Loading...
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.