HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850227 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) IV Meeting 85-04
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FEBRUARY 27 , 1985
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Harry Turner called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw,
Edward Shelley, Nanette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop,
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench , Craig Britton, David Hansen,
William Tannenbaum, James Boland, Jean Fiddes , and Stanley Norton.
II. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes stated the Board received the following written communications :
1) a letter, dated February 20 , 1985 , from Richard S. and Jeannette A.
Bullis , Quinta Ranch, Star Route 2 , Box 310 , La Honda, requesting
that the District provide them with the names , addresses , assessors
parcel numbers , description, and acreage of all the property owners
included on the Master Plan overlay used to comply with the Brown
Act. The Bullises also requested a legible map showing all parcels
and their relation to present District land holdings within and
without District boundaries;
2) a letter, dated January 12 , 1985 from David Sutton, 609 Rosita
Avenue, Los Altos, referring to the proposed Master Plan for the
Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and stating that he did not feel
that the equestrian staging area should be located in the Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve;
3) Project Update #10 , dated February 4 , 1985 , from the Santa Clara
Valley Integrated Environmental Management Project;
4) a letter, dated February 11 , 1985 , from Jean and Robert Dehner,
165 Leslie Drive, San Carlos , complimenting the District on their
recent docent-led walk on the San Andreas Fault Trail and, as
members of the Brittain Heights Assessment District, expressing
their hope that the District will soon be successful in demolishing
the buildings on the former Hassler Health Home property.
5) a letter, dated February 13 , 1985 , from Joyce Besser-Anderson and
George and Nancy Besser, urging the Board to retain High Meadow
Stable;
6) a letter, dated February 8 , 1985 , from the San Mateo County Develop-
ment Association, Inc. , 4 West Fourth Avenue, San Mateo, stating
their support for the Coalition to Preserve Hassler and urging the
Board to meet immediately with the San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors , the Coalition, and its mediator, William Penn Mott,
to negotiate a settlement of the current litigation. A draft
response to this letter was attached for Board consideration.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nanette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
85-04 Page two
H. Turner referred the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Bullis to staff for
appropriate action and noted a response would be forthcoming.
The members of the Board did not object to the draft response that had
been prepared for the letter from the San Mateo County Development
Association, Inc.
III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
H. Turner stated that the agenda was adopted as presented by Board
consensus.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos , commended the Board
for the trail and road repair work that had been done on the former
Cho property at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve.
Richard Bullis, Quinta Ranch, Star Route 2 , Box 310 , La Honda, stated
he would be willing to talk with the Board about the possibility of
public trails through Russian Ridge Ranch, and said he hoped the Board
would respond to the recent written communications he and Mrs. Bullis
had sent the Board, questioned the manner in which written communica-
tions are distributed to the Board and the public , and discussed
cattle grazing problems due to the condition of the common fence
- between his property and the District's property. President Turner
stated that the Bullis ' letter regarding the note issue had been dis-
tributed to the Board and the public at the February 13 Regular Meeting,
and C. Britton responded that staff was working on the fence problem.
Robert Fisse, Star Route 2 , Box 402 , La Honda, questioned staff about
the material that had been dumped on the Coal Creek Open Space Pre-
serve, and D. Hansen responded that there had been a problem with the
contractor and that staff would be going out to bid to get the material
removed.
Janet Schwind, President, South Skyline Association, 11825 Skyline
Boulevard, Los Gatos, distributed a letter, dated February 24 , 1985 ,
concerning the District' s implementation of S.B. 2216 that stated the
reasons the Association felt the District ' s method of implementation
of the Brown Act was causing considerable damage to the District' s
credibility.
H. Grench stated that staff intended to return to the Board in a
few months with a more refined version of the map, and H. Turner said
that he would like to find a process that would alleviate the anxiety
being experienced by property owners. He noted that the Board would
take the Association' s recommendations under advisement at this time.
Janet Schwind stated that the listing of property owners would not be
as much of an issue if the District did not use its power of eminent
domain so freely, and H. Turner responded noting that eminent domain
had played a minor role in the District' s acquisition program.
Jim Warren, editor of the Peninsula Citizens ' Advocate, distributed a
letter, dated February 27 , 1985 , and a copy of the July 1983 Silicon
Gulch Gazette. He stated that the next issue of the Peninsula
Citizens' Advocate would focus on the District and its use of eminent
85-04 Page three
domain for the acquisition of property for park and recreation purposes.
He stated he was concerned that people' s homes and land were being
jeopardized and urged the Board to adopt, at a minimum, formal guide-
lines that would restrain the District' s use of eminent domain.
Thomas Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View, stated he felt
the problem with the list was staff' s ability to threaten property
owners with the use of eminent domain. He asked if his property would
be discussed during Closed Session, stating that, if his property was
not to be discussed, it be taken off the listing of property owners.
H. Turner responded that the listing of property owners indicated
those parcels on which the Board could meet in Closed Session and give
instructions to its staff negotiators. H. Grench stated it would be
a mistake to respond to a single individual ' s request of whether his
or her property would be discussed during Closed Session since the
Board did not have a policy on how to respond. H. Turner concurred
with H. Grench' s response and stated Mr. Kavanaugh' s request would
be noted.
Elaine Korinec of Portola Heights Park, stated her concern that the
map and records of meetings were not available to the public and asked
if the Board had an answer to her request made at the February 13
meeting that her name be taken off the listing of property owners.
She noted that her name had not been taken off the list prior to it
being available to members of the public. H. Turner responded that
her request would have to be discussed during a full Board policy
discussion on the District ' s Brown Act implementation method. H. Grench
noted that the map and listing had been available along with other
public records.
K. Duffy requested that a list be circulated among the members of the
audience so that copies of the previous staff reports relating to
implementation of the Brown Act could be forwarded to interested indi-
viduals. She explained the purpose of the listing of property owners
with respect to complying with the Brown Act and said the listing was
not tied to the use of eminent domain.
Jan Sutter, Editor, Coast/Skyline Express , expressed his concern that
the Master Plan overlay could not be photographed and noted that the
corresponding listing of parcel numbers was only meaningful if accom-
panied by the map.
Charles Touchatt, P.O. Box 254 , Redwood City, requested that the
record reflect the fact that he and Mrs. Touchatt wanted their name
taken off the list of property owners.
Rosemary Dooley, 290 Leland Avenue, Palo Alto, asked if the Brown Act
dealt with the use of eminent domain, stated that the presence of
the listing of property owners had an effect on individuals who might
be interested in buying a piece of property included on the listing,
and discussed the fact that the Board would later be considering a
Resolution of Public Necessity to acquire her five acre parcel. The
President responded that the listing and map for Brown Act compliance
were not associated with eminent domain.
85-04 Page four
Carol Doose, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, Box 21 , La Honda, in response
to H. Turner' s comments regarding the Brown Act and the District' s
Master Plan, which had been published for many years and included
the District acquisition plans and policies, stated that she felt the
District had not been consistent with the Master Plan. She noted
that the recently adopted sphere of influence had extended the
District ' s boundaries and brought it much closer to her property.
Linda Fischman, 148 La Honda Road, Woodside, stated that she would
like to negotiate with a staff negotiator so that she could inform
him that she was not interested in selling her property.
Dick Bonino, 926 College Avenue, Menlo Park, said that he and his
wife planned to retire on their property shown on the Master Plan
overlay, told staff negotiators that their property was not for sale,
and requested that their parcel and name be removed from the listing
of property owners.
Elaine Korinec asked if the District could condemn a portion of a
person' s property that did not include the person' s home . H. Turner
responded that, technically, the District could use eminent domain to
acquire only a portion of a person ' s property, and E. Shelley clarified
that the law does legally permit the District to use eminent domain
to acquire a person' s home, but that it was not the Board ' s practice.
D. Wendin stated that it was time for the Board to come to grips with
the policy issues that had been raised during this portion of the
meeting. He later clarified that he was referring to issues related
to the Brown Act implementation and the use of eminent domain. He
proposed a two-step process to discuss the issues , with the first step
being a discussion of how to go about addressing the issues as dis-
tinct from the discussion of the issues themselves. N. Hanko agreed
with D. Wendin' s proposed process and suggested that a third step be
added which would include a public hearing at which all interested
parties could make statements for Board consideration. H. Turner
stated that any member of the Board could request that an item be
placed on an agenda and requested that staff place D. Wendin' s request
on an agenda within the next four meetings.
James Boyden of Los Altos Hills requested that, since the District' s
condemnation policies were in question, all eminent domain proceedings
be held in abeyance until the policies had been discussed and set.
H. Turner stated that the Board coe ulnot grant Mr. Boyden ' s awst.
.,-A'o-'t - , -
C. Touchatt requested that meetings at which a large public turnout
was expected be held in a different location due to the Board room' s
size. President Turner responded that the large audience had not
been anticipated and that all this discussion was occurring under
Oral Communications.
Bill Bartosh, P.O. Box 620212, Woodside, stated that he felt many
residents in the Skyline area would like their names removed from
the listing of property owners and that he felt the listing makes
property owners who are not developing their land or tearing up the
hillsides view the District in a different light.
85-04 Page five
T. Kavanaugh asked why there had not been any Board meeting minutes
distributed lately, and J. Fiddes stated the minutes were backlogged
because of overall workload.
V. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A) Final Adoption of the Use and Management Plan for the Peninsula
Open Space Trust, Lohr, Jenkins , and Guenther Property Additions
to Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve (Memorandum M-85-32 of
February 21 , 1985)
D. Hansen stated that escrow had closed on the subject properties.
He noted that staff was proposing the addition of an interim use
and management recommendation dealing with a road maintenance
agreement.
James McNiven, 2013 Broadway, Redwood City, asked if all the terms
of the acquisition are public information and if an easement could
later be converted into District ownership. C. Britton answered
affirmatively to both questions.
In response to a question from C. Touchatt, the members of the
Board explained the reason the statement concerning the public
portion of the site being open to equestrians and hikers who could
gain access through adjacent private property was to help protect
the adjacent property owners ' interests. They noted members of
the public needed to gain access permission from the private
property owners, as required.
E. Shelley stated that because of the time lapse between the
acquisition of the subject properties and the close of escrow he
recommended the Board consider their action at this meeting as
the first reading of the use and management plan for the subject
properties. The members of the Board concurred with E. Shelley' s
recommendation.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board tentatively adopt the
use and management plan for the addition to the Skyline
Ridge Open Space Preserve as contained in the staff report,
including the intention to dedicate the District ' s
interests in the properties as open space. T. Henshaw
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
B) The Experimental Dog Program (Report R-85-13 of February 6 , 1985
and Memorandum M-85-33 of February 22 , 1985)
Steve Wolf, P.O. Box 322A, Star Route 2 , La Honda, appealed to
the Board to open Long Ridge Open Space Preserve as a fourth site
on which dogs on-leash would be allowed. He suggested that, if
the District did not open the site to dogs , special permits be
issued neighbors of the Preserve so that they could walk their
dogs on the site.
D. Hansen and J. Boland reviewed the staff reports concerning the
two committee meetings that had been held by the Dog Committee on
October 30 and December 5 , 1984 . They stated they were recommending
that the Board continue to allow dogs on-leash only on the three
85-04 Page six
current sites as part of a continuing experiment for one more year
with the closure of Fremont Older Open Space Preserve to be con-
sidered if the off-leash problems on this site did not diminish
within one year. They recommended that, if the Board wanted to
consider a fourth site on which dogs on-leash would be allowed,
the Christmas tree area at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve be
considered rather than Long Ridge Open Space Preserve since they
felt it would be difficult to restrain dogs and handlers from
using only the grassy slopes at the northern end of the Long Ridge
Open Space Preserve. D. Hansen stated that staff was recommending
that the Board allow up to two training events per year for dog
tracking to occur on the hayfield area at Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve and allow two additional experimental tracking events in
the coming year on the ridgelands at Windy Hill and Russian Ridge
Open Space Preserves.
E. Shelley questioned staff as to whether there was a significant
baseline to measure dog violations on the Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve and why staff was not recommending the program be stopped
immediately on this particular preserve if staff felt that it was
a failure.
J. Boland responded that staff did not have a significant baseline
for measurement purposes , and H. Grench stated that staff ' s initial
recommendation in July 1984 that the program at the Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve be discontinued if there was not a significant
decline in off-leash problems .
R. Bishop, a member of the Dog Committee, stated that the Committee
had felt that the program should be continued on the Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve since they felt more time was needed to be able
to judge the program. He stated he did not feel that the violation
record on that particular preserve was that bad, noting that people
who let their dogs off leash was an education problem on which
staff would have to focus. He and N. Hanko stated they did not
feel the experiment should be extended to the Skyline Ridge Open
Space Preserve at this time and that they were in favor of extending
the program to the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve .
Robert Fisse, speaking as a Director of the Peninsula Humane
Society and the Chair of the Society' s Legislative Committee,
stated that the Society would continue to support the District' s
dog program in anticipation that as many sites as possible would
be opened to dogs.
Jeffrey Harris , 22802 Prospect Rd. , Cupertino, a resident adjacent
to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, discussed the dog pro-
gram on this particular preserve, noting that one-third of the dog
owners using the Preserve on weekends had their dogs off-leash.
He stated that the program was working well except for irrespon-
sible dog owners.
Charles Touchatt, stated that he did not object to having dogs on
the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve; Bill Sanders of Palo Alto
spoke in support of having more sites opened for dog tracking;
85-04 Page seven
Harry Haeussler of Los Altos suggested that the Windmill Pasture
Area be opened to dogs; and Shirley Hammon, 1062 Metro Circle,
Palo Alto, discussed tracking and search and rescue activities .
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt the following recom-
mendations from memorandum M-85-22 : Item 3 - that addi-
tional dog tracking events similar to that of November 4 ,
1984 , be allowed at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve,
with a frequency of up to two events per year; Item 4 -
that no dog tracking events be allowed at Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve; and Item 5 - that one dog tracking event
on a trial basis be allowed at Russian Ridge Open Space
Preserve. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed
7 to 0.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the District continue to allow dogs
on-leash at the three current sites on a trial basis for
one additional year, with the entire subject to be
reviewed by Board and staff at the end of the second year
and that using revised methods of data collection and
the possible use of a consultant for up to two years
beginning January 1, 1985 that the Board formally include
the experiment as a key project in the 1985-1986 Action
Plan. R. Bishop seconded the motion.
Discussion: E. Shelley stated he was opposed to the
continuance of the dog program at the Fremont Older Open
Space Preserve since he felt dogs were a serious problem
on the Preserve. He noted that the longer the experiment
was continued on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve,
the more difficult it would be to discontinue the program
on that Preserve.
Motion
to end 'E. Shelley moved to amend the motion to begin phasing
out the dog experiment on the Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve in the next six months. T. Henshaw seconded
the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop spoke against the motion since he
felt the program needed another full year on the preserve
in order to make it valid and to see the results of an
educational program. In response to a question from
D. Wendin regarding the educational program, D. Hansen
stated that staff would be working with the neighbors of
the Preserve to seek their compliance to the dog regulations .
The motion to amend failed to pass on the following vote:
Ayes: E. Shelley, T. Henshaw, and H. Turner.
Noes: D. Wendin, N. Hanko, K. Duffy, and R. Bishop.
Motion
to Amend E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt staff' s recommenda-
tion that staff begin an educational program at the
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve to advise dog users
85-04 Page eight
that if there is not a significant decline on the off-
leash problems over the next year, the program on that
Preserve will be phased out. T. Henshaw seconded the
motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop spoke against the motion to amend
since he felt that the experiment should not be prejudged
by the Board. E. Shelley clarified that the Board' s action
would set in motion the phasing out of the dog experiment
on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve if there was not
a significant decline in off-leash incidents.
The motion to amend passed on the following vote:
Ayes: E. Shelley, T. Henshaw, D. Wendin, K. Duffy, and
H. Turner.
Noes: R. Bishop and N. Hanko.
The motion as amended passed 7 to 0 .
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board allow dogs on leash on the
Long Ridge Open Space Preserve on a trial basis.
T. Henshaw seconded the motion.
Discussion: D. Hansen stated that the area being proposed
for dog use included approximately 15 acres composing a
grassy area in the northwestern corner of the Preserve.
The motion passed 7 to 0 .
H. Turner stated, prior to calling a recess at 9 : 56 P .M. , that the
Board would next consider the fourth agenda item. The Board reconvened
for the public meeting at 10 : 01 P.M.
VI. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A) Determination of Public Necessity for Proposed Dooley Property
Addition to Coal Creek Open Space Preserve (Report R-85-17 of
February 22, 1985)
W. Tannenbaum pointed out the location of the property on the wall
map, noting that, except for a small portion of the property located
in unincorporated San Mateo County, the bulk of the property was
within unincorporated Santa Clara County. He stated that the un-
developed property was bounded by Page Mill Road and the Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve to the east and a dirt road leading to the
former Stallings property and the Coal Creek Preserve to the north.
He said that the stability of the property for development had been
a concern of the District' s and that Ms. Dooley had applied to the
County of Santa Clara for a single site grading permit which had
been granted to her. He added that the District had not been informed
of either the application review or the pending permit approval
and had no opportunity to register its concerns until late in the
permit review process. He stated that he had discussed the Dis-
trict ' s possible purchase of the property with Ms. Dooley and that
an appraisal had been done on the property. W. Tannenbaum said
that Ms. Dooley had been presented with a written offer to purchase
the property at the appraised value of $165, 000 and reported that
Ms. Dooley had found the offer unacceptable. He stated that con-
tacts with Ms. Dooley had been unproductive over the past several
months and that negotiations to acquire the property were at an
85-04 Page nine
impasse. He said that during his last communication with Ms.
Dooley, she had indicated that she would not consider a sale of her
property for less than $300, 000. In response to a question from
E. Shelley, W. Tannenbaum said that Michael J. and Rosemary Dooley
had acquired the property in 1974 at a purchase price of approxi-
mately $30, 000 and that, in 1982 court dissolution proceedings found
the property to be worth $75, 000.
D. Hansen stated that the property was an in-holding to District
lands, that the underlying fee title to the road to the former
Stallings property is owned by the District, and that the densely
wooded parcel is a critical link between the Monte Bello and Coal
Creek Open Space Preserves. D. Hansen showed slides of the sub-
ject property, including illustrations of the property ' s relation-
ship to other District sites and of clearing and grading that had
occurred on the site.
D. Hansen discussed the potential for geologic problems on the
site and stated that the property was a crucial addition to the
District because it was an in-holding and because it was vital to
trail connections in the area. He stated that the property was,
due to its location and natural characteristics, a vital and neces-
sary link in the completion of the Coal Creek Open Space Preserve
and that the property represents the key direct link from the former
McNiel portion of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve to the Skyline
Corridor preserves and a potential safe cut-off for cyclists
utilizing Page Mill and Alpine Roads to reach Skyline Boulevard
and points north. He said that an alternative trail would utilize
the proposed access driveway alignment, then veer left across the
subject property following an old roadbed alignment toward Skyline
Boulevard. He added that any attempt to bypass the parcel with a
trail would be very difficult, costly, and especially lengthy for
those users traveling uphill and heading south from the future
Alpine Trail. He said that the presence of a house and its accou-
trements on the property would have negative visual impact on
preserve users. He discussed the proposed interim use and manage-
ment recommendations for the property and stated that staff was
recommending the property become a dedicated addition to the Coal
Creek Open Space Preserve.
H. Grench quoted from the District ' s Basic Policy section concerning
the use of eminent domain and said he was recommending that the
Board adopt the Resolution of Public Necessity because reasonable
attempts of negotiation had failed, the property was central to the
District' s open space program, and a dwelling in the area would
lead to problems in the future. He also discussed the impact of
trail gaps in the system if the property was not acquired.
In response to questions from Board members, W. Tannenbaum stated
that, in his final discussion with Ms. Dooley, she had said she
would not sell the property for less than $300 , 000, and he said
that the recent round of contacts with Ms. Dooley had started in
July 1984. D. Hansen stated that there was no alternative to the
physical intrusion of a house on the site and that, with respect
to trails, alternatives would be lengthy, expensive to construct,
and detrimental to the development of a trail system.
H. Turner opened a Public Hearing at 10 : 20 P.M.
Rosemary Dooley, 290 Leland Avenue, Palo Alto, stated she felt
the District was being greedy in wanting to acquire her five
85-04 Page ten
acre parcel, and said that she did not want to sell her land, since
she intended to build a home on the site, as well as start a Christ-
mas tree farm. She said the District had no comparable land that
it could offer her in exchange for her property and noted that, if
her parcel was so important to the District, the District should
pay what she wanted. She stated she had a $300, 000 written offer
for the property and gave H. Turner a copy of the offer letter.
Ms. Dooley said that it was not right for staff to have entered her
property to take pictures and that it was not right of the Board
to take her land. She noted that it was not crucial for trails to
pass through her property and said that if the District wanted her
property, it should pay a fair price for it, adding that she had
had a $300, 000 purchase offer.
An unidentified individual who said he lived for twelve years on
the former Stallings property stated that Ms. Dooley' s property
was geologically different from the former Stallings property
since it did not have a year-long water source. Ms. Dooley stated
that Mr. Berklund, the County geologist, had walked the property
and said it was eminently buildable. She stated she had had a
well put on the property for water.
Larry Hassett, 22286 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, stated that he
felt the reasons given by staff that the property was an in-holding
and that the property was necessary for trail access were not valid
reasons to acquire the property.
Richard Bullis discussed Ms. Dooley' s love of her property and her
desire to build her home on the property, noting that the Board
was using eminent domain to acquire a person ' s homesite. He stated
eminent domain should not be used to acquire Ms. Dooley ' s five acres.
Robert Fisse, Treasurer, South Skyline Association, questioned
whether the possibility of trail easements had been explored.
He asked staff about their expertise regarding the geologic
aspects of the property, when the idea of acquiring the property had
come before the Board, and if the provisions of SB 2216 had been
followed. W. Tannenbaum responded that trail easements had not
been explored, noting that the construction of a home would have a
negative visual impact on the property and cause use conflicts.
D. Hansen stated that geologist Tim Hall and a geologist from Santa
Clara County had examined the property. H. Turner stated that the
Board had complied with the provisions of the Brown Act, and
S. Norton added that SB 2216 expressly exempts eminent domain
proceedings from having to identify property to be discussed in
Closed Session.
R. Fisse questioned why staff had waited until Ms. Dooley had
sought a building permit to negotiate for the property. He noted
that the slides shown had depicted the negative aspects of the
property and said he has seen very little tree cutting when he
had walked the property. Mr. Fisse stated that he felt there were
other alternatives that the District could pursue, and therefore
did not believe a finding of public necessity was valid. C. Britton
stated that the District had contacted the owners as early as 1982
to discuss the possible acquisition of the property.
Robert McKim, 864 Cedro Way, Stanford, noted that he was an adjacent
property owner whose property was surrounded by District land, ob-
jected to the fact that his name was included on the listing of
property owners, and said that he felt he should have been notified
85-04 Page eleven
about this agenda item. Mr. McKim stated that he liked to see
well-situated structures on country land and that the Board should
not use the construction of a house as a reason to use its power
of eminent domain. He said he wanted the District to be a good
neighbor. In response to a question from N. Hanko, C. Britton
stated that only adjacent property owners Brown and Ball had been
notified of this agenda item and that this went beyond Board policy
on notification.
Ms. Dooley stated that the District' s interest in the property
had started earlier with her former husband and that the property
was not even his to sell.
Janet Schwind requested a map or plans for the trails being dis-
cussed on the property, and D. Hansen responded that the map on
the wall was the only one that reflected the trails .
W. J. Sorich, who stated he lived adjacent to District property,
expressed his opposition to the District' s use of eminent domain
and requested that his name be removed from the listing of property
owners.
Martin Brown, an adjacent property owner to the Dooley property,
stated that if Ms. Dooley was intending to have a Christmas tree
farm on the site, he would rather the property be open space.
Charles Touchatt expressed his objections to the use of eminent
domain to acquire the Dooley property, stated he felt that the
fact the property was an in-holding was not a valid reason to
acquire it, and said the District should pay Ms. Dooley $300, 000
for the property.
An unidentified individual who stated he used to live on the former
Stallings property stated that there were no natural trails on
the Dooley property, adding that trail access was a far-fetched
reason to use eminent domain to acquire the property.
Sandra Touchatt asked if staff members and appraisers go on private
property without the property owner ' s permission and expressed
her concern that such individuals would trespass on her property.
H. Turner responded that it was not the Board ' s policy for District
representatives to trespass on private property. In response to
questions posed by Carol Doose, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, Box 21,
La Honda, D. Hansen stated staff had entered the property to take
the pictures.
Purusha Obluda, Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, expressed his con-
cerns about working with District staff members, exclusive of the
Ranger staff. He stated that the District was not getting along
with its neighbors, criticized the way input had been gathered
for the Skyline Ridge Master Plan, and urged the Board to make their
consideration to use eminent domain to acquire the Dooley property
a turning point in the District' s history.
William Obermayer, Portola Heights Park, questioned the trail access
reason to acquire the Dooley property, said there was no necessity
to use the property at all, and noted that a natural trail runs
through the former Stallings property.
Ms. Dooley stated that she loved herland and intended to construct
a single family dwelling and perhaps plant some Christmas trees.
She said the District should leave her land alone since it did not
interfere with the 7500 acres of District land that surrounded it.
Sandra Touchatt asked if she could be reassured that no one would
85-04 Page twelve
trespass on her property. R. Bishop stated that the District was
not interested in buying the Touchatts ' property and would let
Mrs. Touchatt know if they wished to enter the property.
H. Turner closed the Public Hearing at 11 : 00 P.M.
D. Wendin stated that he was concerned about the way access to
the property had been handled by staff, that he was not ready to
support the motion before the Board at this meeting, noting that
staff needed to examine more carefully the acquisition and answer
the questions regarding alternatives for trail access.
T. Henshaw stated that she was not convinced that the District
needed to use eminent domain to acquire this piece of property.
R. Bishop stated that Ms. Dooley had indicated that she wanted
to build a home on the property and live there, but had also indi-
cated she would sell the property for $300, 000. He stated he did
not feel the property was worth $300, 000 and said that it was im-
portant to the District because of its location to Other District
holdings and because of the District' s goals and plans in the area.
He stated that he would support a resolution of public necessity
to acquire the property.
E. Shelley stated that he concurred with R. Bishop' s statement,
adding that it would be a mistake to allow a home to be built on
the property. He noted that the property is a major trail inter-
section and that he feels old Alpine Road will become a major
trail in the area. He said an in-holding with a house would lead
to problems for both the District and the homeowner. He stated
that he was convinced of the necessity to acquire the property.
In response to a question from N. Hanko regarding -fee title to
the road, C. Britton stated that the public does have access to
the road.
H. Turner stated that he questioned Ms. Dooley ' s ambivalence be-
tween her stated price for the property and her desire to live
there, noting that she had not been wholly persuasive in saying
that her whole intent was to live on the property. He said that
he did not feel that staff had adequately demonstrated the need
to use eminent domain to acquire the property and that he would
not support the resolution at this time. He added that staff could
make a case to acquire the property at a future meeting.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt the Resolution of
the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District, Finding and Determining That the
Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of
Certain Properties for Public Use, to Wit, for Public Park,
Recreation and Open Space Purposes Describing the Proper-
ties Necessary Therefore and Authorizing and Directing its
Retained Legal Counsel to do Everything Necessary to Acquire
all Interest Therein (Coal Creek Open Space Preserve -
Dooley Property) . R. Bishop seconded the motion.
Discussion: Discussion centered on the proper procedure
to follow in order to continue the consideration of the
motion on the table to a future Board meeting.
85-04 Page thirteen
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board continue the motion on
the table to the Regular Meeting of March 13 , 1985.
T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed on the
following vote:
Ayes: K. Duffy, D. Wendin, T. Henshaw, R. Bishop, and
H. Turner
Noes : E. Shelley and N. Hanko
H. Turner stated that staff, at the next meeting, should present
a specific case and maps indicating why the Dooley property is
central to the District' s open space program. T. Henshaw requested
larger maps , both in the staff report and on the wall , showing the
trail system, and E. Shelley requested photographs indicating how
the house site would be located relative to the trail area and other
District property. In response to a question from D. Wendin, Ms.
Dooley stated that members of the Board could by arrangement tour
the property with her.
Due to the lateness of the hour, H. Turner stated that the Board
would delay consideration of the fifth and sixth agenda items to
a future meeting. The Board recessed for a break at 11: 25 P.M.
and reconvened for the public meeting at 11 : 42 P .M.
B) Setting of Public Hearing for Annexation of Certain Parcels in
Santa Cruz County (Memorandum M-85-03 of February 20, 1985)
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-19 ,
a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Open Space District Initiating Proceedings
to Annex Territory Designated as "Sempervirens Annexation
No. 687-A to This District" and that the date of the
Public Hearing be April 10 , 1985 rather than March 27 ,
1985 given on the draft resolution because of the
Skyline Ridge Master Plan Meeting scheduled for March 27 .
T. Henshaw seconded the motion.
Discussion: H. Grench clarified that the resolution
set the date for the Public Hearing to consider the
annexation and stated that the Santa Cruz County Local
Agency Formation Commission had included the Bar Y
property in the annexation despite the fact the Dis-
trict had not requested its inclusion and despite the
property owners ' objections. The motion passed 7 to 0.
H. Turner stated the concurrence of the Board that agenda item 5 ,
District Lease of Portion of San Mateo County Baylands Reserve From
State Land Commission and item 6, Preliminary Action Plan for the
Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 would be continued to the
Board' s next Regular Meeting.
VII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
T. Henshaw stated she would like time to make a short report at the
next Board meeting on the Special Districts ' Conference she attended
over the weekend.
D. Hansen stated that the March 27 Regular Meeting, at which the pro-
posed Skyline Ridge Master Plan would be presented was planned to
be held at the Adobe Community Center in Mountain View.
85-04 Page fourteen
D. Hansen said that, unless there were objections, staff would be
delaying the presentation of the Hassler Use and Management Plan
review until the buildings on the site had been demolished. There
was no objection expressed.
VIII. CLAIMS
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the revised claims
85-04 of February 27 , 1985. R. Bishop seconded the motion.
Discussion: H. Grench noted claim 8006 in the amount of
$165, 000 to the Santa Clara County Clerk should be deleted
since the Board did not act on the Resolution of Public
Necessity for the Dooley property.
Changed E. Shelley asked to change his motion to delete claim 8006
Motion: from the revised claims list. R. Bishop agreed to the change.
The changed motion passed 7 to 0 .
XI . CLOSED SESSION
S. Norton stated that the Board would be discussing the Hassler case
during the litigation portion of Closed Session. The Board recessed
to Closed Session at 11 : 46 P .M.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 1 : 10 A.M. Thursday, February 28 , 1985.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
I It ,
CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1985
D. February 27 , 1985
N. Han*:,:--, asked that the minutes be amended to change the words "could
not" to "would not" (grant Mr. Boyden ' s request) in the last line of
Para-rah 6 on Page 4 . H. Turner confirmed that the change was appro-
priate .
Motion: F. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of February 27 ,
1985. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed
to 0.