Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19811210 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) ,ting 81-29 Ai %Ioe 0 am 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 December 10 , 1981 I . ROLL CALL President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. in the Multi-Purpose Room of San Carlos High School, 2600 Melendy Drive, San Carlos. 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, Jean Fiddles , Stanley Norton, and Suzanne Shipley. R. Bishop welcomed San Carlos Councilmen William Steele and Victor Stoltz and former San Carlos Mayor and Councilman Joseph Judge. He noted the meeting was being held in San Carlos to gather public input on what future actions the District should take regarding the Hassler Health Home property as open space. II . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. Fiddles read the following written communications into the record: 1) a letter, dated November 25 , 1981, from Betsy Bechtel thanking the Board for their recent note of congratulations on her election to the Palo Alto City Council and asking that she be kept informed about the issues concerning Palo Alto and the District; 2) a letter, dated December 5 , 1981, from Mrs . Valerie Roberts , 2760 Melendy Drive, No. 5 , San Carlos, stating she was overwhelmingly in support of the District ' s acquisition of the Hassler property and its use of the power of eminent domain if necessary and noting she could not imagine another beautiful area being taken over by developers and that she was not clear why the Finance Committee of the City and County of San Francisco had not accepted the District 's $2 . 5 million offer for the property; 3) a letter, dated December 5, 1981, from Mr. and Mrs . Robert E. Hess , 2411 Graceland Avenue, San Carlos , n6tina .that after all the years the citizens of San Carlos have fought to acquire the Hassler property as open space, the District should not give up now and stating the use of eminent domain seems reasonable in view of San Francisco 's lack of concern for the desires of their San Carlos neighbors; 4) a letter, dated December 5 , 1981, from Jean and Randy Jenks , 2848 Tramanto Drive, San Carlos, urging that every possible legal action be taken to prevent the development of the Hassler property and to preserve it as open space and applauding the possibility of exercising the right of eminent domain to acquire the property; 5) a letter, dated December 7, 1981, from Margaret Marshall , 1947 Cordilleras Road, Redwood City, stating she hoped the members of the Board would seriously consider doing what is necessary to Herbert A Grench.General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green.NonetteG Hanko,Richard Bishop,Edward Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin Meeting 81-29 Page Two acquire the Hassler Health Home parcel for open space and noting the whole community would obviously benefit by such action; 6) a letter, dated December 4 , 1981, from Cy and Eleanor Jobson, noting that, as members of the Sierra Club and active participants in the District 's efforts to acquire the Hassler property, they hoped all necessary steps are taken to make the purchase of the property, including exercising the power of eminent domain; and 7) a letter, dated December 8 , 1981, from the Charles Geraci Family, 600 Knoll Drive, San Carlos , and Lisa Lamb, 2350 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, strongly urging the Board to do whatever is necessary to keep the Hassler Health Home property as open space, noting they hoped the property would not fall into the hands of developers, and stating that some of what makes this part of California so beautiful should be saved for future generations . III . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications at this point in the meeting. IV. STATUS REPORT AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON HASSLER HEALTH HOME ACQUISITION PROJECT a) Introduction R. Bishop outlined the meeting 's format. He noted the Board had voted unanimously to make an offer to the City and County of San Francisco to acquire the Hassler property, but said District staff had been unsuccessful in trying to negotiate a purchase. He noted that this meeting was being held in San Carlos because the property 's purchase price was more than anticipated two years ago, when another meeting was held in San Carlos on the matter, and the Board wanted public input on whether they should exercise the District 's power of eminent domain to acquire the Hassler property. R. Bishop explained the power of eminent domain, stating the use of the power was used with great discretion by the Board. He noted the members of the Board wanted to know if the members of the public wanted the District to proceed with the acquisition, despite the higher price, and if there was strong public support for the use of eminent domain to preserve the property as public open space. He noted the District felt obligated to the members of the Assessment District who had voted to help acquire the property and said San Mateo County had informally pledged $100 ,000 toward the purchase of the property. b) Staff Presentation H . GrencFntroduced members of the District' s staff present at the meeting. He explained the District 's financial situation with regard to the Hassler property, noting the District had an approved $1.1 million federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant for the project and that there was $300 ,000 from the Assessment District for the purchase of the Hassler property. He said that when the property 's price was initially thought to be $2 . 2 million, $900 , 000 of District funds would have been used to make up the balance of the purchase price. He stated the District' s latest offer to the City and County of San Francisco was $2. 5 million, and the District was presently willing to fund $1 million of the purchase price. He added the County of San Mateo had informally pledged $100 , 000 toward the purchase. H. Grench stated federal Land and Water Conserva- tion Funds were in short supply and the federal administration had cut out the program in this year' s budget, and noted he was con- cerned that federal funds for the project might be lost if the project was not completed in a timely fashion. Meeting 81-29 Page Three C. Britton reviewed the staff report R-81-48, dated December 4, 1981, noting that since September 1978 he had been working, both on an informal and formal basis , with representives from the City and County of San Francisco to acquire the Hassler property as open space. He said, after working with the City ' s Real Estate Department, that a purchase price of $2 . 24 million (which the Department would recommend to the Board of Supervisors for sale of the property to the District}, had been agreed upon and in October 1980 the Board of Directors had authorized District staff to make a formal offer to San Francisco to purchase the Hassler Health Home Property . He noted it took over a year for the Real Estate Department to make its report to the Board of Supervisor 's Finance Committee, and in September 1981 when the Committee considered the sale of the property to the District, the Committee referred the item back to City staff for consideration of the City developing the property or selling it at public auction. He said a subsequent City staff report outlined six alternatives for the property, including sale at public auction, leasing the land, developing the property, or holding the property, and added that a direct sale of the property to the District was not one of the alternatives. He stated he did not think the Finance Committee would be discussing the disposition of the Hassler property again until January or even February 1982 and noted the matter would then have to go to the Board of Supervisors , which could take thiry days to six months. C. Britton said the District had four alternatives at this point: 1) continue working with City staff to negotiate a direct sale of the property to the District; 2) participate in a public auction for the property if the City decided to auction the property; 3) drop the project, rescind the grant, disband the Assessment District and rely on preserving the open space on the property that might be dedicated as part of a private development project; or 4) consider exercising the District' s power of eminent domain. He said he felt the direct negotiations with San Francisco to acquire the property had come to a standstill , and said the Board should consider the fourth alternative, the use of eminent domain, in order to acquire the Hassler property for public open space. R. Bishop stated questions raised by members of the audience during the public comment portion of the meeting would be answered by staff at the end of the public hearing. He read the following written communications , which had been delivered to his home prior the meeting, into the record: 1) a letter, dated December 8, 1981, from Ruby Seager Lewis , 1230 Highland Court, San Carlos , requesting the Board members preserve the Hassler property as open space and noting that time and again the community had reaffirmed its sincere desire for the acquisition; 2) a letter, dated December 9 , 1981, from Spencer J. Bendle, 1920 Arroyo Avenue, San Carlos , stating Mr. Bendle was very much in favor of saving the Hassler property as open space, that he had yet to talk to anyone against the open space use of the property, that development of the land was not needed, and asking the Board members to do whatever they can to preserve the Hassler property; and 3) a letter, dated December 9 , 1981, from Mrs . A. Bendle, 1920 Arroyo Avenue , San Carlos , stating she felt the Hassler property was Meeting 81-29 Page Four a beautiful location for a natural park for San Carlos and Redwood City residents , that there was a need for open space, and that she hoped the Board would "consider our efforts since 1973 to save this parcel of land, along with the assessment neighbors of the site in San Carlos" . R. Bishop stated the public hearing on the Hassler Health Home acquisition project would commence at 8 :10 P .M. c) Public Comment Fred Endicott, 3336 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos , stated he felt the District was very sincere in its efforts to preserve the Hassler property as open space and noted how slowly matters involving local governments progress. He reviewed some of the project 's history, noting that 92%-95% of the San Carlos residents had voted in favor of forming the assessment district to help acquire the property . He stated he was not uneasy about the amount of land the District was acquiring in the north end of the District, noting the Edgewood site would be used for a golf course. He urged the Board to use their power of eminent domain to acquire the Hassler property, noting that it was sig- nificant that private property was not involved in the case, rather two government agencies were involved, and that he could think of no better example where eminent domain was the proper action to take. He stated the land was beautiful open space and said he was amazed by the long-term and tremendous amount of local support on the issue of preserving the property as open space. R. Bishop thanked Mr. Endicott for all his efforts over the years to help the District acquire the property as open space. Jospeh E. Judge, 3335 Brittan Avenue, No. 9 , San Carlos , noted the relative importance of the property as prime open space was a major issue and said that in 1974 the voters of the City of San Carlos approved the purchase of the Hassler property by a two to one margin. He said he was personnally very enthusiastic about the preservation of the property as open space and said that when the Hassler Assessment District was formed it was subscribed by 95% of those people within the district, an indication of the desire of the people within the district to acquire the property as open space. Mr. Judge commented on new development and zoning changes in the San Carlos area, noting that conditions had changed and it was more important today to acquire the Hassler property as open space than it was three years ago. He thought it was prudent to follow through with the negotiation process with the City and County of San Francisco as best as possible, but said he did not feel San Francisco would move any faster on the project in the next two years than they had in the past two years . He stated it would be prudent for the Board to follow the negotiation process, but not wait too long, and he urged the Board to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the property as soon as possible. R. Bishop requested that individuals addressing the Board discuss the questions of which alternative action the District should pursue , whether the power of eminent domain should be used by the Board if necessary, and what low intensity recreational uses Meeting 81-29 Page rive should be made of the Hassler property if it were acquired by the District. Bob Carlson, 109 Highland Circle, San Carlos , stated he was present at the 1974 San Carlos City Council meeting when a representative from the City and County of San Francisco told the Council that the Hassler property was surplus property and that San Francisco wanted to sell it. Mr. Carlson noted that a lot of footwork had been done to acquire the property since that meeting, and he said it was like a breach of promise for San Francisco to say now the property was not for sale as open space . He stated the original price of the property of approximately $1 . 8 million which was quoted in 1974 was the amount the District should pay for the property. He endorsed the use of the right of eminent domain or whatever process was necessary to "get the show on the road" . He concluded by saying the City and County of San Francisco had originally offered to sell the property . Anne DeGheest, 3362 La Mesa, San Carlos , noting she was a newcomer to the area, said it appeared from the reports that seven years had passed since efforts were started to acquire the Hassler property and added that if another seven years passed the property ' s price would be too high. She urged that steps be taken to force San Francisco ' s hand in the matter, including the District' s use of eminent domain and advocated soliciting mass media support for the project. Ann Erhimani, 3353 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos , stated she had supported the acquisition of the Hassler property as open space since 1973 and noted the citizens in the area had made two financial commitments , the bond issue and the assessment district, to help acquire the property. She said that by waiting nine years San Francisco was making tacit approval of the citizens ' efforts to acquire the property as open space. She said the use of eminent domain was the most expedient way to proceed with the project and force the issue. Brian Barts , Eaton Avenue, San Carlos , said he had been involved with the group of citizens seeking the acquisition of the Hassler property as open space since its inception, urged the District' s acquisition of the property, and noted it was appropriate for the District to use the right of eminent domain to acquire the property. He said it was important to maintain public access to the property for picnicking and hiking so people could use and enjoy the Hassler property. R. Bishop stated that if the Board decided to use its power of eminent domain to acquire the Hassler property, it would be necessary to hold another public meeting at which a resolution of public necessity would have to be adopted by the Board. He said everyone in the audience was welcome to attend the meeting, adding that all the comments made during the present meeting would be considered part of the record and would be taken into consideration when the Board acted on a resolution of public necessity for the Hassler property. Meeting 81-29 Page Six Mary Sussman, 3336 Brennan, San Carlos , stated he had been active in circulating the petition to form the assessment district, said he approved of the use of eminent domain in this case, and suggested that a citizens committee be formed to seek support from San Francisco residents and groups to lobby the Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco to sell the property to the District for open space purposes. Olive Mayer, 245 Jocelyn Lane, Woodside, recounted the changes she had seen take place to open space lands in the area, noting that with increased population in the coming years , the value of open space would grow. She said steps must be taken today to preserve open space for future generations to enjoy, noting open space helped maintain the quality of life. She said that love of the beauty of the land was part of the American character. She supported the District 's use of the power of eminent domain to acquire the Hassler property, noting the City and County of San Francisco had in the past sold off some of their watershed lands for financial profit. She said the property should not be lost to developers and stated it was not necessary to determine at this time what the recreational uses for the property should be since future generations should be part of the decision making process . Rose Cooper, 3350 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos, expressed her support for the District's past activities and asked if it was a likely possibility that the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant would be lost if too much time passed, what the problems associated with the use of eminent domain were for the District, and if there was a possibility, and if so what were the chances , that the District might fail to acquire the property if it exercised its power of eminent domain. Councilman William Steele, 133 Highland Avenue, San Carlos , stated he did not know of any other issue that had sustained such broad and active interest for such a long period of time, complimented the District' s staff on their report, and noted that members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had changed since the effort to acquire the Hassler property started nine years ago. He felt it was incredible that San Francisco 's staff had not included sale of the Hassler property to the District as one of the options presented to the Finance Committee, and felt that San Francisco representatives had an unrealistic view of the situation. He said he did not feel negotiations with San Francisco would produce any results and urged the Board to pursue its right of eminent domain to acquire the property, noting the property had been declared surplus and for sale by the City. He urged that action be taken in a short time to solidify the funding commitments that had been made to help the District acquire the property and said the Hassler site was a prime acquisition area for the District in the northern part of the District. Bob Young, 1065 Drake Court, San Carlos, noting he was a District docent, stated the Edgwood Park and the Hassler site provided opportunities for providing nature studies and field trips for Meeting 81-29 Page Seven local schoolchildren and agreed with previous speakers that the right of eminent domain should be used to acquire the Hassler property as open space. Councilman Victor Stoltz, speaking as a private citizen and longtime San Carlos resident, stated he supported the acquisition of the Hassler property as open space by whatever means are best. James Goeser, 222 Frances Lane, San Carlos , stated both the San Carlos/Belmont Sierra Club, of which he was Chairman, and the San Mateo County Sierra-Club with over 3000 members , supported without reservation the condemnation of the Hassler property for open space. He said there was a need for open space in the area, noting the development taking place on Bair Island in Redwood City and in Foster City, and added the District "should not hesitate and be too nice - it should save what' s left" . San Carlos City Councilman John Buchanan stated he had attended the San Francisco Finance Committee meeting and made a presentation in behalf of the City of San Carlos. He said he did not feel that San Francisco understood the amount of planning and citizen input that had been put into the acquisition of the Hassler property as open space or the kind of planning that takes place in San Mateo County. He said it appeared a stand would have to be taken to preserve the site as open space, noting that open space is never a lost resource, rather a resource for the people of San Mateo County, San Carlos , the District, as well as the citizens of San Francisco, to enjoy. He stated he felt an over- whelming majority of the citizens in San Carlos supported the acquisition of the Hassler property as open space and said that as long as he was on the City Council he would seek to preserve the land as open space. Noting that the situation and the attitude of San Francisco made it appear that the negotiation stage had passed, he felt it was appropriate in this case to use the power of eminent domain and urged the Board to proceed in this line. He stated it was important to preserve citizens rights and a higher, better use of the Hassler property than development of the property. Robert Black, 585 Dartmouth Avenue, San Carlos, stated he had served on several citizen committees working on the acquisition of the Hassler property as open space, noted many of the comments he had planned to make had already been stated, and urged the Board to proceed immediately with eminent domain to acquire the property . He said that financial support to help acquire the property should not be lost and recommended that low impact recre- ational use of the Hassler site be planned. Dawn Clifford, a member of the staff of Assemblyman Robert Naylor, stated she agreed with the previous statements made during the meeting. Robert Carlson asked the San Carlos Council members if there was any chance for reprisals from the City and County of San Francisco if the District proceeded with the eminent domain process and asked H. Grench if District staff was doing anything to lobby or influence the San Francisco Board of Supervisors . Meeting 81-29 Page Eight Fred Endicott asked what the current plans were for the buildings if the property was acquired. Other members of the audience asked what would happen if the Board proceeded with the project and the cost of the property was more than expected and whether the District would accept contributions to be used in helping to acquire the Hassler property. R. Bishop responded that the District hoped to acquire the property at a reasonable price and said the District would greatly accept contri- butions to help acauire the property. He noted that if the purchase price were higher than felt reasonable he felt the Board would have another public meeting to discuss the price and possible alternatives. In response to questions raised by members of the audience , H. Grench stated District staff had not been lobbying the San Francisco Board of Supervisors , but he understood there had been some lobbying by private citizens. He stated the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant called for the buildings to be used only for recreational purposes and after public hearings , the District had concluded that most of the buildings would have to be demolished, with the exception of the main doctor' s house and the duplex next to it which might be used for housing an on-site ranger for patrol of the property. He said San Mateo County has expressed an interest in housing rangers on the site. H. Grench stated that possible low-intensity recreational uses for the property included hiking, horseback riding, picnicking, photography, kite flying, nature study through, for example, the District' s docent program, and enjoying the area for inspiration. C. Britton responded to the questions regarding eminent domain, noting the District was currently involved in a couple eminent domain actions , one of them in Los Gatos , and he said it is an expensive procedure, in terms of fees for attorneys, I expert witnesses , and engineers . He said as much as $50 ,000 could be spent on costs in a condemnation case and that a jury trial was one of the worst places to determine the value of land. He said a negotiated purchase of property was always preferable. He said a condemnation case was not necessarily lost; rather the settle- ment price might be higher than anticipated. He added that the options, if the price were higher than anticipated, could include moving for a new trial, appealing the judgment, or dropping the project. He said that if the Board adopted a Resolution of Public Necessity and if the jury 's settlement price was higher than anticipated, there would probably be another meeting in San Carlos to determine the course of action for the acquisition of the Hassler property. C. Britton stated the District, not the City of San Carlos , would be taking action against the City and County of San Francisco and noted that contributions to the District for the acquisition project should be marked for Hassler and were tax deductible . In response to a question from a member of the audience regarding whether the District could work with a developer to acquire a portion of the property if the condemnation case was -iost" in court, R. Bishop said that it was possible for the District to work out a joint project with a developer. C. Britton noted, however, that the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant probably precluded such action. Meeting 81-29 Page Nine R. Bishop thanked the members of the audience for their comments at 9 :12 P .M. and suggested the Board schedule a meeting in early 1982 that would include on its agenda the consideration of adopting a Resolution of Public Necessity for the Hassler property. D. Wendin requested that staff review the action proposed in their report to the Board, and C . Britton responded staff had recommended the Board allow negotiations to proceed with the City of San Francisco through the month of January. He noted that he, however, had heard rumors that the Finance Committee would not discuss the matter again until late January or early February. R. Bishop stated he felt the District had negotiated long enough with San Francisco and said the Board should proceed with the 'consideration of a Resolution of Public Necessity for the Hassler property. He stated the matter would be considered at the District' s main office in Los Altos and suggested the item be considered at the second meeting in January. S . Norton reviewed the procedure that would be followed if the Board adopted a Resolution of Public Necessity to acquire the Hassler property. Motion: R. Bishop moved the Board place the Hassler matter on the agenda for the second meeting in January and at that time have on its agenda a Resolution of Public Necessity to begin. eminent domain proceedings for the Hassler property. B. Green seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin stated he felt it premature to schedule a meeting in January to consider such a resolution, noting the District was dealing with a political body in the matter and suggested the scheduling of the meeting be kept tentative and that staff be allowed to continue to negotiate with the City through January. Motion to Amend : D. Wendin moved that the motion be amended to state the Resolution of Public Necessity be scheduled for a meeting in February if staff has made no progress in negotiations during January . E. Shelley seconded the motion. Discussion: H . Grench noted, due to the fifteen day notice required by law, that the item would have to be scheduled for the second meeting in February . B. Green stated she supported taking definite action with a time limit as a message to San Francisco that the District and people in the area were impatient. The motion to amend failed to pass on a roll call vote : AYES : D. Wendin, E. Shelley, and H. Turner. NOES : K. Duffy, B. Green, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop. R. Bishop ' s motion, seconded by B. Green, passed unanimously on a roll call vote: AYES : K. Duffy, D. Wendin, B. Green, E. Shelley, N. Hanko, H. Turner, and R. Bishop. NOES : None . H. Grench stated the meeting to consider the Resolution of Public Necessity would be held on January 23 , 1.982 at the District' s main office in Los Altos. Meeting 81-29 Page Ten V. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS There were no informational reports . VI . CLAIMS Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the revised claims 81-24 , dated December 10 , 1981 . B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VII . CLOSED SESSION The Board recessed to Closed Session for land negotiation matters at 9 : 23 P .M. VIII . ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 9 : 30 P.M. Jean H. Fiddes District Clerk V. CLAIMS Motion CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES or. /V,,eV II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 10, 1981 B. Green stated the first sentence of the second paragraph on page eight should be corrected to read, "R. Bishop responded that the District hoped to acquire the property at a reasonable price and stated the District would gratefully accept contributions to help acquire the property" and that the word "of" should be inserted between the words ",couple" and "eminent" in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph on page eight. B. Green stated the date in the last paragraph on page nine should be corrected to January 27. J. Fiddes clarified that January 23, the incorrect date for the meeting when the Board would consider a Resolution of Public Necessity for the Hassler property, was the actual date stated at the December 10 meeting. Motion : E. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of December 10, 1981 with the corrections noted and the date clarifi- cation. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. R. Bishop was not present for the vote.