Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19800423 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 80-8 AA, low or mc MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S April 23, 1980 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , California I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Green at 7: 30 P.M. Members Present: Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, and Richard Bishop. Harry Turner arrived at 7 :40 P.M. Member Absent: Katherine Duffy. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steve Sessions, Pat Starrett, Charlotte MacDonald, Robert McKibbin, Eric Mart, Del Woods, Kathy Blackburn, Stanley Norton, and Jean Fiddes. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 26, 1980 Motion: N. Hanko moved that the minutes of March 26, 1980 be approved as presented. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. April 12, 1980 Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the minutes of April 12, 1980. N. Hanko seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin requested that the minutes reflect who the guests in attendance were. N. Hanko suggested that Item II, Introductions, be amended to read, '113. Green introduced the following guests: Palo Alto Planning Commissioners Jay Mitchell, Jean McCown-Hawkes, Fred Nichols, Pat Cullen and Michael Cobb, Council member Frances Brenner, and members of the public, Mary Gordon and Robert Mark. " The amended motion passed unanimously. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Meeting 80-8 Page Two III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. Fiddes stated the Board had received a letter, dated April 17, 1980 from Marquita West, M.D. , 39 East Main Street, No. 5, Los Gatos, encouraging the Board to take an official position actively recommending the acquisition of the Alma College property for a proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park and noted that Dr. West was in attendance at the meeting. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the agenda. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, asked what percentage of recently acquired land had been dedicated as open space. C. Britton responded that out of the six recent acquisitions, the Swanson property had been dedicated as a part of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. He noted that the Board would reconsider the question of dedication of the Williams property, which included Mt. Melville, at a future meeting. VI. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park (Alma College Site) H. Grench introduced memorandum M-80-34 , dated April 18 , 1980 , regarding the proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park on the former Alma College site and outlined the history of the project. He noted that projected funding for the project included $2 million from the State, $400 ,000 from the District, and $400,000 from Santa Clara County and private fundraising efforts. Dr. M. West expressed her support of the project and noted that other private citizens were very supportive of this measure. She said it would be very good if the District were to make the first firm financial commitment for the project. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the District endorse the proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park as outlined in the attachment to the report M-80-34 and that the District commit a contribution of the lesser of $400, 000 or 10% of the acquisition cost of the parcels. E. Shelley seconded the motion. Discussion: R. Mark suggested that the Board should watch to see if the project is classified as a State park or a State recreation area. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 80-8 age Three B. Site Emphasis Policy Workshop Follow-Up H. Grench introduced memorandum M-80-33, dated April 15, 1980, regarding staff follow-up on the site emphasis workshop and noted he was recommending that a commitee be formed to further identify site emphasis policy issues. S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-16 , dated April 16 , 1980, which recapped the workshop and suggested it would be beneficial to reissue the questionnaire to the members of the Board to get an overall consensus on each item. E. Shelley noted that the questionnaire was not scientifically designed and needed to be redesigned if redistributed to the Board. He stated that information was needed from staff as to where, they felt, policy that provided guidance for making decisions on sites was lacking. He said that two questions to consider are whether the Board wants to change or set new policy and is the Board lacking policy that staff needs to guide them. N. Hanko stated the question of emphasized versus non-emphasized sites had not been answered. B. Green thought the Board had to discuss degrees of emphasis. H. Turner noted that emphasis and non-emphasis categories may have arisen as a result of Proposition 13 since staff thought, at that time, that some sites might have to be mothballed. He thought the question of emphasis and non-emphasis should be shelved until after the June 3 election. B. Green noted that some stated policies, such as the distribution of brochures, were antique or not stated properly. H. Turner said that if policies were not up-to-date, staff could bring them to the Board's attention for revision consideration. R. Bishop noted that there should be a different degree of emphasis for each District site and said he would be willing to serve on the workshop follow-up committee. N. Hanko stated she would like to see the committee correlate the results of the questionnaire and return to Board with recommendations. D. Wendin stated he would support some type of a committee that did no more than return to the Board with a statement of issues, rather than recommended policy. He noted he did not support reissuing the questionnaire and said the District had decided to emphasize in some way Monte Bello Ridge and Rancho San Antonio. He stated he would like to wait to deal with the specific issues of emphasis until after the June 3 election and until after the Monte Bello development plan had been put into effect. Meeting 80-8 ge Four Motion: N. Hanko moved that the President appoint a committee of Board members to look into the results of the workshop and return to the Board with policy issues for Board consideration andthat the Board committee shall meet after July 1. H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: E. Shelley noted that the committee 's charge was to identify policy issues that arose from the workshop. The motion passed unanimously. B. Green appointed N. Hanko, E. Shelley, and R. Bishop to serve on the committee. C. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Location S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-18, dated April 16, 1980 , regarding the selection of a parking lot location for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve development plan. He noted that staff supported the proposed "G" location and that a Board decision was needed for staff to proceed with the project. He stated that a soils report on the area affected by the parking lot was required by the Palo Alto Planning Commission, and that staff would resubmit the development plan to the Commission for approval on May 28 , contingent on the results of the soils report. N. Hanko asked if it were correct to assume that less expense would be involved if the parking lot was outside the Palo Alto City limits and if staff planned to take any development plan approved by the Board to the Palo Alto Planning Commission, even if the parking lot site was outside of Palo Alto. S. Sessions responded that a parking lot site outside the Palo Alto city limits would not require a soils report and that he felt staff would submit any development plan to the Planning Commission as a courtesy item. N. Hanko stated that she felt the project, as it stood, would not be passed by the Palo Alto Planning Commission or City Council and recommended that the Board review the results of their Special Meeting with the Planning Commissioners. She said that the Commissioners were opposed to the selection of location "G" because of the concerns of local citizens, the visual impact of a developed parking lot at site "G" , and their interest in seeing a lot developed that could be used as an overflow parking lot. E. Shelley noted that the Board had not received a formal response from the Planning Commissioners regarding the Special Meeting and the various proposed sites that were visited. John E. Olmsted, 31570 Page Mill Road, Los Altos, presented a letter, dated April 22, 1980 , to the Board in which he stated his opposition to the selection of location "G" and suggested that the Los Trancos lot be enlarged or the riding ring area be used for additional parking. Meeting 80-8 Page Five Mark Schneider, P. O. Box 343, Star Route No. 2, La Honda, asked if the Palo Alto City Attorney now agreed with the District that a soils report was only necessary at the actual site of the parking lot. S. Norton responded that that was his understanding of what the City Attorney said. Jackie Young, 7051 Alpine Road, La Honda, expressed her concerns about the foothills , especially the fire hazard and the lack of control at the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. Geri Albers, 925 Arbor Road, Menlo Park, expressed her support for location "G" . Mark Schneider stated his opposition to location "G" because of the amount of grading and filling that would have to occur. S. Sessions responded that all the potential sites would require some amount of grading and noted that user safety must be taken into consideration. Bill Lewis of Cupertino asked if this was the first of a series of parking lots and suggested that the District investigate the development of some type of bus service from Palo Alto to the Preserve. D. Wendin noted that it was important to remember that the Preserve was open space for everyone in the District, not just Palo Alto residents. R. Mark stated that location "G" was the best site proposed by staff, but it should be compared with the riding ring area. E. Shelley asked why the riding ring area had not been considered by staff as a possible parking lot location. S. Sessions responded that the area had not been considered because of access, its remoteness from Page Mill Road, its relationship to the Preserve, and its visual impact from Monte Bello Ridge. M. Schneider requested that the minutes indicate that he felt Director Hanko' s thoughts on the matter were correct and that it would better to have the staffs of the District and the Planning Commission work together to resolve problems and come up with a compromise location for the parking lot or educate people to support site "G" . Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board reaffirm its choice of the "G" location and proceed back to the Palo Alto Planning Commission. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote : AYES: D. Wendin, B. Green, E. Shelley, H. Turner, and R. Bishop. NOES: N. Hanko. Meeting 80-8 Page Six Motion: B. Green moved that the Board authorize the expenditure of up to $6,000 for the soils report. R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Schneider asked if the Board was authorizing the expenditure of the funds for the soils report before the plan goes to the City of Palo Alto. D. Wendin noted that the expenditure was contingent upon approval of the parking lot location by the city of Palo Alto. B. Green withdrew her motion seconded by R. Bishop. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board authorize staff to spend up to $6,000 on a soils report on the proposed location "G" if the location is approved by the city of Palo Alto. H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: N. Hanko asked if it was necessary for the District to provide such a soils report. S. Norton responded that it was his understanding, based on a conversation with the Palo Alto City Attorney, that the parking lot would be the area of the city' s main concern. N. Hanko stated she would vote against the motion since she was opposed to the expenditure of that amount of money since a location could be selected that would not require such a soils report. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: D. Wendin, B. Green, E. Shelley, H. Turner, and R. Bishop. NOES: N. Hanko. The Board recessed for a break at 9:25 P.M. The Board reconvened at 9 :43 P.M. VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A• Preliminary Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Fiscal Year 1980-81 H. Grench reviewed report R-80-19 , dated April 17, 1980, regarding the preliminary Action Plan for the 1980-81 fiscal year. He noted the plan had been reviewed by Directors Green, Wendin, and Shelley at a Budget Committee meeting and stated that if Proposition 9 passed, the staff would return to the Board with a modified version of the Action Plan. C. Britton reviewed the Open Space Acquisition Program's portion of the Action Plan and stated that the program will be in its second year of reduced funding resulting from Proposition 13 and that it will be a continuation of the current year' s carefully planned acquisition program. He also noted that the program will focus on completing the backlog of committed land purchases . N. Hanko requested that Item 3 of the Land Analysis Subprogram be changed so it included the words "urban services" rather than "urban service" . Meeting 80-8 Page Seven S. Sessions introduced the Open Space Management Program's portion of the Action Plan, noting that the significant change from the 1979-80 Action Plan was the refocusing of the general land administration subprogram activities into the other subprogram areas. N. Hanko noted that she had found it difficult to compare the preliminary Action Plan with the Action Plan for 1979-80 because of the absorption of the General Land Administration Subprogram into the other programs. She requested the following changes in the proposed Action Plan for Open Space Management: A. Planning, Design andDevelopment Subprogram Incl 1. ude the words "as adopted by Board" after the word "policies" in Item 3. 2. Include "Board-approved" after the word "implement" in Item 6. 3. Include the words "when approved" after the word "plans in Item 7. 4. Include "Board-approved" after the word "specific" in Item 8. B. Operation, Maintenance and Volunteer Subprogram 1. Delete the word "emphasized" in Item 5. H. Grench noted that Item 10 of the Operation, Maintenance and Volunteer Subprogram would be a very important activity during the comming year. The item concerned planning for future staffing structure to meet increased user needs and patrol requirements. C. MacDonald reported that the Action Plan for the Public Communications and Governmental Liaison Program was very similar to the 1979-80 plan and that emphasis during the coming year would be placed on the speakers program, with the particular aim of making presentations to county and city planning departments and city councils within the District's boundaries. N. Hanko requested that the words "general information" be readded to Item 2 of the Public Participation and Education Subprogram since it was important for members of the public to receive basic general information, not necessarily in the form of brochures, about the District. N. Hanko questioned the use of the words "Friends of the District" in Item 8 of the Public Participation and Education Subprogram and requested that the Board policy that discussed the dissemination of information to "friends" of the District be reviewed. J. Fiddes reviewed the General Management and Program Support, noting that the Action Plan included the coordination of election activities and the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Foss personnel study. Meeting 80-8 Page Eight H. Grench noted that it was necessary to evaluate District progress for fiscal year 1979-80 and suggested that the Board should be very involved in the evaluation process. He stated that the Budget Committee had discussed the process of evaluation, which they felt should include the full Board, but noted they would like more time to discuss the format for progress evaluation. B. Green stated the Board' s consensus that the Budget Committee should consider the type of format to be used in the evaluation of District progress. Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the preliminary Action Plan for fiscal year 1980-81 as modified during the meeting. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Proposed Rancho San Antonio County Park Master Plan S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-17 , dated April 16, 1980, regarding Santa Clara County's proposed Master Plan for Rancho San Antonio Park. He noted that Phase I of the development plan included public access to the facility via Cristo Rey Drive, the con- struction of a park service road with a bridge to cross over Permanente Creek, some parking areas, one comfort station, and a visitor display center. He stated that no development would occur on District land during Phase I and noted that the County had requested conceptual approval of Phase I of its Master Plan so it could proceed with the certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed facility. E. Shelley asked when the .Board would have the opportunity to review the Master Plan again if Phase I were approved at the meeting. S. Sessions responded that the Board would have to review the plan prior to any park development that would occur on District land. Motion: B. Green moved that the Board approve Phase I of the development in concept. N. Hanko seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin suggested the use of the word support" rather than "approve" since it was not the Board' s position to approve or disapprove the plan. Amended Motion: B. Green amended her motion, seconded by N. Hanko, and moved that the Board support Phase I of the development in concept. N. Hanko seconded the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Wendin requested that the minutes reflect what staff action would occur. S. Sessions noted that he would transmit to County staff that the Board supported Phase I in concept, which meant that the County could proceed with the certification of the Environmental Impact Report. He stated that the transmittal would also include a phrase that the Board reserved the right to review and approve any proposed improvements on District land that would be in conjunction with the overall Master Plan, which was still in the schematic stage. Meeting 80-8 Page Nine C. Apointment of -L -ace Officers S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-80-32 , dated April 11, 1980, regarding the appointment of David Topley and David Sanguinetti as limited status peace officers. Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of Resolution 80-22, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Appointing Peace Officers. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS H. Grench reviewed current legislation of interest to the District, including AB 3299, SB 1550, and SB 1969. H. Grench asked for Board concurrence on a proposed detachment from the District in an unincorporated area of Campbell. The homeowner, who owns 0. 3 acres of land, wanted to incorporate within the city limits of Campbell. B. Green stated the Board's consensus to allow the detachment from the District. H. Grench reported on the latest activities of the District' s personnel consultant, Gary Foss. He noted that Mr. Foss has been working with J. Fiddes on various items dealing with the implementation of the personnel study, specifically the proposed cafeteria-style of benefits and job specifications. S. Sessions noted that staff had been considering issuing mace, or pepper gas, to the Ranger staff for their own personal protection to disable aggressive animals or persons and asked for Board concurrence on the action. Discussion centered on whether the issuance of mace was a staff decision function or whether Board approval and concurrence was needed. There was no objection expressed by the Board on the staff's decision to issue mace to the Ranger staff. C. MacDonald reported that the District's ten-second public service spot had been shown on Channel 11. C. Britton reported that the City of Mountain View had conformed with the Audubon Society' s request regarding Charleston Slough water levels, and BCDC had approved the plan. He noted that the gift of Charleston Slough from Leslie Salt Company to the City of Mountain View would preserve 135 acres of marsh land. IX. CLAIMS H. Turner questioned Claim 957 and E. Shelley questioned Claim 966. S. Sessions responded that Claim 957 to Fire and Land Management Enterprises (FLAME) was for the consultant doing the research report on controlled buying at the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Claim 966 was for raw material needed for the installation of split-rail fencing. Meeting 80-8 age Ten Motion: H. Turner moved the Revised Claims C-80-7, dated April 23, 1980. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 11:25 P.M. IX. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 1:03 A.M. on April 24 , 1980 . Jean H. Fiddes District Clerk