HomeMy Public PortalAbout19831122 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 83-28
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NOVEMBER 22, 198"S
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Daniel Wendin called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 P .M.
in Room 208 of the San Carlos City Hall, 666 Elm Street, San
Carlos .
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Edward
Shelley, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Nonette Hanko arrived at
7 : 12 P.M.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Stanley
Norton, Jean Fiddes, Charlotte MacDonald, and James Boland.
II . CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session on land negotiation and litigation
matters.
The Board reconvened for the Public Meeting in the San Carlos City Council
Chambers at 7 : 35 P .M.
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A) November 2 , 1983
J. Fiddes stated the minutes being considered for approval were incorrectly
dated and were the minutes for the October 26, 1983 Regular Meeting.
Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes as corrected. K. Duffy
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes stated the Board received written communications from the
following individuals or groups favoring the preservation of the Hassler
buildings and the San Mateo Arts Council ' s Proposal for an arts and nature
center:
1 . Susan Trubow, Peninsula Serigraphers, San Mateo;
2. Nicholas Isaacs, Corresponding Secretary, Music Teachers ' Associ-
ation of California, Palo Alto Branch;
3. Marguerite L. King, Los Altos;
4 . Frederick Wells, Supervisor of Performing Arts, City of Palo Alto;
5. Thera Rabinowitch, Palo Alto;
6. Joseph E. Judge, Past President, Brittan Heights Condominium
Association, San Carlos;
7 . Roberta Wood, Sunset Drive, San Carlos;
8 . Tannisse E. Brown, Palo Alto;
9 . Marcia Szabo, Cupertino;
10. T. Jack Foster, Foster Enterprises, Ltd.,, Foster City;
11 . Sandra Goodwin, Atherton;
12. Sheila V. Sardi, Mountain View;
13 . Dana Marie Bunnett, Coordinator, San Mateo County Very Special
Arts Festival;
14 . Joseph Saitta, Palo Alto;
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 83-28 Page two
15. Eleanor and Cy Jobson, Brittan Avenue, San Carlos; and
16 . Irving Klein, The California Music Center, Inc. , Morgan Hill.
She said Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Rick, Leslie Drive, San Carlos had expressed
their opposition to retention of the buildings via a telephone call.
She stated the Board had also received a letter from Suzanne Brillhart,
Sandra Blackburn, and Debbie Powell of Fremont requesting that Canyon
Trail be reevaluated, that markings be posted at unclear points, and that
they be reimbursed $20. 00, the amount they paid a person to drive them
back to their car after becoming lost on Canyon Trail ;
a letter from Thomasene Dutton, Los Altos, regarding the upper house at
Rancho San Antonio and stating it is her hope that possible future use
of the house will not enhance the over-use problems the preserve may
soon face; and
an invitation from Phyllis Cangemi to attend the Whole Access Project' s
Training Program for Administrators and Policy Makers on January 12, 1984 .
V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as presented by Board consensus.
VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
VII . PUBLIC HEARING
Status of the Hassler Site Restoration Plans
After reviewing the procedure that would be followed, D. Wendin
declared the Public Hearing open at 7 : 46 P .M.
Walt Worthge, President of the San Mateo Arts Council, expressed thanks
to the Board for placing the matter on the agenda, to various public offi-
cials, including Congressmen Zschau and Lantos, and Assemblyman Naylor, the
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and the San Carlos City Council for
supporting the Council ' s proposal, and to other agencies and individuals
who had given support to the Arts Council ' s project. He said the
Council wanted to preserve a major asset in San Mateo County that could
be used for many generations to come, and noted 1-e hoped the Council 's
presentation tonight could relieve some of the frustrations, anxieties,
and misunderstandings that some people, particularly the Brittan
Heights residents, had about the project.
Barbara Wiesner showed the Council ' s slide presentation, A Creative
Center for Arts and '111ature .
Ruth Waters discussed materials she had distributed to the Board, in-
cluding the Adamson and Associates report that included rehabilitation
and operating costs estimates . She outlined the manaaement structure
of the arts center and said projected annual operating costs would
include salaries, maintenance, and utility costs, which the Council
hoped would be balanced by projected revenues . She noted restoration
costs, based on information from Adamson and Associates, were staggering
from the point of view of fundraising and that the Council was looking
at what had to be done in terms of restoration, as opposed to what
could be done, as well as how volunteer efforts could be utilized to
reduce costs. She stated that Option A (the two houses, the first
three tiers of buildings, and the garage) , rather than costing $1 . 5
million, could be accomplished for $496 , 000 if volunteer help were
used for much of the work.
Meeting 83-28 Page three
Nancy Jalonen, Executive Director of the San Mateo Arts Council , dis-
cussed funding for the project. She noted efforts had been directed
to major donors, and to date the following pledges had been received:
$25 , 000 from David and Lucille Packard, either through their foundation
or as individuals, and $10 , 000 from Dr. Stanley Hanfling, who had
also offered to raise $150, 000 in the next six to twelve months, and
$2700 in small contributions . She said the Council had obtained a
line of credit or loan from the Bank of America for the amount of
$115 , 000 that was auaranteed b17 one of the funders . She said some
potential pledgers are waiting to see the actions and decisions taken
by the District' s Board. She noted there was also the potential for
a successful grassroots fundraising effort.
Arlen Gregorio, Chairman of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors,
noted Supervisors Ward and Eschoo had wanted to attend the meeting,
but could not, due to previous commitments . He said the Board of
Supervisors had been touched by the Arts Council ' s hone and vision
through their infectious enthusiasm and discussed the seed monev that
had been given the Council to pursue further the project. He noted
the third element of the seed money contract was for the Arts Council
to demonstrate that there was community financial support for the
project, stating the Council was to raise $200, 000 by December 1 . He
stated that if the $2100, 000 were raised, there would still be a great
deal of fundraising to do. He noted there were some leaitimate concerns ,
including potential loss of grant funds, the assessment district, and
on-going costs, but noted these concerns added to the challenge of ful-
filling the miracle of what the Arts Council says it can achieve.
Bill Schumacher, San Mateo County Supervisor, stated the Supervisors
were unanimous in wanting to see something positive arise from this
situation. He noted the Supervisors had rejected the City and County
of San Francisco ' s request to upzone the Hassler property and had
contributed $100, 000 toward the acquisition of the property. He said
the Supervisors felt they had a partnership with the District, adding
they also had a commitment to arts and the San Mateo Arts Council which
receives funding from the County. He said the Supervisors did not want
to be adversaries of the District and that the Arts Council and the
District should work towards compromise in the matter.
Victor Stoltz, a member of the San Carlos City Council , discussed the
City' s position and read from a letter, resulting from a June 13, 1963
Council meeting, regarding the Arts Council 's proposal, which included
the statement " . . .the Center would be such a tremendous asset to the
region that we feel the Arts Council should be given an opportunity to
provide the solutions that meet with your Board' s approval . . . " . Speaking
as a member of the Arts Council Advisory Committee, he spoke in favor
of the Council ' s proposal and discussed the benefits of the proposal,
noting the District collects tax funds from San Mateo County residents ,
that Brittan Heights residents would continue to have the open space
and recreation for which they assessed themselves; that surrounding
cities and their artists would have the benefit of the buildings made
available to them at a low cost; the prcperty could have maximum use;
and the value of the property would be increased because of the
existence of the buildings .
Meeting 83-28 Page four
Bill Steele, San Carlos City Council member, urged the Board to find a
way to meet the obstacles inherent in this proposal since, if it were
to come to pass, a cultural center would be a great asset to the area.
He noted the Council, referring to the June 13 meeting, felt the
final decision was the District ' s . Noting that althouah he did not
consider the Center a violation of open space, he said he felt the
members of the assessment district had a leaitimate concern.
Joan Williams, Administrative Assistant for Congressman Ed Zschau,
expressed Congressman Zschauls strong support to preserve the buildings
for an Arts Center, his feelings that this was a rare opportunity to
match the arts and nature, and that he hoped it could be worked out.
Bob Newmark, representing the San Mateo County Historical Resources
Advisory Board, urged the Board to preserve the Hassler buildings,
noting the buildings were not old and provided a history of how tubercu-
losis had been treated. He said the Board felt the Arts Council ' s
plans were very possible. Ile said he was a member of the Sierra Club
and personally did not find the buildings to stand out as an obtrusive
mass .
H. Grench reviewed portions of the staff report (memorandum M-83-134 of
November 16, 1983) and discussed the main reasons the Board had voted
5 to 2 on July 27, 1983 to proceed with the removal of the Hassler
buildings and proceed with the restoration of the site to its natural
condition. He said the main reasons given to proceed with the removal
of the buildings included the absence of proof that the Arts Council
could raise necessary funds; potential traffic problems; the fact that
limited District funds are raised for and should be spent on open space,
not cultural facilities; the District is not in the business of being a
landlord and having the ultimate responsibility for such intensive
activities as proposed by the Arts Council; that the neighbors of the
site had been promised and expected the buildings to be removed and
the site restored to its natural condition as part of the movement to
raise $300, 000 through assessments; and that the District could most
probably have had the undeveloped portions of the site protected and
trails provided at no cost at all if the District had been willing to go
along with development or redevelopment of the site ' s building area. fie
noted that the Board minority either took exception to the reasons
stated or felt they could be overcome, felt that the buildings were
attractive and should be utilized for public purposes, and thought that
a fine marriage of the arts and open space would result.
He clarified that the demolition bid to remove the buildings and restore
the site to its natural condition was $236, 000 . He noted that the Dis-
trict could lose up to $1. 1 million in federal grant funds if the Arts
Council ' s project were to proceed, and stated that if the area of the
buildings were to be carved out of the area to be funded by the grant,
the remainder of the property would have to have a value of $2. 2 million
in order for the District to receive $1 . 1 million in grant funds. Ile
said the area containing the buildings was the heart of the property and
potentially the most important area for open space uses and said arts
center uses were incompatible with quiet open space uses of the site.
C. Britton explained the process involved in determining the value of
the property, noting the District had an approved appraisal for the
property on file with the State in the amount of $2. 5 million. He said
that if only two or three tiers of the building area were carved out
of the grant, the District could lose $200, 000 in grant funds since the
value of the remaining property would only be $1. 8 million. He reviewed
Meeting 83-28 Pacre five
slope density and geological maps of the site and various development
scenarios for the property noting that the existing footprint of where
the buildings are currently located is the area where any development
would occur, and if the buildings were retained, most of the developable
areas would be wiped out, thus decreasing the fair market value of the
property. He stated he thought it would cost the District about $20, 000
to figure out the carve out area and get necessary appraisals and that
the grant funds available after the carve out of the entire building
area would be a loss of approximately $600, 000 in grant funds.
D. Hansen reviewed the proposed open space uses for the property,
noting the heart of the property is where the buildings are currently
located and that the buildings were a visual intrusion on the site and
not a part of nature. He stated that the building area could be an open
meadow through which hiking and walking trails would pass. Noting that
the area provided the best views of the Bay, he said people could use the
meadow to enjoy the views, fly kites, have picnics, ,and paint paintings.
He stated that the District would be going backwards if a lot of traffic
were introduced on the site and that he felt the Arts Council ' s proposal
was an intrusion on open space values.
Craig J. Mathias , a member of the Brittan Heights Condominium Associ-
ation ' s Board of Directors and Chief Financial Officer, speaking in
behalf of the Association ' s Board of Directors , stated the Brittan
Heights homeowners had seen fit to tax themselves in the interest of
the environment to preserve the vanishing open space in the area;
that their contribution had helped to make the Hassler acquisition a
reality; and that they had no special interest croup in mind when they
taxed themselves . He questioned where the Arts Council was between
the years 1978 and 1982 when the assessment district worked to preserve
the land and why the Council felt they had a claim to the property.
He stated the residents of Brittan Heights wanted the property to be
open space and said. the Board of Directors of the Brittan Heights
Condominium Association would not allow Hassler to be used for any
special interest purpose. He urged the District' s Board to reaffirm
its stand.
Edward French, President, Palomar Property Owners Association, said the
Association favored the preservation of the Hassler buildings, noting
they were a valuable asset for community use.
Clarisse Eber, 3341 Brittan Avenue, #2, San Carlos, speaking as an
employee of the University of California, noted she had been assessed
for open space and recreation purposes and spoke in favor of preserving
the buildings for an Arts Center. She stated the medical history of
the buildings was essential to relating the history of tuberculosis
treatment, discussed the medical history of the buildings, and expressed
the support of other individuals to preserve the buildings . She dis-
cussed the ramps as a valuable asset for use of the site by the
physically disabled, and use of the barns by 4-H members .
Dana Bunnett, Coordinator, San Mateo County Special Arts Festival
Committee, expressed her support for the Arts Council ' s proposal , noting
how disabled artists would benefit from the preservation of the buildings
and the possible use of a large room for an on-going day program in the
arts for emotionally and physically disabled. She said the proposal
would allow art to become accessible.
Meeting 83-28 Page six
John N. Thomas, 3295 La Mesa Drive, #8 , San Carlos , expressed his
opposition to the Arts Council ' s proposal, noting members of the assess-
ment district assessed themselves $600 each for open space. He stated
no other group had come forward to help purchase the property. He
said that if the Arts Council "won" , he would ao to court to get the
assessment district' s money back, as well as challenge the Board of
Supervisors ' authority to use $25, 000 of taxpayers ' money for the project.
George Kirk, Assistant Chief of the Palomar Park Volunteer Fire Depart-
ment, noted his group had trained at the Hassler site since 1972 and
will continue to provide fire protection when called to the site. He
said the Department favored utilization of the buildings in some con-
structive way and expressed his support for the Arts Council 's project.
Elia Van Tuyl , 4017 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, a member of the
Advisory Committee to preserve the Hassler facility, but speaking as a
District constituent, expressed his support for the Arts Council ' s
proposal . He noted the disabled, elderly, youth, and children could
use the site and it would help meet the needs of the District ' s con-
stituents . He said the only people opposing the Arts Council ' s project
were members of the assessment district and urged the Board to keep in
mind the needs of all its constituents .
Karl Schmidt, a teacher at Foothill College and a choir director in
Los Altos , discussed the buildings ' inspirational value and noted the
buildings could provide retreat access for schools , community groups,
and churches and thus, be an asset to the community.
Richard Hill , a member of the Board of Directors of the Brittan Heights
Homeowners ' Association and the group that had helped form the assess-
ment district, expressed his opposition to the Arts Council ' s proposal,
noting the members of the assessment district had put their money where
their mouths were to help acquire the property. He said he felt be-
trayed, noting residents had assessed themselves for open space, not
noise or concerts.
Lou E. Howard, a past president of the Brittan Heights Condominium Associ-
ation, spoke against the Arts Council 's proposal . He discussed some
of the history to save the Hassler site prior to the District ' s involve-
ment, noting the State Department of Corrections had found the buildings
unsuitable for a prison since they were not built to earthquake standards,
said he assumed that since the buildings were not suitable for a prison,
they were not suitable for an arts center, and noted that in 1978 the
City of San Carlos said it could not participate in the acquisition of
the Hassler property due to the constraints of Proposition 13 . Mr.
Howard stated that the members of the assessment district had been
told the Hassler property would be open space with no commercial ventures
on the property, and said the Arts Council now wanted to share in the
action, noting the Council wanted to usurp the Hassler project and had
no right at this late date to capitalize on the assessment district ' s
effort and money.
Jim 'Goesser, 222 Frances Lane, San Carlos , stated the buildings were a
valuable San Mateo County resource and should be preserved. He dis-
cussed the amount of support for the project coming from San Mateo
public officials and said he felt the project was worthwhile.
Ellis Rother, 903 Sunset Drive, San Carlos , a former mayor of the City
of San Carlos, stated he was also speaking for Joseph Judge. He said
Hassler had been saved from development and preserved for open space
and said the Arts Council project does not violate open space uses
and makes valuable buildings available for public use. lie expressed
Meeting 83-28 40 Page seven
his support for the proposal . He said groups had not come forward
earlier and made proposals for use of the property since it had been
owned by the City and County of San Francisco.
Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, Palo Alto, spoke in favor of the Arts
Council ' s proposal, said. there is a super abundance of open space
already in the area, the heart of the Hassler property where the
buildings are is only 70 of the total acreage and is already developed,
ed,
and people are losing open space, noting the sale of school sites
for urban development. He said the Board had a areat resource and
opportunity and should adapt the structures to more creative use.
Edgar Gihnan, 3350 La Mesa Drive, #4 , San Carlos, expressed his opposition
to the Arts Council ' s proposal , noting traffic problems are being gen-
erated on Crestview Drive. He discussed noise that would result from
the proposal and said nothing would be the same if the arts center
were developed. He said he had been promised and paid for open space
and that is what he wanted.
Fred Endicott, 3336 Brittan Avenue, #14 , San Carlos, stated several
thousand volunteer hours over a two year period had gone into the
formation of the assessment district. He said the effort that had
been put into the formation had been done with the understanding the
land would be kept as open space. He said the philosophy and purpose
of the Open Space District was not to create intensive use of the land.
He questioned the use of the buildings such as the dormitories, the
amount of noise that would result from an arts center, the impact on
wildlife which is abundant in the area now. He said it was not the
District ' s purpose to support the arts and that he did not support
the Arts Council ' s proposal .
David Harris , 4204 George Avenue, #3 , San Mateo, expressed support
for the Arts Council ' s proposal, noting he felt part of the heritage
of the area was on the blocks . He cited the loss of the Mills Estate
and the Sixteen Mile House in San Mateo County. He stated grass
roots advocates of the Council ' s proposal would assess themselves to
support the proposal which could benefit the entire County.
Ross A. Frazier, 3366 La Mesa Drive, San Carlos , stated that seven
years ago only Brittan Heights residents were interested in saving
the Hassler property from development. He said the Arts Council was a
Johnny-come- lately who wanted to be now a part of the assessment
district' s action to preserve the property as open space. He noted it
was understood by members of the assessment district that the buildings
would be torn down and the land restored to its natural condition and
said that if the buildings area was carved out, no open space would
be left and what was left would be dominated by the buildings.
Jim Federer, 4008 Haines Avenue , San Jose, stated he was representing
Parents Helping Parents and United Cerebral Palsy , noted he was speaking
as a parent of disabled children, and said disabled people needed open
space where they could interact with other individuals . He said the
Hassler buildings were a unique asset to the disabled community, that
he was not advocating use of the buildings by any one group, and that
the buildings should not be demolished.
Bob Lanzone, 2325 Eaton, San Carlos, stated he owned a unit in Brittan
Heights and voted for the assessment district. He expressed his
support for the Arts Council ' s proposal , noting noise and traffic
problems could be controlled. He said the Arts Council ' s proposal
would benefit the entire community, that the Hassler buildings existed
when people bought units in the Brittan Heights development, that if
Meeting 83-28 Page eight
the area were pristine open space, it would be private open space for
only Brittan Heights residents, and that the Council ' s proposal was
of outstanding cultural value.
Pat Keller, Keller and Daseking, Architects , Menlo Park, an architect
employed by the District for the Hassler project, discussed the con-
struction estimates prepared by Adamson and Associates, noting various
items were not included, such as insulation costs, Title 24 energy
requirements, underground utilities , and the use of the boiler. He
said actual square footage costs would be much higher than quoted in
the report. He also discussed California and San Mateo County building
codes for use by the handicapped and noticed the ramps do not comply
with current codes and discussed the slopes in the building area. Mr.
Keller said the buildings do not meet seismic requirements and were no
better than the buildings in Coalinga.
Jerry O'Donnell, 3355 Brittan Avenue, #4 , San Carlos, expressed his
opposition to the Council 's proposal , noting the site would be re-
stricted to a few, rather than open to everyone. He said open space
was not walking by studios reading plaques, viewing named wings , and
paying user fees .
Cliff Nelson, 416 Pearl Avenue, San Carlos, expressed support for the
Council ' s project, noting the San Carlos City Council and the San Mateo
Board of Supervisors also supported the project. He said he hoped the
buildings would not be destroyed because of their architectural and
historical significance.
Elliott Klein, 140 Beulah Street, San Francisco, a member of the
Arts Council ' s staff, suggested that, if Brittan Heights residents
had been led to believe the buildings would be removed, their assess-
ments be returned and they be given the freedom of choice of supporting
the Hassler acquisition.
Robert Dehner, 165 Leslie Drive, San Carlos, a member of the assessment
district, stated he strongly opposed the Council 's proposal as it
violates the concept of open space and constitutes the Arts Council 's
private use of public land. He urged the Board to get on with making
the land open to the public .
Jack Sutorius, 2030 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, compared the Arts
Council ' s proposal to the dream of forming the District, stated he
felt the proposal was wholly in concert with open space policies and
objectives , hoped the Board could find conciliation for the many needs
and conflicting interests expressed during the meeting, and said the
Board now had an opportunity similar to what a small group had in 1970
when the idea of the District was created.
Bob Fisse, Star Route 2 , La Honda, stated the Board should consider the
amount of volunteer effort involved with the Arts Council ' s proposal
and look at the proposal from a proactive role. He said the mone,,
collected from the assessment district may have to be refunded, that
the Board should put up a matching grant for the Arts Council , and
urged the Board to be more concerned with uses of the land, rather
than acquiring more land at this time.
Pamela Mengers, 216 Oak Avenue, Redwood City, discussed the role of art
and the artist in society, stated she felt the arts in general should be
supported by society, noted the benefits that would result with artists
working together in the Hassler buildings, rather than being isolated,
and expressed her support for the Arts Council ' s proposal .
George Duggar, a member of the Arts Council ' s Board of Directors ,
focused his remarks on Mr. Keller ' s remarks regarding the buildings '
Meeting 83-28 Page nine
rarcips, noting Mr. Peter Margin from the Center for the Independence of
the Disabled had stated the buildings on the whole lend themselves
easily to meeting standards of accessibility for physically disabled.
Nancy Jalonen stated most of the opinions held on the issue had been
expressed, that the problems that the issue has raised have been raised
by people and people can solve problems, that the problems can be
solved by people of good will working on them, that the project had
provided joy, inspiration, excitement, and the possibility to do some-
thing significant for society, and that the decision is now up to the
Board.
D. Wendin closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 30 P.M.
Victor Stoltz stated the demolition of the buildings was not mentioned
in the petition that was circulated to form the assessment district.
Sylvia Ferguson, 707 Continental Circle, Mountain View, stated she
identified strongly with the Arts Council and that the lack of opposition
to the project coming from the other wards should be taken into con-
sideration by individual directors. She discussed the amount of money
the City of San Francisco had spent to protect the buildings.
N. Hanko questioned whether anything had been done in the Arts Council ' s
fundraising efforts that would tie the Council to a particular alter-
native with respect to the size of the project. She noted she was
interested in this information because of the possible loss of grant
funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund because of the
larger number of buildings mentioned in some of the alternatives.
Ruth Waters said that Paul Koenig, Environmental Planning Manager for
San Mateo County, had stated the potential loss of grant money due to
a carve out is a non-existent issue and that he had said Congressmen
Lantos ' and Zschau' s offices had told him that if there was any loss
of grant funds, they would do everything within their power to see
that it would only be a few dollars .
In response to Director Hanko' s question regarding which number of
tiers appealed most to the donors, Mrs . Waters said that potential
donors see potential for the entire building site and cannot understand
why the Arts Council would want to sacrifice any of the buildings. She
said she recognized there had to be a meeting of the District ' s intent
and money before coming to any resolution. She stated that Governor
Deukmejian's office was looking for a suitable place for a State-
sponsored music master class and representatives would tour the Hassler
property to evaluate the potential .
Barbara Wiesner stated most of the donors see the project as a whole
site. She stated she could not speak for the Packard family, but said
Dr. Hanfling viewed the project as a total site vision. She said
the Board should realize that the pledges were based on the Board ' s
decision and vision. She said donors did not understand reducing the
project by two tiers and that the upper two tiers would serve community
organizations who wanted to spend a day in the wilderness . She stated
use of the dormitories was part of a vision that was in progress and
not in the final stage.
In response to a question from D. Wendin regarding costs concerning
boilers, underground utilities , and sewers, Ruth Waters stated all
utilities were currently underground and a contractor had checked the
boilers . She discussed seismic bracings, the energy coefficients of
the buildings, and whether a sprinkler system would have to be added
where it did not now exist .
Meetinq 83-28 Page ten
R. Bishop asked what the Council considered as fundraising goals for
completing Phase I of the rehabilitation, specifically the work that
would have to be done by professionals to do basic restoration, with
Phase II to be done by artists themselves to improve the working space.
In response, Ruth Waters stated she considered Phase I to be restoration
of the basic utilities, rehabilitation of the two houses and the first
three tiers , and approximately $200, 000 would be needed. She said work
would proceed in phases and fundraising efforts would be on-going.
N. Hanko explained the reasons she did and does continue to support
the Arts Council proposal . Referring to the nine items addressed in
the staff report, she stated the potential loss of federal funds would
be overcome; the Arts Council had shown they can raise the money the
Board of Supervisors had requested; the District, by agreement, should
control traffic uses and compatible uses on the site; limited District
funds should not be used for demolition and the $236 ,000 would be
better spent as a contribution to the restoration of the buildings;
the buildings allowed for use by the elderly, handicapped, youth, a
larae constituency of artists and those who enjoy the arts; there is
an existing environment of trees and shrubs on the site for which
the District should be concerned; the District should not accept the
responsibility for the restoration and that San Mateo County is better
suited for this task; she is not convinced that a majority of the
assessment district members would be unwilling to support the proposal
if the District were to ensure positive uses and have District controls
over abusive uses; and the proposal was a public use. She said the
District had the opportunity to cooperate with San Mateo County on
a project in which environmental education would be a partner of
the arts, and added inspiration and creativity deserve environmental
protection.
H. Turner requested that an item be placed on the December 7 agenda to
reconsider proceeding with the demolition. He noted he had initially
been concerned with how to do the Arts Council proposal , not whether
to do it, but added the costs and risks to the District could be over-
whelming. He said that under the stipulation of the grant, the District
could not use the $236, 000 for restoration; that it was still undetermined
whether $600, 000 of grant funds would be lost; that the assessment
district had been formed with the understandina the buildings would
be removed and the District ' s credibility was at stake; that the
project itself was not a mainline District mission and meets the
County's objectives; that San Mateo County should take over the project,
including the costs and risks, and that there were sianificant costs
associated with further delays and increased costs if the San Mateo
Arts Council could complete the project.
R. Bishop discussed the need for the District to use its money to
acquire and manage open space. He noted the Hassler acquisition had
cost the District more than expected and the federal grant and con-
tribution from the assessment district had helped significantly to
purchase the property. He cited the loss of grant funds, the need to
keep the faith with the assessment district members who had been told
the site would be restored to open space, save one or two of the
smaller buildings that could be used as Ranger residences, the increased
costs to the District if the Arts Council is not successful in over-
coming obstacles, and the expiring bid from the demolition contractor.
He stated he did not favor delaying making a decision and said the
Board should tonight reaffirm its decision, which he favored, to remove
the buildings . He noted the demolition costs could be raised by a
substantial amount if the bid expires .
Meetinq 83-28 Page eleven
E. Shelley stated that, although he had heard additional public and
political support for the project tonight, he had not seen a significant
change in the problems that had led him to reject the proposal the
very first time it came before the Board .
D. Wendin noted that, while the Arts Council clearly understood the
District controlled the scope of the project as a landlord, theyt&ere
out selling the maximum scope of the project, pointing out the slide
show discussed a large variety of uses and opening access from the
vista point on Interstate 280 . He said an incredibly large amount of
public use was being created, but the District was not the solution,
adding the project was in the wrong place. He said he was troubled
by the assessment district, the loss of grant funds, noting Mr. Koenig
had told him $200 ,000 could be lost, and the question of sewer rights .
He said the District had already contributed $2 million to this project
and $236, 000 should not be spent on the Arts Council 's project. He
stated the Board' s Liaison Committee had been discussing with repre-
sentatives from the San Mateo Board of Supervisors what it would mean
for the County to take over this project, and said Supervisor Gregorio
had made a tentative commitment to place this item on their December 6
agenda. He stated he felt the Board would not allow the project to
go forward without such a commitment from the County and urged the
Arts Council to get such a commitment from the County.
K. Duffy stated she had supported the Arts Council ' s proposal , expressed
her concern that members of the assessment district felt they could
dictate exactly what types of open space activities would occur on the
site, and said, because of the enormous risks to the District, it
was important to try to get the County to assume the financial risks
involved with the project.
D. Wendin asked for Board consensus that the Liaison Committee continue
to work with County representatives on getting the County to assume
the risk of the project. There was no objection to this assignment
expressed by any member of the Board. D. Wendin clarified that there
are enormous risks involved and even though the County may indicate a
willingness to assume some or all of the risks , members of the public
should not construe the Board' s direction to the Committee as a
commitment to undo the vote that had been made to remove the buildings .
T. Henshaw stated that unless factors were to change, she would support
the majority of the Board in the decision to remove the buildings .
Motion: H. Turner moved the Board place as an agenda item for action
at its December 7 meeting reconsideration of the Board' s
prior decision to demolish the Hassler buildings . N. Hanko
seconded the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop stated he would vote against the
motion since he did not feel the Board of Supervisors could
come to any meaningful decision in such a short period of
time and that the District was placing itself in Jeopardy
by not accepting the contractor 's bid by December 5 .
AYES : D. Wendin, N. Hanko, K. Duffy, T. Henshaw, E. Shelley, and
H. Turner
NOES: P. Bishop
VIII . NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Lands of The Trust for Hidden Villa (Formerly hidden Villa, Inc . ) -
Acquisition of Open Space Easements
C. Britton reviewed report R-84-46 of November 17 , 1983 regarding the
second easement that could be acquired from Hidden Villa which included
the 50 acre ranch area and a 348 acre wilderness area. He said the cost
Meeting 83-28 Pacre twelve
of the easement purcnase was $265,426 . 20 and explained an apparent dis-
crepancy of 48 acres was discovered during recent negotiations, noting
that staff had accepted Hidden Villa ' s acreage estimates for the purposes
of this transaction and that staff would return to the Board for approval
of any recommended compromise.
Motion: K. Duffy moved the approval of Resolution 83-49 , a Resolution
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of
Acceptance of Grant to District and Authorizing General Manager
to Execute Any, and All other Documents Necessary or Appropriate
to Closing of the Transaction (Lands of The Trust for Hidden
Villa) . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously, with N. Hanko not present for the vote.
B. Rancho Lower House Roof Repair Bids
D. Hansen reviewed memorandum M-83-135 of November 12 , 1983 regarding
bids to reroof the lower residence and garage at Rancho San Antonio Open
Space Preserve. He noted that Guy' s Roofing did not have the lowest
responsible bid since the company' s bid did not include the required fire-
proof layer of sheet rock for a shake roof and declined to furnish a bid
for a fiberglass composition roof. He said staff was recommending the
approval of the $9 , 472 bid from Roofing Services Company as the lowest
responsible bid for the project.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the Board authorize staff to award the contract
to Roofing Services Company for an amount not to exceed $9 ,472
for reroofing the lower residence and garage at the Rancho
San Antonio Open Space Preserve. E. Shelley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
R. Grench stated the legal research being done on the use of Grandview
Drive and Espinosa Road had not been completed and should be furnished
in December, at which time the staff would arrange a meeting with the
homeowners involved.
K. Duffy questioned staff about the Written Communication from the indivi-
duals who had become lost on Canyon Trail . J. Boland stated staff had
contacted the individuals involved and said a sign would be reinstalled
at the trail junction in question. The Board requested a letter of
apology be sent the hikers.
D. Hansen reminded the Board members of the December 3 invitation from
the Stortzes to tour Picchetti . Staff was requested to consult with
S. Norton on whether notification was required for the event.
T. Henshaw stated she had attended the November 18 Ranger meeting.
X. CLAIMS
M-o-t-17—on: D. Wendin moved the approval of the Revised Claims 83-22 of
November 22 , 1983 . K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
XI . CLOSED SESSION
The Board did not hold a Closed Session during this part of the meeting.
XII . ADJOURNMENT
The public meeting was adjourned at 11 : 45 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk