeting 76-6 Page three H. Grench said that unless testimony is heard at the public hearings indicating a change in direction, it would be his recom- mendation tha a vote be held in the proposed annexation area on the annexation issue at the June 8 , 1976 primary election. He further stated his intention to continue the degree of Dis- trict involvement in the annexation effort set forth in the Annexation Subprogram of the Action Plan. S. Norton introduced his memorandum (M-76-21) dated February 13 , 1976, regarding the Proposed Annexation of a Portion of South San Mateo County to the Midpeninsula Regional Park Dis- trict. He said that the District had adopted its Resolution No. 76-4 on February 4 , 1976 in response to the LAFCO Resolu- tion No. 76-18 of the same date, stating the District's inten- tion to conduct the annexation proceedings and setting public hearing dates of February 19 , 1976 in San Mateo County and March 3 , 1976 in Santa Clara County. He said the legal pur- pose of the public hearings is to read LAFCO ' s resolution aloud, to receive and consider all manner of public input, to receive written protests by property owners and voters against the annexation, to determine whether a majority protest has been filed, and, if not, to determine whether the territory proposed to be annexed to the MRPD should be annexed, subject to the approval of the voters within the territory at an elec- tion. The Board must consider whether the proposed annexation will be for the interest of landowners or present or future inhabitants within the District and within the territory pro- posed to be annexed, LAFCO' s resolution and any other factors set forth by LAFCO, and and other matters deemed material by the Board. Within thirty days of the conclusion of the public hearings, the Board must adopt a resolution either (1) disapprov- ing the proposed annexation, or (2) ordering that the territory be annexed, subject to confirmation by the voters upon the question of such annexation. S. Norton read Government Code Sections 54796 and 54790 . 2 , stating what factors are to be considered in the review of a proposal such as this annexation, including the conformity of the proposal with adopted LAFCO policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the effect of the proposal on maintain- ing the physical and economic integrity of lands in an agri- cultural preserve in open space uses. In response to questions from N. Hanko, S . Norton stated that any change in the proposed annexation boundaries must be approved by LAFCO. Such a procedure would probably result in a delay of two or three months in the Citizens ' Committee schedule , which aims for a June election. H. Grench advised that tax revenues from the area proposed for annexation would not be received by the District until December, 1977 , assuming the annexation is approved by voters in June, 1976 . S . Norton added that there would be no restraint on the District regarding acquiring land in the annexed area after the election has been certified by the Secretary of State. Meeting 76-6 Page four N. Hanko stated that the Board of Directors would probably be prepared to take action on the annexation proposal at the March 3 , 1976 public hearing. N. Hanko opened the public hearing at 8 : 05 P.M. A. Crosley advised that the District had received five written communications in favor of the proposed annexation, and no written communications opposed to the annexation. Ms. Elsie R. Renne, 114 Cornell Road, Menlo Park, wrote in favor of the annexation, citing the need to preserve open space for the beauty of San Mateo County's hills, to maintain a habitat for wildlife, and to increase the number of public recreation areas. She said southern San Mateo County has a community of interest with northern Santa Clara County, and both counties can work better to protect the natural environ- ment through joint action. S. M. Bancroft, 3027 Barney Avenue, Menlo Park, wrote urging the Board to vote favorably on annexing south San Mateo County to the MRPD. The letter cited the importance of retaining the outstanding natural environment which area residents have inherited. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hess, 2411 Graceland Avenue, San Carlos , wrote in support of the annexation of south San Mateo County to the District. Ms. Annie Urbach, 691 Roble Avenue, Menlo Park, wrote to express her support for the annexation proposal. She said the proposal was, in her opinion, fair, practical, and in the interest of the residents of both San Mateo County and Santa Clara County. Mrs . Lorraine Downing, 365 olive Street, Menlo Park, wrote in support of the annexation of south San Mateo County to the District, pointing out the need to retain the area's remain- ing open space. She said she felt there were too many people and too much development already. Mr. Harry Turner, 481 La Mesa Drive, Menlo Park, introduced himself, Mike Zimmerman and James Goeser as the three indivi- duals who officially presented the annexation petition to LAFCO. He said their work had been directed toward completion of a job begun over five years ago to preserve open space in the midpeninsula. He explained that there were presently five directors from five wards in the MRPD and, if annexation were successful, two additional wards would be created in south San Mateo County with a director from each. Mr. Turner described the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, which includes Menlo Park, Woodside, Redwood City, San Carlos , Portola Valley, Atherton, and East Palo Alto, from the Bay up to the Skyline in the foothills. He said that he believed Meeting 76-6 Page five annexation of this area to the Midpeninsula Regional Park Dis- trict would provide a regional solution to the regional problem of preserving open space. Ms. Lennie Roberts, 339 La Cuesta, Ladera, read the definition of open space contained in the introduction of the Basic Policy of the MRPD. She said the concept of open space was different from traditional parks , but an open space agency complements the functions of a park and recreation agency. Open space pro- vides for scenic backdrops, wildlife and plant habitat, low- intensity use such as trails and nature study, and preserves unpolluted water sources and oxygen for cleaner air. She re- ferred to the East Bay Regional Park District as the first attempt in California to provide for the acquisition of open space. East Bay now has over 30, 000 acres of both open space and park land. In 1972, three additional regional park dis- tricts were created, namely, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, Marin County Regional Open Space District, and Mid- peninsula Regional Park District. All three have a tax rate of 10� per $100 assessed valuation. She said southern San Mateo County and northern Santa Clara County have topographical , social and cultural similarities which can be enhanced by a regional. agency. Mr. Harry Turner pointed out that a professional opinion survey conducted after south San Mateo County residents had received their assessment notices showed that two out of three people felt there was a need for more open space. The survey concluded that an election held at that time to annex south San Mateo County to the MRPD would have been successful. Mr. Turner advised that the City Councils of Woodside, Portola Valley and Menlo Park had endorsed the efforts of the Citizens Committee for Annexation to place the matter on the ballot. He mentioned that Supervisor Fitsgerald had indicated he was not opposed to the efforts of the Citizens Committee. Several area news- papers have announced their support for the annexation movement also. Endorsements have been received from U.S. Representative McCloskey and State Senator Arlen Gregorio, as well as from many other people . Mr. Turner said the MRPD has been acquiring open space land for Santa Clara County at the rate of 6 acres per day. Acqui- sitions have been uniformly distributed throughout the District and all have been unanimously approved by the Board of Directors, an excellent example of the cooperation which exists among Board members. The Board meets twice a month in public meet- ings and is very responsive and visible to its constituents. Nearly half of the residents of San Mateo County already know what the MRPD is . The District spends very little money on administrative costs and employs a highly capable, professional staff . He noted that during the previous fiscal year, the District nearly doubled its income through grants and gifts of Meeting 76-6 Page six land. He said the maintenance of open space land cost very little compared to the maintenance of traditional high-intensity park operations. The District spent less than $100 ,000 this year for maintenance, less than 5% of its tax revenues, and this percentage can be expected to continue. The District can help San Mateo County implement its open space plans and pro- vide regional resources appropriate to a regional area. He noted that any two directors are able to veto the use of bor- owing power to prevent the misuse of funds . Mr. Turner showed the audience slides describing the District, its history and powers, and its open space lands . Mr. Don Weden, 555 West Middlefield Road, Mountain View, said he worked as a planner for the Santa Clara County Planning Department. He said wanted to state his opinion regarding how the MRPD and the County have worked together to implement open space and park plans. He said the MRPD had the resources to purchase open space lands which were not suitable for the recreational uses the County' s program included, but which were valuable from the standpoint of providing scenic backdrops to County lands and acting as "buffers" between County parks and urban development. The MRPD may purchase lands which the County wishes to see remain as open space but does not have the funds to do so. Mr. Weden said he felt the MRPD had saved its taxpayers a substantial amount of money by taking advantage of federal and State grants, negotiating for gifts of land and bargain purchases, and utilizing innovative acquisition methods such as open space easements. In his opinion, the District ' s Board and staff have been open and cooperative with the County, and the District ' s program has benefited and complemented the County' s open space and park plans . Mr. Larry D. Armstrong, 1299 Old Bayshore Highway No. 219 , Bur- lingame, said he was speaking on be of the Governmental Research Council of San Mateo County. He said he was neither in favor of or opposed to the annexation proposal, but he felt the election should be delayed until the completion of a study currently underway by a San Mateo County citizens committee to determine, among other things, where duplication in governmental agencies exist. He noted that San Mateo County residents pay taxes to 96 different governmental entities, and it may be that the San Mateo County Park and Recreation Department is suffi- cient for the purpose of preserving open space. He said over 43,000 acres in San Mateo County is already in public ownership or preserved in other ways, such as through the Williamson Act. He suggested that taxpayers in San Mateo County should have information available to them at the election regarding what annexation to the District will cost. He urged that Board to delay holding an election until the citizens committee had com- pleted its study and made revisions to the General Plan of San Mateo County. Meeting 76-6 Page seven Ms . Penny Bale, 1001 Hermosa Way, Menlo Park, said she was speaking on behalf of Nils Nilsson, President of the Committee for Green Foothills. She summarized his letter to the Board dated February 18, 1976, which expressed the strong endorse- ment of the Committee for Green Foothills for the annexation. The letter cited the difficulties of using zoning powers to prevent urban sprawl, and pointed out the many instances when it is necessary to preserve land for the public through land purchase or acquiring easements or rights. Mr. Nilsson 's letter said the MRPD has worked cooperatively and harmoniously to complement the functions of existing park and recreation bodies, and the best way for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to preserve their open space is through a regional district. The Committee for Green Foothills believes the citizens of San Mateo County should be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed annexation, Ms. Bale concluded. Mr. Win de Wit, 1514 Mitchell Way, Redwood City, introduced himself as a Sierra Club hiker. He said the San Mateo County Park and Recreation Department spends most of its money on development rather than acquisition. There is a need for an agency with the resources and commitment to purchasing open space land rather than developing facilities . He said he favored annexation of south San Mateo County to the MRPD as the only practical means of preserving remaining open space. Mr . Norton Batkin, 148 Oakdale Street, Redwood City, said he was a member of the Citizems Committee for Annexation and a property owner. He said Redwood City has a Master Plan, sub- ject to review by a citizens ' committee, of which he is a member. Although the Master Plan designated open space areas , there are no funds budgeted in Redwood City' s five-year budget for the acquisition of open space . This, he said, points out the great need San Mateo County has for the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. Ms . Charlotte Schultz introduced herself as a representative for Senator Arlen Gregorio. She said the Senator was supportive of the efforts of the Citizens Committee for Annexation to place the matter on the ballot. The Senator felt the Midpen- insula Regional Park District had an excellent record of land acquisition and would complement the work of the San Mateo County governmental agencies. Mr. John Kates, 156 Stockbridge, Atherton, said he and his wife had recently moved to this area from Washington, D.C. They have both been very impressed with the effectiveness of the MRPD in preserving open space land, and strongly urged the Board to approve placing the annexation matter on the ballot. He added that he and his wife had assisted in obtaining signa- tures on the annexation petitions. Meeting 76-6 Page eight Ms. Lennie Roberts submitted a letter from the President of the Board of Directors of the Ladera Recreation District, Mr . Frank Small. Mr. Small advised the MRPD that the Ladera Recreation District , at its November , 1975 meeting , endorsed placing the annexation issue on the June, 1976 ballot. Mr. Kenneth Cooperrider, 1153 Santa Cruz Avenue , Menlo Park, said he and his wife lived in the East Bay area some years ago, and had been aware of the need for open space agencies similar to the East Bay Regional Park District. A regional park district complements other park and recreation agencies and does not compete with their functions. The annexation will add a logical area to the MRPD. The advantage of a single- purpose agency is that its Board of Directors is not pressured by other problems and demands, such as a Board of Supervisors . Mr. Cooperrider said the Williamson Act is not a guarantee that lands will be left in open space, because the open space commitment is only good for ten years while a landowner receives a tax reduction. If the landowner pays back taxes at any time, the land is released from its Williamson Act status. Generally the Williamson Act is only as good as long as a landowner has no great pressure to develop the property. Mr. Cooperrider said he felt the MRPD had done a magnificent job in the past two years. He said if there were any people undecided about whether or not to vote for annexation to the District, they should ask their children ' s opinion. Ms . Jane Land, 730 Monte Rosa Drive, Menlo Park, said she was representing the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County. In her letter of February 19 , 1976 , Ms. Land stated the support of the League for the annexation of south San Mateo County to the MRPD. The League has several positions which advocate support of measures that insure adequate parks and open space, she said, and the annexation is consistent with those positions . Mr. Dick Bishop, 1797 Elizabeth Street, San Carlos, said he represented the Peninsula Regional Group pf the Sierra Club, which was in favor of the proposed annexation. He said the Group was willing to work to achieve its approval at the June , 1976 election. He said he wished to commend the District for its unique and effective acquisition program. Other agencies have limitations of money and various demands which prevent them for having an effective open space acquisition function. The MRPD, he said, will complement other agencies, and the Board of Directors should approve placing the matter on the ballot. A letter from Sidney J. Liebes, Jr. , 98 Monte Vista Avenue, Atherton, was delivered as a written communication. Mr. Liebes said he enthusiastically supported the proposed annex- ation. He said the District constitutes a superb mechanism Meeting 76-6 Page nine for the efficient and effective preservation of open space. He said the District would provide an excellent complement to the traditional functions of county park and recreation departments. Mr. Liebes observed that the District has given the taxpayers maximum return for their tax dollars, and he was certain the District would maintain its high standard of performance . Mr. Mike Zimmerman, 160 Redland Road, Woodside, said the Citizens Committee for Annexation appreciated the District 's support for their efforts. He said he had worked on the San Mateo County Charter for Parks program, and from that work it was clear that San Mateo County needed a stable, continuing source of income for open space acquisition. He said the San Mateo County Park and Recreation Department had to spend its money on other things, such as park development, recreation programs, etc. A special purpose district such as the MRPD has a single pur- pose, and according to the League of Women Voters visible to the public. Mr. James Goeser, 222 Frances Lane, San Carlos, said there were hidden costs to taxpayers when development replaces open space, such as increased taxes for fire protection, water and sewage services, etc. Much of the open space land in the foot- hills may soon be zoned residential, and citizens will have to pay for services to these areas. Ms. Lennie Roberts said she felt the timing of the election was proper, and many months of hard work would be wasted if an election was postponed. She acknowledged that there was a review planned for the San Mateo County General Plan, but the idea was initiated a year ago and not expected to be completed before June of 1977 . If the election is not held until after that time, opportunities for saving prime open space land may be lost. She urged that the matter of annexation be placed on the June, 1976 ballot. N . Hanko closed the public hearing at 9 :32 P.M. N. Hanko advised that further comments on the proposed annexa- tion could be made at the March 3 , 1976 meeting of the Board of Directors, which would be held at the District office at 745 Distel Drive, Los Altos . Motion: E . Shelley moved that the Board of Directors conclude the San Mateo County portion of the Public Hearings on the proposed annexation of a portion of south San Mateo County to the Midpeninsula Regional Park Dis- trict, and that the Public Hearing be continued on March 3, 1976 at the District offices in Los Altos. B . Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unan- imously. Meeting 76-6 Page ten N. Hanko said she hoped those citizens working on revisions to the San Mateo County General Plan would keep in mind the good work that was done in the late 1960 's by San Mateo County residents. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9 :40 P.M. Anne Cathcart Crosley District Clerk B. Minutes of February 19, 1976 On page five, last paragraph, eighth line, N. Hanko sug- gested the sentence begin with the addition "According to the professional survey, " nearly half of the residents of San Mateo County already know what the MRPD is. H. Turner requested the addition of the sentence "San Mateo County Supervisors and San Mateo County LAFCO were not on record as opposing the proposed annexation" in that same paragraph. VI { II t i •ham Y 4 "A ,. _t .sing 76-6 oe gn MIOPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S Febr y 19 , 1976 Men Park City Co cil Ch hers, Ravens d and La rel, Menlo P k, CA I . RO CALL Pr sident Hanko ca ed t e meeting to ord r at 7 :35 M. M mbers Present- Kath rine Duffy, Barb ra Green, onette nko, Edward elley and Daniel endi ersonnel P esent: erbert Gr nch, E ward Jay es, Jor Olson, nne Crosl y, Carr 1 Harrin on, Je ie Geor e, Stanley orton a Del Wo s. II . PUBLIC EARING ro osed A nexati f a Port ' n of outhern San Mateo Count to he Mio insula Re Tonal ark District N . Hanko wel omed h audience a d de ribed the exis ing boundaries the trict. She fur r described th area of souther San a o County whi h w included in thL annex- ation prop sal , ar advis tha to t o "y regarding e annexatio wou d e hea th B ar his evening a d on March 3 , 976 at the D' str ct o ce. She intr duce the Board an st ff of t Di riot o the audien and noted that two e d 'rect s wo ld be added to th Bo rd i the event an x t' n w appr ved by the voter of outh rn San Mateo Co y. N . Hanko st ted hat th purpose of th Distr ct was to acquire op sp ee land with an emp sis on low-in ns t types of d vel pment s ch as hiking, horseb k ridi , environme al educatio , etc. She ointed ut that t e District ad squired early 3 ,000 acres i less th t o years througho i s bounda ies . She id the District h d een able to lm st double its annua income th ough fe ra and State gr n s and gift of land. N. Hanko dvised tha the Fe uary 19 and March p lic hearings were being eld pur uant to the condit ons et forth in the Santa Clara Cc unty cal Agency F rmati n Co ission Resolution No. 76-18, ado ed on Februar 4 , 76 , hich directed the MRPD to ro ed in determin ng ether or not