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.