Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850814 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 85-21 law Vill. or IVI is 'Wr MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-11,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUGUST 14 , 1985 MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 7 :10 P.M. Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, Teena Henshaw, and Edward Shelley. Richard Bishop arrived at 7 : 13 P .M. , Daniel Wendin arrived at 7 :20 P.M. , and Harry Turner arrived at 7 :34 P.M. Personnel Present During the Meeting: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Jean Fiades , Stanley Norton, James Boland, Del Woods , Joyce Nicholas , Mary Gundert, and Emma Johnson. II. CLOSED SESSION The Board recessed to Closed Session to discuss litigation matters falling under subdivisions (b) (1) and (b) (2) of Government Code Section 54956.9. The Board reconvened to Public Session at 8 :00 P.M. T. Henshaw stated with the Board 's concurrence that the proposed Closs acquisition and the Special Order of the Day would be the first agenda items to be considered. There was no objection. III. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Proposed Closs Property Acquisition to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Report R-85-21 dated August 6 , 1985) C. Britton stated the District has been offered the opportunity to buy a 2. 5 acre parcel adjacent to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve for $160 ,000 , and that an adjoining site is being donated to Peninsula Open Space Trust. He added that the sellers had re- quested the land not be built upon and that it remain open space. D. Woods stated that interim use and management plans included boundary signing and investigation of the feasibility of gating the dirt road into High Meadow Stables to restrict illegal vehicle entry into the Preserve. Mr. and Mrs. Closs , who were present at the meeting, expressed their satisfaction with the proposed use of the property. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-37 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, Authorizing officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary to Closing of the Transaction (Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve - Closs 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.Wendin Meeting 85-21 1. Page two K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board tentatively adopt the Interim Use and Management Plan recommendations con- tained in staff report, name the property as an addition to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve , and indicate its intention to dedicate the property as open space. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . IV. SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY A. Award for District's Docent Program (Memorandum M-85-119 dated August 8 , 1985) H. Grench reported that the Friends of Parks and Recreation Award for the District's Docent Program had been awarded by the National Association of County Park and Recreation officials and noted this was the first national award received by the District. President T. Henshaw accepted the award in behalf of the Board and presented it to ten-year docent Doug Erskine and Docent Program Coordinator Joyce Nicholas. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 10 , 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. B. July 24 , 1985 Motion: D. Wendin moved the approval of the minutes of July 24 , 1985. R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin noted that the vote on the motion at the top of Page 8 should be 5 to 0 , and T. Henshaw con- firmed that she did not vote against the motion. S. Norton requested his name be added to the list of personnel present at the meeting. William Obermeyer, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, Box 16 , La La Honda, stated the minutes did not reflect D. Wendin' s statement regarding sections of the Long Ridge Road being dangerous. D. Wendin stated he was satisfied with the sense of the minutes as presented. E. Shelley suggested the minutes be tabled to give D. Wendin an opportunity to listen to the meeting tapes to determine if he felt additions should be made to the minutes. Meeting 85-21 1 Page three Motion to Table : E. Shelley moved that the minutes of July 24 be tabled until D. Wendin had an opportunity to review tapes of the meeting and that they be presented for approval at the next meeting at which D. Wendin is present. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin noted his opposition to the motion, stating he felt Mr. Obermeyer was trying to have the minutes reflect statements that were supportive of Mr. Obermeyer' s position regarding the Long Ridge Road. D. Wendin said he was not willing to listen to the meeting tape, explained that the minutes were not verbatim minutes and said they should reflect the Board' s action at the meeting, not one Board member's opinion. R. Bishop noted that unless there is a challenge to the accuracy of the minutes as presented, they should remain as presented. The vote to table the minutes failed to pass by a vote of 5 to 2 . Ayes : E. Shelley and T. Henshaw. Noes : K. Duffy, D. Wendin, N . Hanko, R. Bishop and H. Turner. Mr. Obermeyer said the Portola Park Heights Homeowners ' Association was unclear whether the Long Ridge Road is private or public due to the District' s response and S . Norton replied that his legal opinion was included in the meeting' s packet material. Mr. Obermeyer requested that the minutes reflect that Mr. Touchatt had challenged the statement that hikers were not interferring with the Homeowners ' easement rights . Mr. Touchatt subsequently agreed that the statement attributed to him on page five of the minutes was acceptable to him. The motion to approve the minutes passed 5 to 0 with H. Turner and N. Hanko abstaining because they had been absent at the July 24 meeting. VI . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS E. Johnson stated the Board had received written communications from the following : 1) George Henry of Portola Valley regarding District acquisition priorities; 2) Peninsula Open Space Trust regarding the Skyline Ridge Master Plan implementation; 3) Candace Stone of the Portola Park Heights Homeowners ' Association regarding the Portola Heights Road ; 4) Robert Zatkin of Woodside expressing opposition to a backpack camp at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve; 5) Richard and Eva Blum of Woodside regarding eminent domain and development on Russian Ridge; and 6) Lawrence Hankland of La Honda concerning development on Russian Ridge. Meeting 85-21 Page four Phone calls were received from the following: 1) Annie Urbach of Palo Alto concerning development on Russian Ridge and eminent domain; 2) B.L. Lewis of Woodside regarding eminent domain policies and development on Russian Ridge; 3) Wanda Alexander concerning eminent domain; and 4) Jean Rusmore of Menlo Park concerning trails and backpack camp at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Jay Thorwaldson and Jim Warren presented a letter to the Board regarding a proposed eminent domain ordinance. T. Henshaw noted the letters pertaining to agenda items would be con- sidered during the appropriate agenda item. She referred the other letters and phone messages to staff. N . Hanko requested a clarification regarding the disposition of the letter from the Peninsula Open Space Trust. T . Henshaw replied that she, K. Duffy and R. Bishop had met with POST representatives . She said that the Board had discussed the matter at the previous Board meeting and that she would brief N. Hanko. VII. ADOPTION OF AGENDA T. Henshaw stated the amended agenda was adopted by Board consensus . VIII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS R. Fisse of the South Skyline Association asked why the Brown Act listing of property owners and related map were not posted on the wall. H. Grench responded that there is no District policy to display the material permanently, but that the items are available to the public for review upon request. Candace Stone requested that communications and information for the Portola Park Heights Homeowners ' Association be sent to her as soon as possible and asked staff to call her so she could pick up such items at the District office . General discussion followed regarding the mailing of meeting packets and problems associated with mail delivery. T. Henshaw requested the subject be included in a future agenda item concerning various Dis- trict procedures . IX. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Tentative Policy Decisions Regarding Use of Eminent Domain, Imple- mentation of Brown Act Amendments , Acquisition of Land Outside District Boundaries and Annexation (Memorandum M-85-120 dated August 8 , 1995) D. Wendin suggested that the concept of a contract should be dis- cussed prior to review and discussion of the draft policies . Discussion centered on whether there should be a contract in addi- tion to or instead of a trigger and whether the concept of a con- tract is appropriate. R. Bishop agreed with D. Wendin that the contract concept should be discussed. He said the Eminent Domain Policy Committee needed Meeting 85-21 Page five guidance from the Board on this matter. E. Shelley said he would rather the District not have contracts with landowners and questioned the enforceability of such an instrument. S. Norton concluded that the draft contract he had presented, in his view, would likely be upheld in a court of law if the term of the contract was not unreasonably long. N . Hanko noted the Committee had not discussed the concept of a contract in depth and said there was nothing in writing to review and discuss. She added she favored a contract similar to the Williamson Act contract which would address private open space. D. Wendin said that, according to the draft policies , the only parcels that would be excluded from eminent domain were those that were occupied single family lots. He added that other parcels without the trigger would still be subject to eminent domain, and parcels that have a holding period may or may not be subject to eminent domain. He said he favored having a unilateral contract with anyone but added it needs to be limited in order to be enforce- able. He said he no longer favors a trigger concept. R. Bishop said the District shoud proceed with caution in deciding with whom to enter into contracts and that they should be limited to single family dwellings on lots that do not have subdividable land. H. Turner stated his opinion that contracts would be appropriate for the private open space concept, but may present a possible disadvantage if used on undeveloped properties because of possible limitation of public access. He said he was interested in the con- tract being used as a substitute for a trigger. E. Shelley stated he would not be opposed to a limited category for the contract, such as those parcels effectively not excluded by other policies. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the discussion of Land Acquisition Policies include discussion of the concept of contracts as one means of implementing the policy. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote : Ayes : K. Duffy, D. Wendin, R. Bishop, T. Henshaw, H. Turner, and E. Shelley. Noes : N. Hanko. Discussion: K. Duffy stated she does not object to using the contract for areas where eminent domain would not be used, but said she did not understand its use for a broad spectrum since it may affect trail acqui- sition and have other ramifications . R. Bishop asked for guidance to the Committee on duration of a contract and suggested the Committee consider a period of 25 years. D. Wendin said that contracts could be renewable if the Board did not withdraw the contract. Janet Schwind, 11825 Skyline Boulevard, Los Gatos , stated her opinion that many property owners would favor having a contract. Meeting 85-21 Page six Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, noted contracts are not needed if policies with reasonable restraints are adopted. Charles Touchatt, P.O. Box 254 , Redwood City, said he favors con- tracts and that the District should honor the Williamson Act since it restricts what can be done with the land. Motion: N. Hanko moved that Version 1 of the Land Acquisition Policies be considered, that paragraphs 1 , 2 , and 3 be discussed, and that the Board tentatively adopt Version 1 , paragraphs 1 , 2 and 3 . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. Discussion: K. Duffy noted paragraph 2 mentioned eminent domain contracts and the Board had not agreed on the type of contract that might be used. R. Fisse asked if the planning area was greater than the District boundaries. D. Wendin explained there is transi- tion language that covers the fact that the planning areas have not been extended to include the sphere of influence and until they are , the sphere of influence areas will be considered to be within the planning area. He added that the first paragraph states the desire of the District to acquire open space from willing sellers within the planning areas designated in the Master Plan, but that does not preclude acquisition outside planning areas. E. Shelley said the temporary definition of planning area until the Master Plan is rewritten is the existing planning area plus the remainder of the sphere of influence. D. Wendin stated it was the intent to make it clear that eminent domain could be considered only in the planning areas and not in the gray areas . N. Hanko requested confirmation that "within the planning areas na des 0i� ted in the District' s Master Plan" could include exclude areas that the Board may decide would not be part of the planning area because they are developed communities.,.r-ApAc*tkA.Ctt.Jffxt4utL410-xfmc",� , Thomas Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View, asked that paragraph two be changed so that an informational brochure on relevant law and District policy on eminent domain be given to all landowners with whom the District negotiates. Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved to amend the motion to change paragraph 1 of the preamble to include the transition language from the staff report and to add language that clarifies that eminent domain is used only in planning areas defined in the Master Plan. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion to amend passed 7 to 0 . The motion to tentatively adopt Paragraphs 1, 2 , and 3 of Version 1 passed 7 to 0 . Meeting 85-21 Page seven Motion: D. Wendin moved tentative adoption of the balance of Version 1 with the deletion of trigger language to make unimproved property subject to eminent domain, with the specific deletion in condition two of everything after the word unimproved and the deletion in condition three of "and a subdivision application is filed (or was pending as of May 1, 1985) or a division of ownership is made, " , substituting the phrase "and is susceptible to subdivision, " , continuing with "but only the unimproved portion of the property may be acquired, provided that: " . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Turner remarked that the value of keeping the trigger in condition three was that it eliminated an ambiguity and that he would like to keep the trigger in condition three. R. Bishop stated he favored the first Paragraph under the "Eminent Domain" heading that stated "eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an improved property that is not suscep- tible to further subdivision" because it protects home- owners. E. Shelley said a clear definition of the word "improved" is needed. T. Henshaw stated the Board' s consen;3U.S that the Committee should work on a definition. W. Obermeyer noted that nearly every parcel is suscep- tible to subdivision. E. Shelley suggested adding "into two more legal building sites" to the condition under consideration. The Board members decided to vote on the .3uggestion at a later time. There were no Board or public objections to the second paragraph under "Eminent Domain" which states : "In addi- tion, the use of eminent domain shall not be considered except under the following conditions : " . After discussion, the Board agreed that "more than 50%" was agreeable for the first condition listed for the use of eminent domain; i.e. , "there is a request or consent by those owning more than 50% of the fee interest in the property" . N. Hanko stated she would like to have eminent domain used only when agressive action has taken place , when a landowner does not want to keep land in open space, and stated she wanted the wording in the - second condition to remain unchanged and the trigger retained. H. Turner and E. Shelley agreed with D. Wendin' s state- ment that if the District waits for a trigger mechanism to use eminent domain, it would be too late. D. Wendin said that to have a trigger mechanism that is not properly defined when it is used is wrong and added that those who want to enter into a contract for private open space may do so. Meeting 85-21 Page eight Linda Elkind, 2040 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, urged that the Board regain the use of eminent domain except in cases of individual homeowners and that the Board be cautious concerning trail access. The Board recessed at 10 : 25 P.M. and the meeting reconvened at 10 :35 P.M. R. Bishop spoke in favor of retaining the trigger and said it was too difficult to make a contract substi- tute for a trigger. D. Wendin stated that the contract has a trigger built into the language. H. Turner spoke against retention of the trigger language. D. Wendin noted no differentiation had been made regarding large and small parcels and proposed keeping the trigger for unimproved parcels that are not susceptible to sub- division but removing the trigger language for larger parcels. Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved to amend the motion to include a section 2a which would apply to unimproved parcels sus- ceptible to subdivision having no trigger, and a section 2b which would apply to unimproved properties not suscep- tible to subdivision and having a trigger. H. Turner seconded the motion to amend. Discussion: T. Henshaw stated that the motion to be voted upon is to approve in concept condition 2 as divided. D. Wendin noted there is the question of what to do with unimproved but not subdividable lots and that there is public pressure to exempt them permanently. He suggested removing those small lots from present consideration. N. Hanko asked that his proposal be put in writing so that everyone could consider it. T. Henshaw stated the Board' s consensus that the proposal should go to the Committee and a separate Board meeting be devoted to the matter. The motion to amend passed on the following vote : Ayes : D. Wendin, K. Duffy , H . Turner, and E. Shelley. Noes : T . Henshaw, R. Bishop, and N. Hanko. Motion: D. Wendin moved to delete any reference to unimproved properties not susceptible to subdivision and return the matter to the Committee. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote : Ayes : D. Wendin, K. Duffy, H. Turner, E. Shelley, T. Henshaw, and R. Bishop. Noes : N. Hanko. D. Wendin summarized the motion remaining on the floor as follows : two changes were made in the initial paragraph (transition language and planning area language) ; clarification of the word "subdivision" at the end of the first paragraph following "EMINENT DOMAIN" (by consensus) ; Meeting 85-21 Page nine insertion of a semi-colon after the word "unimproved" in condition 2 and deletion of consideration of properties not susceptible to subdivision; condition 3 to read: "The property is improved and is susceptible to subdivision, but only the unimproved portion of the property may be acquired. " N. Hanko stated she had strong thoughts on condition 3 and asked that it not be considered and that she be given the opportunity to present her ideas in writing. Motion: N. Hanko moved that Number 3 be continued. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote : Ayes : D. Wendin, K. Duffy , H. Turner, N. Hanko, T. Henshaw, and R. Bishop. Noes : E. Shelley. Motion: D. Wendin moved to table the motion and requested that a straw vote be taken on subdividable, unimproved properties . R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: T . Henshaw recommended the question be returned to the Committee and not be presented until a full Board is present and that it be the single item of business on the agenda. The motion passed 7 to 0 . T. Henshaw appointed D. Wendin to replace R. Bishop on the Committee during his absence. Straw Vote: Proposition: There should be a trigger mechanism for unimproved property susceptible to subdivision with the trigger being of the kind found in condition 2. E. Shelley seconded the proposal. Ayes : K. Duffy, N. Hanko and R. Bishop. Noes : H. Turner, E. Shelley, and D. Wendin Abstain: T. Henshaw. Due to the lateness of the hour, T. Henshaw requested that the agenda items concerning Long Ridge Road be continued, and asked if they could be held over until the next regular Board meeting. C. Touchatt said staff had not met with the neighbors regarding trail alignments and said that the neighbors wished to meet with staff before the item was considered by the Board. H. Grench suggested that a field trip-site workshop be held prior to the item being presented at the August 28 meeting. C. Touchatt requested that Sandy Touchatt's letter of April 24 be addressed at the August 28 meeting. W. Obermeyer stated he has had complaints from homeowners about horses blocking the easement on private land as well as District lands and said that the signs intalled by the District need to be replaced. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board continue agenda items 4 , 5, 6, 7 , 9 and 10 to the next regular Board meeting and that the present meeting be continued to resume at the conclusion of the Special Meeting of August 14 to consider item 8 on the agenda. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . Meeting 85-21 Page ten X. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED A. Confirmation of Scheduling of Special Meeting for August 15 (Memoran- dum M-85-123 dated August 9 , 1985) H. Grench asked for confirmation that at least five Board members would be present for the August 15 Special Meeting. Only H. Turner stated he would be unable to attend. XI . CLAIMS Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of the Revised Claims 85-16 . R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . XII. CLOSED SESSION H . Grench stated no litigation matters would be discussed during Closed Session. The Board recessed to Closed Session on land negotiation matters at 11 :50 P .M. XIII . ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn the meeting at 11 : 55 P.M. Emma Johnson Secretary CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14 , 1985 1) August 14 , 1985 N. Hanko requested the phrase "include or" be deleted from her statement in paragraph 6 on page 6 as that language could exclude areas the Board may decide would not be part of the planning area. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve the minutes of August 14 , 1985 as amended. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 to 0.