Loading...
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