The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About19750723 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 75-17 A Me _ng 75-17 OVA MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors A G E N D A July 23 , 1975 7 :30 P.M. Midpeninsula Regional Park District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA (7 : 30) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 9, 1975 ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION (7 :45) 1. Site Planning Procedures - J. Olson (8 :15) 2. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Establishing a Policy for the Handling of Candidates ' Statements of Qualifications at District Elections - S. Norton (8 :25) 3 . Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Establishing Procedure for Published Advertisement of Elections to Fill Board Seats and of Opportunities to Apply for Board Vacancies - S. Norton NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION (8 : 35) 4 . Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Determining and Declaring that Certain Easements and Rights of Way Do Not Adversely Affect Proposed Park and Recreation Uses (Permanente Creek Park) - E. Jaynes (8 :50) 5. Approval of Annual Claims List - E. Jaynes NEW BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION (9 : 00) 6 . Annexation Survey Results - J. Breithaupt (9 :15) 7 . Citizens Committee for Annexation - H. Turner and M. Zimmer- man CLAIMS (9 : 30) EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations and Personnel Matters ADJOURNMENT f } 1 S A N ANTONIO HILLS , INC . P. O. BOX 54 LOS ALTOS (LOYOLA) CALIFORNIA 94022 I July llt 1975 Kidpeninsula, Regional Park District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, California 94422 Subjects Perham Ranch Project Gentlemeni The San Antonio Hills Association again wishes to express the strong interest and concern of property owners in an area adjacent to the Perham Ranch, regarding its development as a park, Mr. Herbert A. Grench heard first-hand many of these concerns when he spoke at a meeting called by our group on November 7th, 1974e Any development that Increases vehicular traffic and/or permits inter- sine public access to this area will have an adverse impact upon our nat- ural and residential environment. Our past experience with growth in this area strongly dictates that due consideration must be given the following aspects Traffic congestion and parking problems on narrow hazardous roadso Fire hazard that will increase with more intensive use of this naturally brushy areas Vandalism, theft, and robbery which has been on the increase be- cause more people are attracted to our area--indeed find it easier to have access because of improved highways, expressways, etc Litter is also increasing and individual property owners must deal with most of it at their own expense. Noise pollution can only increase as Freeway 284 has amply dem- onstrated to residents. Plantings, various road surfaces, other measures such as berms faring no relief to those on the uphill side. PoliciM of this area could result in a greater tax burden on residents, who often contribute without benefit to such County projects as transportation that does not reach our vicinitye This would result in a disproportionate rate of tax to our resi- dentse I REPRESENTING HOME OWNERS IN THE UNINCORPORATED LOS ALTOS AREA III 1 a -'� W Z'ejJ l i SAN ANTONio HILLS , INC . P. O. BOX 54 LOS ALTOS (LOYOLA) , CALIFORNIA 94022 -2- Midponinsula Regional Park District, July lls 1975. Our understanding of Herb Grouch's presentation was that the goals of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District were to preserve the natural beauty and physical characteristics of its acquistitionse More than one avenue of development was advanced for the Perham Ranch. We call attention to suggestions made by Professor Wm. Reynolds that meet the criteria of limited environmental Impactjo as covered in his letter to you of July 10.* 1975- Our Association would appreciate an opportunity for input into this developsento We wish to be placed on any sailing list or other devise that will keep us informed about a project so vital to our residents. We are also anxious to be of assistance in the positive development of this pro- ject* Yours very truly, Muriel V. Schmidt# President. REPRESENTING HOME OWNERS IN THE UNINCORPORATED LOS ALTOS AREA 10931 Mora Drive Los Altos, 94022 July 10, 1975 Midpeninsula Regional Park District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, Calif. 94022 Dear Sirs, With the acquisition of the Perham property, the policies of the MRPD will come to test. As neighbors of the Perham ranch, I do hope that the district ' s announced policies of (1) being an open space agency, leaving traditional park development to the cities and county, (2) being a good neighbor, and (3) restricting public access to agriculturalland all will be observed. In a meeting of the San Antonio Hills association earlier this year, several possibilities consistent with this policy were suggested for the Perham property. These included (1) leasing the land for agricultural use, perhaps including a school farm, (2) holding the land as unused open space, (3) limiting public use of the property to equestrians. These uses, supported by adequate patrol and groundskeeping, could minimize the adverse neighborhood impact of traffic, noise, litter, fire, and crime that will accompany public use of the area. I trust that you will consider these suggestions seriously, ano I will be pleased to play a constructive role in the development of a plan for this area consistent with the policies cited above. Yours tru.1 Wm. C . Reynolds Agenda item No. 1) M '111.,:(Ni,_ ting 75-17 , *% 0 0*_ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 18 , 1975 TO: Board of Directors FROM: E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT: Site Planning Procedures Introduction: The Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District for the Fiscal Year 1975-1976 , which was adopted on May 28 , 1975, contains an Open Space Management Subprogram. Typical projects include short and long term use and management planning for District lands. Proposed site planning procedures were presented to the Board for consideration at the June 25, 1975 Board meeting. Staff was directed to return to the Board with possible revisions based on Board comments. Since then, Jon Olson has met with Board members and made revisions which are explained in his attached memorandum (M-75-110) to me. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the format shown as Phase I - Pre-acquisition and Phase II - Post-acquisition as generalized planning policy for the District. This will then serve as a guide for planning which will undoubtedly be refined in the future as experience is gained. Staff will continue to develop the planning area concept of Phase II. EJ:acc M• -110 (Meeting 75-17, Agenda item No. 1) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 18 , 1975 TO: E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Site Planning Procedures Background: At its June 25 , 1975 meeting, the Board of Directors directed staff to return to it with revised site planning procedures based on comments made at that Board meeting. Direc- tors D. Wendin and E. Shelley subsequently met with me to further discuss the proposed site planning procedures. Based on Board members ' comments and further staff work, I am sub- mitting the attached proposal for site planning procedures for the District. Discussion: The proposed analysis and planning process remains structured in two phases: Pre-acquisition and Post-acquisition. Within both phases some procedural and descriptive changes have been made to clarify the planning processes. Phase I (Pre-Acquisition) An additional factor has been included with procedure 11 which gives consideration to properties being acquired by option. Val- uable information with regard to use and management may be gen- erated at public meetings during the option period. Procedure 16 has been added to this phase to establish a time element in which an interim plan will be developed. This is to ensure the proper use of the site upon acquisition and until such time as the Site Specific Plan can be completed. Phase II (Post-Acquisition) Procedure 1 has been added to implement the last step of the Pre-acquisition phase. A planning recommendation step has been inserted under procedure 7 as a mechanism to avoid any further Site Specific Planning where factors are more suitable for Area Planning. Steps 11 and 12 - "Environmental Assessment or Determination on Plan as Required" and "Refinement of Plan" - of the previously submitted Post-acquisition phase have been incorporated into other steps in this phase . The environmental assessment, based on information generated in steps 1 through 6 , will be included as part of the use and management plan. Step 11 has been ex- panded to include refinement of the plan and preceeds preparation of the final draft. The last addition to Phase II is a description of factors rele- vant to the yearly review of site plans. This type of informa- tion could be used to update existing plans for each site. Implementation: Emphasis during the next few years would be primarily on Phase I - Pre-acquisition, and the site specific aspects of Phase II. Development of Area Planning and a compre- hensive planning process for these areas would be developed in the future as the District and other public agencies acquired significant acreage within these units. Recommendation: It is recommended that Board adopt the format, shown as Pre-acquisiton Phase I and Post-acquisition Phase II, as the generalized site planning policy for the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. It is further suggested that staff develop the criteria for defining planning areas and refine the planning process to be used for the area planning section. JO:acc PRE-ACQUISITION PHASE Public Pre- Preliminary Acquisition Procedures Description Site Analysis Report 1. Site Analysis - General (a) Size, Location, X X Boundaries (b) Current Use (c) Geology, Soils (d) Vegetation (e) Wildlife (f) Developed Resources (g) Improvements (h) Utilities 2 . Interview with Property (a) Additional Site X Owners and Others Description Familiar with Site (b) Suggested Use (c) Potential Management Problems (d) Public Attitudes 3 . Determine Compliancy (a) Zoning X X With Political and (b) Sphere of Influence Planning Jurisdictions (c) General Plans (d) MRPD Plan (e) Williamson Act 4 . Review of Title Policy, (a) Easements, Mineral X Tax Assessments, and Rights and Other Other Factors Influenc- Restrictions ing Acquisition, Use (b) Deed of Trust - Recorded and Management or Unrecorded (c) Status of Tax Payments (d) Assessed Value - Total and $/Acre (e) Review of Services Supported by Property Tax 5. Determine Boundaries for (a) Study Access - Regional, X Effective Use and Manage- Community and Neighbor- ment of Site hood (b) Determine Current and Potential Adjacent Land Use (c) Recommend Additional Parcels to Increase Effectiveness of Site 6. Cultural History (a) Review of Cultural X History Associated With the Site (b) Describe Past Use Coin- ciding with Cultural History Public Pre- --eliminary Acquisition Procedures Description Site Analysis Report 7 . Potential Use (a) Natural Resource X X Considerations Protection (b) Agriculture (c) Recreation (d) Education (e) Other 8 . Potential Management (a) Natural Resources X X Considerations (b) Agriculture (c) Recreation (d) Tenants (e) Dumping (f) Patrol - Review Existing Fire and Policing (g) Immediate Action Steps , Cost and Timetable 9 . Indicate Relationship X X to Regional Trails Plan and Other Parklands 10. Terms X X 11. Other Factors (a) Land Tour - If Feasible X X Could Include Public, MRPD Board & Public Agency Staff (b) Public Meeting During Option Period if Feasi- ble. District-wide Notice 12 . Discussion of Factors X X Influencing Acquisition (Public Input from Hearing) 13. Recommendation X 14 . Environmental Assessment X or Determination on Acquisition 15 . Negative Declaration or EIR if Required X 16 . Staff Recommendation and X Board Concurrence on Time Frame for Development of Interim Use and Management Plan (Step 1 of Site Spe- cific Planning Process) POST-ACQUISITION PHASE Site Specific Procedures Description 1. Staff Recommendation and Board (a) This Recommendation Will be Concurrence on Interim Plan to Based Primarily on Information be Effective After Acquisition Developed in the Pre-Acquisition and Until Use and Management Phase. In General, Existing Plan (Site Specific) is Developed) Types of Use Will be Continued Unless there is a Negative Effect Associated with a Particular Use. If a Use and Management Plan has not been Adopted in One Year, the Interim Recommendation will be Reviewed to Determine its Effectiveness. 2 . Interviews with Property Owners (a) Insight into Use and Management and Others Familiar with Site Problems (b) Public Attitudes 3 . Classification and Mapping of (a) Delineate Geographic and Vege- Vegetative Communities tative Units (b) Locate Fragile or Otherwise Significant Areas (c) Indicate Action Necessary for Protection or Restoration 4 . Investigate Accessibility (a) Community/Neighborhood (b) Regional (c) Regional Trail (d) Internal Circulation of Trails and Roads 5 . Monitor Adjacent Use (a) Status of Adjacent Lands (b) Recommendations for Further Acquisitions (c) Continued Land Use Monitoring 6 . Preliminary Public Meeting (a) Consist of Neighborhood and Community - Public Notice Mandatory (b) Compile Information on Potential Use and Management 7. Planning Recommendation (a) Staff Recommendation as to Whether Site Specific Planning Should be Continued or Area Planning Initiated 8 . Draft Use and Management Plan (a) Use Preceding Information to Preparation Justify Development and Manage- ment Scheme 8. Draft Use and Management Plan (b) State Basic Policies for Use Preparation (continued) and Management on Specific Areas Such as : Types of Permits and Conditions, Circulation, Education, Staging, and Agri- culture, as Applicable (c) Environmental Assessment 9 . Public Presentation of Plan (a) Public Views Concerning the Proposed Use and Management (b) Evaluation and Revision of Plan 10. Other Factors, Such As : (a) Land Tours - If Feasible Could Include Public , MRPD Board and Public Agency Staff 11. Presentation of the Plan to (a) MRPD Board Input Concerning MRPD Board the Proposed Use and Management Plan (b) Refinement of Plan Depending on Action of the Board 12 . Prepare Final Draft of Use and Management Plan 13 . Negative Declaration or EIR on Plan if Necessary 14 . Adoption or Motion of Endorsement 15 . Yearly Review of Site Plans (or (a) Including Status Reports from Interim Recommendations , if Site Caretakers Where Applicable Plans Have Not Been Completed) (b) Status Reports from MRPD to Determine Effectiveness and Rangers Provide for Information Regarding (c) Public Review Session Changes in Use POST-ACQUISITION PHASE Area Planning* Procedures Description 1. Divide District into Geographic (a) Planning Areas Based Upon Planning Areas Ecological Units, Watersheds, and Use Patterns 2 . Detailed Inventory of Resources Within Planning Area 3 . Develop a Use and Management Plan (a) A Long Range Plan for the Planning Area with Emphasis on MRPD Lands Area Planning Could Be Initiated Parallel to Site Specific Planning or Implemented at a Later Date Depending on Staff Resources and Priorities M �-106 1AN-w Idpw (Meeting or 75-17 ,Agenda item No. 2 ) 36M 0 few MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 16 , 1975 TO: Board of Directors FROM: E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT: Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District Establishing a Policy for the Handling of Candidates ' Statements of Qualifications at District Elections Discussion: At its May 28, 1975 meeting, the Board of Directors directed staff to return to it with a resolution stating the District 's policy that candidates for Board seats would not be billed for election statements of qualifications or for requested Spanish translations. Accordingly, the District's Legal Counsel has prepared the at- tached resolution for the Board's consideration. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the at- tached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Establishing a Policy for the Handling of Candidates ' Statements of Qualifications at District Elections. EJ:acc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE HANDLING OF CANDIDATES ' STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICA- TIONS AT DISTRICT ELECTIONS WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 10012 .5 provides in part that candidates for elective office in local agencies, including regional park districts , may prepare and have printed, translated and mailed to voters statements of qualifications with respect to their candidacies , and that local agencies may bill candidates certain costs and charges therefor, and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of California, in Knoll v. Davidson (1974) Sup. , 116 Cal. Rptr. 97 , has made clear that said Elections Code permits the local agency to bill , at its option, candidates for such costs and charges but does not com- pel the local agency to collect such costs , and WHEREAS, a policy of billing for and attempting to col- lect such costs and charges from all candidates might give an unfair advantage to affluent potential candidates and invidiously discriminate against potential candidates who are unable to afford such fees, and WHEREAS, pursuant to such state law, the Board of Direc- tors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District wishes to estab- lish a fair and uniform policy for the handling of statements of qualifications of candidates , and for translations thereof, in connection with Midpeninsula Regional Park District elections , NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District does resolve that candidates ' statements of qualifications shall, if requested, and transla- tion of such statements into Spanish only shall, if requested, be provided by the District at its- expense pursuant to the Elections Code of the State of California, and that no candidate shall be billed for availing himself or herself of these services. 15-107 (Meeting 75-17 , Agenda item No. 3) ti MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 16 , 1975 TO: Board of Directors FROM: E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT: Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District Establishing Procedure for Published Advertisement of Elections to Fill Board Seats and of Opportunities to Apply for Board Vacancies Discussion: At its May 28 , 1975 meeting, the Board of Directors directed staff to return to it with a resolution setting forth qualifications for advertising of District elections and Board vacancies. Accordingly, the District's Legal Counsel has prepared the attached resolution for your theZoard ' s consideration. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the at- tached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Establishing Procedure for Published Adver- tisement of Elections to Fill Board Seats and of Opportunities to Apply for Board Vacancies. EEJ:acc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR PUBLISHED ADVERTISEMENT OF ELECTIONS TO FILL BOARD SEATS AND OF OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY FOR BOARD VACANCIES WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District deems the minimum required by law for notice of elections to fill Board seats and of opportunities to apply for Board vacancies to be inadequate , and wishes to establish procedure which will better impart such information to the public, NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpen- insula Regional Park District does resolve as follows : Section One. Within the seven days preceding the open- ing date for taking out nomination papers preceding any election at which directors are to be elected, the Secretary shall cause to be published in one or more newspapers circulated within an affected ward a reasonably prominent advertisement setting forth the fact of the election, the purpose of the election and includ- ing information as to qualifications, nomination procedure and other matters likely to be of interest to potential candidates for such office. Section Two. Immediately upon the occurrence of a vacancy which may be filled by the Board pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5536 , the Secretary shall cause to be published in one or more newspapers circulated within an affected ward a rea- sonably prominent advertisement setting forth the fact of the vacancy, that it may be filled by the Board, and that any quali- fied person may apply within ten days to be considered for such appointment upon a form to be provided by the Secretary for such purpose. Section Three. For purposes of Sections One and Two, the newspaper (s) circulated in the ward most likely to give adequate notice, and to be used for publication, are as follows : Ward No.. Newspaper (s) or Publication (s)- 1 San Jose Mercury, Los Gatos Times Observer, Saratoga News 2 Palo Alto Times , Los Altos Town Crier, Cuper- tino Courier 3 San Jose Mercury, Sunnyvale Scribe 4 San Jose Mercury, Palo Alto Times, Los Altos Town Crier 5 Palo Alto Times , Stanford Daily (if publishing) Section Four. The failure to perform any act or acts as prescribed by this Resolution shall in no way affect the valid- ity of any action taken, the results of any election or the fill- ing of any vacancy. 75-104 A, AA- 'ALF (Meeting 75-17, Agenda item No. 4) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 15 , 1975 TO: Board of Directors FROM: E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT : Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Determining and Declaring that Certain Easements and Rights of Way Do Not Adversely Affect Proposed Park and Recreation Uses (Permanente Creek Park) In order to comply with the rules and regulations relating to State Bond and Land and Water Conservation Fund grants, it is necessary to assure the State agency administering the grants that all private easements and public utilities affecting property covered by the grants will not adversely affect the proposed recreational uses of the property. The State Department of Parks and Recreation is administering the grants covering the Permanente Creek Park site and has request- ed that they be furnished with a resolution assuring their office that the utilities and easements affecting the Permanente Creek Park site will not conflict with proposed recreational uses. Staff has evaluated the private easements and utility easements on the Permanente Creek Park site and has found that they do not interfere with proposed uses of the site. It is therefore recommended that you adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park Dis- trict Determining and Declaring that Certain Easements and Rights of Way Do Not Adversely Affect Proposed Park and Recreation Uses (Permanente Creek Park) . EEJ:acc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT DETERMINING AND DECLARING THAT CERTAIN EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY DO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT PROPOSED PARK AND RECREATION USES (PERMANENTE CREEK PARK) WHEREAS the preliminary title review shows certain private easements and rights of way and public utilities upon the land subject of the Permanente Creek Park Acquisition, said encumbrances being shown as items 10 , 11, 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 and 16 on the "Litigation Guarantee" dated March 18, 1974 , a copy of which is affixed hereto and by reference made a part hereof, NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District does resolve, determine and declare, and does assure the Department of Parks and Recreation of the Resources Agency of California as follows : 1. Items 1 through 9 inclusive, and items 17 through 20 inclusive, shall be removed and not appear in the final policy of title insurance. 2. Items 10 through 13 inclusive (private easements and rights of way) cannot be cleared, but none of such items will conflict with or adversely affect the proposed park and recreation uses on the property. 3. Items 14 through 16 inclusive (public utilities) are either well screened or buried, or, in the case of the single high voltage power line (item 15) is not practicably susceptible of screening, burial or relocation. The Board determines that none of such items will conflict with or adversely affect the proposed park and recreation uses on the pro- perty. AA, M-, ,-105 14610f (Meeting 75-17 , Agenda item No. 5) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 16, 1975 TO: Board of Directors FROM: E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Annual Claims List Discussion: At its meeting of July 24 , 1974 , the Board of Directors adopted a resolution which amended the Rules of Procedure to permit approval of certain recurring claims on an annual basis. This gives the Controller authorization to pay recurring claims up to an approved amount as they come due during a fiscal year, and eliminates the necessity for listing, reviewing and approving these claims on the regular claims list. In accordance with the amended budget for the 1975-1976 fis- cal year adopted by the Board at its July 9 , 1975 meeting, an Annual Claims List is attached for your consideration. Recommendation: It is recommended that the attached Annual Claims List for the 1975-1976 Fiscal Year be approved. EJ:acc ICI ANNUAL CLAIMS Fiscal Year 1975 1976 Item Description Annual Amount Directors' Fees $ 6 ,000 Staff Salaries 142 ,500 District Counsel' s Fees 19 ,500 Retirement Funds 11,000 Health Insurance 5,400 Dental Insurance 1,600 Life Insurance 1 ,200 Office Rent 7 ,600 G.M. Vehicle Expense 1r800 M-75-108 (Meeting 75-17, AA Agenda Item No. 6) *404 Or 30=0 tow MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT July 18 , 1975 TO: Board of Directors FROM: E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT: Annexation Survey Results Diridon Research Corporation has completed their comprehensive and extensive survey of voter preference about the proposed annexation of south San Mateo County to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. John Breithaupt, Project Director, has summarized the results of the survey, which are attached for your review. I have also met with Mr. Breithaupt and discussed in detail the results of the survey. It can be fairly stated, based on the results of the survey, that if a vote were held today in the proposed annexation area, voters would over- whelmingly, or by 2 to 1, vote for annexation to the District. EJ:acc MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ANNEXATION SURVEY SUMMARY OF PRIMARY RESULTS July 17, 1975 y Submitted to the Midpenisula Regional Park District j DIRIDON RESEARCH CORPORATION Project Director - John Breithaupt North First Street Suite 605 777 No , SanJ n' Jose, Calif o ris 95112 SUMMARY During the spring of 1975, 482 registered voters living in the southern portion of San Mateo County were asked to express opinions concerning open space, open space utilization, and a potential annexation to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. The primary results of this survey are summarized below. • open space (57%) and lhnited park development (257b) were the most frequently favored uses for the undeveloped Peninsula f oothills. ................ • The most frequently favored uses for undeveloped baylands were open space (5076), park development (17%) and industrial develop- ment (12%). e respondents felt development About 47 percent of the causes taxes to increase, while 17 percent felt it'depended upon the development and 10 percent felt taxes would decrease. • open space was most frequently defined to be undeveloped land (76%), parks and playgrounds (187b) or wildlife areas (15%) by the voters. • The most frequently favored uses for currently undeveloped open space were for leaving it as open space (4701o), hiking and picnicing (34%) and overnight camping (107o). 1 I ® � I c/ • A large majority of the voters (61%) felt that zoning is generally effective in preserving open space, while 16 percent felt this was not effective. • Respondents most often felt that adequate areas for hiking and picnicing did not exist in either the foothills or baylands. • About 66 percent of the voters felt there is a need for preserva- tion of open space in both the foothills and baylands, while 16 percent felt this need does not exist. • Utilizing tax dollars for preservation of open space in the foot- hills and baylands was favored by 63 percent of the respondents, while 18 percent opposed such an action. • About 41 percent of the respondents had heard of the Mid- peninsula Regional Park District, 14 percent favorably, 2 percent unfavorably and 25 percent with no impression. • Annexqtion to the Midpeninsula, Regional Park District was favored by 65 percent of the voters surveyed, while 23 percent opposed annexation and 12 percent were undecided. When asked why they favored annexation, 75 percent of those voters supporting annexation said it was because they favored preservation of open space. 2 111RIBON BESEARCH COM. • Those voters opposed to annexation most frequently did so be- cause they felt it cost too much (74%). • About 61 percent of the respondents had had their home re- assessed this year, while 21 percent had not been re-assessed. • The San Francisco Chronicle (56%), the Redwood City Tribune (44%) and the Palo Alto Times (33%) were the three newspapers most frequently read by the respondents. 3 0 75T. USE OF FOOTHILLS PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Open space-wilderness was the most frequently favored use for the undeveloped foothills (577b), while 25 percent of the voters favored limited park development (day hiking, picnicing). About 9 percent of the respondents favored residential development and 22 percent expressed no opinion. The respondents were asked the following question: "What uses do you think should be made of the undeveloped Peninsula Foothills?" Open space-wilderness area 57 Limited park development 25 Overnight camping 2 Residential development 9 Industrial development 2 Intensive recreational use 3 Other 4 DK/DTS 22 Respondents could answer more than one therefore the percentages do not add up to 100%. 4 i i USE OF BAYLANDS PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Open space (50010), park development (17%) and industrial development (12%) were the three most frequently favored uses for undeveloped baylands. Airport development was mentioned by one per- cent of the respondents and 19 percent expressed no opinion. The following question was asked of the veers: "What uses do you think should be made of the undeveloped baylands?" °lo Open space-wilderness area 50 Park development 17 Industrial development 12 Airport development 1 Residential development 6 Intensive recreational use 7 Other 7 DK/DTS 19 *Respondents could answer more than one, therefore thepe rcentages do not add up to 1007o. 5 1BESEMCH CONVic . DEVELOPMENT EFFECT ON TAXES PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Forty-seven percent of the respondents felt that development causes taxes to increase, while 10 percent felt it caused de- creased taxes and 13 percent felt taxes would remain the same. About 17 percent of the voters felt that the effect development had on taxes would depend upon the type of development. Respondents were asked the following question. "In general, do you feel development causes taxes to increase, decrease or remain the same?" % Increase 47 Decrease 10 Remain the same 13 Depen ds upon type of development 17 Other 2 DK/DTS 11 6 U _ 'c-,,l� 111RIBOM BEHARCH CORP .-C-- DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE PRIMARY ANALYSIS: When asked what open space meant to them, 76 percent of the voters mentioned undeveloped land, 18 percent identified parks and playgrounds, and 15 percent mentioned wildlife areas. Orchards and agricultural land were mentioned by 2 percent and 3 percent of the respondents respectively. The following open-ended question was asked of the respondents. "What does the term "open space" mean to you?" Parks and playgrounds 18 Undeveloped land 76 Trails 6 Land with no access 3 Orchards 2 Agricultural land 3 Wildlife area 15 Empty lots, no buildings 5 Other 6 DK/DTS 5 Respondents could answer more than one, therefore the percentages do not add up to 100%. 7 111BIBOR] BE5EARCH CORP. USES OF UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE PRIMARY ANALYSIS:When asked what uses they would favor for currently undeveloped open space, 47 percent of the voters favored leaving such land as open space, 34 percent favored inclusion of hiking and picnicing, and 11 percent preferred intensive recreational uses (boating, swimming, golf). Residential and industrial development was favored by 9 and 6 percent of the voters respectively. The following open-ended question was asked of the respondents. "In general what uses would you favor for currently undeveloped open space?" Overnight camping 10 Hiking, picnicing 34 Leave as open space 47 Residential development 9 Industrial development 6 Horse trails 5 Intensive recreation use 11 Other 14 DK/DTS 11 Respondents could answer more than one, therefore the percentages do not add up to 100%. 8 ZONING EFFECTIVE TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE PRIMARY ANALYSIS: About 61 percent of the respondents felt that zoning was generally effective in preserving open space, while 16 percent felt this was ineffective and 23 percent expressed no opinion. The respondents were asked the following question. ti "Generally speaking, do you feel zoning is effective or ineffective as a means for preserving open space?" Effective 61 Ineffective 16 DK/DTS 23 9 ; -` ADEQUATE AREAS FOR HIKING AND PICNICING IN THE FOOTHILLS AND BAYLANDS PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Forty-one percent of the voters felt that adequate areas for hiking and picnicing exist in the Peninsula foothills, while 42 percent felt that adequate areas do not exist. Baylands statistics were significantly different with only 18 percent of the respondents feeling that current facilities are adequate, and 48 percent feeling they are inadequate. The respondents were asked the following two-part question: "Generally, do you feel there currently exist adequate areas for hiking and picnicing in the Peninsula foothills? How about in the baylands?" Yes No DK/DTS % % % Foothills 41 42 17 1 Baylands 8 48 34 10 ru� BESEABC14 MET NEED FOR PRESERVATION OF MORE OPEN SPACE PRIMARY DATA: About 16 percent of the respondents did not feel that there is a need for preservation of more open space, while 66 percent felt this need exists in both the foothills and baylands, 10 percent for the foothills only and 2 percent for the baylands only. Voters were asked the following question. "Do you feel that there is a need for preservation of more open space ? Is that in the foothills, the baylands or both?" Yes, foothills 10 Yes, baylands 2 Yes, both 66 1 Na 6 Other 2 DK/DTS 4 BESEABCH C015P. TAX DOLLARS FOR PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Sixty-three percent of the voters felt that tax dollars should be used for preservation of open space in both the foothills and baylands, while 8 percent favored using tax dollars for this purpose in the foothills only. About 18 percent of the respondents opposed utilizing tax dollars for preservation of open space. The respondents were asked the following question. "Do you favor or oppose using tax dollars for preservation of open space? Is that in the foothills, the baylands, or both?" Yes, foothills Yes, baylands Yes, both 63 No 18 Other 2 DK/DTS 8 12 1111MBON [AESEARCH MIN. KNOWLEDGE OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Forty-•one percent of the respondents had heard of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, 14 percent favorably, 2 percent un- favorably and 25 percent with no impression. About 55 percent of the voters had not heard of the District. The respondents were asked the following question: "Have you ever heard of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District? Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impres- sion of the District?" Yes, Favorable 14 Yes, Unfavorable 2 Yes, No impression 25 No 55 DK/DTS 4 13 VOTE NA ANNEXATION TION T O PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Sixty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they would vote in favor of the annexation to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, while 23 percent opposed annexation and 12 percent were undecided. The voters were asked the following question: "The Midpeninsula Regional Park District was created for the purpose of preserving large open space areas in the foothills and baylands, and to provide limited recreational access to these lands. The District levies up to a 10 cent per hundred dollar assessed valuation property tax in order to raise money for purchasing land. On a $20, 000 home, this would mean a yearly increase in taxes of $5; $10 on a $40, 000 home; and $20 on a $80, 000 home. Would you vote in favor of or in opposition to annexation of your area into this District?" Favor 65 Oppose 23 DK/DTS 12 14 CORP. WHY FAVOR ANNEXATION PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Seventy-five percent of those voters in favor of annexation indicated that the reason for their response was that they wanted to preserve open space, while 10 percent "didn't know. " The most frequently mentioned "other" responses were that it was not too expensive (4%), and that annexation was basically a good idea (4%). Those respondents favoring annexation were asked the following ques- tion: "Why do you favor annexation?"* Preserve Open Space 75 Provide more Recreation 9 Other 16 DK/DTS 10 *Respondents could answer more than one therefore the percentages do not add up to 100%. 15 DIMON RESEARCH CORP WHY OPPOSE ANNEXATION PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Seventy-four percent of those voters opposing annexation indicated that they did so because they felt it cost too much, while 16 percent felt annexation was not necessary and 14 percent "didn't know". Those respondents opposing annexation were asked the following question: "Why do you oppose annexation?"* Cost too much 74 Not necessary 16 Run by out of town people 3 Already pay for such services 4 Other 5 DK/DTS 14 16 BESELRCH CUBE NEWSPAPERS PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Many of the respondents read more than one newspaper, with 56 percent reading the San Francisco Chronicle, 44 percent reading the Redwood City Tribune, and 33 percent read- ing the Palo Alto Times. The most frequently mentioned "other" papers were the San Francisco Examiner (7%), the San Carlos Enquire (6%) and the Wall Street Journal (4%). The respondents were asked the following question: "What newspapers do you usually read?"* % San Francisco Cronicle 56 Palo Alto Times 33 San Mateo Times 7 Menlo Recorder 6 San Jose News 2 Redwood City Tribune 44 Country Almanac 3 Other 23 DK/DTS 0 *Respondents could answer more than one therefore the percentages do not add up to 100%. 17 RE CH CC, (P:7 5EAR \ \ \ \ , REVISED C-75-15 July 23 , 1975 Meeting 75-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT C L A I M S Amount Name Descripti6n 1203 $27,324. 00 Millard F. Blair North Foothills Open Space First installment 1204 300. 00 U.S. Postmaster Postage for meter 1205 3 .78 Western California Directory listing Telephone Company 1206 9 . 80 Stanley Norton June expenses 1207 28$ .59 Curtis Lindsay Inc. Office equipment 1208 31. 80 Pitney Bowes Postage meter 1209 296. 61 Orchard Supply Hardware Field tools 1210 95.00 THestern Title Guaranty Litigation guarantee Company 1211 11. 66 Frame Art Workshop Frame 1212 436 .90 County Clerk Jury fees--Perham 1213 426. 84 Techni-Graphics, Inc. Printing 1214 500. 00 Environmental Volunteers Volunteer coordination 1215 7 . 24 Mobil Oil District Vehicle expense 1216 624 . 89 Xerox Corporation Duplicating 1217 50.78 E. Jaynes Meal conferences $16 .43 Mileage 34 .35 1218 30. 40 J. Olscn W District vehicle expense 1219 28 . 65 D . Woods Mileage 1220 157 . 56 Petty Cash Meal conferences $70 .60 Office supplies 17 .41 Dist. vehicle 5 .50 Maps 2 .80 Mileage 11 .25 Option 10.00 Postage 40.00