Loading...
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