HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810225 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 81-5
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
February 25, 1981
I. ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 : 32 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Edward Shelley,
Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Barbara Green
arrived at 8 :15 P.M.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steven Sessions ,
Charlotte MacDonald, Stanley Norton, and Jean Fiddes .
II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 28, 1981
E. Shelley stated the arbitrary value of the leases on the Winship
property was incorrectly stated as $205,000 and should read $250 ,000
(Page Four, Item A of New Business with Action Requested) .
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the corrected minutes of
January 28 , 1981 . D. Wendin seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The Board received a written communication, dated February 9, 1981,
from Stephen M. Stevick, Executive Director of The Sierra Club
Foundation, confirming the position of The Sierra Club Foundation
regarding the uses of the Thorne Estate, and a written communication,
dated February 16 , 1981, from Margaret McCaffery, 777-119 San Antonio
Road, Palo Alto, thanking Director Hanko for her stand concerning
the trade of the Thornewood property.
J. Fiddes noted there were three additional written communications .
Peg Tonnesen, 1127 Vermont Way, San Bruno, and Jean Rusmore, 36 Berenda
Way, Menlo Park, had sent letters , dated February 22 and February
12 respectively, to Director Hanko thanking her for her stand to
save the Thornewood property for public use. Alan F. Carpenter,
1890 Granger Avenue, Los Altos , addressed, in his letter of
February 19 , 1981, the issue of the safety of children and the
safety of the Windmill Pasture area itself when considering the
question of overnight camping in Windmill Pasture. R. Bishop
referred Mr. Carpenter 's letter to the Board committee considering
sleep-outs in Windmill Pasture.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
R. Bishop stated the agenda would stand as written.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, requested that the Board express
its support of the acquisition of the Gill Mustang Ranch by the
State 's Department of Parks and Recreation and its addition to
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 81-5 age Two
Henry Coe State Park to the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors .
Harry Hauessler, 1092 Highland Circle, Los Altos , objected to
the Board taking any action on this matter since the areas
discussed were outside the District's jurisdiction.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board authorize the President
to send a letter to the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors enlisting their support for the Gill Mustang
Ranch acquisition. H. Turner seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
H. Hauessler requested that the Board reconsider the District
policy that prohibits dogs from being in the Windmill Pasture
area since dogs are allowed on adjacent lands . R. Bishop
referred Mr. Hauessler's request to the Dog Committee.
Drew Arvay, 2080 Madelaine Court, Los Altos, addressed the Board
on the increasing parking problems faced by the residents on
St. Joseph Avenue. Speaking on behalf of those homeowners , he
noted the parking problem was creating safety hazards , destruction
of personal property, and a general nuisance. He stated he had
discussed the matter with S. Sessions and D. Wendin, that the
situation needed to be corrected before summer, that better
maps and flyers were needed to direct people to the parking
areas at the Rancho San Antonio County Park, and that the citizens
on St. Joseph Avenue were looking for District cooperation and
assistance in resolving the matter. S. Sessions noted that
some 6 ,000 flyers had been distributed since December, that articles
had appeared in local papers requesting that people park at the
county park, and that the District did not have the jurisdiction
to put no parking signs on St. Joseph Avenue. He said he would
be meeting with the Assistant City Engineer of the Town of Los
Altos to discuss the situation and possible solutions and that
the District had requested that one-half of the curbing under
the Interstate 280 overpass be painted red. K. Duffy suggested
that the St. Joseph Avenue neighbors, if willing, be given a
stack of flyers to pass out. D. Wendin stated that St. Joseph
Avenue was not intended to be an access to the Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve, that the habit of parking on the
street must be broken, and that he felt the public did not
have the right to "overpark" on the street. S. Sessions noted
it was necessary for the St. Joseph Avenue residents to coordinate
with Los Altos City officials to discuss the concept of limited
parking on the street. N. Hanko requested that staff report
back to the Board at a future meeting on the status of the
parking situation.
Marshall Shoemaker, 18797 Westview Drive, Saratoga, questioned
the Board about the District's financial situation and the
current tax for the District being levied on property owners .
R. Bishop responded that the item on property owners ' tax bills
was to retire certain indebtedness incurred by the District
before the passage of Proposition 13. He noted the District
buys land now out of its current income, or, in certain cases,
is allowed to incur an indebtedness in buying land. H. Grench
stated the District's class of indebtedness is of two types
1) note issue and 2) individual contract payments with landowners
Meeting 81-5 age Three
for property. H. Grench stated that Mr. Shoemaker should contact
him if he desired any more information about the District's
financial situation or its funding.
VI . PUBLIC HEARING
A. Determination of Public Necessity - Proposed Addition to Foothills
Open Space Preserve (Giuffre Property)
C. Britton introduced report R-81-10 , dated February 11, 1981,
regarding the determination of public necessity of the Giuffre
property as an addition to the Foothills Open Space Preserve. He
noted that the one acre site was located on upper Page Mill Road
between the Monte Bello and Los Trancos Open Space Preserves and
was adjacent to lands owned by the City of Palo Alto. He
indicated the location of the property on a District-wide wall map
and on a specific area map and showed two slides of the property,
one taken from the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve and one
showing the railroad tie fence, the road, and the shed on the
property. He stated that the Harrington and Kramer properties
in the area were not publicly owned.
S. Sessions reported that the property was located within the
Palo Alto city limits and that Page Mill Road had been designated
as a scenic route between Foothill Expressway and Skyline
Boulevard. He noted that a trail corridor had been identified to
run through the property, identified the shed and fence as the
existing development on the property, and noted that he felt
the acquisition of the property was critical since any development
would have a significant impact on the viewshed, the scenic
quality of the area, and its relationship to the adjacent open
space areas . He said that specific interim use and management
recommendations called for the removal of the existing fence,
shed, and railroad ties and the realignment of the split-rail
fence, constructed by the City of Palo Alto, so as to include
the entire parcel. He said staff was recommending that the property
become an addition to the Foothills Open Space Preserve and that
the property be dedicated as public open space.
C. Britton provided background information on the acquisition aspects
of the property, noting that the current owner purchased the
property on November 13, 1980 for an indicated price of $100 ,000 ,
that the purchase price included plans for a six-bedroom house
and was contingent upon a renewal of a variance that Palo Alto
had previously granted so the house could be built on the property.
He said District staff had been unsuccessful in acquiring the
property thus far and had an appraisal underway. He noted that
because of the critical nature of the property, it was necessary
for the District to make its intentions known, pass a Resolution
of Public Necessity, and take an Order for Possession so the
property was not built upon.
S. Norton clarified for the Board and the public the purpose of
the Public Hearing. He stated that he had been informed by
staff that the property owner had been duly notified as required
by law and the purpose of the Board' s deliberations at this time
was to make two findings : 1) whether or not the public interest
and necessity required the acquisition of the property for
public park, recreation and open space purposes and 2) to determine
whether the project, in this case the property, is located so as
to be most compatible with the greatest public good and cause the
least private injury. He stated that these were the conclusions
Meeting 81-5 Page Four
the Board should be prepared to reach and suggested that the
staff report of February 11, 1981 be made a part of the record.
R. Bishop stated that the staff report would be made a part of the
record at this time.
M. Shoemaker stated he felt it improper for the District to use
its right of eminent domain.
R. Bishop responded that the District did have the authority to
exercise its right of eminent domain,noting that the District used
this right sparingly on properties considered to be important to
the purposes of the District and in relationship to other District
owned properties.
J. Fiddes noted that staff had received a letter, dated February 15,
1981, from Mr. Guy Giuffre, 1176 Roycott Way, San Jose, noting
that he intended to speak at the Public Hearing.
Mr. Guiffre addressed the Board and said he had bought the property
on November 13 and,subject to receiving a variance for one year from
Palo Alto,has all the rights of a citizen to build a house on
the property. He stated that he wanted to build a house on the
property, that he had a MAT appraisal for the property, and that
Palo Alto had tentatively approved his plans to build a house
on the property. He felt the District was discriminating against
him since his land was being condemned and the District was not
talking about the Kramer property.
C. Britton said it was his understanding from Mr. Giuffre that
the house Mr. Giuffre was planning to build on the property was
to be built for resale.
Mr. Giuffre responded that he may live in the house and later
stated that it was for resale.
C. Britton noted that the Kramer and Harrington properties have
homes that are owner occupied and that the District was very
selective with its use of eminent domain.
H. Hauessler asked where the trail would pass through the property
and stated that he was against the use of eminent domain,
unless the property owner was fairly compensated.
S. Sessions responded that the exact alignment of the trail on
the property was not known at this time.
Robert Mark noted the visual impact of new development along
Page Mill Road was very distressing and said it was critical
for the District to acquire this property.
R. Bishop asked C. Britton to explain the importance of the
site with relationship to surrounding land owned by the
District.
C. Britton stated the site was surrounded by some 3000 acres of
public -owned open space land, that it was very visible from
Page Mill Road, a designated scenic route, that a trail corridor
Meeting 81-5 Page Five
was considered in the area, and that any development on this open
property would have a visual impact that detracted from the
entire public holdings in that area.
D. Wendin reemphasized that this parcel could not have a house
built on it since it was surrounded by open space lands in which
the public had invested a great deal of money and which would
be harmed by development on the parcel. He noted that the
property was required to fill out the preserves in the area.
Beez Jones , 168991 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, asked if
the District discussed the issuance of building permits with
the City of Palo Alto.
C. Britton responded that Palo Alto, when considering if a person
has a right to build on a piece of property, does not take
surrounding public ownership of land into account. The property
is reviewed on its own merits .
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of Resolution 81-18, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District, Finding and Determining
that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the
Acquisition of Certain Properties for Public Use, to Wit:
for Public Park, Recreation and Open Space Purposes ,
Describing the Properties Necessary Therefore and Authorizing
and Directing Its Retained Legal Counsel to Do Everything
Necessary to Acquire All Interests Therein (Foothills
Open Space Preserve -Giuffre Property) . H. Turner seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt the use and management
recommendations contained within the report of February 11,
1981, dedicate the property as open space, and adopt
FoothLlls Open Space Preserve as the official name of the
site - all to be effective upon acquisition. H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
VII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Issues and QuesEio-ns T-rom SIte Emphasis and Program Evaluation
Workshops
R. BiEffi-opintroduced memorandum M-81-21, dated February 19 , 1981,
and its accompanying list of Issues from Site Emphasis and Program
Evaluation Workshops (M-80-93) , noting that the first five
questions listed under Site Emphasis could be discussed together.
N. Hanko requested a five minute recess and the Board recessed for
a break at 8:45 P.M. ; the Board reconvened for the public meeting
at 8 : 53 P.M.
R. Bishop stated he hoped the Board could crystalize its thinking
on the site emphasis related questions, noting that there were
a number of differentchoices, including 1) having two categories
of sites , emphasized and non-emphasized, 2) having several
different categories of emphasized and non-emphasized sites ,
and 3) using the use and management plans to fine-tune the
questions of what degree of emphasis each site should have.
Meeting 81-5 Page Six
E. Shelley said that he felt sites should be categorized, that
a few sites should be selected for major emphasis , with
limited development on other sites, and that the Board must consider
whether existing policies on budget guidelines held firm no
matter what the Board decided in regard to emphasized sites .
He noted that if the Board did adopt a policy for categorizing
sites , he felt that this action would lead to the necessity for
a master development plan of District sites so that any planned
emphasis/development fell within the budget guidelines .
H. Grench stated that it was his hope that the Board would be
able to reach some consensus on the site emphasis questions from
which staff or a Board committee could draft policy statements
for the Boardto consider; that the Board should reaffirm the
Land Management budget guidelines for the reason that acquisition
was currently a major emphasis of the District and that the
reaffirmation of the guideline would determine, through a policy
statement, how the Board and staff would function in carrying out
the programs of the District. He noted that once the budget
guidelines were confirmed, other policies could be established
determining how land management dollars would be spent and distri-
buted among various sites.
S. Norton noted that the questions regarding site emphasis could
be approached by letting the public dictate, by use, what level
of use each site would have or through a predetermined planning
process . He noted that he preferred the first method.
Discussion centered on the evolution of emphasized and non-emphasized
sites , and H. Turner noted the Jon Olson, the former Land Manager,
had introduced the idea when considering the possible post-Proposition 13
funding reductions and how, facing these reductions , to allocate
land management funds.
N. Hanko noted that she had mixed feelings about the land management
budget guideline and, rather than fix the budget at this time,
there should be a little flexibility in the event the Board and
staff wanted to spend more money on a certain property than
allowed by the guideline.
R. Bishop stated he felt the guideline should not be changed at
this time, and E. Shelley said the guideline should not be
changed, noting that the Board could allocate more funds to a
particular site at any time.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board reaffirm the Land Management
budget guidelines and that any emphasis policies the
Board adopts would only be guidelines for allocation
of funds within those budget guidelines . K. Duffy
seconded the motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin stated he supported the motion,
but noted that certain sites, such as Los Trancos ,
Rancho San Antonio, and Monte Bello will be emphasized
by plan, and others , such as Fremont Older and Windy
Hill will become emphasized by use. He said it was
important to try to determine what costs were to the
District once sites became emphasized and that
it was not now appropriate for the Board to spend
time determining what the criteria for future em-
phasized sites should be. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 81-5 Page Seven
R. Bishop suggested that the Board not label sites as emphasized
or non-emphasized, but rather have different degrees of emphasis
for each site and reflect the degrees of emphasis on the use and
management plans.
C. Britton suggested that use and management plans be expanded
to include sections on 1) existing use patterns , 2) potential
use patterns , 3) construction guidelines , 4) dollar availability,
and 5) publicity, including publicity plans and related costs for
a site.
E. Shelley noted that he thoughtemphasis guidelines were necessary
to direct staff on preparing and adopting use and management
plans .
H. Grench noted that the Rangers could provide input on which
District sites could stand more public use without substantial
additional expenditures and supported the addition of the publicity
section in the use and management plans , noting the section
could also discuss available maps for a site.
Harry Hauessler stated he supported the concept of degrees
of emphasis, felt the District should have more public input in
formulating plans , and volunteered to attend such input meetings.
N. Hanko stated she supported R. Bishop' s idea of determining
the level of emphasis on each site according to the site 's
individual merits .
D. Wendin noted that there were problems associated with saving all
sitea, can be emphasized and noted that the Board and staff needed
to take a top-down approach of determining the broad pattern
of emphasis desired and then look at individual sites . He said
it was an error to have all sites compete equally for
land management funds and that he would answer yes-yes to
question one.
R. Bishop noted he did not mean to imply in his previous statement
that all District sites should be emphasized.
E. Shelley stated the Board needed to set two policies : budget
guidelines and a priority system for establishing the level
, of emphasis for District sites. He said staff could then recommend
use and management plans to the Board consistent with those two
policies .
B. Green noted it would be useful to have more detailed data on the
amount of dollars and staff time spent on each District site during
the coming budget preparation sessions .
H. Turner felt that a cost-benefit analysis should be included
as a criteria; this would match costs against public need and
benefit.
E. Shelley noted it was extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to measure public benefit accurately.
R. Bishop stated he felt it was a futile exercise to prioritize
the criteria for determining emphasis of a site and that the
Board should not rank or state in an order of importance the
criteria listed under question six.
Meeting 81-5 Page Eight
H. Grench stated that he would answer the first six questions
listed under Site Emphasis as follows :
Question One: yes-yes
Question Two: yes
Question Three: no
Question Four: yes
Question Five: no
Question Six: yes
E. Shelley noted that he could see a problem with ranking the
criteria but noted that some items , such as geographic distribution,
were more a question of Board policy.
H. Grench stated it may be premature at this time to prepare
a master land management plan discussed in question 8 and said he
felt a better definition of what the plan would contain was
needed.
E. Shelley responded that there was no way for staff to determine
criteria for emphasized sites and stay within budget guidelines
without a plan that looked at one site's,
relationship to all
District sites . He noted that such a District-wide plan would con-
sider all sites as a whole and would also have to include possible
projected District sites .
D. Wendin suggested that the Board use H. Grench's answers to the
questions as a basis for answering each question and determine
the Board's position on each question.
K. Duffy suggested that an overall use and management discussion
for all District sites be included in the use and management
review cycle and N. Hanko suggested that this overview discussion
of the whole District would be a good workshop topic.
S. Sessions noted that the staff had to avoid fragmented planning,
needed to prudently commit land management dollars , and said
that he saw a land management plan identifying resources and
dollar commitments. He said staff needed to know what criteria
the Board expected staff to use in considering emphasizing a site.
R. Bishop stated the Board' s consensus that the answer to
question eight regarding a written land management plan was
that staff should not attempt to put together or create a formal
written master land management plan document at this time. He
noted, however, that it was important to think of the District
as a whole when making planning considerations .
The Board agreed to add the words "according to geographic
distribution" to the end of the second question contained in
question one.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board answer question one as
yes-yes . D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board answer question two as yes .
E. Shelley seconded the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop spoke against the motion, noting he
did not 1_17ke labelling any site as non-emphasized.
C. MacDonald suggested using the term "unemphasized" and
N. Hanko, with E. Shelley 's agreement, changed her motion
to incorporate the word unemphasized. The motion passed
unanimously.
Meeting 81-5 Page Nine
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board answer question four as
yes . R. Bishop seconded the motion.
Discussion: E. Shelley requested the motion be amended to
include the statement "according to the criteria in the
present sixth paragraph" . N. Hanko and R. Bishop
agreed to incorporate the wording change in the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board answer questions three
and five as no. H. Turner seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt question six with
the provision that the criteria not be prioritized and
not necessarily be stated in order of importance.
N. Hanko seconded the motion.
Discussion: S. Norton noted that the word "non-emphasized"
should be changed to "unemphasized" in the motion.
K. Duffy requested that "availability of existing facilities
for public use" be included as a criteria and the Board
agreed to add it to the list as item i , making "other
factors affecting suitability of site" item j . N. Hanko
questioned whether the committee needed to provide
definitions to the staff that would further define the
criteria if they were adopted. E. Shelley, D. Wendin,
and R. Bishop indicated the committee should not further
define the criteria unless staff found that they needed
further clarification. E. Shelley stated that he felt
the Board needed to give geographic distribution a
higher ranking than the other criteria. H. Turner
requested that cost-benefit analysis be added to the
list and noted that the item a-i list could be thought
of a "considerations" rather than criteria. R. Bishop
proposed to change item g to read "costs measured
against benefits" and the Board, by consensus, agreed to
add this wording to the motion. R. Bishop and N. Hanko
agreed to include the proposed changes in their motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion centered on who would be responsible for further defining
the considerations in question six. E. Shelley, D. Wendin, and
R. Bishop stated that they felt the staff should work with
the considerationsand return to the Board if further clarification
was needed. K. Duffy and N. Hanko indicated they thoughtit would
be useful for the Board to further define the considerations
at this time.
E. Shelley and D. Wendin noted the Board needed to address the
specific item of geographic distribution. The Board members discussed
what they felt was implied by geographic distribution. R. Bishop
felt it was a fair distribution of emphasized sites throughout
the District, but noted that it could not be a perfect distribution.
D. Wendin said the issue was service population centers with sites
having the necessary carrying capacity. E. Shelley noted that
future needs , as well as immediate needs , must be addressed and
said that cooperative projects in which the District was involved
must also be considered when discussing distribution of emphasized
sites .
Meeting 81-5 Page Ten
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the staff be directed to return to
the Board with a suggested plan for the number and general
location of emphasized sites . R. Bishop seconded the
motion.
Discussion: S. Sessions noted that he understood this
assignment to be in line with the considerations in
question six and the land management budget guidelines .
The Board agreed with his statement. H. Grench noted that
the assignment could take a great deal of staff time if
the Board expected an extremely detailed plan at this
time. D. Wendin noted that he felt the plan had to be
specific enough to determine if a site (such as Windy
Hill or Fremont Older) would be an emphasized site. The
motion passed unanimously.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the rest of the report be moved to
a meeting on March at the discretion of the Board
President. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
The Board discussed the timeframe for D. Wendin's motion. D. Wendin
stated he was looking at a timeframe of six months to a year and
noted that the Board and staff would get bogged down in the
future when doing site planning unless this task was undertaken.
R. Bishop stated the Board' s consensus that the staff should report
back to the Board at the second meeting in March with a schedule
for the suggested plan for the number and general locations of
emphasized sites.
VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
ff. Grench reported that Assemblyman Sher's bill (AB 597) on changes
in the Public Resources Code relating to regional parks and open
space districts was in print and copies would be distributed
as soon as possible to the Board.
S. Sessions informed the Board that the Mountain View City Council
had authorized city staff to submit a Coastal Conservancy grant
application for $150 ,000 for construction of part of the Bayfront
Trail through Mountain View's Shoreline Park.
S. Sessions showed slides of the recent controlled burn at the
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve.
C. Britton informed the Board that the District had been offered
the opportunity to purchase the Machado property in Los Gatos and
said that a letter, dated February 25, 1981, from the General
Manager had been sent to the Los Gatos Town Council to determine
if the town would be willing to equally share the costs of
purchasing the property. He noted that if the Town of Los Gatos
was willing to join in the possible purchase, staff would return
to the Board to ask them to formally consider the acquisition.
R. Bishop stated the Board's consensus that the Board supported
the letter sent to the Los Gatos Council members .
S. Norton discussed the implications of the recent California
State Supreme Court decision involving the Williamson Act.
C. MacDonald said she would be organizing a publicity photo to
be taken in March to celebrate the acquisition of the District's
i
Meeting 81-5 Page Eleven
10 ,000th acre of open space.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the revised claims , C-81-4 ,
dated February 25 , 1981. H. Turner seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
X. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session at 11:40 P.M.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11 :45 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk