HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810928 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 81-24
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 28 , 1981
I . ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 :34 P .M.
Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Personnel Present : Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Charlotte
MacDonald, Stanley Norton, Jean Fiddes , Michael Foster, Alice
Watt, Pat Starrett, Joan Combs , and Iris Youngs.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of the September 10 ,
1981 Special Meeting. H. Turner seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes stated she had four written communications pertaining to
the agenda item on the Novitiate property. R. Bishop stated the
written communications would be considered by the Board during that
specific agenda item.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications .
V. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Proposed Los Gatos Creek Park Acquisition Project (Novitiate Property)
H. Grench Introduced the agenda item, noting that an informational
hearing had been held in Los Gatos on September 10 and since then
the Town of Los Gatos had adopted amendments to the Joint Powers
Agreement which the Board would be considering at this meeting.
He stated he strongly recommended the Board adopt the two reso-
lutions before them for consideration for the following reasons :
1) the site is extremely important to the region for close-in
open space and recreational purposes ; 2) federal funds, which are
scarce, were currently available for the project; 3) the Los Gatos
Town Council had made a strong commitment, including financial
commitments for the project; and 4) District funds had been set
aside for the project. He said he felt the property would eventually
be lost to development if the Board did not adopt the two resolutions .
C. Britton reviewed the content of the staff report (R-81-43 , dated
September 23 , 1981) , and exhibited a map of the property that showed
possible trails and public use areas . He stated that it was evident
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 81-24 page two
from the public informational hearing held on September 10 , 1981
in Los Gatos that the subject property was extremely desirable
for open space and recreational purposes and that the public
represented at the meeting preferred a low-intensity recreational
use of the site. He said the main controversy at the hearing
centered on whether the powers of eminent domain should be used
to acquire the property, and he said the Jesuits had stated they
had no plans to develop or sell the property. He stated the
report presented at the September 10 meeting stated the density
on the property would be approximately three units under the S-20
zoning. He noted that if the property were annexed to the Town
of Los Gatos , the density would be substantially higher, on the
order of 20-25 units . He said he did not feel the property was
proposed for development at this point in time, but that develop-
ment was inevitable. He said that the adjacent Sisters of Charity
property had been on the market for several years , and there was
no question on the part of the Town that access to this property
would be via Alma Bridge Road. As a part of that construction,
a road would be built from Alma Bridge Road across portions of
the Novitiate property to service the existing Sisters ' building.
He said this particular road would open the Novitiate property
to development. He said there was also a question of zoning
and density on the property, noting that procedures that have
restricted development could be easily reversed. He stated the
funding for the project was currently available, that the develop-
ment of the property is inevitable, and that the only way the
property could be acquired would be through the passage of a
resolution of public interest and necessity.
C. Britton summarized the changes to the Joint Powers Agreement,
stating 1) all the sections relating to high-intensity use of the
property had been deleted; 2) provision that either the District
or the Town could take a leadership role in the acquisition of
the property; 3) the Los Gatos Open Space Fund had been established
and the Town and the District would each deposit $775 ,000 into
the Fund.
R. Bishop stated the meeting held in Los Gatos on September 10 , 1981
would be considered part of the record for this meeting, and any-
thing said at that meeting would be considered by the Board in
making any decisions at the present meeting. He stated that
written communications on the matter would be considered, followed
by statements from representatives of the Novitiate, individuals
representing organizations , and individuals who wished to speak
on the matter. He requested that staff record questions asked
during the statements and respond to the questions after all
statements had been heard.
Jack Panighetti, 101 South Santa Cruz , Los Gatos , representing
the Parks Protection League, requested the Board, rather than the
staff, respond to the questions posed by the public , since he felt
the staff had already decided what actions should be taken. R.
Bishop ruled that the questions would be answered by staff.
D. Wendin asked what property taxes the Novitiate currently paid
on the property and whether the property was under the Williamson
Act. C. Britton responded that the property taxes were a little
more than of $3 ,000 per year and he did not know of the property
Meeting 81-24 page three
being under the Williamson Act.
J. Fiddes stated the Board had previously considered a written
communication from Jack Panighetti, Chairman, Parks Protection
League, stating that additional input would be presented at
the September 28 meeting. She read the following written
communications into the record: a) a letter, dated September 17,
1981, from Dale S . Hill, 150 Robin Way , Los Gatos , stating that
he was in favor of the eventual public acquisition of the
portion of the Novitiate property, that he would prefer to see
the purchase negotiated without the necessity for exercise of
eminent domain, that he feared the Society 's statements to the
effect that they have no intention of selling the land lacked
some credibility, that the public is using the property, and
that he treasured the property as a visual and psychological
resource; b) a letter, dated September 23 , 1981, from Herb and
Nancy Greenfeld, 17610 Bruce Avenue, Loa Gatos , stating their
support for the acquisition of the Novitiate property and noting
they hike in the meadows and enjoy the property as a lovely
backdrop to the Town; c) a letter, dated September 24 , 1981 ,
from Mrs . Rene Neuner, 100 Ann Arbor Court, Los Gatos , stating
she was in favor of the acquisition of the property and that
she felt there was an "unsilent" majority in Los Gatos who
supported the acquisition; and d) a letter, dated September 28 ,
1981, from C. Walton, 19115 Overlook Road, Los Gatos , stating
that he supported the acquisition of the Novitiate property,
that open space was essential in the bay area, that the right
of eminent domain was well established in constitutional and
common law, that he felt the Novitiate order had not chosen
to pursue the path of simple sale of the property since they
might be waiting to sell the land at an even greater dollar
value in a few years , that the Novitiate had already attempted
to gain permission to put up high density housing on one portion
of their land, that time, because of funding availability, was
an important factor in the decision, that the proposed park
was desirable in many ways , including preserving the view of
the hillsides now enjoyed by many, and that Los Gatos had
proven to be a desirable place to live because of its beautiful
hilltops and ridges , noting the effort to keep the Town
beautiful and desirable should continue.
Father James Brennan, Treasurer for the California Society for the
Society of Jesus , stated the Board had heard his remarks at the
previous meeting and he was not changing his remarks . He said
the Board knew, from those remarks, that the Society was opposed
to the District' s taking of the Church' s property. He said the
Society felt it was private property, that the Society had the
right to use, that they had a use for it, and that it was of
extreme value to the Society. He stated the Society had owned
the property for over 100 years and he felt confident some of the
beauty of Los Gatos had been contributed by the Society, citing
the Society' s beautiful vineyards that had been on the hills and
the Society' s preservation of the property for over 100 years , and
he stated the Society had no intentions of changing it. He said
he objected to many fine points in the minutes , notes , and communi-
cations to the Board, noting they were small points of misinter-
pretation. He stated that the Church objected to the condemnation
of the property, saw no real necessity for it, and asked that he
be able to add a few further remarks through the Society ' s legal
counsel for the matter.
Meeting 81-24 page four
William Turner, attorney-at-law with the firm of Turner,
Mulcare & Whitaker in San Mateo, stated the decision is firm
with the Jesuits that they do not want to sell their land.
He stated he did not feel the Jesuits had been remiss in com-
municating with the Town and the District their desire and
intentions to keep their land. He stated there were various
discussions between members of the Town and the Jesuits during
the period of time, but no negotiations . He said an offer
was made to purchase the property in 1979 for $1 million based
on an April 1979 appraisal report. He said there was never
any request for the Jesuits to make up their mind at that time
as to whether they wanted to sell ; rather there were a series
of discussions about what the Town and District were planning
to do. He said a February 25 , 1981 letter from the Town asked
the Jesuits for a decision as to whether they wanted to sell,
and on March 3, 1981 , the Jesuits wrote back to the Town
saying they did not want to sell the property. He stated
there was no necessity for the immediate acquisition of the
property and said Father Brennan had stated the Jesuits had
no plans to develop the property, adding "that' s not to
say it couldn't be, certainly it could be some day if someone
wanted to, but they don 't have the plans to do it" . He stated
that the property was valuable, certainly more than indicated
by the 1979 appraisal . He asked staff for an explanation and
some factual basis for the reasons they gave for the acqui-
sition, specifically the central issue of whether the Jesuits
intended to develop the property now, for the name of one
party who threatens to buy the property, and for the name of
one party to whom the Jesuits threatened to sell it.
R. Bishop stated this would be one of the questions answered
by staff and would be answered in the form as to what the
staff' s perception was for the public necessity for buying the
property.
W. Turner asked for the factual basis for the statement "The
development of this major thoroughfare and its necessary
utilities would greatly enhance the accessibility and developability
of the subject property" , which referred to the access road
to the Sisters of Charity property. He asked what properties
in the adjacent area the Jesuits had been marketing, number of
acres , and price. He submitted that there was no pulbic
necessity that required the taking of this land against the
will of the owners and implored the Board to reject the two
resolutions before them on the matter.
Barbara Reed, speaking on behalf of the Los Gatos Chamber of
Commerce, read a letter to the Board that the Chamber of Commerce
sent to the Mayor of Los Gatos and the Council which stated
the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors , at their
September 18 , 1981 meeting, voted unanimously to oppose the
proposed condemnation of the Novitiate property. The letter
stated all other avenues should be explored before condemnation
procedures are instituted and that the Directors also voted to
recommend the issue be placed on the ballot for the vote of
the people.
Meeting 81-24 page five
Pete Siemens , Mayor of the Town of Los Gatos , stated he had written
a letter himself to the Board and requested the District Clerk
read the letter into the record. In the letter, Mr. Siemens stated
he was presenting his comments both as Mayor of Los Gatos and a
private citizen and stated his support for the purchase of the
Novitiate property, noting there has always been public and unani-
mous Council support for this open space acquisition, although
after it was apparent condemnation might be involved, one Council
member and some members of the public had voiced objections . In
response to a question posed by a member of the audience , Mr.
Siemens stated he was speaking as Mayor of Los Gatos and a private
citizen and had informed the Council he was planning to speak at
the Board Meeting.
Jack Panighetti, representing the Parks Protection League, stated
that thirty people were present from Los Gatos to show their
opposition to the condemnation, that twenty-one individuals spoke
against the condemnation and four individuals spoke in favor of
the action at the September 10 meeting, and that four past mayors
of the Town of Los Gatos were in the audience and opposed to the
condemnation of the Novitiate land.
John B. Lochner, 150 Creffield Heights , Los Gatos, representing
the Parks Protection League , stated the Parks Protection League
has noticed by newspaper the intent to circulate a petition for
an initiative to be placed on the ballot in April , whereby a
majority vote of Los Gatos citizens would be needed for the Town
to continue its agreement with the District and the expenditure
of Town funds, and asked if, in the event the initiative was
placed on ballot in April and if the Board adopted a resolution
of necessity, what would take place in the interim. He asked if
the condemnation hearing would proceed or be held in abeyance.
He said the El Sereno Open Space Preserve was adjacent to the
Town of Los Gatos, and instead of spending money to purchase new
land, the District should use the money for minimum development
at El Sereno.
C. Walton, 19115 Overlook Road, Los Gatos , representing the
Committee for Green Foothills , a Palo Alto based organization
interested in the preservation of open space in Santa Clara
and Santa Cruz Counties , stated the Committee ' s Board of
Directors were in favor of the preservation of the Novitiate
property as open space.
Patrick Hazel , 220 Elmwood Court, Los Gatos , spoke against the
condemnation of the Novitiate property, noting the Board' s actions
on the passage of a resolution of public necessity had to stand
the test of legal sufficiency.
Robert Hamilton, 368 Bella Vista Avenue , Los Gatos, stated the
rule of eminent domain was being misapplied, noting the possibility
of three home sites on the property did not warrant the action.
He did not feel three home sites on 300 acres would scar the
Novitiate property.
Meeting 81-24 page six
Art Snyder, 236 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos , expressed his
opposition to the condemnation action, noting the Jesuits had been
good neighbors to the Town, that he felt Mr. Siemens did not speak
for the Town Council, and that the Los Gatos citizens had a right
to work on the matter. He asked where funds would come from for
the maintenance, patrol , and amenities on the Novitiate site and
discussed current security problems at Los Gatos parks .
Mardi Bennett, 38 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos , a former member of
the Los Gatos Town Council, said the Town Council , while she was
on it, considered the use of condemnation for the safety of the
public, and said she saw the issue of acquiring the Novitiate
property "as something that we would like to have , but I do see
it as a matter of public safety or public good other than an
amenity" . She said the Jesuits had been a good neighbor to the
Town and that the land could not be taken without just recompense
or without a person' s or organization' s desire to participate in
the acquisition action.
Michael Canning, 115 Euclid Avenue , Los Gatos , discussed the paradox
that the Jesuits were maintaining the land as open space and there
was no reason for the District to acquire what the people already
had. He said it would be inappropriate to use public funds for
this project.
Preston Hill, 33 Peralta Avenue , Los Gatos , stated he felt his
questions had not been answered at the September 10 meeting and
that he felt there was a filter between the Board and "the facts
that are going on out in the world" . He posed questions on the
price of the property, on the number of sites that could be built
on the property, and on the proposed amendments to the Joint
Powers Agreement. He said he felt intense development on the
property was unlikely in the extreme .
Dimone Pederson, 145 College Avenue, Los Gatos , stated she did not
feel Mr. Siemen' s letter represented the Town of Los Gatos , that
the visual impact of the Montezuma' s Hill development could be
mitigated by the planting of greenery, and that she felt the people
of Los Gatos did not want or need more parks. She expressed her
opposition to the condemnation of the Novitiate property and
urged that the matter be put to the citizens of Los Gatos for an
advisory vote .
William Johnson, 15266 Via Pinto, Monte Sereno, expressed his
opposition to the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of
the Novitiate property, stating he did not feel it fair or just
to introduce at this time on the Jesuits .
Bobbie Crafford, 16830 Sheldon Road, Los Gatos , stated the develop-
ment of 3-15 sites on the property was not a threat of private
development. She said, because of public recreation areas in the
vicinity, the site was not needed as additional open space in the
area and questioned the statement concerning easy access to the
property. She said that highly visible topography was not a basis
for public necessity, that $1 million was an understatement of
market price for the property, and that, rather than acquiring
the property, the District should use its existing funding for
the development and maintenance of currently owned lands . She
urged that the matter be placed before the voters of Los Gatos.
Meeting 81-24 page seven
David Leeson, 15300 Blackberry Hill , Los Gatos, stated he felt the
Novitiate land should not be taken away from the Jesuits , said
federal funds should not be used for an action involving condem-
nation, and urged the Board to rethink what he felt was their
current position on the matter.
Ciddy Wordell, 867 Highlands Circle, Los Altos , cited two parallels
about parklands in Los Altos involving St. Joseph' s Seminary property
and the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve , and stated she hoped
the people of Los Gatos would have the chance to enjoy an open space
preserve like the Rancho San Antonio .
William E. Mason, 56 Oak Grove Avenue, Los Gatos , stated that he
felt Los Gatos did not need more parks and that the Jesuits had
been good and cooperative neighbors to the Town. He asked where
funds would come from to purchase the property and urged that the
Board have an up-to-date appraisal on the property. He asked if
the Board had considered acquiring a right of first refusal to
purchase the property and urged the Board to work with the
Novitiate to see if there might be a common ground that could be
agreed upon.
R. Bishop asked if any representative of the Novitiate wished to
make any additional comments.
Father Brennan stated he did not have anything further to say and
that the people had supported the Church with their ideas .
R. Bishop asked staff to respond to the questions posed during
the meeting.
H. Grench, in response to the question initially raised by Tq.
Turner, stated the reasons for the necessity of the acquisition
were , in his mind, visual backdrop; public safety (including
aiding and prevention of storm and flood damage by non-development
of the property, lesser earthquake damage, aiding air quality) ;
protection of flora and fauna and topography; containment of
urban sprawl, and significant recreational uses (including
hiking, horseback riding, kite flying, jogging, photography,
wildlife observation, painting, and meditation) . He said
the property connects with Lexington Reservoir and adds a new
type of dimension to the County facilities there. He said that
sooner or later, he felt, the Novitiate property would be
developed.
C. Britton, in response to questions posed by W. Turner, stated
the Jesuits had been contacted by the Town of Los Gatos when
the Town first considered applyingfora Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund grant to acquire the property, and the Town was not
given a negative response. He said that after the Town
received the grant, an appraisal was made on the property and
an offer to purchase the property for $1 million was made to
the Jesuits . He stated the offer was never rejected or
countered and said the only time the Jesuits stated the
property was not for sale was after a recommendation went to
the Los Gatos Town Council to consider a resolution
of public necessity for the property. He stated that if the
Board adopted a resolution of public necessity for the
Meeting 81-24 page eight
property, the District would be required to testify to the
value of the property as of the date of value, which would
be the date a lawsuit was filed. In response to the question
regarding threat of development, he stated he had seen brochures
at the Jesuits ' office stating $10 million was needed to endow
the retirement facility, and said they had previously marketed
the 1100 acre Alma College site. C. Britton stated the
Sisters of Charity property had been marketed over a 10-year
period, and while not directly related to the Novitiate
property, this was an indication that land was being disposed
of by other Catholic orders . He said the Novitiate had recently
sold a 36 acre parcel, north of the property, for development,
and stated the access road to the Sisters of Charity property
and the placement of necessary utilities would enhance the
developability of the Novitiate property.
In response to a question regarding the sale of development rights
or an open space easement, C. Britton stated the suggestion of
a buffer zone between the land now owned by the Jesuits and
the land the public would use had been advanced (including
the idea of an open space easement) , but the idea had never
been countered or accepted as far as he knew. He said he did
not know whether funds would be available if the District had a
valid right of first refusal for the property , and a future sale
took place .
C. Britton stated he did not know of any particular parties interested
in acquiring the property at this time, but said he was told
by Father Charvet at the time he toured the property when it
was appraised that several people had expressed interest
in the property and had made offers .
H. Grench stated that under the terms of the amended Joint
Powers Agreement the District would be responsible for the
maintenance and patrol of the property.
S. Norton, in response to a question regarding whether the
matter would be held in abeyance in light of the fact that
a petition was being circulated to place the matter before
the voters of Los Gatos in April , said he was not aware of
any legal constraints on the District in the meantime.
R. Bishop said the Board would have to make a policy decision
on the matter if a comdemnation action was commenced and
an election was held in Los Gatos on the matter.
C. Britton stated the Joint Powers Agreement called for
annexation of the property into the Town and that the Town' s
police would be available for emergency calls and patrol ,
in addition to the District' s patrol of the property.
H. Grench stated access to the property would come from the
Lexington Reservoir and the parking area adjacent to the dam.
He said use of the property for low intensity recreational
purposes was not expected to create access problems .
R. Bishop asked if the members of the Board had any questions
or comments , and D. Wendin suggested the Board members comment
on the matter before voting on the resolutions .
Meeting 81-24 page nine
K. Duffy stated she would vote in favor of the two resolutions ,
noting that in 1972 when the District was formed people had
discussed saving the Novitiate property from development. She
said there had been a consistent interest in Los Gatos in
preserving the hillsides , and felt that any plans to develop
the Novitiate property would face a horrible fight in the
Town. She stated the Los Gatos Town Council , the duly
elected representatives of the Town, had passed, by a four
to one vote, a resolution of necessity to acquire the property
and had recently awarded funds to pay for the project. She
discussed the visual impact of the land, its recreational
use in linking the area to other open space, and the regional
recreational value of the land. She stated that even three
houses on the property would scar the area with roads and
fences and said the land would be in better care in the
Districts hands . She urged the Jesuits to negotiate a
fair price for the land since the land was not being used.
Noting she would prefer not to use eminent domain, she said
the land was so important that eminent domain must be exercised
in this case. She stated the District had no intention to include
the Jesuit 's buildings , shrine ,and gardens in the area to
be acquired and said the Jesuits privacy should be protected
by a buffer area. She urged that the District and the Jesuits
work together to preserve the land and take care of it in the
best possible way and suggested changing the name of the
project to Novitiate Park or St. Joseph's Hill Open Space
Preserve to commemorate the long history of the Jesuits in the area.
She urged the other members of the Board to support the
two resolutions in light of the strong support from the
Los Gatos Town Council and others in the area to preserve
the land as a community and regional resource.
H. Turner stated his support for the resolutions , noting
the proposed acquisition of the property was consistent with
the objectives of a regional open space district, that the
land was important to a regional trail system in the area, and
that public access could not be provided without public
ownership of the land. He said the threat of development,
which was not the only item for the Board to consider, would
eventually come about, even if it were not present at this
time. He said that the land in its present state could not
do much for the Jesuits financial stability since it was
not producing an income for them.
D. Wendin discussed reasons why the District was formed, noting
that in order to save open space for the future generations
of people who will be living in the Santa Clara Valley, the
land must be bought. He said he found it hard to believe that
the Jesuits would never develop the property, noting they
had never made a statement to the effect the property will
not be developed and that they had not put the land under
the Williamson Act. He noted that councils and political
bodies change quickly, and it was important to move forward
with this project.
Meeting 81-24 page ten
E. Shelley stated the Board had to make a decision for the
entire District and that the land was of regional recreational
significance. He said he had to accept that the Los Gatos
Town Council , which had expressed its support for the project,
was representing the majority of Los Gatos residents . He
said that if any harm were to occur it might be to the retired people
at the Novitiate facility and he felt it should be quite
possible to provide adequate buffering to protect the privacy
of these individuals and that in the long run the District
could provide better facilities for their enjoyment of the
property.
R. Bishop stated he felt the Jesuits considered the property
a matter of financial security that they may ultimately have to
rely upon. He felt it unrealistic to think that they would not
be selling the property at some time in the future, and that
if the land was going to be preserved as open space, it should
be done now because of the funding sources available.
Motion: K. Duffy moved the approval of Resolution 81-42 ,
a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving
and Authorizing Execution of Amendment to Joint
Powers Agreement for Purchase of Real Property,
and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and
All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to
Closing of the Transaction (Los Gatos Creek Park) .
D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Motion: K. Duffy moved the approval of Resolution 81-43,
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 (Los Gatos Creek
Park - Novitiate Property) . B. Green seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board recessed for a break at 10 : 25 P.M. and reconvened
for the public meeting at 10 :34 P.M.
VI . NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Review of Edgewood Park Plans Being Considered by San Mateo
County
H. Grench introduced the staff report, R-81-42 , dated September 23 ,
1981 , regarding the two preliminary master plans that had been
prepared for the Edgewood County Park. He noted the San
Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission had voted to recommend
Plan B, which included a golf course on the site, to the
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors . He introduced Duane
"Doc" Mattison, the Eirector of Parks and Recreation for
San Mateo County.
Meeting 81-24 page eleven
E. Byron McCulley, Vice President, CHNMB Associates , and
Deb Mitchell , Project Coordinator for the firm, made
a detailed presentation on the two alternative preliminary
master plans prepared for the site.
Discussion centered on the impact the golf course would
have on the site, the need for more specific designs before
selecting one of the plans , the District assuming a more
active advisory role while planning for the site was taking
place, and how the Board should proceed on the matter.
D. Wendin and E. Shelley stated they felt the Board of
Supervisors would support Plan B and said the Board needed
to make sure the District would have a maximum voice in
the implementation of any plan that was accepted. N. Hanko
expressed her support for Plan A. H. Turner stated a
continued analysis of both alternatives should be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors . Noting that he felt Plan B
was too intrusive, H. Turner stated the District should not
oppose a golf course on thissite simply because golf courses
were not part of the District 's open space philosophy.
A. Watt reviewed the staff report.
Lennie Roberts, representing the Committee for Green Foothills ,
and Bob Young, expressed their concerns regarding Plan B,
which included the golf course.
Tom Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View, spoke in
favor of a public golf course in San Mateo County.
Susan Sommers of Redwood City submitted a letter, dated
September 28, 1981, regarding the Edgewood Park Assessment
Report, which she felt had serious deficiencies, and stated
more information was needed on Plan B before it was evaluated
or recommended for approval .
Motion: R. Bishop moved that a letter be written to the
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for their
October 6 meeting stating that, based upon the
information the Board of Directors currently has ,
they favor Plan A and recommend the Board of
Supervisors adopt Plan A, that a copy of the
staff report be enclosed with the letter noting
that the Board realized some of the items in
the staff report are looking ahead to future
planning, but that the Board wanted the Supervisors
to have the benefit of the report, and that the
letter include a statement that in the event the
Board of Supervisors adopts Plan B, the District
wishes to participate in the planning for Plan B.
B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed on the following vote :
AYES : K. Duffy, B. Green, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop.
NOES : D. Wendin, E. Shelley, and H. Turner.
Motion : D. Wendin moved that the Board next consider Item
4 on the agenda. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 81-24 -)age twelve
B. Scheduling of Special Meeting
H. Grench reviewed memorandum M-81-98 , dated September 23, 1981,
regarding the scheduling of a special meeting in October for
the program evaluation and Legal Counsel ' s review. He noted
an alternative would be to include both items on the October 14
agenda, with the meeting beginning earlier to accomodate
the review session with Legal Counsel .
Motion : N. Hanko moved the continuation of the Program
Evaluation item to the meeting of October 14 , 1981 .
E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
R. Bishop stated the October 14 meeting would begin at 7 :00 P.M.
J. Fiddes stated that although the agenda included an item
for claims there were no claims for Board approval .
VII . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench stated the District ' s consultant would present the
Monte Bello parking lot plan to the Palo Alto Planning
Commission on Wednesday, September 30 , 1981. D. Wendin and
N. Hanko stated they would be attending the meeting.
VIII . CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to a Closed Session on land negotiation
matters at 12 : 21 A.M. , Tuesday September 29 , 1981.
ADJOURNMENT
Ix. The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 : 23 A.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
i
f
CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF
IZ. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 28, 1981
E. Shelley stated Mardi Bennett' s quoted statement in the
second paragraph on page six should include the word "not" and
read "as something that we would like to have , but I do not see
it as a matter of public safety or public good other than an
amenity" .
Motion: R. Bishop moved the approval of the minutes of
September 28 , 1981 as amended. D. Wendin seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.