HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810910 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 81-22
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
September 10 , 1981
I . ROLL CALL
Vice President Daniel Wendin called the meeting to order at 7 : 39 P.M.
in the Council Chambers of the Los Gatos Civic Center, 110 East
Main Street, Los Gatos .
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko and Harry Turner. Richard Bishop
arrived at 7 :50 P.M. during the slide presentation.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Del Woods,
Charlotte MacDonald, Jean Fiddes , Stanley Norton, Pat Starrett,
Eric Mart, and Dennis Danielson.
II . PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF THE NOVITIATE PROPERTY FOR LOS
GATOS CREEK PARK
a) Staff Presentation
D. Wendin stated the purpose of the meeting was for the District to
review the proposed Los Gatos Creek Park project and to receive
public comments on the project. He stated public comments should
be made in the following order: Novitiate representatives , persons
speaking in behalf of organizations , and individuals . He noted
no Board action was intended on this item at the meeting, except
for deciding whether to schedule this matter for another public
meeting.
H. Grench introduced District staff in attendance, and reviewed the
project' s history, noting the project had formally gotten underway in
April 1981 when the District and the Town of Los Gatos adopted a Joint
Powers Agreement for the joint acquisition of a portion of the Novitiate
property. He said funding for the project would come from a federal
grant, with the rest of the acquisition costs being split fifty-fifty
by the Town and the District, and noted that in April , the Town also
adopted a Resolution of Public Necessity requiring acquisition of the
property. He stated the staff report focused on three questions:
(1) Is the subject property desirable for public open space? (2) Should
public acquisition of this property be actively pursued, including the
exercise of the power of eminent domain, if necessary? and (3) When and
if the subject area is acquired for public open space and recreation,
what are the potential and proper uses for the property?
C. Britton reviewed the staff report, R-81-38 of September 4 , 1981,
and D. Woods presented slides of the property. C. Britton noted that
the property contains three grassland hillls that serve as the dominant
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 81-22 Page two
scenic backdrop for the Town of Los Gatos and form prominent landmarks
visible from Highway 17 ; that the property was used by joggers and
equestrians; that the property, due to its location adjacent to a
reservoir recreational area with easy access to a State highway would
have regional recreation significance; that the current zoning for the
property was A-20S; that portions of the property were rated in the
highest composite scoring of the District' s Master Plan; and that
trails on the property would connect with the Lexington Reservoir recre-
ational area and with streets leading to the center of the Town of Los
Gatos.
C. Britton stated the Sacred Heart Novitiate and winery adjoin the
project area to the northeast; that the Novitiate has ceased to operate
as an instructional institution; that the vineyards are no longer
cultivated; that the buildings adjacent to the property area serve
as a retirement home and administrative center; and that the project
area did not include any of the developed area. He said these private
facilities would be situated on approximately 40 acres of land remain-
ing in the Novitiate holdings. He stated the Jesuits owned other land
in the vicinity, about 1600 acres, and noted the Alma College site had
been marketed and the Sisters of Charity property is currently for sale.
He stated, according to a brochure he had seen, that $10 million was
needed to be raised by the Church to endow the retirement facilities,
and that the best source of funds would be the land investments which
could be sold off.
He reviewed previous acquisition efforts for the property, and noted
the Town had been awarded a federal Land and Conservation Fund grant
for approximately $465 , 000. He noted the project area would become a
low development park and open space complement to the adjacent reservoir
recreational area, noting that the Joint Powers Agreement included the
provision that the Town take over the property, after the District' s
initial management, in order to further develop the property into parks
with high intensity use. He noted that the use anC management recommenda-
tions contained in the report wouia be subject to further public hearing,
noting that details proposed on the map he reviwed at the meeting were
schematic in nature.
N. Hanko asked if the property was in the Los Gatos ' Sphere of Influ-
ence, but not in the Los Gatos Urban Service Area. C. Britton responded
that it was in the Sphere of Influence, but not in the Urban Service Area.
D. Wendin opened the meeting for public comment, requested that
people address the three questions which were the focus of the staff
report, and speak in the order previously outlined. He stated, with
the Board' s concurrence, that, while the District at this point in
time had made no decision to move forward with the resolution of
necessity, in the event the District did so, the evening' s proceedings
and the public ' s input would be considered a part of the public record
at that time.
Meeting 81-22 ige three
Father James Brennan, Financial Officer for the California Province of
the Society of Jesus, stated he had not had time to review the report
and would not be commenting on it at this time. He said the Province
did not want to sell the Novitiate property, noting the Province had
been in the area for 100 years with the facilities being used initially
for the training of young men, growing grapes, and operating the winery.
Citing that the load of the training had been shifted to Southern Cali-
fornia, Father Brennan stated the facilities had been converted to a
retirement center and an infirmary, and also currently housed the head-
quarters for the Province. He said the facilities were also used for
retreats for religious and lay people. He noted that because of the
retreats and the need for privacy at the retirement facilities, the
property was needed by the Church and was important to the facility.
He stated he viewed the property as private property, noting taxes were
paid on it. He said the property was an asset to the Church' s well-
being and purposes, explaining he had to have assets such as this in
order to finance other operations. He noted the property was a security
and that the Catholic Church historically treasures its property and
does not buy or sell it like a real estate agent. He said the property
was important to support the buildings, the retirement center, and the
Province ' s religious activities. Father Brennan stated the Province
had no desire to sell the property to anyone at this time and was not
interested in conceding to any negotiations with the District. In
closing, he reiterated "we do not want to sell the property" .
D. Wendin requested the people addressing the Board .limit their comments
to five minutes and asked any individuals representing organizations to
address the Board at this time.
Linda Elkind, 2040 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, representing the Committee
for Green Foothills, stated the Committee supported the District' s pro-
posed acquisition of a portion of the Novitiate property for public
use. She stated that before 1978 , the Committee had believed the
property should remain as open space for public use. She stated the
Committee felt the property should be public open space for the
following reasons: (1) it is a prominent viewshed from Highway 17;
(2) it is close to existing public recreational land and would provide
continuity of land use and enhanced recreational opportunities; (3) it
is close to a rapidly growing population center and is less than one-
half hour ' s drive from San Jose, Santa Clara, and Campbell , which have
a combined population of almost three-quarters of a million people; and
(4) there was easy access to the property by major highways, making the
property available to people living in the mid and southern parts of
Santa Clara County.
John Lochner, representing the Parks Protection League explained the
background of the Town' s interest in acquiring the property. He noted
that in 1977 and 1978 , the Town did enter into negotiations with the
Novitiate. He said the negotiations were entered into because of the
possibility of acquiring the Federal grant and that the Town Manager
was directed to attempt to make contact with the representatives of
the Novitiate and enter into negotiations to see if there was some
Meeting 81-22 Page four
potential of acquiring the site in the event the Novitiate wanted to
do something with the site. He said that the Council was informed of
the negotiations, that the Novitiate at that time was interested in
further proceedings, and that the Town did authorize the Town Manager
to have the County Assessor appraise the property. He said that, at no
time. did the Council indicate by any means whatsoever that the Town
would be in a position or would be placed in a position to condemn
the property, and that it was only if the property were faced with de-
velopment that the Town would proceed any further. He said the initial
contacts by the Town were peaceful negotiations in an attempt to keep
the property in open space. He outlined the current history of the
Town' s parks programs, noting the program was completed at this time
and that the program' s budget (currently $400, 000) was currently facing
budget cuts.
He stated he would like to see the Novitiate land remain in open space
and asked why the District and Town should be spending their funds in
this area to acquire the site and develop
p it when there was no threat of
development being posed by the Novitiate. He noted the El Sereno Pre-
serve was close to Town, but had no development except minor trails and
encouraged the District, if development were necessary, to develop the
El Sereno Preserve. He said there was no threat of development on the
Novitiate property at this time and that condemnation was morally wrong
unless there was a proven necessity for the good of all people. He
stated the Novitiate property was not in the Town' s urban service area
since such land placed in the urban service area is land planned for
development within a five year period,, noting there have been no proposals
for development of the Novitiate property. He said costs of the pro-
posed use of the property (campsites/high intensity use) were unacceptable
to taxpayers of the Town of Los Gatos.
He said the recommendation of the Parks Protection League was for the
Town and District to enter into peaceful negotiations with the Novitiate
in the event the property becomes a burden upon them and they were
forced to sell; then Town and District should make plans to acquire
the property at that time to preserve it as open space.
Jack Panighetti, 101 South Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, Chairman of
the Parks Protection League, Dosed the following questions to the Board:
(1) has a survey ever been made as to the need for another park in the
area; (2) would the District help the Town of Los Gatos pay the bill
of $30, 926 . 28 that the Jesuits had filed for the Town ' s lawsuit, and if
so, how much; and (3) what are the attorney fees for the attorney hired
by the District for the lawsuit by the Town that failed and who is
going to make this payment.
D. Wendin responded staff would respond to the first question at the
end of the meeting and asked staff to respond to the other two questions
at this time.
H. Grench responded that he was not aware at this time of any bill
submitted by the Jesuits and did not know that, in anv event, whether
the Court would finally award the amount. He said the question of
whether the Town or the District were liable for those expenses would
be resolved through legal procedings. He said the Joint Powers Agree-
ment called for the District and the Town to .pay jointly for the Town' s
Meeting 81-22 Page five
and District' s legal expenses. The question of the legal expenses for
this particular bill had not been resolved, and it had not been estab-
lished that it was actually an expense.
He said the District had paid approximately $5, 000 for the District' s
attorney' s fees.
Harry Cohen, El Gato Penthouse, #43, 20 East Main Street, Los Gatos,
speaking on behalf of the Council of Aging of Santa Clara County and
Mr. Lendin Farber, President of the Zoological College in Berkeley,
stated there was no reason for the District to acquire the property,
that development of the property would bring an unwanted type of
people to the property, and the District should "stay off" .
Barbara Reed, 5 Montebello Way, Los Gatos, President of the Los Gatos
Chamber of Commerce, said the group was interested in the project and
opposed to it, noting it would be the subject of the group' s next
legislation meeting. D. Wendin requested that Ms . Reed review the
material available at the meeting and contact staff if she wanted any
other material.
Kathryn Morgan,- 142 Wheeler Avenue, Los Gatos, President of the Los
Gatos Homeowners ' Association, stated she was speaking for the or-
ganization only insofar as to what the group' s aims and by-laws were.
She noted by-laws state one of the main purposes of the organization
is to preserve the foothills environment of the Town of Los Gatos. She
said preservation of open space must be viewed in the long term; i.e.
what land can be preserved for 100 or 200 years from now, and thanked
the District for investigating the possibility of doing that. She felt
it was desirable to preserve the Novitiate land as open space because
of its accessibility and viewability from the Town. She noted that
when the Town drew up a hillside plan for the Town, the Jesuit brothers
at that time asked for an R-1 zoning (single family residential zoning)
on at least part of the property and felt this fact should be brought
up as a matter of the public record. She discussed the more lax County
building controls, citing the example of Montezuma Hills and its land-
scape scars, erosion, and the building on the ridgelines. She said it
would be an incalculable loss if the same thing were to happen on the
Novitiate property. She hoped that something could be worked out
with the Novitiate, noting that it was a wonderful opportunity to connect
with the Lexington recreation area and other open space areas and thanked
the District for its far-sightedness .
Egon Jensen, 182 Lester Lane, Los Gatos, President of the Los Gatos Tax-
payers Organization, noted the previous discussions to acquire the
property had been almost without knowledge of the public, and stated
he felt the Joint Powers Agreement was the most loosely written agree-
ment he had ever seen. He said he would not like to see this property
developed into single family dwellings and said an alternative to con-
sider was the buying of development rights. He urged the District not
to act in haste on the matter.
Meeting 81-22 Page six
D. Wendin stated individuals could address the Board after J. Fiddes
read two written communications into the record.
J. Fiddes stated the Board had received a written communication, dated
September 9 , 1981 , from Dr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, stated
his support for the acquisition of 300 acres for Los Gatos Creek
Park and noting that if the property could not be acquired through
negotiation that the Board proceed with the resolution of public
necessity, and a written communication from Jean Rusmore, 36 Berenda
Way, Portola Valley, dated September 10 , 1981 . Ms . Rusmore stated
she endorsed the proposed joint acquisition of 300 acres of the
Novitiate property in the Los Gatos area and that it would be desirable
to preserve the land as open space .for its scenic qualities and for
low intensity recreational development. She noted the regional
and County master plans include many trails in the general area and
that she considered hiking accessibility and assuring trail
connections with adjacent lands as reasons for acquiring the property.
Richard S. Gaines, 340 Johnson Avenue, Los Gatos, expressed his concerns
for the preservation of open space and noted the Novitiate property
was a highly desirable land to be kept in open space. He noted the
only way to preserve permanently a piece of property as open space
was to purchase the property. He said there was no way of protecting
the property in the future because it is not known at this time what
use the Jesuits may wish to make of the property in five or ten years,
and therefore if the property was to be protected, it may be necessary
to exercise the resolution of public necessity so the property was
attainable at some reasonable cost to the taxpayers at this time. He
opposed the concept of buying development rights because of the on-
going expense to the taxpayers. He said he was not advocating the
exercise of eminent domain per se if there is another more satisfactory
and mutually acceptable route to acquire the property for open space,
but that if in the final analysis and as a last resort, eminent domain
was the only way to acquire the property, the Board should proceed.
He urged, if the District acquired the property, that the property be
kept a low intensity use, and the Board take necessary steps to pre-
serve the land as open space, preferably through negotiation, and
through the exercise of public necessity if necessary.
Father Joseph Costa, Superior of Sacred Heart Jesuit Center, explained
the use of the Novitiate property by the residents at the Jesuit Center,
noting that if the property were to be opened for general public use,
it would limit the residents and invade their privacy. He cited prob-
lems on property in the past, including vandalism and shooting into the
area of the buildings. He noted the land being considered for acquisi-
tion included the Jesuits ' shrine, and that the rifle range was used by
the Los Gatos Police Department. He asked who would patrol the property
and whether the residents of the Center would be able to live their
peaceful lives without infringement. He said he felt the area was al-
ready saturated with public parks and no more parks were needed. He
said permission had been given to joggers to use the property. He noted
there were only six animals grazing on the property and that his plan
was to eventually plant Christmas trees on the property to keep the
hillside intact and pleasing to the Town' s residents to view. He asked
if there were going to be assurance that the property would be protected.
Meeting 81-22 Page seven
Dimone Pedersen, 145 College Avenue, Los Gatos , said the Novitiate
property, although an historic backdrop, is private property and that
the problems the Novitiate residents , surrounding neighbors , and
adjacent property owners have is the result of public lands adjacent
to their property. She posed questions on the Joint Powers Agreement,
including the limit of out-of-pocket expenses ; what would happen if
the value of the property was more than the grant; what if grant
funds became unavailable; how would the Town be expected to patrol
the property; how and why would the District manage the site;
what is the definition of the easements ; and what if there is disagreement
between the two parties if a sale of surplus was contemplated.
She said she felt this land was private property, that this type
of condemnation did not qualify as a public necessity, and asked if
more open space was genuinely needed in light of the current park
acreage in the County. She stated she was concerned about problems
that would be encountered if the land was an open space park, citing
specifically fire hazard. She said the Los Gatos taxpayers should
be asked how they would like their tax dollars spent and their
lands used and asked what the cost would be to have a District-wide
advisory vote at the next General Election.
Patrick Hazel, 229 Elmwood Court, Los Gatos , protested the "illegal
taking" of the Novitiate property, noting he felt neither the Town nor
the District had the jurisdiction to condemn the Novitiate property. He
felt there was already enough open space in the area and that tne con-
tinuance of the proceedings against the Novitiate was an obstruction of
constitutional rights.
Preston Hill, 33 Peralta Avenue, Los Gatos, expressed his concern about
the method of acquisition of the property, not because of condemnation
itself, but because of the strained relationship coming into existence
between the District and the Town. He asked what provision there was
in the Joint Powers Agreement for the contingency of the failure of
the Town's lawsuit or for the possibility that the condemnation award
might come in over budget. Quoting from the staff report, he asked if
only three residential lots could be developed on the site.
C. Britton responded that the particular density matrix was done under
the current zoning of 20-S in the County of Santa Clara, noting that
zoning and general plans can change, and in fact, had changed on this
property. He noted that the property was in the County, not the Town, and
stated that Montezuma' s Ridge was an example of what could happen.
Mr. Hill said zoning had changed to become more strict on the Novitiate
property. He said under the County' s current zoning, a Montezuma Hill-
type subdivision was impossible in the area being discussed. He stated
he personally had no desire to see the property be anything but what it
is right now, said it was possible to purchase development rights in a
lump sum, rather than having annual payments. He noted that it might
someday be necessary to use property for something other than a park,
that the Jesuits were maintaining the area in practically an ideal
situation, and that there should be no real reason to change the land' s
status. He asked whether the District feels that since the original
negotiations and condemnation lawsuit failed, that the Town is committed
to paying half the costs of acquisition, and asked where this informa-
tion was embodied in the Joint Powers Agreement.
Meeting 81-22 Page eight
Dr. Bernard Hymel, 223 Ambassador Court, Los Gatos, a neighbor of the
property, discussed public safety problems on the property and at Lex-
ington Dam, including the carrying of firearms and assaults. He did
not feel the nature of the Novitiate propery would allow it to be
properly patrolled and said there was not adequate park staff in the
Town. He said the Alma Bridge Road is a bad route for heavy use on
weekends and said the development of a formal park and hiking area on
the property would mean increased delinquent young people use
activities and other illegal activities. He felt the property was less
useful as a public recreation area compared to other areas, noting the
steep areas, incomplete roads, difficult to patrol, and said there was
currently enough recreational space in the County.
Dr. David Leeson, 15300 Blackberry Hill , Los Gatos, said, with respect
to desireability, the Lexington area was already overcrowded and that
Highway 17 and Alma Bridge Road were impassable on the weekends and
that he did not think the area required any father development. He
said the area is a fire hazard area and increased public use would
create a greater fire hazard area beyond the District' s control. He
said he felt there was enough open space area in the Los Gatos area and
stated he was against the District exercising condemnation of this sort
because he did not feel the true value of the property could be set.
He said he trusted the Jesuits to keep it in open space and that he
did not trust the open space district since land adjacent to his , which
had been owned by the District, had been sold for development.
Robert Hamilton, 368 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos , asked how many
rangers the District employed, their salary range, how they would Police
the property, and what authority they would have in making arrests.
He stated he had a great fear that if the District was able to take the
property away from the Novitiate, for which he could see no clear rea-
son, that as a private citizen, he would greatly fear condemnation of
his own property.
Philip Trautman, 107 Cherrywood Court, Los Gatos, asked why the District
had joined with the Los Gatos Town Council in pursuit of the venture,
noting the Council did not necessarily have the support of the towns-
people. He asked how the District was funded and stated his opposition
to the exercise of eminent domain. He felt it was unnecessary to take
any condemnation action and was a great waste of public money and time.
Leila Naslund, 19301 Bear Creek Road, Los Gatos, felt the land should be
open space, and was open space now while in private hands. She said
she had 800 signatures on a petition which states that, in general, not
only in this instance, but with the proposed Bear Creek Park, that the
taxpayers ' money be used for development of currently owned land, rather
than for acquisition. She stated her opposition to eminent domain pro-
ceedings, noting the property was not of a necessity to the public
since it was now open space and discussed access problems on and off
Highway 17.
Clifford Winger, 300 College Avenue, Los Gatos, expressed his opposition
to the acquisition of the property since it was currently open space at
this time. He said the taxpayers ' money should be saved.
Diane Forsythe, 140 Whitney Avenue, Los Gatos, felt condemnation of the
property would be like robbery and that the District would be stealing
the property.
Meeting 8.1-22 Page nine
Catherine Smith, 122 Whitney Avenue, Los Gatos , categorized into
three groups the people who had addressed the Board: 1) neighbors
living near the property who have enjoyed using the property for
many years and do not want anyone else to; 2) the type of people
she labeled "I 've got mine and you'd better not try to get any of
it" ; and 3) the political outs . She noted that four years ago
an election had been held to elect new public representatives on
the basis of "enough is enough" . She said the Town Council had
publicly discussed the matters relating to the Novitiate acquisi-
tion and that nothing had been kept a secret. She said that fifteen
years ago people had wanted to develop Vasona Park as office
buildings because they said the park was not being used and she
challenged anyone to make that statement tonight. She said she
had lived in the Valley all her life and had seen what had happened
to open space and that she thought anyone who had looked at the
pictures taken from Blosson Hill Road down over the Valley would
say that open space is needed.
Bobbie Crafford, 16830 Sheldon Road, Los Gatos, stated open space is
desireable, but the El Sereno Open Space Preserve was already in the
area and was under,+btili,zed. She said the preserve presented many
problems such as motorcycle use , illegal fires, illegal use of access
roads , and therefore she opposed development of the Novitiate property
because the same problems would be faced. She had previously addressed
the Board on the problems at El Sereno and that there do not appear to
be sufficient funds to maintain what the District already owned. She
stated her opposition to the exercise of eminent domain to acquire this
private property.
Robert Huckell, 17920 Daves Avenue, Monte Sereno, stated the Novitiate
property was not a functional piece of property for a park, and should
not be purchased simply because it was a scenic viewshed. He felt the
District should use its money on property people can use.
Kathryn Morgan, read a letter, addressed to the Board of Directors and
dated September 9 , 1981, from Mrs. John Lincoln, 58 Alpine Avenue, Los
Gatos, in which Mrs. Lincoln stated she was very much in favor of the
acquisition of the Novitiate property as open space and expressed her
strong support of the concept. She said it had always been her hope
that the hills and background of Los Gatos would be preserved as a park
and that the preservation of these hillsides would mean a great deal
to the Town.
Dominic Sallitto said that property rights are not absolute, noting that
the District should not have to institute legal proceedings against the
Novitiate since they should be charitable enough to donate to the
community the property for which they no longer have use.
D. Wendin declared a recess at 10 : 01 P.M. The Board reconvened for the
meeting at 10 : 19 P.M.
D. Wendin asked staff to respond to some of the issues raised during
the public comments, specifically: a review of the Joint Powers Agree-
ment with the Town of Los Gatos; patrol, maintenance and fire hazard;
access to the property; funding available to the District- cost of an
election; and purchase of development rights. He stated that if ques-
tions were not adequately answered during the meeting, members of the
audience should contact the staff via a phone call or letter, or in
the event the Board did schedule further consideration of the matter,
question the item at that time.
Meeting 81-22 Page ten
C. Britton summarized the Joint Powers Agreement. He said the federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund grant was for $465 , 615 , from which a
surcharge (currently a rate of 1. 6%) would be subtracted. He said the
idea was that the grant funds would be available to either the District
or_ the Town and stated the balance of the cost would be split between the
District and the Town. He said the Joint Powers Agreement addressed
the methods in which the property would be utilized, acquired, funded,
and managed in the short and long term. In regard to the costs of the
recent lawsuit, he said there had been a great deal of cooperation
between the District and the Town in putting together the Joint Powers
Agreement and that he felt confident something would be worked out re-
garding the costs. He said the agreement called for fee title to be
held by the Townand the District would have an easement and that
annexation was a requirement of the agreement so that the Town could
provide emergency police services . He said the property was in the
Central Fire District and that the District would patrol the property
on a regular basis as long as it was open space. He said the grant
funds required that the property be used for recreational purposes and
noted if there was a conversion of that use, for example the sale of
surplus, the government would demand reimbursement of its grant funds.
He said the Joint Powers Agreement required that the Town Council and
the District Board agree in writing to a final amount of their commit-
ment. He said that if individuals had any other questions about the
Joint Powers Agreement, they should contact him at the District office.
C. Britton stated he assumed that if the District did consider legal
action to acquire the property, that there would probably be an amend-
ment to the Joint Powers Agreement.
H. Grench discussed patrol of the site, noting that in planning for the
site there would be considerable public input before any plans for use
of the site were presented to the Board. He said that under the Joint
Powers Agreement the Town would also be involved in planning for the
site. He said the District had its own Ranger staff, that Rangers are
limited status peace officers, and that the property would be included
in the Rangers ' beat area. He said the budget for Land Management is
on a growth pattern and Rangers would be added to the staff as they are
needed; the planning for adding to the Ranger staff was done through the
budget process when all sites were reviewed to determine the number
of Rangers needed to provide proper stewardship of all District lands .
E. Mart said the current salary range for a Ranger was about $15, 000 -
$20, 000 per year, exclusive of benefits. He said that when the District
acquires new land, the agency having primary responsibility for law
enforcement and fire protection for that property was contacted by the
District, that abilities and expertise areas were discussed and that
the agencies tried to complement each other. He said the Ranger staff
had particular expertise in resource-protection area, i .e. crimes against
property vs. people vs. people crimes, off road vehicle problems, cer-
tain types of weapons regulations, destruction of wildlife and vegetation
fires. He reviewed the District Rangers ' beat structure, noting that
there was also after hours call-out. He said the patrol trucks were
equipped with 100 gallons of water and have enough fire tools to equip
a six person crew.
C. Britton discussed access to the property, noting that access would
not be through Los Gatos streets because of potential traffic problems.
ileeting �31-22 race eleven
He said that if the __3ters of Charity property were to be utilized, a
road would have to be built off of Alma Bridge Road through the Novitiate
property and across St. Joseph' s Hill, and if that road were developed)
it would be the access road to the subject property. He said the long-
term solution to the congested access problems would lie with the
Division of Highways.
C. Britton said staff had explored the buying of development rights
with the Jesuits during previous negotiations, noting the value of an
open space easement is based on development potential and could cost
as much as acquiring fee title. He stated there are areas on the
property where trail connections were desirable, and with an open
space easement, trail easements would not be allowed. He said, as far
as he knew, the possibility of purchasing development rights was re-
jected by the Jesuits, and there was no further discussion of acquiring
an open space easement on the property.
H. Grench said the District' s basic source of funding was a share of
the maximum $4 per $100 of assessed property valuation or the equivalent
of about 1�% of the $4. He said the property tax revenue income for the
year District-wide was approximately $3 . 6 million. He said he did not
know the cost of an election at this time because of the varving factors
involved.
D. Wendin stated he planned to terminate this agenda item and move on
to the item regarding the scheduling of September meetings.
B. Scheduling of September Meetings
H. Grench reviewed memorandum M-81-93 , dated September 10, 1981. He
suggested that the September 16 meeting be cancelled and a Special
Meeting be held on Tuesday, September 29.
E. Shelley suggested the date of September 28 for the Special Meeting.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board cancel the September 16 Special
Meeting originally scheduled, and schedule a Special Meeting
on Monday, September 28 for two purposes : (1) to consider the
regular set of agenda items to be later specified by staff
and (2) to continue the item heard tonight to that meeting
with a consideration of a resolution of public necessity and
to decide whether or not the Board would proceed with the
project. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin stated the meeting would be held at the
District' s main office 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1, Los Altos ,
beginning at 7 : 30 p.m. , that agendas with a map showing the
office' s location would be sent to everyone who requested
one, and that people could request a copy of the staff' s re-
port for the meeting by calling 965-4717 . N. Hanko requested
that the meeting' s minutes be available as soon as possible
for Board consideration. The motion passed unanimously.
III. CLAIMS
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the Revised Claims 81-18,
dated September 10, 1981. H. Turner seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
D. Wendin stated the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 54 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk