Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760929 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 76-26 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S San Carlos City Council Chambers September 29, 1976 666 Elm Street San Carlos, CA EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board met in Executive Session at 7 :30 P.M. to discuss land negotiations. I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Hanko at 8: 03 P.M. Members Present: George Seager, Katherine Duffy, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, Barbara Green and Daniel Wendin. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes , Jon Olson, Brad Clifford, Carroll Harrington, Phyllis Lee, Stanley Norton, Jennie George and Del Woods . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of September 8 , 1976 Motion: G. Seager moved approval of the minutes of September 8, 1976 as presented. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS H. Grench advised that there were three Written Communications to the Board: (1) a letter dated August 20, 1976 from the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club asking the District to consider the Hassler Canyon as a potential open space site. N. Hanko requested this subject be placed on the agenda under New Business With Action Requested; (2) a letter dated Septem- ber 8, 1976 from the City of Saratoga supporting the MRPD draft Master Plan and recommending that the District consider requesting the Saratoga City Council to appoint a member of the Saratoga' s Parks and Recreation Commission to any committee formed by the District to determine the use policy of lands in Saratoga' s Sphere of Influence; (3) a letter dated September 17, 1976 from State Assemblyman Richard D. Hayden expressing age two his appreciation in receiving the regular minutes of the Dis- trict; (4) a letter dated September 7 , 1976 from Stanford University suggesting changes in the District' s draft Master Plan. The Board agreed to notify Stanford of the District's intention to extend the Master Plan to include the annexed area, after which time public hearings will be held and their suggestions will be considered. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA N. Hanko stated the consensus that the agenda be adopted with the addition referred to under Written Communications. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Board members introduced themselves and the areas they represent; N. Hanko introduced the staff and their positions. G. Seager informed the audience that the Board normally meets at the District offices in Los Altos and said it was a privi- lege to have the opportunity to bring their activities to the citizens of southern San Mateo County by having this meeting in San Carlos. He expressed the hope that there can be additional Board meetings held in the annexed area in the future. Mr. Gordon Jennings, 441 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto expressed his thanks to the staff on behalf of the Castle Rock Horseman' s Association for their cooperation on the Association' s re- cent 55 mile trail ride. He said that use of trails through District lands helped make the ride successful. N. Hanko re- quested copies of the map showing the trail ride. VI. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District H. Grench introduced his report (R-76-25) dated September 22, 1976, regarding the Extension of the MRPD Master Plan into the annexed area. He said that on May 8, 1974, the Board ap- proved the hiring of William Spangle and Associates as consul- tants to work with the District and the Santa Clara County Planning Department in preparing a Master Plan for the District. This plan, consisting of a map and text, was adopted as a draft by the Board on December 18 , 1975, and was printed for public distribution in July. He advised that the draft Master Plan, which included only the boundaries of the original Dis- trict, has been presented to cities and other agencies within Santa Clara County. He said that the Board, through the 1976 Action Plan, has expressed its intention to extend the Master Plan into the annexed area. H. Grench said the District is pro- ceeding towards the acquisition of lands in the annexed area age three in several different ways: (1) by extending the Master Plan in order to have an objective basis from which to work, (2) by investigating and learning about specific parcels and (3) by establishing Board policies to acquire land in the new area. After considering various alternatives, H. Grench recommended that the Board approve the contract continuing William Spangle and Associates as consultants to include the new area in the Master Plan. They would employ the same analysis techniques for land province classification and scoring used in the orig- inal Master Plan. He said he felt this procedure would ensure that the present Master Plan and its extension would be con- sistent with each other and that the cost of preparing the extended version would be minimized. He added that the Master Plan extension project is included in the 1976 Action Plan, and monies for its implementation are included in the adopted budget. H. Grench referred to the proposal and work flow chart attached to his report provided by Spangle and Associates outlining the details of the project. He summarized that the Master Plan work would include the following: (a) Preparation of a draft revised text; (b) Reviewing and assembling data concerning lands in the annexed area; (c) Delineation and mapping of landscape provinces for the annexed area; (d) Interpretation and recording of data in tabular form; (e) Preparation of a base map of the District for printing and preparation of land unit maps for entire District; (f) Preparation of composite map and text for printing in camera-ready form; (g) Delivery of 2 , 000 copies of the revised draft Master Plan. H. Grench said Board and staff cooperation would still be re- quired; however, one important difference is that the data analysis would be done by the consultant. H. Grench introduced Mr. William Spangle and Mr. Larz Anderson of William Spangle and Associates. H. Turner confirmed that the timetable for completion would be March, 1977 . H. Grench responded that some of the timing would be determined by how quickly the Board and staff respond on their portions of the procedure. H. Turner recalled that the newly annexed area has not had the benefit of an open space district as Santa Clara County has had for the past three years; therefore, there is some catching age four up to be done, and he expressed his willingness to cooperate fully to facilitate the completion of the Master Plan. He confirmed staff ' s intention to procede with land acquisitions prior to the Master Plan' s completion. H. Grench said that had been the procedure in Santa Clara County, and would contine in the annexed area. E. Shelley observed that the new Board members might have some difference of opinions and asked if any consideration had been given to the reevaluation of the weighting factors. H. Grench said consideration had been given to this question; however, changes could mean considerable time and cost; and he recommended proceeding in the most direct and efficient manner. He recalled from past experience that 5% or 10% changes in weighting factors did not appear on the final map. G. Seager pointed out that the District would not receive any funds from the newly annexed area until December, 1977 and yet it is significant that they intend to proceed with acquisitions in the new area. Mr. James Kilburg, San Carlos Councilman, 907 Sunset Drive, San Carlos said there has been controversy in the city of San Carlos concerning the Hassler property. Some people feel the District should consider helping to acquire this property. He explored the proposed cost of the property versus the amount of monies received by the District from the city of San Carlos. Mr. Kilberg directed the following questions to Board and staff: (1) How do other cities feel when their monies are spent near other areas; for example, if the District should decide to acquire the Hassler property, how would areas other than San Carlos feel? (2) Other than the 10� per $100 assessed valuation, where does the District' s money come from? (3) What is land management? (4) How many acres does the District own? N. Hanko replied it is not the District' s policy to allocate funds back to the individual cities based upon what is received from them. She added that the District's borrowing power extends its financial abilities. H. Grench advised that the District has title to approximately 3, 000 acres of land; including those lands under contract, the total is approximately 3 ,500 acres. H. Grench said the Board has adopted the policy that the lands will be properly planned and maintained, and the District will be a good steward of its lands. The District will continue to age seven B. Sierra Club Letter Mr. Dick Bishop, 1797 Elizabeth Street, San Carlos speaking on behalf of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, welcomed the MRPD to San Carlos and said he was pleased they were holding their meeting there. He said they had campaigned in favor of the District' s annexation into southern San Mateo County and felt there are many citizens concerned about the San Carlos Council' s vote to deannex. He said he was not sure the Council 's decision truly reflected the people' s feelings, and many people would be appearing before Santa Clara County LAFCO to continue efforts to stay in the District. Mr. Bishop said that the Hassler property is very important to the people of San Carlos due to its close proximity to the city. Two years ago the citizens passed a 10� tax in an effort to purchase this property. At that time it was thought that San Mateo County would join in the effort to preserve the Hassler property; however, pres- ently it appears the County has other priorities and their 10� tax levy is committed for the next 10 years. He urged the Board to give the matter consideration and said it would be helpful to have any encouragement or indication of interest from the MRPD to further his committee' s efforts to stay in the District. N. Hanko said she had seen the Hassler property but expressed a desire to have a tour. The Board agreed by consensus to call a Special Meeting on Sunday, October 31, at 10: 00 A.M. for the purpose of touring the Hassler property. The group will meet in the parking lot of the San Carlos City Hall at 666 Elm Stree, San Carlos. N. Hanko said staff could provide maps and any other informational materials that might be necessary. Mr. Bishop said he would obtain permission from the city of San Francisco to go on the site. H. Turner suggested and Mr. Bishop agreed to invite the San Carlos City Council and staff members to join in the tour. N. Hanko mentioned the Land and Water Conservation Grant that San Carlos has applied for help to purchase the Hassler property and said she would not want premature action by the District to jeopardize San Carlos' chances of receiving the grant. Mr. Bishop said if the pending grant is approved, perhaps the MRPD could take the place of the City of San Carlos; however, this concept would need some investigation. Mr. Gordon Jennings cautioned the Board about involvement which might affect land values . He stated the District' s most effect- ive tool is its flexibility, and he recommended the Hassler pro- perty be evaluated in the same manner other properties have been evaluated. ,age f ive provide adequate maintenance and patrol for its lands; this is presently being handled by a staff consisting of a Land Manager and the rangers. He said it is part of the Board' s plan to employ additional rangers when needed as more land is purchased and land use increases. J. Olson said that land management encompasses planning prior to and after acquisition of a site. It also includes opera- tion and maintenance. In addition to the rangers, the District has some resident caretakers and agricultural tenants who pro- vide an extra presence on the sites. The District also has co- operative working agreements with the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County rangers, State Park rangers and the State Divi- sion of Forestry so that their ranger patrols and the District's ranger patrols all complement and supplement one another. J. Olson gave examples where various city Parks and Recreation Departments had used District sites for city recreation pro- grams, and had cooperated on joint management. H. Turner stated that all land acquisitions to date have been made by unanimous decision of the Board, whose members have acted with a regional perspective. Ms. Anja K. Miller, Chairwoman, Parks and Recreation Citizens Advisory Committee, San Mateo County, 44 Visitacion Avenue, Brisbane, said her commitee had been appointed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to review and evaluate the Parks and Recreation Element of the San Mateo County General Plan and to advise the staffs of the County' s Planning Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Planning Commission, Parks and Rec- reation Commission and the Regional Planning Committee, Ms. Millers said her Committee welcomed the MRPD into the County and encouraged closer cooperation between the District and the citizens of San Mateo County to avoid duplication of services and expenses. N. Hanko asked to have Ms. Miller and her Committee placed on the District's mailing list to receive agendas and minutes. H. Turner inquired if the Citizen' s Advisory Committee would be interested in having an MRPD Director attend one of their meet- ings to provide further information. Ms. Miller indicated this would be agreeable and also mentioned appointing a permanent liaison from her Committee to attend the District' s meetings held in San Mateo County. N. Hanko expressed the desire to have a presentation from the Citizen' s Advisory Committee to the MRPD Board in the near future. She recalled that when Santa Clara County was developing the Open Space Element of the General Plan, the District had been involved and incorporated into that plan. age six Mr. Steve Worden, 530 Chestnut, San Carlos asked if overnight camping would be a possibility on the District' s lands that are situated farther away from the urban areas. N. Hanko responded that presently overnight camping use had not been included in any approved uses; however, she indicated that the Board is interested in citizen' s concerns and desires with regard to local uses when it is time for them to evaluate and adopt the use and management plans presented to them by staff. Mr. Warden asked if the District is able to purchase land out- side its boundaries and what the limitations are. S . Norton advised that the District can legally own land outside its boundaries anywhere; however, this is not encouraged. He gave as an example buying a contiguous piece of property out- side the District and then deciding whether or not to annex that piece. The District would have to pay real property tax on land outside its boundaries. Mr. Worden said that Hassler is not only a property that can be used by the citizens of San Carlos, but with a reciprocal agree- ment, San Carlos citizens can use the District' s properties. K. Duffy advised that when the Board refers to the District they are talking about all of the people, and they represent all of the people in the District. District lands are bought for all the people to use. K. Duffy confirmed with J. Olson that this past summer there had been organized overnight uses by specific youth programs and added that the District has been studying possible youth hostels on some of its properties. Motion: G. Seager moved that the Board approve the contract continuing William Spangle and Associates as con- sultants for the District to work on the extension of the MRPD Master Plan into the annexed area at the cost of $17,034 and that the President be authorized to execute the contract on the District' s behalf. H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin asked if the $17 , 034 is the total cost or would there be additionalcosts for publication and computer costs. H. Grench said there might be minor additional costs for things such as card punching. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: N. Hanko moved to appoint G. Seager, H. Turner and D. Wendin as a subcommittee for the purpose of re- evaluating the policy statements for extension of the Master Plan. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board recessed at 9:30 P.M. and reconvened at 9 :45 P .M. -,age seven Mr. William Steele, San Carlos Councilman, 133 Highland Avenue, San Carlos said the City of San Francisco would like to dispose of the Hassler property as surplus land, and the District' s interest would not escalate the price. C. Action Plan Implementation for Ranger and Planning Positions H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-76-147) dated September 22, 1976, regarding Action Plan Implementation for Ranger and Planning Positions. He recommended that the Board establish two new positions and Job Descriptions for a Planner and Super- vising Ranger, and that the Board create a second Ranger posi- tion. He recommended that the salary ranges for the new posi- tion be as follows: Supervising Ranger: $13,716 - $19, 200 Planner: $12, 190 - $15,847 J. Olson informed the Board that in the General Manager' s report (R-76-10, dated April 8, 1976) which outlined the Action Plan program, it was pointed out that personnel changes and additions would be required to effectively implement the Open Space Management Program. He asked that the Board approve implementation of the positions being requested. J. Olson said that the Planning Aide position, which was filled on a temporary basis a year and a half ago, is clearly a permanently needed position. He said that the level of land use and re- lated activities has continued to expand, requiring that a Supervising Ranger assume some of the duties of the Land Manager and to generally oversee the ranger staff and other operation and maintenance functions. He said that the salary ranges being recommended were based upon research into comparable jobs and salary ranges for these types of positions. He referred the Board to the attached Job Descriptions for each position. J. Olson confirmed to B. Green that the Planner position does phase out the Planning Aide position. N. Hanko clarified that the positions being requested were al- ready approved in the 1976-1977 Budget. E. Shelley asked if these would be new staff positions. J. Olson replied that the Supervising Ranger would be the only new posi- tion. Motion: B. Green moved that the Board adopt the recommendations in the report (R-76-26) , dated September 22, 1976 establishing two positions and Job Descriptions for the Planner and Supervising Ranger, creating a second Ranger position, and adopting the recommended salary ranges. D. Wendin seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Turner asked what sources had been used to establish the salary ranges. J. Olson said the other agencies contacted had included the Cities of Palo Alto, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale, the Counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo, East Bay Regional Park District and East Bay Municipal Utilities District. The motion passed unanimously. age eight VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Status of the Site Development Plans J. Olson gave a backgound on the process involving the planning on individual sites, which includes the pre-acquisition and post-acquisition planning. He reported that four of the District's eight sites now have adopted use and management plans. The re- maining four plans are expected to be completed for Board adopt- ion between November, 1976 and March, 1977 . It is the Board' s policy to review each site plan annually, and two site plans should be reviewed in November, 1976 . N. Hanko inquired when the signing for the various sites would go into affect. J. Olson said that with respect to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, staff is waiting for sign materials. All the signs for that site should be in place in six to eight weeks. The adopted plan for North Foothills open Space Preserve did not recommend signing; however, signing is being recommended when the plan is reviewed in January, 1977 . The Costanoan Way Open Space Preserve plan does not recommend signs due to the site ' s limitations. Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve plan does not recommend signing due to it fragility and limited parking; how- ever, the District is pursuing access and parking for the area in cooperation with Santa Clara County' s plan for Upper Stevens Creek Park. N. Hanko inquired about the status of the individual site broch- ures. J. Olson said the format for site brochures will be a fold-up type that fits into a person' s pocket, and the trails map will be incorporated. The text writer has been chosen, and someone else will do the graphics. J. Olson projected that a brochure will be finalized in two to four months. B. Subcommittee Report Regarding Joint Planning with Santa 'Clara County N. Hanko advised that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors had appointed two members and one alternate to work with District staff and Sunnyvale Council members on the joint planning pro- ject under study. B. Green reported that she and K. Duffy met September 17 , 1976 with representatives from Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation De- partment. The representatives from the Board of Supervisors requested a tour of Sunnyvale Mountain Park and the Catholic Church properties, and this tour is scheduled for next week. 2age nine K. Duffy advised that Santa Clara County has referred the matter to their Parks and Recreation Commission for evaluation and comment. In addition, since the District' s Pemanente Creek Park site and the Catholic Church property are contiguous and should be planned simultaneously, the Santa Clara County Parks and Rec- reation Department have agreed to joint planning. H. Grench said that he and J. Olson had already had a meeting related to joint planning with Mr. Bob Amyx, Director of Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation and Mr. Felix Errico, a planner with that department. N. Hanko gave a background report on this joint proposal being discussed among the District, Santa Clara County and the City of Sunnyvale. C. California Conference on Urban Parks and Recreation H. Grench said he attended the California Conference on Urban Parks and Recreation in Sacramento on September 23 and 24. The Confer- ence had been originated by Herbert Rhodes, Director of the De- partment of Parks and Recreation for the State of California, and co-sponsored by his Department for the purpose of talking about urban recreation and park needs. The group consisted of about 100 people, mostly park professionals. Recommendations from the participants will be forwarded to Director Rhodes and incorporated in a report to Governor Brown. H. Grench said he has materials from the Conference available to anyone who is interested. D. Midpeninsula Cities Study Group H. Turner reported that he, G. Seager and H. Grench responded to an invitation along with Doc Mattison, Assistant Director of San Mateo County Parks and Recreation, to join the monthly meet- ing of City Council members from Redwood City, Atherton, East Palo Alto, Portola Valley and Woodside on September 18, 1976. The subject of the meeting was intergovernmental cooperation and H. Grench outlined the various possibilities. H. Turner said several people commented that they were encouraged by cooperative possibilities between the District and cities in the annexed area. VIII. CLAIMS H. Grench requested the addition of No. 2288 in the amount of $500 for an Option Fee Fund Addition to augment the fund. Motion: D. Wendin moved adoption of amended revised claims (C-76-17) dated September 29, 1976 with the above addition. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ,age ten IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 P.M. Jennie George Deputy District Clerk