HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850504 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 85-11
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-11,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MAY 4, 1985
WORKSHOP MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 9:55 A.M. at Las Lomitas School ,
299 Alameda de las Pulgas, Atherton, California.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Nonette Hanko, Richard
Bishop, and Harry Turner.
Members Absent: Edward Shelley.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Jean Fiddes, Stanley Norton, and
Emma Johnson.
II . BOARD WORKSHOP
T. Henshaw stated minutes from the workshop of April 17, 1985, to be considered for
approval at the May 8 Regular Meeting, had been distributed and asked if any member of
the public wished to request any corrections. No corrections were requested.
1 . Continuation of Discussion Regarding Procedures in Implementing Amendments to Brown
Act Regarding Closed Session Discussions of Property Negotiations
Jay Thorwaldson - Said he is sensitive to the need for a degree of confidentiality in
land acquisition activities and believes Senator Keene should not have given the District
advice on how to circumvent the new law. He suggested that it would be ill-advised for
staff to use "less-than-a-quorum" exception to acquaint Board members with acquisition
matters. He said there is the appearance of the District being secretive and manipulative
and that there is a high level of mistrust of the District. He said the way out is to
establish a good set of policies and that a great deal of attention has to be paid to
implications of actions of the District. He suggested the District take the narrowly
defined exception to the Brown Act rather than the broad end, and a basic commitment to
open policies.
Jim Warren - Said it was his impression that the District went to Senator Keene, asking if
the publication of the list would be within the intent of the amendment. He echoed
Mr. Thorwaldson's proscription of using less-than-a-quorum meetings with the Board and
staff on land acquisition matters . He added his impression that the District is up-front,
manipulative only in that some feel threatened with condemnation, but agreed that the
District has an over-riding power over the lives of the people in the Skyline area. He
suggested that staff contact Tom Casey in the San Mateo County District Attorney's office
who has been reviewing and making a presentation about Brown Act implementation to the
Board of Supervisors.
S. Norton - Commented he would welcome talking with Mr. Casey within the next few weeks.
H. Grench - Said the District had been concerned about the singular use of having to
announce what parcel would be discussed in Closed Session. He said that Senator Keene
was sensitive to the District's situation, felt the situation was unique, and amended the
bill to use the plural so that the District could announce more than one parcel but not
discuss all of them.
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
Meeting 85-11 Page two
D. Wendin - Noted that the Board has been studious not to enter into less-than-a-quorum
meetings.
R. Bishop - Suggested that comments focus on alternatives to the current implementation
j method that would accomplish the District's business. He said the idea of a 3-person
committee to confer with staff on land acquisition matters was unanimously rejected by
the Board and that the full Board should meet with staff on matters of acquisition. He
said an alternative would be to announce at each Board meeting which parcels would be
discussed in Closed Session, but that the biggest problem with this method would be
that some landowners want their negotiations to remain confidential . He said if parcels
to be discussed were announced, third parties could intervene in negotiations, bid against
the District, resulting in increased costs to the District and the public.
N. Hanko - Noted one alternative was for staff to obtain options of 10-60 days, so that
the price of the land would be established before the name appears on the agenda for
consideration.
D. Wendin - Said the problem with the option approach is that the Board would not have
been involved at an early stage in the acquisition process and staff would be acting on
its own. He said the problem is how to give direction to staff.
K. Duffy - Suggested keeping the list for the broad general plan area but removing resi-
dential enclaves and communities from the map and list. She said possible trail connections
or ranger residences would be discussed with involvement of the total community.
Janet Schwind - Asked if staff had determined how other open space districts implemented
the Brown Act amendments.
C. Britton - Responded that he had contacted other agencies and the information would be
distributed at a future meeting .
Charles Touchatt - Cautioned against tying the Board's hands and said the list should have
been realistic and used sensibly and that names of people could have been removed from
the list when it was requested which would have been compassionate and would not have led
to distrust. He asked how many people want to have their negotiations with the District
secret. C. Britton responded that about half of the people who negotiate with him request
confidentiality.
Robert Hanko - Asked if the removal of a property from the list would preclude the Dis-
trict from putting it back on the list.
Charles Touchatt - Stated his belief that property owners should be able to change their
minds to be able to get their names back on the list.
Artemis Ginzton - Questioned whether property owners on the list could be given the formal
opportunity to decide if they wished to remain on the list.
Janet Schwind - Noted the problem with the list is that it threatens the ability to
sell a piece of property, adding that inclusion on a more limited list would never allow
a piece of property to be sold, except to the District.
Jim Warren - Agreed with R. Bishop's concerns about third parties potentially escalating
the price of a parcel , but added that if developers outbid the District, then that is the
fair market value of the land. He said the Board should adopt a more explicit, reasonable
acquisition plan and sequence, and follow the plan. He suggested keeping the list but
doing away with the use of eminent domain. He noted he favors staff functioning as
"brokers", acquiring options for the Board to consider. He said announcements about
properties at the end of Board meetings are inadequate, that it should be done in public
forum to give the public an opportunity to know about it.
Jay Thorwaldson - Said that many people would be disturbed if the District "gave away" its
power of eminent domain, that the issue is the protection of peoples ' rights to live where
they are living. He added that the District should have a rational eminent domain policy
that recognizes the right of people to live where they are now unless they take action to
create a subdivision which would put them back on the list.
Meeting 85-11 Page three
Carole Doose - Suggested that if the District did not buy land outside of its sphere of
influence, the list would be reduced.
Dick Carter - A Portola Park Heights resident, said he lives outside of the District's
boundaries, and has no vote in District elections but he is on the list. He added that
he lives in a Timber Preservation Zone (TPZ) and asked what the District's relationship
is with the State agency that demands he hire a private forester.
C. Britton - Clarified that TPZ indicates timber production zone and the State requires
logging plans to be filed for parcels identified as land with harvestable timber. He
added that there is no relationship between the State agency and the District, and that
the District is required by law to notify the State when it proposes to buy TPZ land.
T. Henshaw - Explained that the Board would not take action during the workshop, but
follow-up action, referring items to the Board Eminent Domain Policy Committee, would be
taken at the May 8 Regular Board Meeting.
D. Wendin - Asked for more discussion by the public to Jay Thorwaldson's earlier sugges-
tion that being on the list of property owners and potential eminent domain actions could
be related to whether or not a property could be subdivided.
Jim Warren - Said the idea fails to address someone building more than one unit on a single
parcel that is not subdivided and remains under single ownership. He said the Board may
want to consider the possibility of saying that if a subdivision involves more than one
family or division into more than two parcels in a ten-year period, then it goes back onto
the list for potential acquisition. He said that almost any land is capable of being sub-
divided except as it's restrained by ordinance.
Charles Touchatt - Voiced agreement with Mr. Warren, but added he feels the problem is
in large acreage parcels.
Carole Doose - Questioned the definition of subdivision, since some families split parcels
for their children. She added that some land in private ownership is open space that could
remain that way.
K. Duffy - Stated her agreement with the concept of private open space and said arranae-
ments can be made with private owners.
N. Hanko - Noted that D. Wendin 's proposal regarding the link between the list and eminent
domain is one alternative being discussed by the Committee.
H. Grench - Said the District has tried to acquire open space through conservation ease-
ments, thus allowing land to remain in private ownership.
T. Henshaw - Noted that when the Committee presents its recommendations to the Board,
the public will have additional opportunity to comment. She encouraged members of the
public to forward comments to the Committee or to the Board.
Jay Thorwaldson - Said the District and POST could help the landowners keep their land as
private open space by informing them of available options. He encouraged the Board to
make partners of the people living in the area.
Robert Hanko - Said there are two types of open space land: visual and recreational . He
citedan exception to the Brown Act granted to the Regents of the University of Cali-
fornia for acquisition of land and suggested the District may be granted an exception by
the Legislature.
2. Policies Regarding Annexation and Acquisition of Land Outside District Boundaries
Robert Fisse - (Written Communication read into the record by T. Henshaw) : Purchase land
only thin the borders of the District. Annex land to the District only by popular vote
of the electorate within the area proposed for annexation. ( If the area is approved by
the voters for annexation then the District can buy all the land it wants from willing
sellers in the new district area. )
Meeting 85-11 Page four
William Obermay er - Suggested the District could act on major subdivision applications
4 parcels or more) , rather than subdivisions being made for families . He said his idea
of private open space is that it is not necessarily for public trails or use but the idea
that the owner will not subdivide or develop the property.
Bob Piety - Suggested the District have contracts with landowners stating that as long as
the land remains in open space, there would be some guarantee that the District would not
use eminent domain to acquire the property.
S. Norton - Said that the Committee is investigating the contract concept, adding that it
is beyond the power of the Board to give up power of eminent domain in his opinion.
Carole Doose - Suggested that the District get together with other levels of government
federal , state) to establish an act or zone for dealing with private open space, exempting
parcels that are private open space from eminent domain procedures. She added that such
a program should not be under the control of the District.
Charles Touchatt - Stated his agreement with Ms. Doose's concept, adding that giving away
an easement was not the idea, that it would be merely a commitment to keep property as
open space. He said the law could be changed if everyone is in agreement.
Artemis Ginzton - Cited a personal example of family land at Big Sur which could not be
divided among the 3 original-owner families because of the Coastal Act, and that the
families cannot use the land. She noted she didn't know how to write a policy that would
address specific problems and unique situations .
Robert Augsburger - Executive Director, Peninsula Open Space Trust stated that under
existing law, an easement does not have to mean public access to an individual 's property
and that the mechanism already exists , thus the law doesnnot have to be changed.
Carole Doose - Said she was proposing a statewide program that would protect the land-
owners ' rights with respect to open space.
T. Henshaw - Read, for the record, a petition which will be considered at the Board's
May 8, 1985 public meeting. The petition states: "Please stop all actions which include
(1 ) use or threat of use of condemnation, (2) buying land outside the district, and (3)
annexations until the public workshops are completed and policy revisions have been estab-
lished. " The petition was signed by 53 individuals.
H. Grench - In response to D. Wendin' s request, summarized the procedures and rules
concerning annexations . He said that up to the present, District annexations have had
a 100% consent of landowners involved. He said a sphere of influence defines how far a
political boundary might expand in the foreseeable future and is primarily aimed at
sewer districts and cities. He said a recent court decision required that every juris-
diction have a sphere of influence, noting the District's sphere of influence went beyond
the District's political boundaries in 3-4 places which were logical areas for the District
to expand to protect the Skyline Scenic Corridor, trail and corridor connections , and in
the case of Mt. Umunhum, 'rounding out an area. He said the District's original boundaries
were established according to topographical points , following major ridge lines, as well
as political considerations and existing jurisdictional lines. He said when the sphere
of influence was created, there was an attempt to be more consistent with the mission of
the District. He said there are some people who live in the District's sphere of influence
who are not District voters.
N. Hanko - Said the founders of the District wished to avoid creating an impact on
scToo-T-districts , people who were in dire need to fund their school districts.
Robert Augsburger - Speaking as a private citizen, said the boundaries of the District
were accommodated to existing political lines and didn't always make geographical sense,
citing Windy Hill and Langley Hill as examples . He added that the District is preserving
open space without destroying communities .
William Obermayr - Said he was not aware of the District's sphere of influence, and
expressed his opinion that the District is afraid to have a popular vote on the other side
of Skyline Boulevard. He agreed with Mr. Fsse's idea of a popular vote and the District
Meeting 85-11 Page five
not buying property outside of its boundaries. He said the people along Skyline have no
representation because of the way wards are divided and compared the District acquisitions
in the Portola Park Heights area to "fingers" of District land which affect surrounding
land.
Jim Warren - Expressed his belief that the District has annexed only with 100% consent
of owners involved but said the District should take an entire logical area and determine
if the whole area wishes to be annexed by popular vote. He questioned the District's claim
of scenic corridor protection since some District-owned lands are well outside of the
sphere of influence and are not visible from Skyline Boulevard.
Carole Doose Stated her support of Robert Fisse's suggestion but felt the wording con- ,
cerning voting was ambiguous. She said a broad area should be given a chance to vote
before land purchases start taking place. She suggested it may be necessary to address
the current boundary lines to create more logical boundary lines.
Robert Hanko - Observed there are two kinds of people: those who look at a landscape and
see beauty and those who see money. He said the people who see beauty do not want to
take away the power of eminent domain. He said there are two classes of land: visual
retention land and public access land; visual retention land could be achieved through
contracts/agreements stating eminent domain would not be used or land would not be
subdivided for a stated period of years. He said the two options for public access land
would be purchases or easements.
David Leeson - Said the annexation procedure can be threatening or accommodating and
recommended the Board work to create a better public image, involving cooperation for
annexations. He said the procedure of "checker-boarding" does not create a good impression.
Barbara Weisner - Asked if the people vote to be annexed and assessed by the District.
H. Grench - Replied that when private property is annexed into the District, the Dis-
trict receives a portion of the property taxes but the taxes paid by the voter do not
increase.
D. Wendin - Asked for public comment on how to deal with the Bullis property which is
partially within the District's sphere of influence but outside the District boundaries.
Janet Schwind - Said it may be okay to acquire land if it is adjacent to MROSD boundaries
but the pro m comes with checker-boarding.
Charles Touchatt - Said the problem is people's fears that the District will keep on
acid nand and-won't leave the people alone.
Tony Such - Suggested that POST or Sempervirens Fund buy land to keep for open space until
it is contiguous. He recommended the District not buy land unless the people are repre-
sented politically.
Jim Warren - Stated his belief that there is nothing inconsistent with annexing the area
first, then acquiring the Bullis property. He said if boundaries are illogically defined,
they should be redefined in a logical manner.
Carole Doose - Suggested Mr. Bullis work with his neighbors and the District to get the
item on a ballot for a vote of the people, adding that the District should not checker-
board or "creep".
Janet Schwind - Stated acquisition is fairly harmless except for checker-boarding and
if the District wants to acquire land outside of its boundaries it must not be considered a
part of the District unless the whole area is annexed by popular vote.
Mary Alexander - Said the people feel the District has circumvented the rules.
Jim Warren - Commenting on spot acquisitions inside or outside District boundaries,
stated that if such acquisitions are unplanned, they should not be made. He said the Dis-
trict should develop an orderly plan and then follow it rather than pursue "targets of
opportunity".
Charles Touchatt - Suggested POST could acquire land, give or sell an easement and then put
the remainder back into private ownership.
Meeting 85-11 Page six
William Obermayer - Suggested MROSD should change its attitude and give people a vote and
a new ward to represent the Skyline area.
Tony Such - Suggested the District' s annexation applications should go to the Pertinent
county involved. He said he has no representation in Santa Clara County LAFCO.
.Robert Augsburger - Representing POST, said that POST had notified landowners with 40+
acres of the sphere of influence, explaining reasons and implications, and inviting
questions and responses, but did not receive any responses from the public. He cautioned
against tying the hands of the District in instances where people want the District to
acquire their land.
Carole Doose - Expressed her opinion that LAFCO guidelines are not appropriate for an
open space district and suggested the District' s Legislative Committee give input for
redirection for working with LAFCO. She said the Board should not use LAFCO as a free-for-
all for acquisition.
Karen Ploga - Stated her concern about being on the listing of property owners. She asked
the District not to take land unless people are willing to sell and to purchase only within
District boundaries.
H. Grench - Clarified his response to B. Weisner, saying his earlier answer was correct
for Santa Clara County, adding that for San Mateo County, the District would not get a
share of the property tax by policy of the Board of Supervisors.
K.�Duffy - Stated that acquisition is a public action and the public is given opportunities
to speak out and to express concerns, particuarly in eminent domain actions.
D. Wendin - Stated his opinion that acquisition outside of District boundaries is the major
problem, creating fingers and checker-board in-holdings. He suggested the Committee
compile some ideas on a policy for acquisition outside District boundaries and return
for another public session.
I Bishop - Said he would like the Committee to put down some possible alternatives,
and when they come up for adoption at a future meeting, further public input would be
sought and encouraged.
N. Hanko - Said the Board should bring in a planner to work with the people who live
in the Skyline area with the sole idea of protecting the communities with buffers, trails
going through*the communities, and have them listed as communities exempt from land
acquisition plans of the District. She said if District boundaries are extended (with
minor exceptions) it should be done by a vote of the entire District. "-'I--
,zz�ela a-i—, -g.
H. Turner - Stated the Committee should present alternative ways of complying with the
Brown Act after its work is finished with eminent domain. He stated his concerns regarding
lack of voting representation within the sphere of influence and urged that all actions
having to do with votes, acquisitions, annexation, etc. be done in a context of sensi-
tivity to feelings of people in the area. He continued that every ten years there is a
process for establishing ward boundaries and that he would like to have the Board address
the issue of a Skyline representative. He said that in the meantime, the oublic should
give their ideas and thoughts to representatives individually or collectively. He said
the District has more to do regarding the sphere of influence particularly along Skyline
and would like to have it on an agenda as a public participatory process . He added
that ho sees a lot of merit in deletinn -xistinn communities from the Master Plan.
D. Wendin - Stated his Agreement with C. Doose' s statement that another workshop would
be desirable after the Committee compiles a draft that can be addressed. He said it was
imperative for members of the public to have ample review time of any draft policies before
the public workshop is held.
III. ADJOURNMENT
T. Henshaw adjourned the meeting at 11 :35 A.M.
Emma Johnson
Secretary
CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF MAY 4 , 1985
B. May 4 , 1985
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve the minutes of May 4 ,
1985 . H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko noted that on page six, paragraph ten,
the word through in the first sentence should be changed to
around.
The motion to approve the minutes as corrected passed 6 to 0 ,
with E. Shelley abstaining from voting because he was not
present at the May 4 meeting.