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