Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19831207 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) 'Meeting 83-29 do MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECEMBER 7, 1983 MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Daniel Wendin called the meetina to order at 7 : 10 P.r. Members Present: Edward Shelley, Katherine DuffN7, Richard Bishop, Daniel Wendin, Harry Turner, N.'onette Hanko, and Teena Henshaw. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig, Britton, David Hansen, Charlotte MacDonald, jean Fiddes, Emma Johnson, Patricia Starrett, Del Woods, Mary Gundert, Stanley Norton, and Joan Combs. II . CLOSED SESSION The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 7 : 10 PM and reconvened at 7 :37 PM. III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 11-4ovember 22, 1983 Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of November 22, 1983 . R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. Combs stated the Board had received the following corar.unications : Letters favoring preservation of the Hassler buildings from: IL) Edward Brucher, 22 Finger Avenue, Redwood City 2) David Harris, 1221 Ralston Avenue, Belmont 3) Pat Nelson, Pearl Avenue, San Carlos 4) Robert Langstrom, Chairman, San Carlos History, Arts and Science Commission. Phone calls were received from Gloria Anderson, 700 Newhall Avenue, 73urlingame; Carlo and Craig Culver, 201 Ware Road, Woodside, and Ann Hersey, 11illsborough, favoring retention of the buildings . Letters opposing the Arts Council's proposal and favoring rem-oval of Hassler buildings: 1) Bob and Dorothy Young, 1065 Drake Court, San Carlos; 2) Frank Frederick, 3327 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos; 3) Annamae Paul, Britton Avenue, San Carlos . Letters were also received from: 1) Charles Page, of Page, Anderson & Turnbull, expressing interest in preparing plans for the Hassler structures, should they be retained; 2) Andrew Schwartz, Deputy City P-ttorney for the City and County of San Francisco, stating the City and County would view with grave concern any attempt by the District to use Hassler for any purpose not permitted by terms of the Settlement Aareerent; 3) Lois Pappema, Crestview Drive, Mountain View, concerning sirtning at Windy Hill; 4) Lily Estrada, District docent, concerning problems with joaaers at Rancho San Antonio. V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA D. Wendin stated the agenda was adopted by consensus . 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 83-29 Page two VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications . VII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Hassler Restoration Plans D . Wendin introduced memorandum M-83-136, dated November 28 , 1983 from H. Grench recommending that the Board reaffirm its previous decision to demolish the Hassler Health Home buildings and restore the site to its natural condition. D. Wendin reviewed the public meeting of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on December 6 . He said the County's subcommittee had made a proposal , dated December 7 , 1983 to the District, copies of which were distributed to the District 's Board. D. Wendin stated it was important to understand the Board had voted 5-2 in July, 1983 to demolish the Hassler buildings and that tonight's meeting involved a reconsideration of that decision. Referring to the letter dated December 5, 1983 from the City and County of San Francisco, D. Wendin moted the key phrase was in paragraph 3 , "A use of the Hassler site as an artists ' community would be for other than public park, on; en space, and/or public recreational purposes, and would constitute a clear violation of the Settlement Agreement. " D. Wendin said the Board had received the advice of staff that the City and County of San Francisco 's position is subject to interpretation, noting the City and County of San Francisco' s staff had inserted one word in part 2 of paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement, "Midpeninsula will not lease the Hassler property for any purpose for which Midpeninsula 's Dower of eminent domain could not be exercised; " . D. Wendin said the word "Midpeninsula ' s" was added, and that the Settlement Agreement states "the power of eminent domain" . D. Wendin said the Board' s San Mateo County/Hassler Liaison Committee had met at least six times with the Board of Supervisors ' subcommittee, and had met that afternoon (December 7) to follow up on the December 6 Supervisors ' meeting. He said he had presented a proposal to the County which he thought might be acceptable to the District ' s Board, in which it was proposed that the County take over the entire pro- posed Arts Council project, treating it as a joint acquisition project similar to Edgewood, with the Arts Council use being totally under County responsibility. He said the counter proposal from the County was considerably out of phase with his proposal . He reviewed the County' s proposal in detail, noting that the proposal , dated December 7, 1983 , should be prefaced by: "They (the County) view it (the Arts Council ' s proposal) as a joint project on District land" and "County is the lead agency" . He noted the County would not share in the District' s acquisition costs for the Hassler property. D. Wendin stated the statement "County is the lead agency" meant the County will provide necessary staff required to put the proposed Arts Council project together and for the life of the Council ' s project, including building inspectors, planning staff members, and sheriff ' s office staff. D. Wendin noted the County' s presentation was divided into two phases, although technically it is a three phase project. He reviewed the terms of Phase I, noting that under item a, the District would lease the entire 293 acres to the County for 120 days, the purpose being for the Arts Council to demonstrate the feasibility of their fund raising efforts . He said "No dormitories" should be added to Phase I , as the dormitories are not proposed as a part of the project and would be demolished. He reviewed the security and liability terms , as proposed by the County. He noted the Arts Council must raise Meeting 83-29 Page three $700, 000 and establish a non-profit foundation. He referred to item j , which should follow item d - "Success of fund raising should be mutually agreed by County and MROSD" , and noted that the criteria of an outside organization normally involved in fundraising would probably be used to help determine the strength of the fund raising commitments and validate the pledges . D. Wendin said items g and h should have a preamble stating that if the proposed Arts Council ' s project fails, the County is committed to paying any increased demolition costs, with demolition handled by the District. He noted that at the end of Phase I, the Arts Council must have demonstrated a real ability to raise funds, and assuming this has been demonstrated, there is a Phase IA, which is actually paragraph 2b under Terms of Phase II : "County and MROSD determine scope of project compatible with open space use and financial feasibility. Arts Council will cooperate but not participate in the decision. County provides staff; shares out of pocket costs. " D. Wendin said Phase II is the actual implementation of the proposed Arts Council 's project, and reviewed the items under that heading. He noted that under item 2a, the County was proposing a long term lease of the entire property instead of a transfer of fee. D. Wendin said item 2d was a key item, and should read "Renovation does not begin with mutual agreement between County and MROSD" , and noted that nothing would begin until funding was available, a grant modification obtained, and the assessment district question resolved. H. Grench suggested that D. Wendin' s letter of November 29, 1983 to San Mateo County should be reviewed at this time, and D. Wendin said the key points of his letter were that 1) the proposed Arts Council ' s project be a County project, not a joint one, 2) that the County and District split the District's acquisition costs for the Hassler propert, 3) that the entire Hassler site be transferred to the County in fee with a reverter provision in the event the Arts Council ' s project failed, and 4) that both agencies would work together to remove the buildings in the event the proposed Arts Council ' s project failed. R. Bishop noted that D. Wendin 's November 29 letter also contained a provision that the County would assume all financial risks involved in the proposed Arts Council 's project and would indemnify the District aaainst any financial loss that might occur by reason of the Arts Council project. D. Wendin then opened the discussion to questions and statements from Board members and the public . N. Hanko noted the 120 day time period for the lease seemed a short time period. D. Wendin said the County wished the matter settled, and chose the time period. In response to a question from K. Duffy, S. Norton said the District, under the County's version, could lease the entire property to the County. Walt Worthage, President, San Mateo County Arts Council, said the Arts Council looked forward to workina with the District and the County. Meeting 83-29 Page four Craig Matthias, Chief Financial Officer of the Brittan Heights Condo- minium Association, said the members of the assessment district were not attempting to dictate their point of view, but asking for imple- mentation of the "deal" the Association originally felt it had with the District. He quoted from the notice given by the City of San Carlos, dated June 1 , 1983 , titled: Special Notice, Hassler Health Home Assessment District: "Notice is given that the agreement for sale of the Hassler Health Home property has been reached, which means that the Hassler Health Home property has been acquired for open space purposes and the work of removing the structures on it will soon commence. " He said he did not feel the Arts Council had the management skill to carry out such a project, another four months of study would not accomplish anything, and asked the District to maintain the public trust and proceed with the demolition. Victor Stoltz , a San Carlos City Council member, said in all the documentation that he had read, the assessment district was paying into the District to acquire the Hassler property to be used for open space and recreation. Pat Bennie, a San Carlos City Council member, said when the assessment district was initially formed, there was a discussion at that time that the buildings might be used for a youth hostel or other similar purposes. Lewis Howard, 3299 La Mesa Drive, San Carlos, said that on October 12, 1976 , the Brittan Heights Condominium Association met with the District Board and demolition of the buildings was discussed as the plan, with perhaps one residence left as a Ranger residence. He said the Association had been assured that the buildings would be demolished. He presented copies of a letter signed by Alfred Hons, San Carlos City Treasurer, dated June 1 , 1983 , which was a notice to the assessment district prompted by the District's purchase of the Hassler property. Joseph Judge, 3335 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos, discussed two sets of San Carlos City Council minutes, dated June 11, 1979 and September 24 , 1979 . He said the minutes of June 11, 1979 dealt with the introduction of the petition circulated in Brittan Heights and brought before the Council. He quoted a statement by Joe Hughes, the assessment district counsel at that time, who stated that the acquisition had been dis- cussed in terms of open space, citing the fact that the proposal included a likelihood the buildings would be removed or could be brought up to code. He said no mention is made of any discussion of building demolition in the minutes of September 24 , 1979 . He noted that the petition circulated to Brittan Heights residents said "for recreation and open space purposes" and aid not specifically state the buildings would be demolished. R. Bishop requested that the City of San Carlos minutes be made a part of the record of the meeting. Dick Hill, 1115 Crestview Drive, San Carlos, said he had been in- volved with the project since 1976, and was one of several members of the assessment district who went before the San Carlos City Council in 1977 . He said at that time, the San Carlos City Council expressed no interest in the Hassler acquisition and had notified the District to that effect. He urged the District to show fiscal responsibility and to honor the commitments that had been made to remove the buildings . Meeting 83-29 Pacre five Cliff Nelson, Sa, arlos, said he felt San X ,o County 's proposal was a reasonable compromise and that the Arts Council was making a valid proposal . N. Hanko said she wished to commend the Board 's Hassler/San Mateo County Liaison Committee for its diligence. She said the District has a large constituency throughout San Mateo County that would benefit from the project and said she felt the County 's proposal indicated its recognition of its responsibility to the entire County 's interest in this project. D. Wendin noted he had voted for demolition, but would be voting for implementation of the proposed Arts Council 's project tonight. He said he felt the issue was whether the County has done enough to take the burden off the District, whether the District' s risk is manageable, and whether or not this is a project in which the District should be involved. He said he had always hoped the Arts Council would come forward with a proposal that made sense and that he felt the Arts Council had been kidding itself as to the scope of its proposed project. He stated at this point, he supported the Art Council 's project on the terms the County had proposed. R. Bishop said the assessment district was a very crucial issue. He said he felt that legally the District could make the decision to go ahead with the proposed Arts Council ' s project; however, he said he felt he could not vote to support the Arts Council 's project because of a moral obligation to members of the assessment district. H. Turner said he did not support the County's counter offer, saying that D. Wendin ' s proposal had been modeled after the Edgewood project, in which the District and County shared the acquisition costs of the land with the County managing the property, which was essentially what had been proposed by D. Wendin for the Hassler project. He said the project had been defined at the beginning as acquiring the property and returning it to open space. He said that for the District to agree to the County' s proposal would constitute too great an impairment of the District's main purposes and would dilute the District's efforts throughout the rest of the District. K. Duffy said she supported the proposed Arts Council 's project, which would give the Arts Council and County a clear chance to demonstrate they could put this project together. She said she felt there was great enthusiasm for saving the buildings and putting them to creative use, and said, despite its positive image, the District would now appear as destroyers of a public resource. E. Shelley said he felt the District's charter is not intended for this type of activity. He said he would have supported D. Wendin's proposal to pattern the proposed Arts Council ' s project on the Edgewood project. He felt the proposed Arts Council 's project would be a misuse of open space funds. T. Henshaw said she had hoped a compromise could be worked out with the County. She said she did not want to see the buildings destroyed, and said she could have supported the position as outlined in D. Wendin' s letter of November 29 , 1983 , but felt strongly that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors must assume the full responsi- bility. She said she could not accept the proposal as offered by the County. She added the District could not ignore the $2 .2 million in District funds already spent nor ignore the commitment made to the assessment district. Meeting 83-29 Page six Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board reaffirm its decision of July 27, 1983 to demolish all of the buildings of the former Hassler Health Home and restore the site to a natural area. E. Shellev seconded the motion. Motion to Amend: K. Duffy moved the Board delay its decision to one week. N. Hanko seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin said he would be voting in opposition of the main motion, but did not want to delay decision another week. H. Turner said he did not think a delay would be productive, and stated he did not intend to support the motion to amend. N. Hanko said she was in favor of the amendment because she felt the Board was making a bia mistake, and an extra week 's time might change someone ' s mind. She said she felt relations with San Mateo County will be badly affected. T. Henshaw noted the Board has made an attempt to work out a compromise. E. Shelley said he felt the Board ' s mistake was in the number of delays that had already occurred. D. Wendin said he did not feel the County was going to change its attitude. The Motion to Amend failed to pass by the following vote: Ayes : K. Duffy and 11. Hanko Noes : H. Turner, E. Shelley, T. Henshaw, R. Bishop, and D. Wendin The original motion passed by the following vote: Ayes : H. Turner, E. Shelley, R. Bishop, and T. Henshaw Noes: K. Duffy, N. Hanko, and D. Wendin D. Wendin recessed the meeting at 9 :00 P.M. D. Vvendin reconvened the meeting at 9 : 10 P.M. B. Dedication and Naming of Easements Acquired from the Trust for Hidden Villa C. Britton stated the final recommendation contained in report R-83-46 , dated November 17, 1983 , concerning dedication and naming of the property, had not been adopted.. Motion: H. Turner moved the Board dedicate the easements as public open space and name the easements as an addition to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve - Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. Discussion: E. Shelley said he thought the Board should seriously consider changing the name of the area and suggested Duveneck Ranch Area. C. Britton said the name Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area had been assigned temporarily, and renaming the area should be considered at a future time. D. Wendin suaqested staff return with suggestions when the use and manaaement plan is presented. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 83-29 Page seven VIII . NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED C. Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan D. Hansen introduced report R-83-48 , dated November 28 , 1983 , notina that the site has top priority on the Relative Site Emphasis Plan, and would be reviewed again in November 1984 . He said the caretaker would remain on site until the end of April 1984 , and the buy-out agreement would be presented at the December 14 , 1983 meetina. D. Woods showed slides of the site, including the building area and proposed access points . D. Hansen said that Peninsula Open Space Trust had raised funds for the cost of a master plan study for the entire preserve and said that requests for letters of interest had been sent to planning firms . In response to a question from E. Shelley, D. Hansen said that the District would basically be responsible for selecting a firm to prepare the Master Plan, but P .O.S.T. would also provide input. In response to a question from N. Hanko regarding parking availability at the site, D. Hansen said there was room for approximately 20 cars at the Alpine-Skyline intersection. C. Britton, responding to a Board question, stated that because the next meeting was only a week away, the use and management recommendations would return to the Board on January 11 , 1964 . However, two parts of the use and management plan require final approval before the end of the year - the Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and the proposal for the buy-out of the lease agreement on the A-frame - and said these items would come before the Board at its December 14 meeting. H. Grench stated that page 2, paragraph 4 , of the RFP document dis- cusses compatible uses for the Preserve, noting that, while the RFP was rather broad, staff felt that some kind of guidelines were needed which were consistent with Board policy. Robert Fisse, representing the South Skyline Association, said the Association has a committee which wishes to participate in the Skyline Ridge planning. He also said he would like to see a recom- mendation that the lower reservoir be put back into usable condition, particularly in view of available federal funding. Motion: D. Wendin moved tentative adoption of the use and management plan for the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, with two changes : 1) use of the ranch house as a ranaer residence and 2) item 2 under INTew Use and Manacement Recommendations should read: "The boathouse . . .will be removed" . P. Bishop seconded the motion. T,-.,e motion passed unanimously. D. Proposed Addition to Bona Ridge Open Space Preserve - Chesebrough Property C. Britton introduced report R-63-47 , dated November 30, 1993, noting that the acquisition was a cooperative effort with Sempervirens Fund. He said the acquisition basically involved three contracts . 711-le first is a purchase contract for an 80 acre parcel in San Mateo County for $190 , 000 ; Parcel B, 182 acres in Santa Cruz County, involves two contracts; District buys property from the Chesebroughs for $430, 000 and immediately Sempervirens Fund would pay the District $123, 000 for bare fee title to the property, with the District retaining easements . C. Britton said the District would have the responsibility for management and operation of the property and hold an easement for open space purposes . Meeting 83-29 Page eight D. Woods showed slides of the property. D. Hansen discussed interim use and management recommendations for the property. He said the grazing agreement would be continued, incor-, porating the property into the grazing plan currently being worked on with the Soil Conservation Service. R. Fisse said he had difficulty with reselling the property to Sempervirens Fund at a discount, saying the property could no out of the District' s control if it were ever sold or given to the State Parks system. C. Britton said the District had control over the maintenance an6 management of the property as well as the public use aspects, and the agreement allows the District to re-acquire the property for $5, 000 . T. Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, viountain View, expressed his objection to the District purchasing property outside of District and County boundaries . H. Grench noted that the District's goal is the protection of the Skyline Corridor, and the location of the parcels is simply an accident of political boundaries . He said the acquisition of the property helps protect the rest of the District' s investment in that area. Motion: R. Bishop moved adoption of Resolution 83-50 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manaaer to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Long Ridge open Space Preserve - Lands of Chesebrough--San Mateo County) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: R. Bishop moved adoption of Resolution 83-51, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Anv and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Long Ridge Open Space Preserve - Lands of Chesebrough--Santa Cruz County) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: R. Bishop moved adoption of Resolution 83-52, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute Grant Deed for Interest in Property Being Released, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Conservation Easement, and Authorizinq General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Long Ridge Open Space Preserve Sempervirens Fund) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: R. Bishop moved the tentative approval of the interim use and management recommendations contained in report R-83-47 , naming the property an addition to the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, and indicating intention to dedicate Parcel A (fee title) as public open space and dedicate the conservation easement title to Parcel B. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 63-29 Page nine IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS D. Hansen reported on the tour of the Picchetti Ranch Area December 3 by Board and staff. H. Grench reported on the computer workshop he had attended the previous week sponsored by the National Recreation and Parks Association. D. Hansen reported there was no major damage from the recent storm on any of the Preserves . H. Grench stated that unless instructed differently, staff would implement the decision to remove the Hassler buildings and restore the site to a natural condition as expeditiously as possible. X. CLAIMS Motion: D. Wendin moved the approval of the Revised Claims 83-23 of December 7 , 1983 . K. Duffy seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously. XI . CLOSED SESSION The Board recessed to a closed session on land negotiations and litigation matters at 10 :33 PM. XII . ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11 : 15 PM. Joan Combs Secretary