HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850626 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 85-16
A% dL
I Ida—:
is r
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JUNE 26 , 1985
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
Vice President Harry Turner called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Edward Shelley,
Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner and Richard Bishop (who arrived at
7 : 45 P .M. ) .
Member Absent: Teena Henshaw.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen,
Jean Fiddes , Michael Foster, James Boland, and Emma Johnson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A) May 22, 1985
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of May 22 ,
1985 . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed
6 to
B) June 5 , 1985
Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of June 5,
1985 . H. Turner seconded the motion. D. Wendin said
he would vote for approval even though absent from the
June 5 meeting. E. Shelley abstained because he was ab-
sent. The motion passed 5 to 0 .
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.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
E. Johnson stated the following communications were received:
1) Letters regarding the District' s eminent domain and acquisition
policies were received from: Hans Morawitz , President, Committee
for Green Foothills; George Norton of Palo Alto; Robert Piety of
Los Gatos; Dana Armstrong of Menlo Park; John Marden of San Jose;
Linda Fischman of Woodside; Jay Thorwaldson of La Honda; Merrill
Morshead, Jr. of Portola Valley; Thomas Harrington of Los Altos;
and Ruth Troetschler of Los Altos.
MROSD PRESERVES - ACREAGE, DEVELOPMENT LEVEL
Page Two Meeting 85-16
2) Walter and Marianne Kerl wrote to express appreciation for the
open space and work the District has done, and William Obermeyer
and 85 others signed a letter regarding relocation of the Quinn
family. Nat and Jan Sherrill of Woodside wrote to invite Board
and staff to a potluck picnic .
3) Phone messages regarding land acquisition policies were received
from Richard Vassar of Mountain View; Doctors Eva and Richard Blum
of Woodside; and Mike Roberts of San Francisco.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
H. Turner stated the amended agenda was adopted by Board consensus .
The Board agreed to hear Oral Communication after Item 1 .
V. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
1 . Acquisition Policies Pertaining to Use of Eminent Domain, Brown
Act Compliance , Sphere of Influence Boundary, and Annexation (re-
port R-85-30 dated June 20, 1985) - N. Hanko noted that page two
of the Committee ' s report R-85-36 had been revised.
K. Duffy proposed that eminent domain proceedings not be possible
outside the District' s planning area as part of the policy and the
modification of No. 1 in the draft policy to read "by the consent
of a majority of landowners . "
R. Bishop proposed that an objective standard be followed on the
one additional parcel exemption to condemnation so that the Board
does not have to make value judgments on speculative versus non-
speculative subdivisions. He suggested a holding period of owner-
ship could determine speculation.
D. Wendin said he favored the use of eminent domain in situations
that are clearly speculative and agreed that a trigger is required.
R. Bishop noted that the Committee favored a subdivision applica-
tion as the trigger. N. Hanko noted action of the Board to start
eminent domain depended on the landowner taking action if the
trigger concept were adopted.
Permanency of the eminent domain policy was discussed. Three possi-
bilities were proposed: 1) contract, 2) public vote, 3) legisla-
tion. R. Bishop suggested the contract be uniform,
permanent, and open-ended.
N. Hanko suggested that the duration and content of an agreement
could be decided at a later time if the Board agrees to the con-
cept of a contract and noted her disagreement with a provision
that the agreement become null and void if a city or county having
jurisdiction rezoned the property.
R. Bishop said that since all Directors agree that the District
should not use eminent domain against homeowners, the contract
should be an implement for using the policy for some degree of
permanency. He added there should be no time limit to the con-
tract, and it should be terminated if a homeowner filed for a
subdivision.
D. Wendin said it appeared to him that a clear consensus of the
Board is to retain the right of eminent domain for some cases in-
volving subdivision of property. He reiterated that there is a
need for some degree of permanence, that it should be open-ended
and unilateral .
Page Three Meeting 85-16
N. Hanko said she supported the open-ended concept.
The Board agreed to a straw vote on the main issue of the eminent
domain consideration.
PROPOSITION: Should undeveloped, presumably not dividable land,
be immune from eminent domain if it is held for
longer than a period of time with some sort of trig-
ger that makes it eligible?
VOTE: Yes - 5
No - 1
K. Duffy, referring to 2 (a) of the draft eminent domain policy,
said the subdivision of a piece of land would be a matter of judg-
ment and speculative subdivisions could be criticaL. 4
N. Hanko noted an amendment could change 2 (a) of the/draft eminent
domain policy to read "create one additional parcel" rather than
"more than one additional parcel" .
K. Duffy said she would like the Board to make a judgment on
whether such subdivision is related to speculation or family need.
R. Bishop stated an objective standard should be used because of
the difficulty of establishing motives. H. Turner said the Board
cannot use its time to inquire into aspects of the transactions.
D. Wendin suggested that a holding period be considered as proof
that the owner is not a speculator and that the Board should estab-
lish a method for owners to divide property for family use and pre-
serve single family lots that are not occupied.
PROPOSITION: Should a division that adds just one more lot be im-
mune (from eminent domain) ? VOTE: Yes - 3 ; No - 3 .
R. Bishop explained that even though a subdivision application
would ordinarily trigger the possibility of eminent domain, there
would be an exception for the division of a property into two lots
but that such a division could take place only once in a ten-year
period.
E. Shelley said one problem would be acquiring land for trail con-
nections because the District may not be able to get critical trail
connections over large parcels of undeveloped property if a sub-
division application were not filed and it would have to be volun-
tary.
D. Wendin said he would not support a policy of using eminent do-
main for a trail connection unless the property is subject to the
use of eminent domain.
E. Shelley noted trail connections that are far enough away from
the owner' s residence may be possible.
K. Duffy noted that using eminent domain for a trail connection
would be used only as a last resort.
N. Hanko stated her position that whether the parcel is improved
or unimproved, a very important trail connection may be desirable
on a parcel that is large where a 20 foot trail or trail along a
major road could be a great distance away from a dwelling.
PROPOSITION: Would the District use eminent domain for a trail
connection on an undeveloped, not dividable parcel
Page Four Meeting 85-16
that has been held for less than the holding period.
VOTE : Yes - 2
No - 4
Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, said that implementation of
any adopted policies could be done by Board ordinance, subject to
notification of all landowners by certified mail if it is changed.
Mary Ann Mark, 609 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, suggested that if land
is subdividable, it should be subject to eminent domain.
Robert McKim, 864 Cedro Way, Stanford, asked if contracts would be
transferable to buyer. N. Hanko said that item 4 of the draft
agreement discussed transferability of a contract.
Sylvia Ferguson, 707 Continental Circle, Mountain View, reported
statistics that East Bay Regional Park District used eminent do-
main for trail purposes three times in their 50-year existence.
Vince Garrod, 22600 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga, said the power of
eminent domain should be retained and used with good judgment.
Ernest Goytine of Atherton stated his support of the right to use
eminent domain.
Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Road, Los Gatos, representing the
area 's Homeowners ' Association, said residents are trying to keep
their lands in open space, but added there is danger of further
subdivision. She favored the District keeping its full powers of
eminent domain.
Janet Schwind, representing the South Skyline Association, noted
the Association ' s reponses to the Eminent Domain Committee' s report
of June 20 : too complicated to understand; occupied parcels that
are subdividable are more threatened than unoccupied parcels that
are subdividable; use of eminent domain for trails would be misuse
of that power. Referring to the draft policy on eminent domain,
she said the Association favors option l (c) or 2, adding that if
the list is retained, all those listed should be informed that they
are on the list and given the opportunity to be deleted. The Asso-
ciation favored contracts but noted the "etc. " in the draft needs
to be defined or eliminated; agreement should be open-ended; and
item l (b) should be eliminated. The Association would like assur-
ance that all annexations will take place with permission of the
property owners, and that respective LAFCOs will be so informed of
the policy. She submitted a proposed District Land Acquisition
Policy which explained the use of eminent domain.
George Norton, a resident of Skyline Boulevard and a member of the
South Skyline Association, speaking for himself and 90 of his
neighbors , said that the District should not give up powers of
eminent domain when it is necessary, adding that it be used judi-
ciously.
William Obermeyer of Portola Park Heights noted that condemnation
also occurs when the District imposes public road use on property
owners ' access easements without compensation.
Paul Storaasli, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, stated his
opposition to the use of eminent domain when a clear definable
need cannot be given, urged a holding period, and noted zoning
changes are beyond the landowner ' s control .
Page Five Meeting 85-16
Mark Evanoff urged the Board not to give up its power of
eminent domain, which is a useful tool.
Christine Pemberton, 18556 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga questioned the
philosophy of "more is better" and discussed the difference between
private and public ownership.
Roy Eaton, 155 Swett Road, Woodside stated his opposition to the
use of eminent domain in category D of the draft policy and to the
concept of a holding period since it is not valid proof of intent.
Barbara Green, representing Committee for Green Foothlls , said
eminent domain is a special tool that should not be discarded and
that the Board should not limit itself too much. She expressed
concern that the trigger concept could lead to "game playing" .
Jay Thorwaldson, Star Route 2 , Box 185 , La Honda, noted the broad
impact of the Board 's decisions. He stated his concern about
contracts, urging that the wording be simple and noted the contract
precluded trail easement options where it may be needed. He said
that he was concerned about the Board tying the hands of future
Boards, noting this was a reason for voters to determine the
policy involved.
Bob Fisse, Star Route 2 , Box 310 , La Honda, said Skyline residents
need the District and want to see it succeed, but questioned its
success using present land policies. He said eminent domain is
seen as a weapon by the residents and that the District has many
other tools.
John Anderson, Skyline Boulevard, said he is against the use of
eminent domain for small parcels , but thinks large developments
are a threat and eminent domain could be useful.
Jim McCann, 1816 Park Avenue, #7 , San Jose, stated eminent domain
should be used judiciously and is central to the continuing work
of the District.
Lynn Ericson of Los Altos stated he favored eminent domain use
and that public pressure is a valid control for the misuse of that
power.
Don Aitkin, 20100 Skyline Boulevard, Woodside, said the Board
should be prepared to use eminent domain in the public interest.
Beez Jones , 16891 Stevens Canyon Road , Cupertino, said five Board
members can make the final decision on instituting eminent domain
proceedings and suggested another body make the approval. She
suggested the reference to city and county zoning in l (b) of
the draft agreement be deleted since it is out of the owners ' con-
trol, She noted many property owners are under the Williamson Act
and those properties should be exempt from the use of eminent domain.
Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, 94062 , stated that filing a
formal subdivision application is not necessarily costly.
N. Hanko said she would like the Board to make some tentative
approval during the present meeting and to have a formal vote when
all Board members are present. Discussion focused on whether the
Board members were prepared to take any formal action.
Page Six Meeting 85-16
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Committee be directed to revise
the proposed policy and return at a meeting where all
Board members are present. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop said the Committee had not been
given direction by the Board on the question of a subdi-
vision application being a trigger and asked for a straw
vote.
The motion on the floor passed 5 to 1 with N. Hanko
voting no.
PROPOSITION: Would the District forego the power of eminent domain
until a subdivision application is filed in the case
where a major subdivision can be built from a lot
split? "K
VOTE : Yes - 5
No - 1
H. Turner appointed D. Wendin to replace N. Hanko on the Eminent
Domain Committee during her absence. The Board concurred with
H. Turner's appointment.
J. Thorwaldson pointed out that the Committee is now a serial
committee and that meetings must be open to the public.
The Committee members agreed to meet in public at 7 :30 P.M. July 1
at the District office.
The Board concurred to attempt to have all Board members present
when a final vote is taken on the eminent domain policy.
H. Turner stated the Board ' s consensus that the Committee be asked
to look at Brown Act policies again and modify them based on
comments received in tonight' s meeting. He agreed that the Board
would address the Brown Act policy and the other policies at its
next meeting and then refer them back to Committee.
The Board recessed at 10 : 30 P.M. and reconvened at 10 :45 P.M.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
William Obermeyer, Portola Park Heights , requested the District make
some written response to the Portola Park Heights Homeowners ' Associa-
tion's requests concerning public use of the road through Long Ridge
to their community. H. Grench reported that the District' s Legal
Counsel has begun to address the legal questions and has gathered
the information but has not completed necessary research. He said
until an alternate trail alignment is completed, the map of the area
will be changed so that it does not show a trail along the road.
D. Hansen said the question of signing must be addressed by Legal
Counsel because of liability, but added he favors signing at the road
warning hikers of vehicles on the road.
R. Bishop proposed expediting as a priority a new trail so the road
would not be used by hikers.
Candice Stone, President of the Homeowners ' Association said that
signing and liability are major issues to them.
W. Obermeyer asked that signs be posted at the gate warning hikers that
the road is closed. H. Grench reiterated that Legal Counsel must review
the signing which is a very technical problem.
Page Seven Meeting 85-16
D. Wendin stated he would like staff to find an interim solution to
minimize liability issues and report back to the Board at the next
regular meeting. H. Turner asked that staff assess resources available
and feasibility of targeting a date for resolution of the issue.
N. Hanko said that in addition to the short term solutions , long term
solutions should be moving forward.
Due to the lateness of the hour, H. Turner announced with the Board' s
concurrence, that the following agenda items would be continued to
the Board' s next regular meeting:
Brooks Trail Addition to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve; Considera-
tion of Letter from Palo Alto Encouraging Opposition to AB 2198; and
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Termination of Communication Lease.
VII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (Continued)
2 . Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the
Ridpeninsula Regional Open Space District for 1985-1986 Fiscal
Year (Memorandum M-85-100 dated June 19 , 1985)
H. Grench stated the items in the plan that are subject to new emi-
nent domain Policies have been marked with asterisks.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt the Action Plan for
the implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Open Space District for the 1985-1986 Fiscal
Year contained in the staff report. E. Shelley seconded
the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
1. Presentation of 1985-1986 Salary Survey and Adoption of New Salary
Ranges (Report R-85-28 dated June 17 , 1985)
H. Grench summarized his report concerning the 1985-1986 salary
survey and outlined the reasons he was recommending the Board
approve a five point (5.1%) across-the-board increase for General
Manager appointees effective July 1 . He noted that no changes in
the internal relationship of District positions were being recom-
mended at this time , but added the Open Space Management staffing
study was currently in progress .
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve a 5 point across-
the-board salary increase for General Manager appointees
effective July 1 , 1985 by adopting the Salary Pay Plan
Table. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed
6 to 0.
2 . Acceptance of Insurance Bid Coverage for 1985-1986 (Report R-85-35
dated June 21 , 1985 and Memorandum M-85-103 dated June 26 , 1986)
J. Fiddes provided updated price quotations to replace figures
in the memorandum M-85-103 , noting the umbrella liability quote
should be $7 ,539 .25 and public entity difference-in-conditions
quote should be $5 ,349 . 20 , making a total insurance quotation of
$44,623.95 . She added that the great increases in premiums are
due to uncertain market for public agencies. She introduced Skip
McIntyre of Flinn, Gray & Herterich who noted that it is difficult
to obtain coverage for public entities and congratulated the Dis-
trict on its excellent liability managemenL' and claims record.
Page Eight Meeting 85-16
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board accept the bid of
$44 ,623.95 from Flinn, Gray & Herterich, based on the
quotations from INA, General Accident, Chubb, St. Paul
Surplus , and Great American insurance companies for the
District insurance coverage for 1985-1986 . R. Bishop
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0 .
3. Adoption of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 (Reports
R-85-34 dated June 21, 1985, R-85-31 dated June 20 , 1985 , and
)2-8.5-32 dated June 20 , 1985)
H. Grench noted that the budget presented is only preliminary and
will maintain the status quo until the Open Space Management Budget
Guidelines are reviewed and approved by the Board. He added that
he may request approval for additions to the field staff before
fall and noted a large increase in the number of planning and
development projects.
H. Grench said the land acquisition budget is similar to the current
year' s
e s $5 million budget and normal growth is reflected inthe
Public Communications Program budget. He added the General Admini-
stration budget reflects the very large item of moving to new
office space.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-33 ,
a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin-
sula Regional open Space District Adopting Preliminary
Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 . R. Bishop seconded
the motion.
Discussion: H. Turner, who was an alternate on the Budget
Committee, presented the Committee ' s recommendations
including adopting the proposed preliminary budget as a
temporary working budget, encouraging the General Manager
to request authorization to hire contingency personnel
which may be necessary to facilitate new projects and
the field maintenance contained in the budget, requesting
the Budget Committee continue meeting to evaluate and
make recommendations on possible changes in the Land
Management budget guidelines which would include a format
for a multi-year capital improvements program and evalua-
tion of expenditures not counted against current guidelines,
review and make recommendations on the revised budget
which will be before the Board upon completion of the
Land Management Staffing Study, and requesting that every
effort be made by staff and Budget Committee to complete
these tasks by the first of the year.
M. Foster, District Controller, said he did not anticipate
any cash flow problems and would not be recommending any
note issuance.
H. Grench stated that the target date for submitting
the amended budget to the Board would be by the end of
the 1985 calendar year.
The motion passed 6 to 0 .
Page Nine Meeting 85-16
4 . Annual Claims List for 1985-1986 (Report R-85-29 dated June 18 ,
1985)
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board approve the Annual Claims
List included in the staff report. E. Shelley seconded
the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve Revised Claims
85-12 of June 26 , 1985 . R. Bishop seconded the motion. The
motion passed 6 to 0 .
X. CLOSED SESSION
H. Grench stated that no litigation matters would be discussed during
the Closed Session. The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 11:55 P.M.
XI . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 :05 A.M. Thursdav, June 27 , 1985 .
Emma Johnson
Secretary
a 4
CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26 , 1985
B) June 26 , 1985
D. Wendin stated that the motion to approve the minutes
of May 22, 1985 passed 5 to 0 , not 6 to 0 .
K. Duffy said that Page 3 , Paragraph 4 should read "K.
Duffy said that whether or not to use eminent domain on
the subdivision would be a matter of judgement. "
D. Wendin said the proposition on Page 6 should be correc-
ted to state: "Would the District forego the power of
eminent domain until a subdivision application is filed
for a major subdivision?"
Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the minutes of July 26 ,
1985 as amended. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4 to 0 .
Meeting 85-17 Page Two
ted to state: "Would the District forego the power of
eminent domain until a subdivision application is filed
for a major subdivision?"
Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the minutes of July 26 ,
1985 as amended. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4 to 0.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Board concurred with T. Henshaw' s recommendation that the order of
the agenda be changed so that items two through four of Old Business
with Action Requested be considered before Written and Oral Communica-
tions since these items had been continued from the June 26 meeting.
H. Grench noted that the Brooks agenda item included the adoption of a
resolution. The amended agenda was adopted by Board consensus.
V. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
1 . Brooks Trail Addition to Fremont older Open Space Preserve (Report
R-85-33 dated June 20 , 1985) - C. Britton reviewed the staff report
and the terms of the proposed agreement with Silver Dove Associates.
D. Wendin asked for clarification of Item 4 concerning the trail
easement being open immediately to the public and not waiting until
Santa Clara County agrees to a future trail connection over County
property. C. Britton stated that the easement could be utilized as
a public trail, but that staff was recommending the District not
share in the maintenance of the trail at this time. He noted the
trail would deadend until it is connected to the County Park. Dis-
cussion centered on whether or not the trail should be a stub trail
or closed to the public until the County agrees to a trail connection.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 85-34 , a Resol-
ution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District, Authorizing Acceptance of Agreement,
Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of
Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Exe-
cute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to
Closing of the Transaction (Fremont Older Open Space Pre-
serve - Lands of Silver Dove Associates) . K. Duffy seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4 to 0 .
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the real property interests be named
as an addition to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and
that these interests be dedicated. T. Henshaw seconded the
motion. The motion passed 4 to 0 .
Staff was directed by Director Wendin to return with an informational
report or agenda item addressing the issue of public access, or lack
thereof, to the trail easement across the rear of the Silver Dove
Associates property.
2. Consideration of Letter from City of Palo Alto Encouraging opposition
to AB 2198 (Memorandum M-85-101 , of June 20, 1985, and M-85-105, of
July 2 , 1985) - H. Grench reviewed the current status of Assembly
Bill 21984,1 noting the bill had been put on inactive file status by
the author. He stated that if the Board agrees to the recommendation
as proposed, it would be given a "C" priority which would mean that
the District ' s lobbyist would be informed and letters would be
Meeting 85-17 Page Three
written, at appropriate times , to the relevant Assembly committees
and District representatives. It was noted that in memorandum
M-85-101 the introductory paragraph incorrectly used the word
"approve" rather than "oppose" .
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board direct the General Manager
to prepare a draft letter in opposition to AB 2198 for the
President to be sent by staff to the District ' s representa-
tives and the appropriate committees and designating a "C"
priority. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4 to 0 .
3 . Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Termination of Communication
Lease (Memorandum M-85-102 , dated June 20 , 1985) - C. Britton re-
viewed staff' s memorandum and noted that demolition of the building
on the site would cost approximately $1000; since this project's
cost was not included in the current budget, the building ' s demoli-
tion would not occur during the 1985-1986 fiscal year.
Motion: E. Shelley moved to authorize the President of the Board
to sign the Termination of Lease agreement on behalf of
the District. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4 to 0 .
VI . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
D. Smith stated that the Board had received the following written commun-
ications:
1) letters regarding development of Russian Ridge from: Jeff Bergman,
of Woodside; Sandy Hope and Jeff Scott, of Woodside; Muriel J. King,
of San Jose; Alan Sweger, of Sunnyvale; and Susan Bryan, of Palo
Alto;
2) letters pertaining to land acquisition policies and eminent domain
from: Thomas Godien, of Redwood City; Robert A. Piety, of Los Gatos;
David C. Bomberger, of Belmont; George Norton, of Palo Alto; and
Janet Schwind, President, South Skyline Association;
3) letter from Walter S. Ferenz , Half Moon Bay, regarding Purisima
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan;
4) letter from Jim McCann, of the Loma Prieta Chapter of Sierra Club,
commending the District on its accomplishments:
5) letter from Donald W. McMurchie, Administrator of California Special
Districts Association, inviting the District to become a member of
Program CSDA;
6) letter from Dick Bullis, La Honda, regarding Quinta Ranch; and
7) a letter, submitted to the Board at its June 26 meeting by Portola
Park Heights Property Owners Association regarding use of the
Portola Heights access road.
T. Henshaw stated that the Board would be considering the letter from
the Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association under Item 7 of
the agenda.
VII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Beez Jones, 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, questioned the sub-
scription rates quoted in the last issue of Openspace. J. Fiddes said
Meeting 85-17 Page Four
rates printed were incorrect and new minute and agenda subscribers have
been advised of the correct rates .
Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, asked the Board to consider clos-
ing the less accessible Preserves until the fire season is over. He
requested that the major Skyline Area community associations be placed
on the mailing list, without charge, for Board packet materials, noting
this would be an appropriate good neighbor action. T. Henshaw said this
request would be considered under the "Good Neighbor" program item which
the Board would consider at a future date. R. Fisse ex-oressed support for
Mr. Warren' s second request, and B. Jones suggested the full packet also
be mailed to the Santa Clara and San Mateo Board of Supervisors.
D. Hansen responded to Mr. Warren 's request to closing of the Preserves
during the fire season noting that most of the Preserve users are very
responsible and become additional eyes and ears for the District.
VIII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (continued)
Interim Solution of Long Ridge Road Use Conflicts (Report R-85-37 , dated
July 51 1985) - D. Hansen reviewed the report which included an interim
solution and a proposed timetable to resolve issues associated with the
road. T. Henshaw said she agrees with the long term solution as stated
in the report, but expressed her concerns regarding the use of cautionary
signing. D. Hansen stated staff was proposing to place cautionary signs
at the beginning of the road and at crucial points along the road.
Several Portola Heights residents, including Bill Sorich, Candace Stone,
and Charles Touchatt, expressed their views pertaining to proposed solu-
tions presented in the staff report. B. Sorich discussed alternate
trail routes . C. Stone said that if the Board made a decision to rea-
lign the trail , the map notation should state "Trail Under Construction, "
omitting the word "realignment" as noted on the map. She stated that a
legal question had been raised concerning a private road being turned
into a public road, and she said the trail should be closed until the
legal question had been addressed. She said she would like to see signs
posted saying the trail is closed to the public, and also that the per-
manent signs be established by the July 24 Board meeting. She asked the
Board to establish a deadline of December 31 , 1985 for relocating trails
to resolve the road problems.
C. Touchatt stated that liability insurance for area residents increased
significantly and he believes that the public use of the road as a trail
had had some effect on the insurance rates. He asked that the District
reconsider its policy not to allow area residents to put their own lock
on the Jikoji gate.
D. Hansen gave background information on rights over the road and said
that two years ago when the subject of road rights was considered it
was established that there were no legal easements.
William Obermayer said he felt it was illegal for the District to turn
the road into a public trail and requested a response to the letter the
Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association had sent several months
ago regarding the District ' s insurance coverage.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the proposed interim solution and
-timetable to the Long Ridge Road problem as contained in
the report be approved with the change that the wording
for the cautionary sign be on the agenda for the July 24
meeting, that the cautionary sign date be changed to Au-
Meeting 85-17 Page Five
gust 3 , and that the wording for the map be changed to
"trail to be realigned" . E. Shelley seconded the motion.
D. Wendin added to the motion, with the approval of the
second , that since this is an emergency item the Board
waive the necessity for a second reading . The motion
passed 4 to 0 .
IX. OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
Further Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding use of
Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments , Acquisi-
tion of Lands Outside District Boundaries, and Annexation (Memorandum
M-85-108 , dated July 3 , 1985) - D . Wendin , on behalf of the Eminent
Domain Policy Committee, reviewed the two proposed versions for the
eminent domain and Brown Act implementation policies. He said the com-
mittee had attempted to deal with the word "central" in the preamble
and had changed it to "necessary" and for consistency purposes the
Committee had used the word "property" rather than "parcels" . He said
the Committee had not had time to come to grips with the Brown Act, but
had worked on rewording to clarify the issues .
T. Henshaw stated that it was the consensus of the Board not to take
final action on any of the proposed policies until all seven members of
the Board are present.
D. Wendin reviewed the draft proposals for Land Acquisition Policies and
noted that Version 1 was intended to be the more conservative of the
two, noting it is only liberal in the sense that it includes a trigger
mechanism before eminent domain can be used and allows acquisition of
trails by eminent domain only if the property would otherwise be sub-
ject to eminent domain. He said that the key policy statement in Ver-
sion 1 is stated on Page 1 , paragraph 4 : "Eminent domain shall not be
used to acquire all or any part of an improved property that is not sus-
ceptible to further subdivision. "
In presenting Version 2 of Land Acquisition Policies , D. Wendin said the
attempt was to build in the concept of the long-term owned parcel and
the lots split. The only difference between Version 1 and 2 is the con-
cept of the exemption of lots split and single lots that have been held
for a period of time and not for speculation. He noted that the Commit-
tee reached the conclusion that Board members were reluctant to give up
the power of eminent domain regarding property held for speculation;
but, the Committee recognized that the Board might want to maintain the
standard of a holding period on lots split.
K. Duffy suggested that thought be given to situations where the Dis-
trict could be involved in negotiations or discussions with a property
owner and subsequently applied for a grant only to have the owner change
his mind.
Several members of the audience, including Charles Touchatt, of Redwood
City, William Obermayer of La Honda, Gordon Jennings of Woodside, and
Cherry Langrock, of Woodside, addressed the Board. Referring to Ver-
sion 1 , C. Touchatt asked for clarification of the phrase "not suscep-
tible to further subdivision. " D. Wendin replied that the trigger
mechanism would be applied only if an application were filed for sub-
division. Mr. Jennings asked about family compounds where illegal sub-
divisions could be made by quit claim deed. Mrs . Langrock asked if a
parcel of property large enough to be divided between children as an
inheritance could be a trigger for the use of eminent domain. D. Wen-
Meeting 85-17 Page Six
din stated that it would. Robert Fisse questioned whether land with a
campground or a motorcycle parked on it would be considered unimproved.
Several members of the audience requested that terminology, including
area, District lands , and preserves, be clarified.
D. Wendin noted that no substantial changes were made to the proposed
Brown Act policies, but that terms were defined and language made more
consistent. He said that one discussion by the Committee pertained to
how to present an option of total withdrawal from the list. He said
the Committee had discussed two options : 1) withdraw the list; 2) have
the list but decide what the list is to be. He added that the language
was made more precise in paragraphs 2 , 3 and 4 of the proposed imple-
mentation policies for the Brown Act.
T. Henshaw proposed that the Board discuss its reaction to the remaining
three proposed policies at the next Regular Meeting and the Board mem-
bers concurred with her proposal .
X. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
1 . Thornewood Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan Review
(Report R-85-36 , dated July 5 , 1985) - D. Hansen introduced the re-
port, noting that Thornewood is an unemphasized site and, as such,
is presented on a semi-annual basis. D. Woods showed slides of the
Preserve, some of which showed the extensive work which has been
done on the exterior of the house. He noted that the interior re-
storation work has been substantially completed. Tom Gano, the
leaseholder of the Thornewood house, gave a review of the restora-
tion work he is doing on the buildings . He noted that it was neces-
sary to move to Category 2 building projects before completing all
the Category 1 projects in order to replace the foundation on a
collapsing building. He said that the parking lot is a major con-
cern to him and proposed the creation of another entrance to the
property 30-50 feet east of the existing gate. He said this alter-
nate gate would preserve the integrity of the present gate and pro-
vide security to the lease area. Mr. Gano proposed permits be
issued for the use of the parking area to control the small parking
area available. He said they would also like to review the text of
any signs to be used and the placement of those signs on the lease-
hold area. D. Woods advised that a permit system had been proposed
in the Use and Management Plan under consideration at this meeting.
Following Board discussion on the merits of T. Gano's proposals, D.
Hansen said staff would like to evaluate the suggestions in order to
bring back proposals for the second reading.
Staff was directed to return the Use and Management Plan for its
second reading once the Grandview and Espinosa Road maintenance
agreement was completed, unless there were extensive delays in
completing the agreement.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the tentative adoption of the Revised Use
and Management Plan recommendations as contained in the
report. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion was
passed 4 to 0 .
2 . Request to Aid Funding of Radar Gun for Skyline Boulevard Traffic
Control (Memorandum M-85-109 , dated July 5 , 1985) - D. Hansen re-
viewed the memorandum, noting the District was concerned about the
Meeting 85-17 Page Seven
safety of visitors to the area. He said Nat Sherrill was the South
Skyline representative on the matter.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the District contribute a maximum of
$1000 to acquire a radar gun for the California Highway
Patrol in conjunction with other Skyline Boulevard groups
and individuals to aid in bettering public safety along
the Skyline Boulevard corridor provided the South Skyline
Association requests contributions from Santa Clara and
San Mateo Counties, the Kings Mountain Association, and
other Skyline Boulevard groups . The motion was seconded
by D. Wendin. The motion passed 4 to 0 .
3 . Schedule of Special Meeting for July 15 (Memorandum M-85-107 ,
dated July 2 , 1985) - H. Grench noted that two land acquisition items
are forthcoming and one is ready for Board action which will require
five votes of the Board to approve the agreement.
Motion: E. Shelley moved to set a Special Meeting of the Board for
Monday, July 15 to consider potential land acquisition, with
closed session to follow. D. Wendin seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4 to 0 .
XI . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench said he has been working with Paul Scannell of San Mateo County
to set up a meeting with the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County
and Board members . At this time it would appear that the meeting would
occur at the District office sometime in September.
D. Hansen announced that during the time the Board had been in session ,
two fires had been set in Stevens Canyon and had been extinguished by
the Stevens Creek Volunteer Fire Department assisted by District ran-
gers .
XII . CLAIMS
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve the Revised Claims 85-13
of July 10 , 1985 . E . Shelley seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4 to 0 .
XIII . CLOSSD SESSION
H. Grench stated that no litigation matters would be discussed during
the Closed Session. The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 10 :42 P.M.
T. Henshaw reconvened the meeting briefly to appoint K. Duffy Secretary
Pro-Tempore. The meeting was adjourned at Closed Session at 10: 43 P .M.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 : 30 A.M. , Thursday, July 11 , 1985 .
Doris Smith
Secretary
CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF JULY 10 , 1985
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A July lO , 1985
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of July 10 ,
1985 . D. Wendin seconded the motion.
Discussion : D. Wendin requested that the minutes actually
indicate that Assembly Bill 2198 referred to at the bottom
of Page 2 concerned the disposition of surplus school
properties .
The motion passed 4 to 0 , with R. Bishop, H. Turner, and
N. Hanko abstaining because they were absent from the
July 10 meeting.