HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760825 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) ---- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
eeting 76-23
_kk
MR.
Alamo 0 Mew
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
745 Distel Drive
August 25, 1976 Los Altos , CA
I . ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by President Hanko at 7 : 35 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette
Hanko , Daniel Wendin, Harry Turner and George Seager.
Member Absent: Edward Shelley
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes , Jon Olson,
Jennie George, Carroll Harrington, Phyllis Lee, Stanley Norton,
Del Woods' and John Melton.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
J1
A. Minutes of August 11, 1976
B. Green suggested the word "would" be changed to "which"
in the first sentence of paragraph seven on page six of the
minutes of August 11, 1976 .
H. Grench suggested the following change in the second sen-
tence, paragraph four on page seven: He said he would like
a decision by the District or an indication that the District
would "call a meeting within the next few weeks at which time
they would reach a decision" .
N. Hanko stated the consensus that the minutes of August 11,
1976 be approved with the above changes.
III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were no written communications at this time.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
N. Hanko stated the consensus that the agenda be adopted as
presented correcting the oversight deletion of WRITTEN COM-
MUNICATIONS category.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page two
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications at this time.
VI. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
S. Norton introduced the Resolution of the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Adopting Policy
to Comply with Portions of Political Reform Act of 1974 that
the Board directed him to draft at their August 11, 1976
meeting. He said he had prepared the resolution as an inter-
im policy pending a receipt of more information from the Fair
Political Practices Commission.
K. Duffy asked if it was clearly stated that after adoption
of the resolution, disclosure was an interim voluntary request.
S. Norton replied he felt it was implicit in the resolution.
Motion: D. Wendin moved to amend Resolution 76-23 of the Board
of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park Dis-
trict Adopting Policy to Comply with Portions of
Political Reform Act of 1974 as follows: page 1,
third WHEREAS , end of paragraph the insertion, "by
encouraging members of the Board of Directors and
candidates for such positions to disclose financial
interests which may be materially affected by decis-
ions of the Board" . K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: G. Seager asked when the requests in
the resolution would be a requirement. S. Norton
informed that he was awaiting detailed regulations
from the Fair Political Practices Commission and that
the Board has until February 1977 to adopt a code
by law. He said he would be returning to the Board
indicating conversion of the present resolution to
a code. S. Norton recommended the Board adopt by
motion the State approved disclosure forms attached
to the Santa Clara County model code. The motion
passed unanimously.
D. Wendin said he did not wish to include adoption of the
forms in his motion at this time as he had questions relat-
ing to specific definitions in the resolution that might
affect the forms.
D. Wendin referred to page 3, Section 2 .a defining the dis-
closure statement as being real property investment or income
as defined in Exhibit A as modified by the clause about mater-
ial effects. The last sentence reads - "The initial statement
shall disclose interests in real property and investments,
and each annual statement thereafter shall disclose interests
in real property, investments and income. He said if it
were not for that statement, all statements initial or annual
would have to disclose all three types of interest.
Page three
Motion: D. Wendin moved to amend Resolution 76-23 by strik-
ing the last sentence on page 3, Section 2.a under
Disclosure Statements. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko inquired if the portion of the
law which does not include income is the same for
city councils and boards of supervisors with regard
to candidates for office not disclosing incomes in
the first reporting. S. Norton replied affirmatively.
N. Hanko stated she felt the clause for candidates
should be in the final State code. B. Green asked
if the MRPD code could be more restrictive than the
State code. S. Norton said probably yes but not
less restrictive. S. Norton advised if the Board
voluntarily required "income" in the first reporting,
then "income" is automatically a part of the dis-
closures thereafter. The motion passed unanimously.
N. Hanko asked how far back the disclosure of income goes.
D. Wendin referred to page 4 , line 11 of the resolution which
stated "since the previous statement was filed" and suggested
the wording would need changing.
D. Wendin suggested that in order to save time, Board might
give consensus on questions of the items and delegate working
out the detailed wording to himself and legal counsel during
the recess since it was imperative the Board vote on the res-
olution that evening.
Motion: D. Wendin moved to amend Exhibit A, Category I by
striking out paragraph 4 , page 2 , "An interest in
real property which is used principally as the
residence of the designated position making the fil-
ing is not a reportable interest" . No second to the motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin asked if the disclosure state-
ment listed the address of residence and the inter-
est in that residence. S. Norton advised the dis-
closure statement requests listing of the residence
address and the nature of interest e.g. , equity-
option. S. Norton suggested listing the residence
but not stating its value. D. Wendin interpreted
that whether or not a person owns the real property
and whether or not it would be materially affected
would be excluded if they did not list it on the
disclosure statement. He stated he would like to
know a person ' s interest in his/her residence but
not necessarily the dollar value and suggested
later adopting by board consensus whether or not
they wanted to consider listing assessed valuation
or nothing. Mr. Gordon Jennings, 441 E. Meadow, Palo
Alto, said future circumstances of the District might
indicate it would be unwise to list the principal
residence and suggested the Board delete the clause.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Board agreed by consensus to list the residence but not
the value on the disclosure statement.
Page four
Motion: D. Wendin moved to amend Exhibit A, Category III,
A. , 1 , by striking "or corporation" and adding " ;and"
at the end of the paragraph. G. Seager seconded the
motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin said the pattern is to define
a business entity that is reportable. H. Turner
remarked it seemed that there are more restrictions
on a profit seeking business rather than a nonprofit.
Mr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, offered that
the Board was trying to make a destinction between
a nonprofit association and a nonprofit corporation.
Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved to amend the motion by re-
taining "or corporation" and adding "nonprofit"
before it. G. Seager seconded the motion to amend.
The amended motion passed unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved to amend Exhibit A, Category III,
paragraph 4 , page 8 by deleting the first part of
the sentence which read, "Except as to an initial
disclosure statement for which income sources need
not be reported," and for consistency changing
Section 4 to "Section B" . Also subcategories under
Section B should be itemized by numbers 1 ,2 ,3,4,5
and 6 instead of alphabetical listing. H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board recessed at 8 :25 P.M. and reconvened at 8 :52 P.M.
Motion: D. Wendin moved to amend Resolution 76-23 with the
following changes :
Page 2 , Section 1 , Subsection b. - Insertion of
"for election or appointment to" so the subsection
would read, "Designated position" means each member
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Reg-
ional Park District and each candidates for election
or appointment to such position, including candidates
who are incumbents.
Page 3, Section 2 , Subsection c. - Insertion of "or
their applications to fill a vacancy. " , "November
30 following each" and "or appointed" so the Sub-
section would read, Each designated position having
reportable interests shall file an initial dis-
closure statement within thirty (30) days after the
adoption of this Resolution. Candidates shall file
upon the filing of their nomination papers or their
applications to fill a vacancy. Thereafter, ii�dis-
closure statement shall be filed on or before Novem-
ber 30 following each anniversary date of such per-
sonts being elected or appointed to office by etc.
ge five
Exhibit A the following changes :
Page 2 , number 4 - Delete "is not a reportable in-
terest. " and add "shall be disclosed, but the value
need not be stated. " The entire paragraph would now
read - An interest in real property which is used
principally as the residence of the designated posi-
tion making the filing shall be disclosed, but the
value need not be stated.
Page 8 , Section B, addition of "for all reportable
income since the previous statement was filed, or,
if none, during the previous year" . following the
colon at the end of the paragraph.
N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved adoption of Resolution 76-23, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Mid-
peninsula Regional Park District Adopting Policy
to Comply with Portions of Political Reform Act
of 1974 with the inclusion of the adopted amend-
ments to the Resolution and Exhibit A. B. Green
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve the forms
of Disclosure Statements appended as Exhibit C to
the Santa Clara County model code as the forms
pursuant to Subsection b. of Section 2 of Resolu-
tion 76-23 and with the modification in Category
I , Exhibit C stating that the value of the prin-
cipal residence need not be disclosed. N. Hanko
seconded the motion. The motion passed unani-
mously.
N. Hanko commended the Board on their adoption of a resolu-
tion upholding the spirit of Proposition 9 .
VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Adoption of Interim Master Plan for San Mateo County
Portion of DistrEc-t
H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-76-135) dated August
16 , 1976 and stated that currently the District is operating
under the Interim Master Plan which the Board adopted June
11 , 1975 . He said that since the Board had stated its in-
tention to expand District activities into the annexation
area immediately following the June 8 , 1976 election, he was
recommending they adopt the attached resolution stating that
the Conservation and Open Space Element of the San Mateo County
General Plan dated December 1973 , be the addition to the
Interim Master Plan to cover the new area.
2age six
G. Seager said he felt the San Mateo County document parti-
cularly addressed itself to the areas concerning the Dis-
trict' s interests and generally reflected the overall phil-
osophy of the District.
H. Turner said he would be pleased to adopt the Conservation and
Open Space Element of the San Mateo County General Plan as
an addition to the District' s Interim Master Plan and said
it would confirm the District' s alliance with San Mateo County
to help implement their open space plan.
Motion: G. Seager moved adoption of Resolution 76-24, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Mid-
peninsula Regional Park District Adopting Addi-
tion to Interim Master Plan of the Midpeninsula
Regional Park District. H. Turner seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
N. Hanko requested that staff advise officials in San Mateo
County and the various cities of the Board' s adoption of the
resolution as an addition to their Interim Master Plan.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A. Master Plan and Informational Presentations in San
Mateo County
H. Grench advised the Board that copies of the draft Master
Plan and the District' s brochures had been sent to officials
in San Mateo County along with a letter offering them the
option of an informational presentation. He said a presen-
tation has been scheduled to be given to the Menlo Park
City Council and there are no other requests at the present
time. H. Grench said that other kinds of contacts had been
made on an individual basis i.e. , with the Portola Valley
City Council, a Portola Valley planner, San Mateo County
Planning staff and Jack Brook, Director of Parks and Recrea-
tion. He said that staff has been familiarizing themselves
with lands in the new area.
H. Grench advised that regarding extension of the Master Plan
to include the new area, he is planning on making a recommenda-
tion to the Board the second meeting in September. He men-
tioned the following alternatives that might be considered:
1. Hiring a consultant to essentially do the entire
job in addition to the present Master Plan. It
would be an addendum to the District' s current
contract with the consultant of the current
Master Plan. The consultant approach would involve
interaction with both Board and staff.
-'age seven
2. Having San Mateo County Planning Department
involved with the development of the Master
Plan. Currently the County' s maximum com-
mitment is to furnish space in their depart-
ment to someone hired by the District, supply
all materials they have available for data
analysis and direct the graphics under con-
tract. The District would hire a person to
do the actual work.
N. Hanko asked when the amendment to the Master Plan would
be completed.
H. Grench responded perhaps six months using the consultant
alternative and considerably longer implementing the other
mode.
H. Grench said the end product would be an enlarged Master
Plan covering the entire District including the necessary
Policy Statement revisions. He added that for expediency
the public hearing for the final Master Plan would be held
at the time the required environmental assessment is heard.
H. Grench further commented that the Santa Clara County
portions of the presentations had been favorable with recom-
mendations and action taken by some cities.
H. Turner inquired about the presentation being given to the
Menlo Park City Council October 5, 1976. H. Grench said the
emphasis would be on the progress of the District and some
discussion regarding policy statements.
The Board agreed by consensus that the Master Plan presenta-
tion complete with slides should be available for the Septem-
ber 13, 1976 , 8 : 00 P.M. joint meeting with East Palo Alto
City Council.
IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
N. Hanko recalled that at their August 11 meeting, the Board
had agreed that Directors Green, Duffy and Hanko would meet
with Mrs. Geri Steinberg of the Santa Clara Board of Super-
visors in order to stimulate progress of the District' s pro-
posal to the County on joint projects involving Sunnyvale
Mountain Park. N. Hanko said that Supervisor Steinberg had
agreed to take the leadership in seeing that the proper repre-
sentation from her Board of Supervisors would join with the
District in the joint planning effort on the Permanente Creek
Park and the Catholic Church Property. The Directors also
took Supervisor Steinberg o n tours of the Sunnyvale Mountain
Park and the Gunetti property to aid her in determining if
Santa Clara County should be participating in those acquisitions.
Page eight
B. Green reported that half of the District' s subcommittee on
joint projects had met with half of Sunnyvale' s subcommittee
consisting of Mayor Donald Logan and Vice-Mayor Etta A. Logan
for a tour of Permanente Creek Park and the Catholic Church
property to further clarify the proposal.
N. Hanko commented on the values of acquainting the various
city officials with the District' s properties and pointing
out the regional advantages of the District' s projects.
H. Grench reported that he had appeared before the Cupertino
Planning Commission August 23 asking them for a Statement of
Conformity for the proposed addition to Permanente Creek Park
which will be the District' s Land and Water grant for this
year. He said the Commission voted that the acquisition is
in conformity and supported the grant application.
G. Seager presented copies of an informational letter about
the District to the Board which he had sent to Redwood City
and the city of San Carlos . He said he had appeared before
the Redwood City Council to introduce himself as the MRPD
Director from their ward.
X. CLAIMS
Motion: D. Wendin moved approval of the revised claims
(C-76-15) dated August 25, 1976. H. Turner seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 9:30 P.M. to dis-
cuss land negotiations.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10: 50 P.M.
Jennie George
Deputy District Clerk
A. Minutes of August 25, 1976
N. Hanko referred to the second motion on page three of the
minutes of August 25, 1976 and pointed out that no second had
been made to the motion, although it did pass unanimously.
She suggested the Board pass a motion ratifying its action.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board ratify its motion ap-
proved on August 25, 1976 which amended Exhibit A,
Category I by striking out paragraph 4 , page 2 , "An
interest in real property which is used principally
as the residence of the designated Position making
the filing is not a reportable interest" . H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
N. Hanko asked that the last line in the seventh paragraph on
page seven of the minutes be changed from "City Council" to
"Municipal Council . "
H. Grench asked that the word "direct" in the second sentence
of the first paragraph on page seven of the minutes be changed
to "do" , and that the last sentence in that paragraph be
deleted.
H. Grench suggested the word "County" be added after the words
"Santa Clara" in the first paragraph under Informational Reports
on page seven of the minutes .
N. Hanko stated the consensus that the minutes of August 25,
1976 be approved with the above changes.