Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760324 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 76-11 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S March 24, 1976 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Hanko at 7 : 31 P.M. Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green and Edward Shelley. Member Absent: Katherine Duffy Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson, Anne Crosley, Carroll Harrington, Robert Garcia, Del Woods, Jennie George and Stanley Norton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 28 , 1976 N. Hanko called attention to an error on page two, item III of the minutes. Premise IV should be corrected to read "Premise IA. " On page nine, paragraph seven, the word "purpose" should replace the word "person. " N. Hanko suggested that Mr. Joe Hootman' s issues on page ten, paragraph one be included with Robert Gaertner' s summary on page eleven, paragraph two of the minutes. N. Hanko pointed out a typographical error on page seventeen, paragraph eleven in the word "permit. " N. Hanko asked J. Olson for clarification of a statement on page nineteen, paragraph five. He said that the second sen- tence, the word "cars" should replace the word "people. " N. Hanko stated the consensus of the Board that the minutes of February 28 , 1976 be approved as amended. Page two B. Minutes 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. 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. D. Minutes of March 18, 1976 N. Hanko asked S. Norton for clarification of a statement on page two, paragraph five. The second sentence in that para- graph was changed to read "It was his understanding that the strategy at the time the District was created was to avoid encouraging intensive use of the land so that resources would not be dissipated and the acquisition program would be as successful as possible. " N. Hanko stated the consensus of the Board that the minutes of March 18, 1976 be approved as amended. III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS H. Grench pointed out the letter from Bob Amyx, Director of Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department, inviting District representatives to make a presentation before the Santa Clara County Parks Commission on April 7 at 7 : 30 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors ' Chambers. H. Grench said he would be presenting the District' s present and future programs, and he said that interested Board members had been invited to attend. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA H. Grench requested that K. Duffy' s memorandum be considered under New Business With No Action Requested as item No. 3. Page three V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Ed Schell, P.O. Box 1345, Los Gatos, announced that Santa Clara County and the Town of Los Gatos would be having a hillside study committee meeting in May, and the District would be receiving a request to make a presentation. He also informed the Board that the West Valley College Astronomy Lab would be conducting study sessions on the evenings of April lst and 3rd at the El Sereno Open Space Preserve, and the Board and staff were invited to attend. VI. OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED A. Land Use Workshop Follow-Up (a) Results of Preference Poll on Specific Sites H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-76-36, dated March 18 , 1976) regarding the Land Use Workshop Follow-Up, which stated that the March 18 Board meeting a Board Subcommittee composed of Directors D. Wendin and E. Shelley was appointed to pre- pare a statement which they felt reflected the consensus of the Board with regard to interpretation of the District' s Basic Policy on land use, and that this statement would be presented to the Board at its March 24 , 1976 meeting. H. Grench said a preference poll was distributed to Board members at the March 18 meeting for them to complete, and the results of that poll would be discussed at this meeting. He said he felt it would be useful to clarify any ambiguities on the poll. N. Hanko inquired if the newspopers had received copies of the completed poll. C. Harrington replied that they had. N. Hanko asked if action would be necessary on the Land Use Workshop Subcommittee' s report to aid staff in their prepara- tion of the Action Plan update. H. Grench said he felt with the results of the poll and the Subcommittee report, staff could proceed with the Action Plan. D. Wendin said he did not think it was necessary for the Board to thoroughly analyze the poll step by step and that any issues needing further clarification could be addressed through the individual site plans. He further said he felt the Board' s role is to make general policies, and detailed site planning should be done at the staff level . The poll should be treated as useful information for staff, but not binding. B. Green suggested that when staff is planning a specific site they could refer to the poll for the Board' s opinions on a particular site and any interpretation problems could Page four be clarified at that time. She said most of her answers were of a time sequence nature. She explained that she felt the largest part of the cost of increased land use will be in patrolling, and that there should be a time sequence in opening certain properties to allow for a gradual cost esca- lation. E. Shelley said in answering the questions on the poll he was not trying to give site specific plans but was trying to reach a general overall perspective of the type of develop- ment and direction the District is to be heading. N. Hanko said the intent of the preferential poll was to reflect the leanings of the Board on specific sites so when developmental costs are being considered, staff can carefully formulate the site plans. E. Shelley asked for clarification of the term vehicular access. J. Olson replied that his interpretation was the method by which users arrive at a parking lot, for example, whether by car, bus or bicycle. He commented that in the past, there seemed to be sentiment to allow open access to a site without making provisions for parking and that was the reason for separate questions on the poll referring to vehicu- lar access and parking. Ed Schell said there have been unfavorable feelings among some citizens of Los Gatos with regard to El Sereno open Space Preserve. Traditionally, people have taken a one- half mile hike from the town to the site, passing through private property, and the public has indicated a desire for direct access from the town. N. Hanko said she wished to have the District operate its own sites for at least three years to gain experience. E. Shelley said he would support having other agencies operate District-owned lands if the use were compatible with District policies. N. Hanko said the poll indicated unanimous support for further study on the permit system by staff report. D. Wendin commented that he thought further study by staff report was necessary if the Board did not have a consensus with regard to the permit system. N. Hanko said there appeared to be a consensus among the Board members that the District' s goals and policies should be publicized beyond the present level. -ge f ive D. Wendin advised that the Land Use Workshop Subcommittee recommended agendizing the matter of publicity because they felt it would be difficult to educate the public about open space without publicizing sites. H. Grench asked for a clarification of the Board' s consensus o,n what use would be made of the preference poll. N. Hanko stated the consensus that the Board expects that the poll will assist the staff in developing individual site plans, and it was not intended to be a statement of Board policy. (b) Report of Subcommittee D. Wendin introduced the Land Use Subcommittee' s memorandum (M-76-44, dated March 23, 1976) which sets forth a Draft Statement of Board consensus on Land Use Policies. He said the Subcommittee had tried to indentify what the questions were with regard to land use and, where questions were visible, draw a consensus. Whenever possible, he said, they tried to make a statement for further discussion to establish a general policy. He said the real issue appeared to be how soon sig- nificant adverse impact would .,occur in relationship to public access. The Subcommittee felt there appeared to be no con- sensus ,of the Board on the following: (a) Staff resources required for patrol and maintenance. (D. Wendin explained that this referred to cost problems. ) (b) Staff resources required for administration. (c) The impact which greater emphasis on land use would have on the ability of key per- sonnel to implement the land acquisition program, and how soon? (d) The extent to which volunteers can substi- tute for staff. (e) Signing of sites. (f) Publicity of sites. (g) The feasibility of using a lack of parking to effectively limit access. (h) The proper time to plan expansion of parking. D. Wendin said Board consensus appeared to be that no permits would be issued for individuals except on environmentally sensitive sites, and that these could be issued on the site. The Subcommittee suggested the following statement as a policy for Board consideration: Staff shall prepare site specific plans which allow for free public access as soon as possible after approval of the site plan. Page six For each site, the plan shall include the phasing necessary to protect the environment as the use increases, including both the ecology of the site and the neighborhood. The plan shall detail how all aspects of public access will be handled, in- cluding patrol and parking. The phasing shall be consistnet with the limitations of the budget al- located for the land use program. The Subcommittee further suggested that (a) regional trails, (b) the Trails Task Force, and (c) signing and publicity be placed on the April 14 agenda. N. Hanko asked for an explanation of the word "free" in line two of the proposed policy statement. D. Wendin replied it meant "without restriction. " E. Shelley suggested the Board should decide whether or not they planned to take final action on any parts of the Subcommittee' s report. D. Wendin suggested that the Board try and correct some vocabulary misunderstandings at this meeting and carry other items in the report over to the April 14 meeting for further discussion. N. Hanko said in her opinion the items mentioned in No. 4, on which there appears to be no consensus, ..would be answered by staff in the site specific plans; however, it could be left open in the event K. Duffy had an opinion. N. Hanko said she would like to discuss item Nos. five and six at the April 14 meeting before drawing conclusions. H. Grench asked if the significant adverse impact on the land acquisition program in relationship to phasing con- sistent with the limitations of the budget allocated for the land use program would be discussed at the April 14 meeting. E. Shelley said he favored setting policies at the budget level and have staff plan land use accordingly. D. Wendin suggested the Subcommittee meet with the Controller and General Manager to further study phasing on afinancial basis. E. Shelley said he felt the overriding issue was that before staff can establish a time line for phasing of the site specific plans, the budget would also have to indicate this over the next ten years. He strongly urged that long-term costs of public access be established. N. Hanko stated that the issues of signing and publicity would be placed on the April 14 agenda. Page seven Mrs. Dorothy Jennings, 441 East Meadow-Dr... Palo Alto,, said she did not feel that the policy as stated for Board consideration reflected an adequate summary description of the workshop issues. She suggested formulation of several paragraphs which begin with the phrase "In general, the Board would support . . . " E. Shelley said he felt the Board must address the mechanism by which it hopes to establish the long-term spending limi- tations for land use. H. Grench reminded the Board that staff, with the volunteer help of Dr. Robert Mark, would be developing some cost models and projections and that the first year baseline for this model could be 1975-76 budget. He said the Board could supply the slope of the line which gives land use expenditures as a function of the year. The Board agreed by consensus to discuss Budget Limitations as a Planning Tool on the April 14 agenda and that the Sub- committee would meet with the General Manager prior to that. The Board recessed at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened at 9: 20 P.M. VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Report on Annexation Procedures H. Grench' s memorandum (M-76-45, dated March 23 , 1976) intro- duced a Report on Annexation Procedures and recommended that the Board of Directors designate the District Clerk to choose the pro and/or con ballot argument (s) to be submitted to the voters. A. Crosley introduced her memorandum (M-76-43, dated March 23 , 1976) on Annexation Procedures, which outlined the required schedule and deadlines in accordance with an agreement between the County of San Mateo and the Midpeninsula Regional Park District with respect to the June 8 , 1976 annexation election. She said the most important item for Board consideration was the pro and/or con ballot arguments, which must be submitted to the Spanish translator on Friday , April 16. The deadline for submission of the ballot arguments is 5: 00 P.M. on Thursday April 15. She requested that the Board designate the District Clerk to be responsible for the selection of the final ballot arguments. A. Crosley advised that the invitation to submit arguments would be published by April 2 in the Redwood City Tribune, and the Notice of Election would be published in the San Mateo Times in May. H. Grench mentioned that with regard to the invitation to submit ballot arguments, any legal requirements would be met with legal advertising. In addition, the District would place additional prominent advertising in the papers of the invitation to all citizens to submit pro or con ballot argu- ments. Page eight D. Wendin suggested the Board might give the District Clerk guidelines to aid in choosing among competing arguments should there be more than one pro and more than one con argument. S. Norton informed the Board that first priority for selection would be the Board of Directors of the MRPD, and second pri- ority would be a citizen' s organization or group of citizens with signatories up to five. He added that it is the pattern of the law that the Clerk selects the arguments and is legally required to follow priorities. Mr. Donald W. Kallstrom, 540 Middlefield Road, Atherton, said he had been authorized to represent Atherton, whose council, he said, is the only council in the proposed annexation area who had voted against the annexation. He stated that their opposition was based on the tax increase, not on the open space principal, and that they supported the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors' request for delay of the election. Mr. Kallstrom said he might submit a con argument. He requested that complete information and cooperation be available from the District so that he could inform his town and other inter- ested persons. N. Hanko advised Mr. Kallstrom that much of the information he needed was available in the Report on Annexation Procedures. D. Wendin requested that if there are competing con arguments, those not selected be notified the day of the District' s decision. A. Crosley replied that this would be done. N. Hanko suggested that staff consult the survey to determine the largest readership and place notification in those papers . S. Norton advised that each voter in San Mateo County will receive a sample ballot in the mail which will contain the impartial ballot analysis and the arguments both pro and con. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District designate the District Clerk to select the pro and/or con ballot arguments to be delivered in pamphlet form to San Mateo County May 1. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: N. Hanko, E. Shelley, B. Green and D. Wendin; ABSENT: K. Duffy B. Citizens Advisory Group for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. H. Grench introduced Director K. Duffy' s memorandum (M-76-42, dated March 23, 1976) expressing her concern that the citizens advisory group for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve might be requiring too much time and effort from staff and questioning its value. P, nine H. Grench said in terms of scheduling the site planning process for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, he needed to know if the Board wanted to have staff continue with the advisory committee. He advised that on March 26, 1976, the Board directed staff to begin informal contact with individuals and interested groups with respect to Permanente Creek Park and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, and that a citizens' committee for each be established at an appro- priate time. B. Green asked what implications a two-week delay would have. J. Olson replied there is a lead time necessary in the plann- ing process. He said if the advisory group is formulated right away, the earliest possible presentation of the Use and Management Plan to the Board would be at the April 28 meeting. He said he is presently working with the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Altos with regard to use by day camps. He emphasized that there are numerous activities to coordinate for completion of the plan. E. Shelley suggested that the Board already approved the citizens advisory group and any objections on the part of K. Duffy could be discussed at the April 14 meeting. N. Hanko said Director Duffy' s concerns were that the structure and the expectations of the citizens' committee were vague. N. Hanko asked for further explanation of the expected accomplishments of the group. J. Olson named the group participants, their varied specific backgrounds and interests and the reasons they were selected. He said the group will function in an advisory capacity to staff, and their purpose was to encourage a dialogue that would integrate all the factors influencing the plan. He said there was nothing irrevocable about this process, and that final decisions on the plan would be made by the Board of Directors. N. Hanko stated the consensus of the Board that staff continue with the Citizens Advisory Group and that changes could be made if necessary when K. Duffy returned to discuss the matter. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Joint Planning for Skyline' Regional Trail H. Grench said staff wanted to inform the Board of work that has been going on with the County of Santa Clara and the State of California on joint planning for a skyline trail. J. Olson said Herbert Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recrea- tion in California, had circulated a letter to most park agencies in the State requesting recommendations of priority trails to be funded by the State in 1976-77. ParTe ten Mr. Rhodes emphasised that the trails should meet urban needs. J. Olson said he felt a coordinated effort of several agencies would have more influence than individual proposals. He said he made a brief presentation to the Trails Task Force, then had a meeting with representatives from San Mateo County Parks and Recreation, Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation, City of Palo Alto and the area representatives for the State. It was agreed by all the representatives to support the proposed trail plan. J. Olson said a draft letter is being circulated among the involved agencies for their comment. He said the State will fund acquisition and development, but not operation. He showed the trail proposal on a map. Mrs. Dorothy Jennings asked what types of uses are being proposed to the State. J. Olson replied equestrian, hiking and bicycle. IX. CLAIMS Motion: N. Hanko moved acceptance of the revised claims (C-76-6) dated March 24 , 1976. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote : AYES: N. Hanko, B. Green, E. Shelley, D. Wendin; ABSENT: K. Duffy X. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 10 :25 P.M. to discuss land negotiations. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11 :10 P.M. Jennie George Deputy District Clerk i A. Minutes of March 24 , 1976 K. Duffy asked that the last paragraph on page eight of the minutes be changed to read "does not meet her expectations or those of the Board and may lead to misunderstandings" after the words "Fre- mont Older Open Space Preserve. " N. Hanko suggested the last paragraph on page four of the minutes reflect that there seemed to be some doubt as to whether or not there was a consensus on publicizing District goals and policies. N. Hanko suggested the word "issued" be changed to "required" in the next to last paragraph on page five of the minutes. N. Hanko suggested the last sentence in paragraph one on page six substitute the words "agendized at a later date" for "be placed on the April 14 agenda. " B. Green suggested the word "at" be inserted between the words "that" and "the" in the third line of the second paragraph on page three of the minutes. N. Hanko stated the consensus that the minutes of March 24 , 1976 be approved with the above changes.