Loading...
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.