Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760303 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) AA1 Mef- ig 76-8 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S March 3, 1976 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL President Hanko called the meeting to order at 7 :30 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, Phyllis Lee and Stanley Norton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 11, 1976 E. Shelley called attention to part of a sentence omitted on page five, B. , Co-Sponsorship of Open Space Conference. J. George said the last sentence should read: "He recom- mended that the MRPD be a co-sponsor of the conference. " By consensus the Board approved the minutes as amended. 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. PUBLIC HEARING A. Proposed Annexation of a Portion of Southern San Mateo County to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District N. Hanko gave a brief history of the formation of the District in 1972 and described the present boundaries and five wards within those boundaries. B. Minutes tes of March 3, 1976 There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of March 3, 1976, and N. Hanko stated the consensus that they were approved as presented. T3age two She 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. She further described the area of southern San Mateo County which is presently being proposed for annexation, advising that testimony re- garding this proposal would be heard this evening as had been at the previous public hearing February 19, 1976 in Menlo Park. N. Hanko said the purpose of the District was to acquire open space lands in the foothills and baylands and to main- tain and protect these lands with expenditures for develop- ment limited to low-intensity uses such as hiking, horseback riding, environmental education, etc. She added that the District is complementary to the more intensely developed park and recreation programs of the cities and County. In less than two years the District has acquired nearly 3,000 acres of land which is fairly evenly distributed geographically. She said the District had nearly doubled its revenue in 1975 through federal and State grants. N. Hanko advised that this second public hearing was 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. As stated at the February 19 public hearing, action was expected to be taken by the Board this evening to approve or disapprove the annexation proposal. She read LAFCO Resolution No. 76-18 in its entirety and advised that copies of the Notice of Public Hearing had been posted and published as required. H. Grench stated that he had reviewed his report (R-76-6) dated February 10, 1976 , regarding the Proposed Annexation of a Portion of Southern San Mateo County to the Mid- peninusla Regional Park District, at the February 19 pub- lic hearing and that he had no further additions. Grench said he was pleased to announce that Herbert Rhodes, Director of State Parks and Recreation, had recommended that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, approve the MRPD' s Land and Water Conservation Fund application in the amount of $210,000 for land acquisition in the Mountain View - Sunnyvale baylands. He informed the Board in response to our Board' s request, on March 9 , 1976 the Santa Clara Valley Water District adopted a resolution of intent to provide public access to the proposed bayland site. S. Norton referred to 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 District, summarizing that the report out- lined the legal requirements for the hearing and the action which the Board is required to take. Page Three He said the legal purpose of the public hearings is to receive and consider all manner of public input, to receive written and oral protests by property owners and voters for or against the annexation and to determine whether a majority protest has been filed. Based upon this determi- nation, S. Norton said the Board would then choose whether or not to adopt a resolution calling for an election within the territory to be annexed. He further stated that at a future meeting the Board would be requested to decide on consolidation with the June 8 statewide primary election. N. Hanko opened the public hearing at 7 :50 P.M. J. George advised that the District had received two written communications in favor of the proposed annex- ation and one written communication questioning some aspects of the annexation. Mrs. Janet R. Zimmerman, 1052 San Remo Way, San Carlos, wrote that she and her husband had been residents and taxpayers in San Carlos for 16 years and strongly supported the annexation of southern San Mateo County to the MRPD and the preservation of open space in that area. Mrs. John Kriewall, 11 Maple Leaf Way, Atherton, wrote ex- pressing her opinion that expansion of the MRPD and the subsequent additional tax necessary was a small price to pay for the preservation of the unique environment of the midpeninsula. She further said she felt the MRPD' s goal of low intensity recreational use of lands was most impor- tant to the success of the open space objective, and that the larger the area covered by one governmental body on the midpeninsula the better the probability of achieving this goal. Mr. Donald W. Kallstrom, 540 Middlefield Road, Atherton, wrote that he had been a resident in the proposed annex- ation area for about 15 years as a property owner, and that he is interested in ecology, land conservation and open space preservation. He mentioned that after the MRPD public hearing in Menlo Park he had been studying the District's Basic Policy, maps and Report R-76-6 , and had made inquiries - all of which raised some comments and questions. His recommendations were as follows: 1. Postponement of the election from June to November, 1976 or any other reasonable date allowing for more time to obtain additional information regarding the costs and effects of the annexation. 2. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors should be required to dispense adequate in- formation to affected residents regarding the pros and cons of the annexation as it affects residents and taxpayers. Page Four 3. Two additional strategically placed public hearings be held in San Mateo County, with county or city personnel possibly participating in San Carlos and Redwood City. N. Hankc, inquired if staff could make themselves available to Mr. Kallstrom to respond to some of the more technical aspects of his letters. H. Grench replied that an appoint- ment had already been ,,arkanged. N. Hankc, asked how much information about the District had been distributed to the newspapers and other advertisements. C. Harrington responded that all the newspapers in southern San Mateo County receive the press packets prior to each Board meeting. There were ads in all the newspapers in Southern San Mateo County specifically concerning the public hearings. In addition, she said Lennie Roberts from the Citizens Committee has frequent communication with the newspapers. She added that she regularly calls the newspapers with information about Board action. Mr. Jack Brook, Director of San Mateo County Parks and Recreation, addressed the Board on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. He said that on March 2 , 1976 the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors reviewed a report on the proposed annexation to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, and at that time two main concerns were raised. The Board of Supervisors felt that holding only one pub- lic hearing in south San Mateo County was not adequate for all interested people to express their views, and that the February 19th meeting conflicted with a San Mateo County Parks and Recreation meeting held the same evening. He read a motion passed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on March 3rd which requested that another pub- lic hearing be held in San Mateo County on the proposed annexation for the purpose of providing additional informa- tion to San Mateo County residents affected by the proposal, prior to setting the final date for placing the measure on the ballot. Mr. Brook stated that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors had authorized and are presently reviewing the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Sub- Element of the General Plan. He said the review is being conducted through the combined efforts of the San Mateo County Planning Department and the Park and Recreation Department and it is the Board of Supervisor' s opinion that the study will generate information relevant to the annex- ation. He read a second motion passed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on March 2rd which requested that the MRPD Board of Directors place the measure on the November, 1976 ballot rather than the June, 1976 ballot, allowing for more time to obtain information from the re- view of the San Mateo County Park and Recreation Sub-Element of the General Plan. Page Five B. Green asked if there were any conflicting meetings with this evening' s meeting. Mr. Brook replied that to his knowledge there were none. Ms. Rhona Williams, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, said she owned a ranch that appeared to exist partially with- in the proposed annexation boundaries and felt the addi- tional tax would be too much of a burden. She asked if it was possible to have her property totally outside the proposed boundary. She commented that more San Mateo County residents should have an opportunity to attend hearings to express their views and ask for a postponement of the election. She said Santa Clara County should not dictate its opinions to San Mateo County. Harry Turner, 481 La Mesa Drive , Menlo Park, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for Annexation, emphasized that the proposed boundaries would truly make the District a "Mid" peninsula Regional Park District. He said the results of the professional public opinion survey taken in June and July of 1975 indicated the level of support for annexation was about 65%. He said that although the survey results were no guarantee on how an election would turn out, it did appear that the proposal was a logical one to South San Mateo County residents. He said he felt there was a sub- stantial amount of voter interest to justify placing the matter on the ballot. He informed the Board that the Cit- izens Committee had been working nearly a year conducting the survey, circulating petitions and giving informational presentations to every city council in the proposed area as well as the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission, etc. He ex- pressed concern for the small amount of open space remaining which is presently not being protected by zoning or by pri- vate property owners. Based upon the MRPD' s past experience and performance with Santa Clara County, he said he hoped the District with its Board, professional staff and finan- cial resources, would work with the Planning Commission of San Mateo County to produce and implement an open space plan relevant to south San Mateo County. He recommended the Board approve a June ballot. Mr. John Kates, 156 Stockbridge Avenue, Atherton, told the Board he had grown up in Atherton and recalled the time when orchards, , fields and open space were abundant inthe Santa Clara valley. He said that with increased population and ur- banization, the open space that is left is most valuable and should be protected by the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. Mrs. Lennie Roberts, 339 La Cuesta, Menlo Park, said she wished to answer the first issue raised by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. In reviewing the legal re- quirements for the District as set forth by Santa Clara County LAFCO resolution 76-18 , she said the intent of the public hearings is to determine whether or not more than 50% of the taxpayers opposed the proposal. Page Six She stated that at the San Mateo public hearing there was not sufficient opposition, and at that meeting the District Board announced they would be requested to take action with regard to a June election at their March 3, 1976 meeting. Addressing the conflict of meetings on February 19 , she suggested that those people who attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting are environmentally con- cerned people who share the same concerns as the people who attended the public hearing, and perhaps might gener- ally favor the annexation. Mrs. Roberts said she felt the hearings held in San Mateo County were sufficient. She said the Citizens Committee would conduct forums dur- ing the weeks prior to the election to inform the public regarding tax costs, benefits, implications of annexation and the good qualities of the District. Gordon Jennings, 441 East Meadow, Palo Alto, said in res- ponse to an earlier comment of Santa Clara County dicta- ting to San Mateo County, he wished to clarify that the MRPD is independent of the County. He said he felt since the District is an apolitical body, it would not be un- reasonable for them to honor the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors request for a November ballot. He commented that San Mateo County has a fine established trails system, and he hoped the subject would be further pursued by the District to reach some clearer decisions as to their poli- cies on trails. Mrs. Francis Spangle, 104 North Balsaminina Way, Menlo Park, said she has been observing the Midpeninsula Regional Park District during the past four years and has been pleased by its progress. She stated she was eager to have the opportunity to join the District and recommended the Board approve a June ballot. H. Turner said he felt a five month delay would diminish the Citizens Committeels. efforts and pointed out the Committee was asking for the Board' s approval to be on the June ballot, not for their recommendation for annexation. He further stressed if the Board voted in favor of a June ballot, the issue would be in front of the entire public; not just a handful of interested citizens. N. Hanko advised that information related to all aspects of the annexation proposal had been circulated for nearly a year and in her opinion it seemed unfair to ask the Citizens Committee to wait further for an election while a board of supervisors considered alternatives. She pointed out that the same alternatives were presented by the Parks and Recreation Director five years ago when the District was being formed and the proponents for open space found the choices undersirable at that time. She advised that, as provided in the annexation sub-program, Board and staff had made themselves available at the various informational meetings for governmental bodies and citizens in San Mateo County. Page Seven She felt that further delay until November would make no difference. She said the Board left ample time be- tween Public Hearings and during the hearings to allow for requests, and no requests had been made until this last meeting. Since the Board is unable to take action in San Mateo County, two additional meetings would be required - one in San Mateo County and one in Santa Clara County. N. Hanko said she favored additional informational type meetings to acquaint people with the District. E. Shelley asked if it would be possible to still place the issue on the June ballot if the Board decided to have additional public hearings in San Mateo County. S. Norton responded that the Board' s decision had to be recorded with the San Mateo County Registrar of Voters by March 18 , 1976. E. Shelley asked how much public notice is required prior to a public hearing. S. Norton replied that fifteen days is needed. B. Green suggested that persons who were unable to attend this evening' s meeting could have sent a written correspon- dence. She observed that in the five years since the citi- zens of San Mateo County first expressed an interest in the District, there had not been any indication from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors of their intent to initiate a separate park district. K. Duffy stressed that the proposal for annexation had been a citizens movement from the beginning. She said the results of the survey, petitions and general public reponse indicated sup- port, and it would be improper to delay the election. She said the District' s past relationship with Santa Clara County had been favorable and any conflict with the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors would be unfortunate. D. Wendin emphasized that the issue was whether or not a vote would be taken, not whether annexation would occur. He said he felt the two public hearings had been well announced. There had not been significant opposition at either hearing, and he did not feel further hearings would be productive. D. Wendin pointed out that the District is one of the prime movers in Santa Clara County' s UD/OS Plan and should election occur and the annexation succeed, he hoped the committee reviewing San Mateo County' s Plan would use the MRPD as a resource. He added that the District' s working relationship with Santa Clara County had been extraordinary, and he felt it would be equally so with San Mateo County. N. Hanko said she thought it would be beneficial for San Mateo County to know whether or not the District would be included as part of the development and implementation of their plan before finalizing the review of that plan. Page Eight She advised that had been the case with the development of the Santa Clara County UD/OS plan and Action Plan, and the District had been instrumental in supporting the County' s plan with comments and suggestions. N. Hanko remarked that as the District was conceived four years ago, the intention was that the District would be a two county agency, extending beyond county boundaries to enable the agency to geographically look at the types of land to be acquired and preserved in open space. She cited the District' s financial resources and four-year borrowing capacity, which no county or city agency has, as assets of a special district which can assist in acquiring land and thus enhancing the County parks plan. E. Shelley said he felt there will be ample time prior to June election for both proponents and opponents to adequately inform the public. There being no one further in the audience who wished to speak, N. Hanko closed the Public Hearing at 8 :40 P.M. MOTION: N. Hanko moved adoption of Resolution No. 76-6 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Ordering San Mateo County Annexation Subject to Confirmation by Voters and Calling an Election Within the Territory Ordered to be Annexed. B. Green seconded the motion. AMENDMENT: D. Wendin moved to amend Resolution No. 76-6, Section 4 , subparagraph two, by adding the clause "which hearing was held on February 19 , 1976 in the Council Chambers of Menlo Park. " B. Green seconded the amendment. The amendment passed unanimously. The motion for adoption of Resolution 76-6 as amended passed unanmiously. K. Duffy requested that a letter of explanation of the Board' s action on the resolution be sent to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors from the President. It was the consensus of the Board that N. Hanko and H. Grench would formulate such a response. N. Hanko brought to the Board' s attention an impartial analysis sent by Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission, noting that it did not require Board action. E. Shelley asked if it was appropriate for the Board to comment on the analysis. H. Grench said it had already been acted upon by LAFCO. N. Hanko asked Legal Counsel to explain the consolidation of elections. Page Nine S. Norton said when calling for an election coinciding with a county, state or as in this case a primary election, it is economical and sensible to have the same election officer do the work for all the elections being held. He recommended that the Board pass a motion instructing staff to prepare a resolution consolidating with the State Primary election and enable hiring of the San Mateo County Registrar of Voters to do the necessary work - preparation of ballots, arguments, mailing, setting of precincts, hiring election officials, holding the election, counting the votes and canvassing the votes. MOTION: E. Shelley moved that staff be directed to prepare a resolution consolidating the election and autho- rizing the hiring of appropriate San Mateo County officials to assist in the conduct of the election. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board recessed at 8 :55 P.M. and reconvened at 9 :05 P.M. IV. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Addition H. Grench introduced his report (R-76-7) dated February 25 , 1976, which gave the present status of the Fremont older Open Space Preserve Addition. On October 8, 1975 the Board of Directors passed a resolution (see Report R-75-19 of October 2 , 1975) which determined that a 68 acre addition would be made to the 266 acre Fremont Older Open Space Pre- serve. Soon thereafter, 36 acres of the 68 were acquired (see memorandum M-75-166 of November 18 , 1975) , leaving 32 acres in four different parcels. He said the Assistant General Manager had been negotiating on the remaining par- cels and had obtained an option agreement on a 5. 8 acre parcel owned by the Cocciardi Corporation. He asked for Board approval of the option at the purchase price of $55,000. He added that by agreement the District is re- quired to pay a civil engineer $2,450 , not $2 ,500 as indi- cated in his report and the option. MOTION: K. Duffy moved adoption of Resolution 76-7 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Authorizing Exercise of Option to Purchase Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Conveyance to District, and Autho- rizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Addition) D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. N I ' Ammeam MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 745 DISTEL DRIVE, LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 Page Ten V. CLAIMS MOTION: D. Wendin moved adoption of the revised claims (C-76-4) dated March 3, 1976 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. N. Hanko abstained because of item #1690. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes - K. Duffy, B. Green, E. Shelley and D. Wendin; Abstain - N. Hanko. VI. ADJOURMENT The meeting adjourned at 9 :10 P.M. Jennie George Deputy District Clerk