Loading...
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.