Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760310 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 76-9 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S 745 Distel Drive March 10, 1976 Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Hanko 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, Robert Garcia, Phyllis Lee and Del Woods. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 5, 1976 N. Hanko suggested the following sentence be added to the fourth paragraph on page two of the minutes : "If an inter- pretation results in a new policy, the matter should be agendized. " The Board agreed that this change be made. N. Hanko suggested the following sentence be added to the fifth paragraph on page two: "The option to visit sites should be available to Board members. " The Board agreed that this change be made. H. Grench suggested the last sentence in the fifth paragraph - "It was the consensus that the General Manager had to 'play it by ear. "' - be inserted instead after the second sentence in that paragraph. The Board agreed that this change be made. N. Hanko asked that an annual review of sites and informational reports at meetings be added to the minutes as ways in which the District can keep informed. The Board agreed that this change be made. It was agreed that the third paragraph on page three of the minutes be replaced with the following sentence: "The sub- ject of wardism was raised , and it was agreed it should be discussed by the Board at another time. " Meeting 76-9 Page two It was the consensus of the Board that the minutes of Febru- ary 5, 1976 be approved as amended. III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no written communications. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda was adopted by consensus of the Board . V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications at this time. VI. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Mid peninsula Regional Park District Requesting Consolidation of Election and Requesting Authority for Registrar of Voters to Assist District Clerk in the Conduct of the San Mateo County Annexation Election to be Held on June 8, 1976 S. Norton advised that Board that it would be necessary to pass a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Requesting Consolidation of Election and Requesting Authority for Registrar of Voters to Assist District Clerk in the Conduct of the San Mateo County Annexation Election to be Held on June 8 , 1976. He said the purpose of the resolu- tion was to obtain the election services of the San Mateo County election officials for the June 8 election, advising them that the District would pay the required election costs. In response to a question from B. Green, S . Norton stated that regional park district law does not provide for rebuttals to ballot arguments. He further advised that the Board has retained the right, under Section Five of the Resolution, to receive, file and select the ballot arguments for and/or against the annexation measure. He said a certain procedure for selection of the arguments must be followed, and he would be submitting a written report to the Board on this subject at a later date. Motion: B. Green moved adoption of Resolution No. 76-8, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District Requesting Consolidation of Election and Requesting Authority for Registrar of Voters to Assist District Clerk in the Conduct of the San Mateo County Annexation Election to be Held on June 8, 1976 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 76-9 Page three VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED A. Presentation of 1975 Progress Report H. Grench distributed copies of the 1975 Progress Report of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District which had been received from the printer that afternoon. C. Harrington said the Progress Report would be sent to city officials and staffs, and to other public and private organizations and interested citizens. B. Comparison of Land Management Costs H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-76-29) dated March 4 , 1976, regarding a report on the Comparison of Land Management Costs which was prepared for Board discussion. J. Olson introduced his report (R-76-8) dated March 3 , 1976 , which sets forth a Comparison of Land Management Costs of public lands owned by other public agencies and one private company. He said he chose open space sites which are operated similarly to how MRPD sites might be operated, as follows : (a) Marin Municipal Water District watershed lands; (b) East Bay Municipal Utilities District watershed lands, specifically the San Pablo and San Leandro areas; (c) the privately owned San Jose Water Works Company lands; (d) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, specifically the Peninsula watershed and the Alameda watershed areas; (e) East Bay Regional Park District lands, specifically Tilden, Garin, Coyote Hills, Las Trampas, Briones and Wildcat Canyon park areas; (f) City of Palo Alto Foothills Park; (g) Marin County Regional open Space District; and (h) Midpeninsula Regional Park District lands. Included in the report were two charts, one of which set forth data about the acreage, staffing, capital improvement invest- ment, planning and administrative costs, users, and cost per person and per acre for each of the land units studied. The other chart compared factors which affect management costs and land use, such as type of use, public awareness of agency and/or specific land unit, attractiveness of land, proximity of land to urban areas, quality of other open space lands, type of permit system, etc. J. Olson presented some projected costs of operating District sites based on different types of use. He separated the cost of maintenance and patrol from the cost of providing capital improvements. He noted that signing sites would probably Meeting 76-9 Page four attract visitors who reside outside the District. One impli- cation of signing is that night patrol may be needed, which could necessitate doubling patrol staff. Generally, J. Olson felt there was a range of costs which could apply to types of land use, and that increased costs are related primarily to the intensity of use and number of users of a site. J. Olson felt there is potential for greater use of District sites within the current land management budget, or with a slight budget increase, especially through use by controlled groups. He added that the District's docent program could be expected to handle much of the demand for use. J. Olson said the question is how can the District phase the opening of its lands consistent with having sites that physically lend them- selves to increased use without impacting the local area or the District' s land acquisition budget. He suggested the District might include, as part of a long-term approach to opening its lands, a comprehensive review of recreation and open space preferences, needs and resources. At that time (perhaps eight years from now) the District ' s priorities and management plans could be integrated with those of other agencies. He recommended that the Board suggest a proposed budget ceiling which they would be willing to allow in the open space resources program. Staff could then return with an outline of the level of use and site plans which might be implemented with the budget ceiling. Dr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, said he found no valid correlation in the land management cost data between size and cost or between users and capital investment. He suggested no conclusions could be drawn from the data to assist in deci- sions on land use. D. Wendin said the data was helpful in showing a range of possible costs to the District in future years. He noted that each agency used in the survey had a somewhat differ- ent purpose, but the cost data cannot be ignored, whether it relates closely to the District or not. If the cost per acre of managing District lands is so low (e.g. , $10/ that it does not affect the land acquisition program, then there is no problem. However, he added, if the figure is much greater than that, which is very likely, then the land acquisition program will be affected. B. Green said she felt the data could not be compared in a meaningful way with the District ' s sites. N. Hanko said she felt District lands would not receive the same use as the areas compared in the survey. She asked if some additional data could be compiled on places like Hidden Villa and the Stanford lands, Sunnyvale Mountain Park, Burne Park in Los Altos Hills and Esther Clark Park in Palo Alto. Meeting 76-9 Page five J. Olson said comparing private with public lands was somewhat tricky because public agencies have special responsibilities, such as for providing maintenance and patrol. N. Hanko stated the Board 's consensus that the compilation of additional land management figures would be left to the dis- cretion of staff. H. Grench presented the results of some calculations on land acquisition versus land management expenditures over a period of years based upon the average cost per acre approach. He said he felt it might be helpful to prepare some cost projections which might indicate land management costs for the District, using different models, since this model may not be a valid approach. E. Shelley said he did not think changes in the use of District lands would have much effect on the land acquisition program. Mr. Gordon Jennings, 441 East Meadow, Palo Alto, said he felt the land management cost data contained in the report could be very useful. It was his observation that the amount of money spent by park and recreation agencies on recreation was equal to the amount of money budgeted for that purpose. He felt it was important to know where the expenditures were coming from, e.g. , how is staff time being spent. He suggested the District should try different land uses to gain experience and provide it with data. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board recess for a short period. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board recessed at 9 :00 P.M. and reconvened at 9 :20 P.M. J. Olson suggested the District would be able to compile its own data based on its experiments with different sites. K. Duffy asked why restrooms had been included in the cost data for primitive staging areas. J. Olson replied that some health departments require that restrooms be provided when the use of a site reaches a certain level. N. Hanko said she would like to see the costs which the Dis- trict will have to spend for maintenance and patrol if no attempt is made to attract users or provide facilities. H. Grench advised that such data would be difficult to project and separate from the costs if there is little public use. R. Marks said it was his opinion the cost data provided in the study represented the highest possible cost that could occur under each circumstance. Meeting 76-9 Page six J. Olson said there were many small things which rangers must take care of during the course of their duties that are related to how many people use an area, for example, finding lost dogs or children, helping a visitor whose car does not work, dealing with motorcyclists or kids playing with matches , and dozens of small, time-consuming activities. J. Olson emphasized that there were a number of things the District could experiment with in order to increase land use without affecting the budget greatly. He felt the District should move cautiously regarding attracting users, since many agencies had made the mistake of exhausting their land acquisi- tion funds through patrol, maintenance and capital improvement expenditures. H. Grench added that the administration and effort of trying just a few experiments will be quite a project in itself. D. Wendin said he felt the Board should keep in mind the manage- ment energy that will be spent on land use projects , since properties which are close to the urban area will require close supervision. He said the District cannot ignore its legal liability, or expect that the District ' s lands will take care of themselves. Mr. Hunt Corregan, 11625 South Stelling Road, Cupertino, said the District would have fewer land management costs if it did not sign its sites or provide facilities such as parking lots. B. Green said she favored phased increase of use on District lands, on a site-by-site basis. J. Olson said the District' s lands provided a unique situation in that the sites are highly desirable, close to a highly populated urban area, and alternate open space sites operated by other agencies are limited. N. Hanko proposed that another poll of Board members be taken, listing the District ' s sites and potential variables. The poll could include a timetable. D. Wendin said such a poll should include a number of given factors, such as access. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that a poll would be prepared by N. Hanko and staff. C. Land Use Workshop Follow-Up H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-76-31) dated March 4 , 1976, which suggested an early scheduling of those aspects of land use policies which will have an important bearing on the new Action Plan and budget. N. Hanko noted that the Board had just received the minutes of the February 28 Land Use Workshop and had not had an opportun- ity to review them. She suggested that a Board/staff meeting Meeting 76-9 Page seven be scheduled to discuss the responses made to some of the premises at the workshop, in particular the premises dealing with public access, money spent on the Open Space Resources Program, signing and advertising. Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board of Directors hold a Special Meeting on Thursday, March 18, 1976 from 12: 00 Noon until 2: 00 P.M. for the purpose of con- ducting a Land Use Workshop follow-up discussion. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ed Schell, P.O. Box 1345, Los Gatos, said he felt there was a beneficial change in attitude during the workshop from some negative attitudes at the beginniig. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Radich Subdivision H . Grench said he would like the Board to be aware of a pro- posed subdivision being planned for the area. between Highway 280 and Permanente Creek Park. J. Olson described the location of the proposed subdivision in relation to Permanente Creek and advised that the District' s interest in the development depended on County plans for the area. He said the creek area, consisting of about one acre, might be offered to the District if the developers are able to resolve sewer arrangements for the subdivision. The ques- tion may take some time to resolve , he added. IX. CLAIMS Motion: E. Shelley moved acceptance of the revised claims (C-76-5) dated March 10 , 1976 . B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 10 :27 P.M. to dis- cuss land negotiations. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11: 24 P.M. Anne Cathcart Crosley District Clerk C. Minutes of March 10, 1976 Dr. Robert Mark requested the following changes: On page four, paragraph three, the word "valid" in the first sentence be changed to "significant" and the addition of the phrase "but the strongest correlation was between users and capital in- vestment. " Dr. Mark also requested that the last paragraph on page five be deleted from the minutes. N. Hanko stated the consensus of the Board that the minutes of March 10, 1976 be approved as amended. I ,ICI I 'I