Loading...
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.