HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850612 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 85-15
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JUNE 12 , 1985
WORKSHOP MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 7 : 43 P.M. at the
Town of Portola Valley' s Multi-Use Room, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley,
California.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Nonette
Hanko, Harry Turner , and Richard Bishop.
Member Absent: Edward Shelley.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Jean Fiddes , Stanley Norton, and
Cecilia Cyrier.
II . Discussion by Directors of Alternative Policies Regarding Use of Eminent
Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendment, Acquisition of Lands
Outside District Boundaries , and Annexation. (See attached memorandum
M-85-95 dated June 4 , 1985 and the Eminent Domain Committee ' s memorandum
dated May 21 , 1985) .
A. Individual Comments by Directors .
D. Wendin said that in use of eminent domain the kinds of property
the District is dealing with when discussing use of eminent domain
are: developed , undeveloped without residences, capable of subdivision
and not capable of subdivision. He feels that property capable of
subdivision and not occupied should be available to the District and
if necessary the District could use eminent domain. He said such
property should be on the list for discussion under the terms of
the Brown Act. He said that if property is not capable of subdivision
but is occupied, it should not be subject to eminent domain, and the
owner could request deletion of his/her name from the Brown Act list.
He said discussion regarding acquisition through the use of eminent
domain of an occupied property should be done in public, and noted
the contract form presented by legal counsel could be a solution
to this situation.
He also believes that the eminent domain policy needs to be explained
in a non-threatening way to landowners whether the subject is raised
or not. He said he did not favor use of eminent domain on owner
occupied or unoccupied property just for trail purposes and he said
it should not be used under any circumstances for acquisition of
trail easements over improved property.
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.Wenwn
Meeting 85-15 Page Two
He said that the District' s original boundaries in some areas are
incorrect and that the sphere of influence should be treated as the
area for purposes of acquisition of lands. He said that annexations
should be of lands owned by District or by 100% consent of property
owners involved, which is the District ' s current policy.
R. Bishop said he favored the following eminent domain policies:
2 , 3a, 3c (with insertion of "by the owner" after the word "raised") ,
4a, 6 , and 9. He said the wording of 4a should be changed to
"Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an
occupied parcel [of 40 acres or less , except as provided in paragraph 8]
developed to its legal density. " He discussed the reasons as to his
choice of the 40-acre figure.
He said he supported items 7 and 8 for the Brown Act policy with a
letter of explanation going to everyone on the list; that the adopted
policy should provide that Closed Session discussions of property
must be announced in advance and the owner should be made aware of this
fact in advance.
He said he supported item 4a for acquisition of lands; and items 3 and
5 for annexation of lands with the word "shall" in item 5 being changed
to "may. "
H. Turner said he considers item 4a the centerpiece of the eminent
domain process and is willing to consider 4b. With regard to negotia-
tions or discussions, he said he liked item 3c with the change that
the subject "be raised by the landowner. " He said a printed brochure
should be prepared by the Board for use by staff and discussed why
items 9 and 10 were vital to both landowners and the District.
He supported items 4 , 7 and 8 for the Brown Act policy, stating that
item 4 could be implemented by starting a new list with the consent
of landowners with whom the staff is actively negotiating, with future
additions made at time of meeting prior to Closed Session.
He supported item 4b for annexation of lands , noting that if there is
LAFCO approved extension, then 5b should be followed. He stated that
item 6 should become the centerpiece of future master planning.
He favored items 1 , 3 and 6 for annexation of lands to the District.
K. Duffy stated that eminent domain alternatives 1 and 2 are the same
depending on the definition of a willing seller, which she discussed
in detail. She stated she is in favor of item 6 if land is unoccupied,
but only as a last resort. She said she would like to see item 3c
expanded to include a written Board-approved statement and not just a
threat from the negotiator, noting that all possible alternatives must
be explored with the landowner.
She said she was undecided as to what to do with the list in relation
to the Brown Act policy and that she did not want to let go of control
and/or communication which Board has over and with staff during
negotiations .
Meeting 85-15 Page Three
She supported items 3 and 4b as current policy for acquisition outside
the District, noting that item 6 is a general plan policy and should
include consultation with developed communities. She said she would
like to see the developed communities shown on the Master Plan map.
She indicated no changes were needed in annexation policies.
N. Hanko said she favored eminent domain alternatives 3a and 3c
including a Board approved written statement with a variety of informa-
tion; item 4a retaining legal density rather than 40 acres; item 4b
restraining use of eminent domain if the owner is living on the prop-
erty, noting the District could use eminent domain if someday owner
plans on subdividing; and item 5. She said she believes caution is
necessary in use of item 8; that the contract in item 9 should be
openended rather than for a definite 10 years; and that she favors
item 10 and likes the idea of use of arbitration.
She supported item 5 in relation to the Brown Act unless there is an
option on property at which time she would favor item 6 .?"' She also
believes wo;k should be done to foster new legislation to change the
Brown Act.4Jj-k c4Au�-_� >tb J4 -
She discussed why she favored items 3 , 4a and 54-relating to the
acquisition of lands and explained why item 7,1needs to include consul-
tation and planning with developed communities for trails .
She favored existing annexation policies with further consideration
given to item 6.
T. Henshaw supported items 3c, 9 and 10 for eminent domain policies,
noting she has problems with the language in item 6 as it relates
to willing sellers and areas where development can take place. She
said she could not support the use of eminent domain for the
acquisition of land to complete a trail.
She said she would like to try item 5b for a period of time for Brown
Act policies and favored item 7. She said she was not sure if item 8
was necessary.
She supported item 4a for acquisition policies but has problems with
item 7 regarding trails.
B. Additional and Shared Comments by Directors .
D. Wendin restated the following to be his views on eminent domain:
available for use on parcels subject to subdivision; provide for a
carve-out of legal lot around dwelling rather than set 40 acres as
recommended by R. Bishop; taking whole of unoccupied unsubdividable
land not to be allowed, however could apply for trail purpose;
contract should be openended and renewable; should not be used when
price is an issue.
He also stated he believes the best compromise for annexation of lands
to the District is item 6 under which the annexation would be initiated
by LAFCO. He noted the question of which LAFCO has jurisdiction for
an annexation needs to be addressed.
Meeting 85-15 Page Four
He does not believe spirit of the Brown Act was violated by issuing
the listing of property owners since it clearly indicates lands of
interest to District and should be retained. He said if land is
owner occupied and there is an adopted eminent domain policy, there
is no need to remove a name from the list unless requested by owner;
if unoccupied land, he might support removal of name by request
of the owner.
H. Turner stated that, in implementing the Brown Act, Closed Sessions
are inevitable and that items 4 and 5 should be followed.
D. Wendin asked how the Board would then instruct negotiators
regarding eminent domain procedures.
R. Bishop said it was his understanding that the Brown Act allows
discussions of land*in Closed Session without disclosing names of
the land owners. S. Norton concurred.,x 4.At etAud-i" -4 -
D. Wendin stated there was no advantage to revealing publicly parcels
under negotiation, that the Board would never be able to review all
parcels to establish relative priority analysis for acquisition of
lands, and that this would be a severe restraint. He said staff might
be encouraged to discuss possible acquisitions with the President or
a subcommittee of the Board, and that staff might be given too much
power in that case.
T. Henshaw stated that Closed Sessions were very frustrating because
of the time at which they were held. She questioned whether a sub-
committee of the Board could do preliminary acquisition work with
the staff. She said the names of parcels to be discussed in Closed
Session would have been put on an agenda and announced prior to the
public meeting, adding that if this procedure were followed, the
listing of property owners would not be needed. She stated she felt
that the listing of property owners circumvents the intent of the
Brown Act.
K. Duffy suggested that a simple solution would be to turn land
acquisition over completely to staff but she didn't believe this
would be right because the District is not that large and that the
Board needs to be involved in all acquisitions and needs to advise
staff. She concurred with D. Wendin' s statements regarding the Brown
Act.
R. Bishop reviewed his belief that the list should be withdrawn
because the public doesn't understand the intent of the list, that
what the District is doing is legal , but is not the public ' s concep-
tion of the Brown Act' s purpose. He said he could not favor T. Henshaw' s
recommendation of a committee advising the staff on acquisitions since
he felt that public wanted the entire Board to give direction to the
staff in land acqusition matters.
N. Hanko said she too was opposed to a committee working with staff
on acquisition matters. She suggested seeking a legislative change
to the current Brown Act. She said she would agree to item 5 with
staff seeking an option to purchase a piece of property and then
listing the owner' s name on the agenda.
Meeting 85-15 Page Five
D. Wendin opposed the option idea because it would leave the decision
of which parcels to purchase to staff, adding such decisions were
the Board' s responsibility.
C. Public Comments and Director Responses.
Robert Fisse questioned D. Wendin about illegally built structures
and development of a property to its full legal density. He said
eminent domain should not be used at all and that references to
legal density should be deleted.
David Leeson suggested that wording in item 4a be changed to read
"Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of
[any occupied property not subject to further subdivision] . "
Jim Warren expressed his concerns on the following issues: what
would policy be in relation to multiple owners; the definition of
a willing seller; and how to ensure that any policies adopted would
be permanent.
Larry Hassett said that the condemnation of a portion of a person ' s
property for a trail easement would have the same effect as condemning
a person' s entire property.
Carol Doose said she objected to the wording "or the adopted sphere
of influence" in items 4a and 4b of acquisition policies because
District has manipulated its boundaries through the sphere of influence.
She said that people living within the sphere of influence have had
no input and did not vote to create the District.
Janet Schwind reviewed the stance of the South Skyline Association
on eminent domain and the development of the District. She said the
list is a cloud of eminent domain hovering over a person' s property
and urged the Board to adopt totally non-coersive policies.
Beez Jones asked about the status of property under the Williamson
Act. She said that owners in areas other than Skyline were concerned
about the District' s activities, that 40 acres is not the right size
of owner occupied parcels for exclusion from eminent domain, that
city or county zoning laws could change and that it seemed as if
staff made decisions regarding which parcels to acquire by eminent
domain.
Charles Touchatt said the District should only buy from willing sellers ,
and that eminent domain should not be used to resolve a price differ-
ence. He said the listing of property owners , if realistic, should
be kept.
Robert Piety said he supported the Board' s interest regarding contracts
but was bothered by the 10 year limitation since property owners would
be apprehensive after 10 years in terms of contract renewal.
David Leeson said that people fear the Board because it has absolute
power, and that even if the list is an adequate way to implement the
Brown Act is it advantageous to retain because of the public 's initial
response. He questioned why priorities could not be discussed in
public and said it is his belief that the test of each policy will be
for the Board to adopt only those policies in which the Board foregoes
absolute power.
Meeting 85-15 Page Six
Jim Warren said, with respect to the idea of a contract, that
individuals should be compensated.
Richard Schwind expressed his fears of concept of continued use of
eminent domain by the District.
Tom Kavanaugh stated he felt the Board would not make any changes
of consequence.
Hans Morawitz said the Board should not give up its power of eminent
domain.
William Obermayer said the District should only buy land from willing
sellers, noting people would work with the District if this was the
policy. He said the District should not buy outside the District
boundaries, and a plan is needed for adding parcels to the District.
Sandra Touchatt said the District should buy only from willing sellers
and should not use eminent domain for trail purposes.
Robert Fisse said he was not in favor of retaining the list; however,
if it is kept it needs to be complete and accurate and parcel numbers
should be included. He said the District would run into great
opposition if eminent domain was used to acquire land.
D. Wendin urged Board members in favor of eliminating the list to
consider other alternatives to use.
N. Hanko said the Board had not come to any consensus on the use of
eminent domain for trail connections and that the Committee would do
more work on this item.
Discussion centered on what the Committee should be charged to do as follow-up
and what forthcoming Board actions would be. The Committee was directed to
meet and formulate consensus statements based upon the evening ' s discussions
for presentation to the Board, if possible, at the June 26 meeting. N. Hanko
noted she might need to be replaced on the Committee in the event the
Committee had more work to do after the June 26 meeting. D. Wendin stated
that he felt the Board should make it clear that they would not be adopting
policy at the June 26 meeting, adding that at least a second reading would
be necessary. He said the Board and public should have ample time to review
and think about the consensus statements presented by the Committee at the
June 26 meeting. T. Henshaw agreed with D. Wendin' s statements.
III . Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 10: 30 P.M.
Cecilia A. Cyrier
Secretary
CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF JUNE 12 , 1985
C) June 12, 1985
N. Hanko said the word "unless" should be changed to
"provided" and "at which time" should be changed to
"otherwise" in the fourth paragraph of Page Three, and
in the following paragraph, "5" be changed to "5b" and
"7" be changed to "6" .
N. Hanko questioned the accuracy of the minutes concerning
R. Bishop's statement of Page 4 , Paragraph 4 . Since R.
Bishop was not present at this time, H. Turner stated the
consensus of the Board that approval of the June 12 min-
utes would be held over until the next regular Board
meeting .
June 12, 1985
R. Bishop stated that the word "land" in his statement in the
fourth paragraph on Page Four should be substituted with the
words "proposed eminent domain proceedings." J. Fiddes noted
N. Hanko had requested at the June 26 meeting some additional
corrections to the June 12 minutes. These corrections were:
the word "unless" should be changed to "provided" and "at which
time" should be changed to "otherwise" in the fourth paragraph
of Page Three, and in the following paragraph, 'IS" be changed
to "5b" and "T' be changed to "6".
Motion: R. Bishop moved the approval of the June 12, 1985 workshop minutes
as amended. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed
5 to 0 with E. Shelley abstaining from the vote since he did
not attend the June 12 Special Meeting.