Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850417 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) 85-09 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1„LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 17 , 1985 WORKSHOP MINUTES The following corrections were made to the Workshop Minutes of March 30 , 1985 : Page 1: H. Turner - Said he was repelled by the coercive aspects of eminent domain and that alternate methods for land acquisition should be explored. Said that he would be willing to consider foreswearing use of eminent domain and that the District should not remove people from the land on which they are living. Page 2: Artemas Ginzton - Discussed her opposition to use of eminent domain. Said Stevens Creek connection involved willing owners who were willing to grant trail easements , not eminent domain. Page 2: William Obermayer - Said he didn't think there should be any condem- nation at all but if Board felt it was necessary to have specific piece of land there should be a unanimous vote of Board of Directors and Board of Supervisors in area where property is located. Page 4: David Leeson - Discussed the value of a person' s property, noting value was not only measured in dollars. Said people in the Mt. Umunhum area were concerned about the District' s actions. Dis- cussed use and safety of District lands , said unsupervised use of lands is dangerous to neighbors because of issues such as fires. Said meetings were essential to building trust and that eminent domain should not be used. Policy Regarding Use of Power of Eminent Domain Bob Brown - Commended MROSD on its use of eminent domain in the past. Hopes that instead of saying "never" to use the power of eminent domain, that MROSD would say "hardly ever use it again. " MROSD must be respon- sible to all taxpayers in the District and therefore should pursue and complete the task before them. Janet Schwind - Representing the South Skyline Association, stated that MROSD' s eminent domain policy should be "interest in land shall be pur- chased exclusively from willing sellers. " She stated MROSD has developed a coercive approach and that more cooperative methods of preserving natural areas have not been explored simply because it is easier to use the force of law. Need to develop working relationship with Counties , other agencies and private property owners . William Obermayer - Asked what MROSD' s task at hand was and whether there was a limit in the District' s land acquisition program. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Page Two 85-09 Alan Hoskings - Asked _,., MROSD can acquire proper,, outside District bound- aries by use of eminent domain. He said that the County had created inverse condemnation situations by downzonings and building moratoriums. S. Norton - Said the District can acquire property outside District ' s boundaries by use of eminent domain. Robert Fisse - Stated he personally felt that policy regarding condemnation should be: "District shall buy only from willing sellers that are within the District' s boundaries and that the threat of condemnation shall never be used in negotiations. " He said his position is based on fact that voters believed, at the time of the District' s formation, that the District had finite boundaries. Charles Touchatt - Said that establishing policy was good, but asked how the public could be assured that new policy would be carried over and remain in effect over future years. H. Turner - Said that he, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop would be working on pre- paring a policy regarding the use of eminent domain and that members of the public should feel free to contact any members of the Committee to submit ideas. E. Shelley - In response to Mr. Touchatt' s question of how the public is to be assured that any policy would remain in effect, E. Shelley said that that is the most difficult item. He said that his own feeling was that any Board would have to rely on policy and hopefully precedent and that, if a Board establishes limits on use of condemnation and holds to them, such action would be the best assurance available. He did not believe there is any way that the current Board can legally bind future Boards under the law. N. Hanko - Indicated she had asked District Counsel to investigate legal means of binding future Boards. R. Bishop - Said he didn't believe that the current Board could adopt policy to bind future Boards. He said he believed that the current Board had been adhering to established policy, that policies are quite durable, and that there would be a moral commitment on future Boards not to change the policy. K. Duffy - Said it is her belief that widespread distribution of the eminent domain policy by Board, staff and landowners is the best way to assure adherence to the policy. David Leeson - Said that the binding element of the policy is admirable but not reassuring. He suggested that the District grant an easement to landowners saying eminent domain would never be used. He said such a binding contract would assure property owners. He asked for clarifica- tion of partial condemnation for a right-of-way over private property. R. Bishop - Said he felt there are some cases where District would want to retain its power of condemnation over a portion of a person' s property and that he did not favor a policy that would prohibit all partial con- demnations. He noted that every case is different and needed to be judged on its own merit. E. Shelley - Stated he felt that by retaining a policy that would allow par- tial condemnations would give the Board more leeway in being more restric- tive on use of overall condemnation. He said that at the moment he is not in favor of adopting a policy of never using eminent domain for partial condemnation. 85-09 Page Three Richard Bullis - Said that the Board is beginning to show sensitivity by holding workshops and referred to the letters from N. Hanko and H. Turner. He said he has never received any straight forward decisions regarding Quinta Ranch and that in his development of Russian Ridge Ranch he wants to work toward and share his plan of dedicating 81% of the remaining land for open space. Hans Morawitz - Expressed his appreciation for actions by MROSD and said he hopes MROSD will continue to use eminent domain when necessary to protect the interests of "flat landers" since they wish to see lands remain open space and available for public use. Bill Sorich - Reported that he had received a map in the mail recently that showed his land in green; he said he was not a speculator and wanted to live and let live. C. Britton stated that map being discussed was sent to William Obermayer and referred to a road maintenance agreement only. Paul Storaasli - As a Portola Heights resident, he said he is part of a com- munity that feels threatened. He said he is in process of developing his lands and believes his plans support District ' s ideas of open space. He asked for a specific definition of undeveloped property and said he cannot support a policy of eminent domain, noting acquisitions should be from willing sellers within District boundaries. Allan Cox - A Skylonda resident for over 25 years , he indicated that the quality of his life has been enhanced by the work of MROSD. He said he hopes that eminent domain continues to be used for the greatest good and believes that in 50 years , if population records are an .indication, that there will be very few green islands in the area. Judy Storaasli - Said she felt further consideration needs to be given to defining developed/undeveloped property and that her goals for their property complement the District's goals. R. Bishop - In response to question regarding limits in the amount of land to be acquired , R. Bishop said that as land prices go up there will be less money to spend on acquisition and as more lands are acquired more money will have to be spent on management of these lands. He said that within the next 10 years MROSD will have to be very selective in acquisition and that the District always prefers to deal with willing sellers. E. Shelley - Stated, responding to the question regarding private property either held in open space or developed in a manner consistent with goals of MROSD, that one problem is a change in the long-term use of that property. He said one approach is an open space easement given in perpetuity. H. Turner - Said there is need for creative thinking to make eminent domain policies binding on future Boards. Lynn Penek-Holden - Asked if there was harm or a problem if a private owner did not plan to develop their land and wished to leave it as private open space. She asked if it is necessary for the District to have trails over all open property. Sandra Touchatt - Asked if MROSD has a master plan for hiking trails and if any consideration had been given to communities that are already built. Page Four 85-09 N. Hanko - Said she would take into consideration areas with established communities. R. Bishop - Said that the District 's Master Plan shows land as it relates to open space. E. Shelley - Said that the District ' s Master Plan does not show trails. Candace Stone - Stated that since there seemed to be so much protest and since there were other agencies acquiring land in area (such as State Parks and Save-the-Redwoods League) , trails should circumvent the Portola Heights area. Jeannette Bullis - Said she is very much in favor of what MROSD is doing, adding that there is room for residential areas in the Skyline area too. Ms. MacPhearson - Said she has worked hard to build home in the Portola Heights area and is concerned with what she will be able to give to her children. Bob Piety - Said he didn't think anyone at meeting was against open space, rather they were against the use of eminent domain since it might shatter someone' s dream. He said that since MROSD has acquired most of its 18 , 000+ acres without the use of eminent domain, the District shouldn't have to use it in the future. Carol Norton - Said that she appreciates what MROSD is doing, that only land she owns on Skyline is MROSD land, and that she wants MROSD to continue to purchase land. She said eminent domain is a tool that needs to be kept and used where and when necessary. E. Shelley - Said that individuals in the Skyline area are aware that there is no permanence in zoning restrictions , adding that zoning describes only what is presently the highest and best use of land. He said he felt it is no protection for long term use of open space and was an unfair way to protect open space. R. Bishop - Said that the District ' s Master Plan does not have specific parcels identified and that it rates land by desirability and quality for open space. E. Shelley - Said that MROSD relies on schematic plans from the two Counties for trails and pathway plans. H. Turner - Described the thrust of the District 's acquisition program and said that further acquisitions will be limited by financial constraints. He said it has been shown that approximately two-thirds of the land that MROSD will ever acquire has already been acquired and that MROSD is shifting from an aggressive land acquisition policy to more emphasis on land management. Tom Kavanaugh - Said that Board has no control over staff ' s use of eminent domain to threaten landowners. He related his personal dealing with staff regarding giving some land to the District. He said staff had requested they contribute $50 , 000 . Said that the Board was not going to do anything to work cooperatively with landowners , adding that if they did, the District ' s lobbyist in Sacramento would protect them. 85-09 Page Five C. Britton - Responded by saying that the balance of Mr. Kavanaugh' s prop- erty was to be developed, the dedication area consisted of 4 to 5 acres of wetlands that had accumulated a lot of trash and that staff felt if MROSD was to take over the area that $50 , 000 would endow the additional maintenance costs. Bob McKim - Asked the Board about fair market value, noting it was when a willing seller is paid the price the seller and buyer agree upon. He asked how long fair market values could be maintained as truly fair as the District acquires more land. Jean Rusmore - Said how appreciative she is for thousands of acres pur- chased by MROSD for open space and that she felt land values have been enhanced for property near MROSD lands. Charles Touchatt - Said he was very much in favor of open space, but ques- tioned how much more open space is needed. Robert Fisse - Responding to H. Turner' s statement that further acquisitions will be limited, said that he felt the District had been expanding its acquisition periods over the years. Richard Bullis - Said that MROSD runs on a capitalistic system, and ques- tioned if it is wrong to make a profit on one' s land. Imraan Aziz - Said he was from Canada, that everything in this area seems to be becoming urbanized , and that open space is important so people have a place to go for enjoyment. N. Hanko - Responding to Mr. Fisse' s comment regarding land acquisition said that there is no adopted policy stating the District would only acquire land during its first ten years of existence. She said that when the District was formed there was an informal agreement with the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County that only 5% of the District' s fund would be used for development initially so that it was clear to everyone that MROSD was in the open space acquisition business. K. Duffy - Said that she applauded private open space and that, in some ways, it was a means whereby MROSD could save money. She said people could work with POST or the Trust for Public Land as well. She said the capitalistic system does not guarantee that the investments you make work out, and that after MROSD purchases land, the fair market value of surrounding lands probably does increase. She said the law of eminent domain can resolve, through the use of a third party, situations where there may be a willing seller asking an "unwilling" price. E. Shelley - Said he believes that governmental agency purchases cannot be used for establishment of fair market value. In response to Mr. Fisse' s question of acquisition and development policy over the District ' s first 10 years , he said that over the last 5 years the land management budget has gone up more rapidly than the entire budget itself. He said MROSD has been developing its lands and it will continue to do so. Paul Storaasli - Said that certain landowners had gone through various eminent domain issues with Castle Rock and Golden Gate National Recrea- tion Area, and that now the MROSD was threatening them and that land- owners are uncomfortable with this threat around them. Page Six 85-09 N. Hanko - In response to a question from Sandra Touchatt, said she would take into consideration established communities in policy relating to planning areas. Directors Bishop and Turner also agreed on this con- sideration. Bob Piety - Said he appreciated open space, adding that private open space should not be threatened with eminent domain. Diana Piety - Said she enjoys open space land, but MROSD has an adverse effect on people in Skyline area. David Leeson - Said that he wants to determine future course of his land, but threat of eminent domain from MROSD tells him he cannot have his land. He said the objectives of MROSD are admirable and that he believes they can be attained by patience and willingness to work with people and without using power of eminent domain. Richard Bullis - Discussed use of comparable sales between owners and MROSD and how they are used in eminent domain process. Betsy Crowder - Said that all governmental agencies have the power of eminent domain and that MROSD is a much more responsive agency than larger agencies in area. Procedures in Implementing Amendments to Brown Act Regarding Closed Session Discussions of Property Negotiations S. Norton - Gave a summary of the 1984 legislation pertaining to the Brown Act. (1) if public agency wishes to discuss acquisition in Closed Session, has to announce in public session name of property owner and location of property, (2) MROSD did map of sphere of influence and indicated those properties it thought it might some time wish to dis- cuss in Closed Session, (3) MROSD did not aspire to acquire all listed properties (this is what has caused concern to land owners) . K. Duffy - Said that small parcels indicated by asterisk, not named or listed, would have to be announced in public session if to be dis- cussed in Closed Session. George Dueker - Said he had lived in vicinity of area of parcels 84 and 83 on Master Plan overlay for 31 years and since this is a developed community of 18 homes, he was requesting that a property line be drawn around these parcels and that they be excluded from MROSD list. R. Bishop - Said he thought the suggestion was very good and that it would be considered. List was not put together to threaten people and list should be modified or done away with completely. Must address how we can carry out function of meeting with staff for land acquisition. We do control our staff by having meetings in Closed Session to give them direction. H. Turner - Said he also would give thought and consideration to Mr. Ducker' s request. He said he believes MROSD acts in good faith both in the spirit and the letter of the law. We did not forsee fear that arose, and we would have acted differently if we had forseen fear. The task before Board now is to eliminate that fear. 85-09 Page Seven E. Shelley - Said policy of excluding areas makes sense but first must work out policy for use of eminent domain. K. Duffy - Fear of eminent domain is basic fear, consideration of eminent domain is an exemption to Brown Act. First task is to establish policy on use of eminent domain to allay fears that have arisen. Sandra Touchatt - Said Board was completely out of line in putting names of Portola Heights land owners on list; the value of their land has been devalued. Beez Jones - Asked for clarification of how particular acquisition becomes an eminent domain case. S. Norton - Explained in detail the legalistic aspect of the eminent domain process. K. Duffy - Explained that without list and without Board having discussed possible acquisition with staff, staff would be discussing possible acquisition and if they found themselves at an impasse and considered the property of great importance to the plan, they would come to the Board in Closed Session and recommend that the Board consider using the eminent domain process to obtain the property. Janet Schwind - Representing South Skyline Association asked that list be withdrawn, adding, however, that staff must not stop communicating with Board about potential acquisitions. She said the Association asks that the District: "l) honor the public ' s right to know, 2) allow Directors ' input on potential acquisition, 3) protect the seller ' s right to privacy when desired, 4) not jeopardize the property rights of the 'whole' to protect the few. " She said that if MROSD firmly adopted the "willing sellers only" policy, the list would be almost innocuous , recommended the Open Meeting Laws pamphlet be read, and asked how many owners wish their privacy in land negotiations be honored. C. Britton - Said that approximately 50% of property owners who want to sell property to DIROSD do not want their name announced while negotia- tions are being conducted. Charles Touchatt - Said that there must be a reasonable list of property owners with whom MROSD are negotiating or with whom they anticipate negotiating and that it was absurd to put everyones name on list and consider that as complying with the Brown Act. He said the Brown Act states "timely" notice is required. Tom Kavanaugh - Requested that at the next meeting a copy of the Brown Act be available for everyone. He said that the listing of property owners was poorly done, an insult to public, and that names were incorrect. He said that names should be clarified and parcel numbers should be included. He said agendas should list the names of property owners to be discussed in Closed Session, as well as litigation cases and lawsuits. He requested that MROSD help pass legislation that anyone violating the Brown Act would be penalized. S. Norton - Said the law currently states that if anyone knowingly violates the Brown Act they are subject to a misdemeanor. Page Eight 85-09 Candace Stone - Asked why there was a need to discuss acquisition of land in private since it will eventually be presented at a public meeting. E. Shelley - Said there are two ways to handle acquisition: one is for the staff to act on its own and then bring proposed acquisitions to Board at public meeting or a far better way is for Board to have discussions with staff in Closed Session. He said many land owners do not wish their intent to sell to MROSD to be made public until negotiations are completed. David Leeson - Stated that the District should do what the Brown Act says. He said since the list exists, it can never be taken away or reversed. He said that since MROSD is a public agency using public money, it must announce a seller' s name publicly, that the District should endeavor to find out what other public agencies do, and that MROSD should not accommodate people who want to negotiate privately. Hildegard Johnson - Said that since MROSD had become such a powerful agency it was time for public to sit in on Closed Sessions. She said she did not trust any of the Board members. S. Norton - Said that State law does not allow members of the public to sit in on a Closed Session of a public agency. William Obermayer - Said that his name could never be removed from the list since the list exists, that the only things that need be discussed in Closed Session are price and terms; and that the public has the right to know what is being discussed. He said MROSD should send an apology to everyone on the list, and that since MROSD has no Master Plan, no one knows what lands the District plans to acquire. Richard Bullis - Recommended that MROSD send letters to everyone on list in order to comply with the Brown Act and that Board seek an independent body (e. g. , District Attorney of Santa Clara and/or San Mateo County) to write how MROSD should implement the Brown Act. H. Turner - Said it was in public interest to meet in Closed Session to instruct negotiators on land acquisition matters. He presented two possible solutions on instructing negotiators: 1) create a land acqui- sition committee of 2 or 3 Board members , meet in private to discuss and then present in public to full Board for final decision; and 2) allow staff to negotiate, buy an option for minimal amount of money and then present the matter to the full Board. N. Hanko - Said that, as a member of Legislative Committee, she would like this Committee to deal with the problem and effect changes in the Brown Act. She said the listing of property owners should be withdrawn and staff should work on other methods of implementing the Brown Act. She said she likes H. Turner' s idea of buying options. C. Britton - Said he would contact other agencies to inquire how they are complying with the Brown Act. E. Shelley - Said that, at the moment, he proposes that the listing of property owners should remain, but reasonable and workable ways to reduce the size of the listing should be found. He said he felt a clear policy on use of eminent domain is best way to reduce the impact of the listing. 85-09 Page Nine K. Duffy - Said she agreed to accept the current listing because she felt that a limiting list would really be threatening. She said that she believes some rural community areas could be removed from list, that the Board is not using the list to hide behind; and that negotiations are complex and the Board does give direction to staff in Closed Session. Tom Williams - Said he felt that the listing used to comply with the Brown Act has been a disaster. David Leeson - Feels that list does not meet requirements of Brown Act and said people on list should be notified and given the opportunity to have their names removed- He said he would like his name removed from listing unless MROSD intends to negotiate with him. Paul Storaasli - Asked, if one' s name is not currently on list, could a person have the option of asking to have their name put on the list some time in the future. K. Duffy - Said that, as list exists now and if nothing were changed, there would be an opportunity to update or add to listing or remove name from listing as the Board felt appropriate. She said she believes that things will change. E. Shelley - Said he disagreed with the suggestion of announcing what land negotiations are to be discussed at each public meeting because some individuals do not want their discussions public knowledge until the negotiations are completed. H. Turner - Said that he had another option to add to his ideas regarding the Brown Act: withdraw the listing and announce prior to each Closed Session the names of those acquisitions going to be discussed. He said this could be risky process (pay higher prices , some people would not want to deal with MROSD under these conditions, and possible third party competition) . He suggested this latter process be tried for a year and then evaluated. Written Comments Received During Meeting Richard T. Mork - "The first time I heard the words 'green-belting' was almost twenty years ago in Germany outside Hanover when I questioned how it was possible to have so much open space in close proximity to a dense urban area. I thought then how wonderful it would be if such a concept were possible in the U.S.A.--especially in my home, the S.F. Bay area. Since then, through MROSD, that concept has begun to become a reality. I strongly support the work and policies of MROSD , and urge their continua- tion. I hope the Board will continue an aggressive policy of land acquisi- tion for the benefit of all the people of the greater Bay area and their children, and their grandchildren; and, for the Board not to succumb to the special interest pressures of individual land owners trying to block the green-belting process for short term interest or gains. " The Board scheduled a third public workshop for Saturday, May 4 beginning at 9: 00 A. M. at a location as near as possible to the location of the April 17 Workshop. Jean H. Fiddes , District Clerk Cecilia A. Cyrier, Secretary