Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850918 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 85-25 Aar 0 a r MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 MINUTES I . CALL TO ORDER The joint session of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was called to order by Supervisor Jackie Speier at 7 :42 P.M. in Room 101, San Mateo County Government Center, 590 Hamilton Avenue, Redwood City. Directors Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Supervisors Present: Jackie Speier, Anna Eshoo, William Schumacher, John Ward, and Tom Nolan. Staff Present: District: Herbert Grench, David Hansen, James Boland, and Jean Fiddes; County: David Nichols, Paul Scannell, David Christy, Tom Casey, David Hale, and Eunice Brecht. II . INTRODUCTIONS J. Speier introduced the members of the Board of Supervisors and County staff present, as well as members of the San Mateo County Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission in attendance. T. Henshaw introduced the members of the District' s Board and staff present and stated that the meeting' s agenda would include : 1) a brief presen- tation by District staff; 2) a question and answer period for the members of the two Boards; 3) a combined staff presentation on potential joint ventures; and 4) a period for public comment. III . PRESENTATION BY DISTRICT STAFF D. Hansen showed a series of slides of the recent Hosking property acquisition and of the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. H. Grench reviewed the District' s political and sphere of influence boundaries on a wall map and explained a series of handout sheets relating to District finances, including projections for increased expenditures for land management and site development during the coming years. IV. JOINT BOARD QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD Items discussed during this period included: reasons for the Hosking acquisition; whether the Hosking acquisition could have been accom- plished without such a major expenditure of tax dollars; whether the District provides enough recreational opportunities on its lands in San Mateo County; concerns regarding lack of access to District lands; the possibility of having a large picnic area on the Hassler site for groups of 500 to 700 people; expansion of the District' s public infor- mation program and distribution of information to San Mateo County Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Meeting 85-25 Page two residents; types of recreational opportunities provided for the physically limited on District lands; the percentage of the District' s budget allocated for site development; the purpose of the District and whether there was a duplication of efforts with both the County and the District acquiring land for openspace and park purposes; actions taken to alleviate citizens' concerns regarding the use of eminent domain; the need for cooperation between all agencies involved in the acquisition of land for recreational purposes; and what the District is considering in terms of amended annexation policies. Staff and Board responses to the questions raised during the discussion period included: 1) Mr. Hosking preferred to see all of his property as open space, and the District entered into the acquisition, after an extended negotiation process, because of the resources the property provided; 2) an explanation of the needed balance between open space acquisition and development and the role of an open space in terms of providing different types of recreational opportunities; 3) District properties are accessible to members of the public; 4) the District' s Board would be receptive to considering a request from the Board of Supervisors for a large group picnic area concept on the Hassler site in conjunction with planning for the site and the possibility of a cooperative effort with the County; 5) a description of District sites accessible to the physically limited and future whole access plans for District sites; and 6) an explanation of what has been done in terms of special workshops to gather public input from citizens and the work the District' s Board committee has done to formulate draft eminent domain and annexation policies. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS Candace Stone of Portola Heights discussed her concerns regarding the District' s use of eminent domain and the impact of a District acquisition on adjacent property owners. Lennie Roberts, representing the Committee for Green Foothills, dis- cussed different purposes and values of open space. Betsy Crowder of Portola Valley expressed, as a private citizen, her support for the District, and, as a member of the San Mateo County Bikeways Committee, urged cooperation between the two agencies to complete portions of the Bayfront Trail system. Jim Warren, representing the Kings Mountain Association, discussed the need for cooperation between the District, the County and the residents in the Skyline area in unincorporated San Mateo County; the values of private and public open space; eminent domain policies; the need for adequate patrol and protection of District lands; the impact of recreational land on Skyline area roads; and District annexation policies. Robert Marks, speaking in behalf of the Governmental Research Founda- tion, discussed the need for the District to undertake a survey to determine what the people of San Mateo want and expect from the District. William Spangle, representing the Greenbelt Congress, addressed the need for timely land acquisition and expressed his support for the District' s land acquisition program. Gene Mascerelli, a participant in the Governmental Research Council study, urged the Board to hold its Board meetings in different locations for closer contact with its constituency and to conduct a public opinion poll on the District. Meeting 85-25 Page three David Sutton, Los Altos, expressed his support for the District and for the need of continued acquisition of open space in a timely manner. VI. CONCLUSION Supervisor Speier proposed the idea of the two Boards meeting on an annual basis and posed questions regarding signing, the issue of acquisition versus recreational development, and adequate District site development funding. Nita Spanger, a member of the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission, expressed her thanks to the members of the Boards for holding the meeting and commented on the good staff liaison that exists between the two agencies. Due to the lateness of the hour, Supervisor Speier suggested that the proposed joint staff presentation considering possible joint ventures should occur at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors, at which time the Supervisors could consider taking any action necessary. Discussion centered on when a brainstorming session between the two Boards could occur. Supervisor Ward suggested the District' s directors forward their ideas to District staff for inclusion in the joint staff presentation. The possibility of including the brainstorming session as part of the next joint meeting was also discussed. Supervisor Speier indicated that the next joint meeting of the Boards might occur during the early part of 1986. VII . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 06 P.M. Jean H. Fiddes District Clerk CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A) September 18 1985 N. Hanko stated that on page 3 , paragraph 2 of conclusion, Nita Spangler 's name had been misspelled. Motion: D. Wendin moved the approval of the minutes, as corrected, of the Special Meeting of September 18 , 1985. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion was passed 4 to 0 .