HomeMy Public PortalAbout19731024 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 73-23 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Board of Directors
Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 24, 1973 7 :30 p.m.
Sunnyvale Community Center, Room 109
550 E. Remington Ave.
Sunnyvale
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1973 , and OCTOBER 10 , 1973
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
REPORTS
1. Rengstorff House - W. Peters
2. Payments for Services - H. Grench
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
3. Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 1, State Initiative to
Appear on November 1973 Ballot - S. Norton
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. Financial Statement for Fiscal Year 1972-73 - H. Grench
5. Monte Bello Ridge Study - K. Duffy and H. Grench
6. 1973 Congress for Recreation and Parks H. Grench
NEW BUSINESS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CLAIMS
ADJOURNMENT
-)Proved 10/24/73
10/24/73
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
C L A I M S
# Amount Name Description
237 $370. 70 Herbert Grench Travel expense to
Washington, D.C.- for 1973
Congress for Recreation
and Parks
238 -032.00 Elmer Fox & Co. Sept. 1973 accounting
system design
239 $ 21. 07 Congdon & Crome office supplies
240 $ 24. 12 Carroll Harrington Mileage
241 $122 . 50 Courtesy Travel Ser. Herbert Grench trans-
portation to Washington,D.C.
243 $ 44. 31 Petty Cash Duplicating, office
supplies, postage
244 $129 .89- Inter-City Office Adding Machine
Machine
245 $200.00 Elmer Fox & Co. Sept. 1973 services re
audit for year ended June
30 , 1973
(A- -da Item #2, Meeting 73-22)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum
October 9 , 1973
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Grench, General Manager
Subject: Payments for Services
President Wendin has suggested that the Board of
Directors formalize its position with regard to pay-
ments for the Extra Help, Bookkeeper's Fees, etc.
categories under Services and Supplies in the semi-
annual budget adopted September 19 , 1973. It is
recommended that the Board adopt by motion the policy
that the General Manager may, as appropriate, arrange
for payment for miscellaneous services through the
County payroll system in the Extra Help County payroll
category. Such persons would not be regular full-
time employees, and no job descriptions or positions
would need to be adopted by the Board. No employee
benefits would be offered, but Workmen's Compensa-
tion coverage would be in force.
HG:chh
(A, -1a. Item #3 , Meeting 73-22)
STANLEY K. NORTON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
407 SHERMAN AVENUE
PALO ALTO,CALIFORNIA 94306
TELEPHONE 324-1366
October 19, 1973
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Park District
P.O. Box 11501
Palo Alto, California 94306
Members of the Board :
In accordance with your request at the last meeting I
have studied the analysis and conclusions of the
consultant to the California Legislature Assembly
Select Committee on Open Space Lands with respect to
Proposition 1, the statewide initiative to appear on
the November 6, 1973, ballot.
I agree with the consultant' s observations and conclusions.
I therefore have prepared the enclosed resolution opposing
Proposition I and commend it to you for your adoption .
Very truly yours,
Norton
SRN/jm Stanley
RESOLUTION NO. 73-31
RESOLUTION FINDING PROPOSITION N0. 1
INIMICAL TO OPEN SPACE PROGRAMS IN
CALIFORNIA AND URGING ITS REJECTION AT
THE NOVEMBER 6, 1973, SPECIAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, the consultant to the California
Legislature Assembly Select Committee on Open Space Lands
has analyzed Proposition 1, the statewide initiative to
appear on the November 6, 1973, ballot, and observes, if
Proposition 1 passes :
I. State funding of .park. and open space programs
will be severely curtailed.
2. The initiative will induce or encourage the sale
of publicly held park and open space lands.
. 3. Demands on local finances to support programs
shifted from state to local government will cause
increased reliance on local property tax revenues.
4. Even though local property tax rates may be fixed,
property tax assessments are not controlled and the
predictable effect of the initiative will be to force
higher. property tax assessments.
5. The increased burden on the local property tax
dollar and higher property tax assessments will
create pressure for development in areas which should
be preserved as open space.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors agrees with the
consultant' s conclusion that, if the initiative passes, the
first victims of the limitation on governmental services
and programs will be our open space and park programs;
NOW, THEREFORE, the hoard of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Park District does resolve and find
that Proposition 1 is inimical to open space and park
programs at both the state and local level and urges its
rejection by voters at the November 6, 1973, special election.
---- - - ------ - - - - - - -
(Ag 'a Item #4 , Meeting 73-22)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum
October 16 , 1973
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Grench, General Manager
it
MIDPENINSULA, REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum
October 19 , 1973
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Grench, General Manager
Subject: Reports
Stan Norton is preparing materials on items nos . 3 and 5 on
the agenda. These will be submitted separately.
HG:chh
A Agen 'rtem #5 , Meeting 73 -22
STANLEY R.
N TON
ATTORNEY LAW
407 SHE AN AVENUE
PALO AL E CALIFORNIA 94306
LEPHONE 324-1366
tober 24, 1973
Planning Commission (and Board of Supervisors?)
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Members of the Commission (and Board?) :
As you know, the Midpeninsula Regional Park District
was created at the general election last November . The
substantial majority vote in favor of the District indicates
a strong preference on the part of the electorate for low
density development and the preservation of open space in
the foothill and mountain areas of western Santa Clara County.
The District, of course, stills awaits receipt of
funds for the land acquisition portion of its functions .
However, past months have provided the Board of Directors
and staff a valuable opportunity to plan and study alter-
natives for carrying out the District' s functions. As a
result of these studies one conclusion is clear : The substan-
tial preservation of open space in our hill and mountain
areas cannot and will not be achieved by acquisition alone.
Other means, such as use of local planning and zoning powers,
will have to be used in a significant degree .
At its meeting of October 10, 1973, the Board of
Directors heard a most informative presentation by members
of the County Planning Staff on the status of the Monte Bello
Ridge Study and the proposed Hillside Policy recommended. by
the Hillside Subcommittee. We understand the matter will be
considered by the County Planning Commission at a meeting
early in November .
The proposed Hillside Policy is consistent with
and compliments the goals of the Regional Park District
which favor low density development and the preservation
of open space in the Study area . The Board of Directors
unanimously requests that I advise you of the District' s
full support for the recommended Hillside Policy and for
its adoption without substantial change by the enactment of
appropriate ordinances .
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Wendin , President
Mee" ng 73-22 , Agenda Item #5
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum
October 17, 1973
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Grench, General Manager
Subject: Monte Bello Ridge Study
Last night the Hillside Subcommittee of the Planning Policy
Committee considered the attached report from Dr. Andrew
Trace, an economic consultant whose job it was to estimate
costs of performing cost-benefit and cost-revenue studies in
the Monte Bello Ridge area. The Hillside Subcommittee has
continued the matter until their next meeting, which will be
after. the County Planning Commission holds their November 1
public hearing on County rezoning in the area.
Some of the Hillside Subcommittee members are not sure that
any cost-benefit or cost-revenue should be done for at least
the following two reasons: (1) The rezoning will have to be
completed by early January, which is considerably before a
study could be finished; therefore, the study would not be of
use for that rezoning. (2) The fair allocation of costs of the
study to the various jurisdictions is not only difficult to
determine but also may not be accepted by all agencies in-
volved.
In regards to item no. (1) , it may be wise to wait until the
rezoning is decided and then perhaps advocate particular
alternative studies. As far as no. (2) is concerned, the County
staff has suggested that the MRPD pay 25% of the cost of the
study. Dr. Trice has indicated to me that the study would
produce cost-revenue or cost-benefit figures for the MRPD.
I don't see how this could be done with any accuracy unless the
MRPD had adopted a master map (plan) for long-term land preserva-
tion. If the District did have such a map, development alterna-
tives, which, of course, affect land values and tax revenues,
could be used to make predictions for the MRPD. Because of the
multijurisdictional nature of the study and the difficulty in
assigning fair shares of the cost, the County should perhaps
assume all of the cost as it has for the rest of the Monte
Bello Ridge Study.
HG:chh
Attach.
(Agr 4a Item #5, Meeting 73-22)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum
October 15, 1973
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Grench, General Manager
Subject: Monte Bello Ridge Study
At the meeting of October 10, 1973, the Board of Directors con-
sidered a report on the status of the Monte Bello Ridge Study
and on the zoning which has been recommended by the Hillside
Subcommittee of the Planning Policy Committee to the County
Planning Commission. President Wendin appointed K. Duffy to in-
vestigate the zoning plan in more detail and to report to the
Board. Kay Duffy and I subsequently met with Gil Fayette at the
County Planning Department to review the plan.
Kay Duffy and I recommend that the Midpeninsula Regional Park
District Board of Directors generally support the zoning plan and
direct the President to submit the attached letter to the Santa
Clara County Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors
with a copy to the Hillside Subcommittee.
The County Planning Commission public hearing regarding the
Monte Bello Ridge Study will be held on November 1, 1:30 p.m. ,
Board of Supervisors Chambers.
HG:chh
Attach.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum
October 24 , 1973
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Grench, General Manager
Subject: Assembly Select Committee on Open Space Lands
The attached letter from Assemblyman John F. Dunlap arrived
today. If any of you would like to attend with me, please
let me know so that we can coordinate rides and presentations .
HG:chh
C
MEMBERS DONALD D.GRALNEK
ERN;ST N.MOBLEY CONSULTANT
VICE CHAIRMAN HARON S PR
DIXON ARNETT CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE SECRETA LL
YR
LAWRENCE KAPILOFF
BOB WILSON
AssruNy �rlrrt Tm=ittrr
(Oprit �'Parr Twanbs
LIBRARY AND COURTS BUILDING
Room 509
SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95BIL4
TELEPHONE:916-445-1283
JOHN F. DUNLAP
CHAIRMAN
October 16, 1973
Herbert Grench, General Manager
Mid-Peninsula Regional Park District
Post office Box 11501
Palo Alto, California 94306
Dear Mr. Grench:
The Assembly Select Committee on Open Space Lands is interested in
learning of the activities of the existing regional park districts
in California. Because of the vital role that regional park districts
play in preserving open space, we feel it important to become familiar
with the policies and programs of the various regional park districts
and to learn of the problems, if any, that are being encountered by
the districts in conducting and implementing their programs. And
certainly, we would be most interested in assisting you with any
legislation that may be desired.
In order to obtain your views and comments on these matters, the Com-
mittee would like to invite you and any persons associated with your
district to an informal discussion meeting to be held in San Francisco
on Thursday, November 8, 1973, at 1: 30 p.m. in Room 1154 of the State
Building at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
We hope you will be able to attend this meeting. Please let us know
whether or not you will be able to do so no later than October 23rd,
and if you have any questions, please contact Don Gralnek at the
Committee office.
ncerely,
i N F. DUNZLAP
JFD: sp
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum
October 24 , 1974
To: Board of Directors
er
From: H. Grench, General Manager
Subject: Monte Bello Ridge Study
This just arrived and relates to the October 17 , 1973,
memo about the Monte Bello Ridge Study.
HG:chh
PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ---- -
fi%�^ 31+, Cec!::y A':';nistr,tf!cn B;,ntdrng,70 West Nodding Street,San Jose, C.Asf.951I0
October 19, 1973
HILLSIDE SUBCOMMITTEE
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Hillside Subcom4ittee
FROM: Bob Meyers
Staff has had the enclosed report on estimates for the
preparation of a cost-revenue or cost-benefit analysis
prepared by Dr. Andrew Trice, a consultant in the field
of economic analysis.
Please study this report and discuss it with your colleagues
so that you can be prepared to make a recommendation at
our next meeting.
In the meantime, please fill out the enclosed questionnaire
and return it to the County Planning Department as soon as
possible.
RM:GEF:jk
Enclosures (2)
CAMPBELL CUPERTINO GILROY LOS ALTOS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS GLTOS MILPITAS MONTE SERENO
MORGAN HILL MOUNTAIN VIEW PALO ALTO SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA SARATOGA SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
`,.ttrl.t GI r.I f.,Iturly
I'l-trurintl U- p.trhm nt
0/18/13 GLF
HILLSIDE SUBCOMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE
1 . 1 am in favor of having a:
Cost-revenue analysis done for the entire study area
Cost-benefit analysis done for the entire study area
Cost-revenue analysis done for the Monte Bello Ridge Area only
Cost-benefit anlaysis done for the Monte Bello Ridge Area only
2. 1 am not in favor of any of these because:
We should not delay the study any longer
1 am not satisfied that a cost-revenue analysis would be
of sufficient depth to be of value
I am not satisfied that a cost-benefit analysis can be
done at all because of the subjective nature of the matters
that would be involved
do not feel that either of the analyses would provide
input of sufficient magnitude to be of significant import
in the decision-caking process
The results of the study probably would not be acceptable
to persons or groups with preconceived attitudes having
to do with conservation vs development
It is not realistic to expect that the involved jurisdictions
will be willing or even able to provide funding for such a study
(Other)
3. If such a study is undertaken, 1 think the cost should be borne by:
For the entire study area: For the Monte Bello Ridge Area only:
County to County %
Mid-Peninsula Regional Mid-Peninsula Regional Park Dist,
Park District
City of Palo Alto I City of Palo Alto !,
City of Saratoga City of Saratoga 71
City of Cupertino % City of Cupertino 71
Town of Los Altos Hills /, Town of Los Altos Hills L,
(Other) !o (Other)
t--
October 5 , 1973
Midpeninsula Regional Park District
P. 0. Box 11501
Palo Alto, California 94306
Gentlemen -
On the November 6 ballot, the Santa Clara County Board
of Supervisors asks for your approval of a funding plan
that will enable us to have our own Arena for entertain-
ment and sports events in this county ,
Approval of the funding plan is urgent and critical. If
the vote is unsuccessful, it is likely that with escalating
costs , the later construction of such a facility would be
economically nrohibitive . If a simple majority (more than
50% ) of the votes are favorable , the Supervisors will estab-
lish an agency to finance and construct the project.
For those of us interested in the outdoors , it will offer
boat shows , sportsmen exhibits and outdoor recreation shows .
Your personal endorsement and/or your organization's endorse-
ment of Measure A will be greatly appreciated.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter please
contact me at your convenience.
., Sincerely,
William McKaig, Chairman
County Fish & Game Commission
William McKaig
452 Marion Ave.
Palo Alto 94301
FACTS AND FIGURES
Arena Funding Vote
On the November 6 ballot, the Santa Clara Though a maximum tax rate of 5.5 cents would and the economics are even more urgent now
County Board of Supervisors asks for your ap- be authorized, the county bond counsel reports than they were last year when voters approved
proval of a funding plan that will enable us to the actual need would average only 3.5 cents the project by a 59 percent margin.
have our own arena for entertainment and sports or less over 26 years. Citizens asked the Board of Supervisors to
events in this county. The 3.5 cents rate would cost the average use the "most appropriate" financing means.
Approval of the funding plan is urgent and homeowner only $2.41 per year, far less than This election would ratify the funding plan
critical. If the vote is unsuccessful, it is likely the cost of one trip to an event in San Francisco adopted unanimously by Supervisors. A "Yes"
that with escalating costs, the later construction or Oakland. The 3.5 cents would include con- vote will benefit all Santa Clara County citizens
of such a facility would be economically pro- struction, financing and everything. Thus, the of whatever taste or interest.
hibitive. If a simple majority (more than 50%) major Arena can be built for a nominal cost and Variety of Attractions
of the votes are favorable, the Supervisors will operated on a self-sustaining basis. The Arena,with a maximum capacity of 17,500,
establish an agency to finance and construct A Joint Powers Authority will be formed to will provide facilities for basketball, ice hockey,
the project. p Y,
issue bonds, secured by its assets, and the circuses, boxing, o concerts, pageants, ice
The multi-purpose Arena is designed to en- g, pop p g
able county residents to attend major events county will lease the facility for a period of time shows, country-western shows, rodeos, tennis,
equal to the term of the bonds. At the end of the roller derby, wrestling, horse shows and man
with minimum commuting time. As a corollary, lease, title will ass to the count g' y
it will enable entrepreneurs of major sports and p y. other activities.
entertainment activities to schedule them in this For persons devoted to civic improvement,
county. Operation and Schedule the Arena can be used for civic celebrations,
When construction is completed, the county religious programs and the like. The Arena will
Arena Capacity and Site will operate the Arena on a lease-back program. promote business and employment through its
For entertainment events, the Arena will seat The voters already have approved the Arena; construction and operation and through trade
about 5,000 for a concert-type presentation to it is urgent that the funding plan be approved shows and other activities.
11,000 for an ice show to 17,000 for a stage November 6. After approval, it will take more Family Entertainment
presentation. For sports, it will hold 15,000 for than three years for completion of architectural
ice hockey, 16,000 for basketball and 17,500 for designs, building plans and the actual construc- The Arena will provide a place for family out-
boxing. tion. Without approval, it's unlikely that Santa ings, stimulate wholesome sports, inspirational
Within one month after the election, the Board Clara County will ever have a facilit
events and clean entertainment for youngsters
y for major outstanding of Supervisors will select one of the three pro- entertainment and sports events. as well as provide g cultural attrac-
posed sites shown elsewhere in this brochure. tions. Now, citizens of this county will be able
MESSAGE FROM ARENA COMMITTEE to see these major events with far less travel.
Cost and Financing A "Yes" vote is a vote to improve the county's
A 1972 Stanford Research Institute study The construction of a Santa Clara County image, bolster the economy and strengthen its
found the facility will realize a profit on an op- Entertainment and Sports Arena is as important social fibre.
erational basis, with projected revenues exceed- Vote "Yes" on Arena Funding Plan
ing estimated expenses by $250,000 a year. Take pride in Santa Clara County, provide
pleasure for your family and friends, vote "Yes"
on Measure A for a sports arena and entertain-
ment center, November 6.
i
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
LAWRENCE EXPWY �5
ARENA COMMITTEE R yt�►y
AA .t
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Cjr Q�
Chairman Campaign Chairman O� �O G� !�G
P. Anthony Ridder Ray Blackmore �_ r `�' of- 7
Campaign Co-Chairmen: V G� ` -v
COFFIN ROAD Central County: North County: V QG�PG6 OtGj
Dominic Cortese Charles Gordon _ f Q t p I" Q�
Susanne Wilson Crystal Gamage V_ I
A. P. (Dutch) Hamann V
Campaign Coordinator Advertising Q
Ben Reichmuth Danny Hill
SEEK v 0,V aQV o�
AN TooAs AOU1N0 C Gregg Aguilar OMMITTE COMMITTEE at Malley S v Q�� �G�NQ��NO�S
S Burton R. Brazil Larry May ' .,t 5 �.
y�. John Caine William McKaig Q `, lop- �y OJ�
Peter CiGa Velma Million Q�! �o Get �N
�{ 9 Warren Gannon Jack Morrisey � ` ` , `� N�
0 AI Garza Henry Plymire _ IQ a _ I�G �jQ
James Geary Louis Rossi
D/ Robert Hosfeldt John K.Salois
Robert Kieve Marion Sellers
oZ
George Lydon Gary Vandeweghe _ 1 Q �S AG
W. E.Withrow V Q G I^
S D CITY CHAIRMEN
o � �
CP < Campbell Morgan Hill
T ��9 p Emerson Arends John Moreno V ,
m F AGNEWS 9 Cupertino Mountain View
m STATE v James Frost Martin Spangler,Jr.
A � Bill Henderson
HOSPITAL
Gilroy
Fred O. Wood Palo Alto
33 c Gordy Soltau
Los Altos° San Jose
n Pete Lewis
.� o Norman Mineta
Ai Los Gatos Santa Clara
Mkt P� Dr. Charles DeFreitas Gary Gillmor
I' Milpitas Saratoga
�p ��Q Robert Cracolice Rodney J. Diridon
Monte Sereno Sunnyvale
Dr. Daniel Vaughn Kim Amick `
17 NIMtTZ FREE'W AY
IT4 1 t1' y I
1111 'A'
lI PROPOSED SITES
I have been authorized by the membership of
to confirm the organization's endorsement of a "Yes" vote on
Measure A (Santa Clara County Entertainment and Sports Arena)
on the ballot for the election November 6 . 1973. The Santa
Clara County Arena Committee is authorized to use this endorse-
ment in news stories and advertising.
(Signed)
(Title)