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