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 .