HomeMy Public PortalAbout19860423 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 86-10
0 mmw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APRIL 23 , 1986
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Edward Shelley called the meeting to order at 7 :39 P .M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Edward
Shelley , Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean
Fiddes , Mary Hale , Stanley Norton, and Cecilia Cyrier.
II. CLOSED SESSION
E. Shelley stated that there was a need for a brief Closed Session prior
to the public meeting. S . Norton said that the pending litigation to be
discussed in the Closed Session fell under Government Code Section
54956 . 9 . The Board recessed to Closed Session at 7 :40 P.M.
III . PUBLIC SESSION
E. Shelley recalled the meeting to order at 7 :53 P.M.
IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
C. Cyrier stated the Board had received the following written communica-
tions :
1) a letter from Elena Fiant, 620 Correas Street, Half Moon Bay, reporting
that, while she and friends had explored the trails at Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve from 11 :00 A.M. to 3 :00 P.M. on April 13 ,
one of their cars had been broken into and a purse had been stolen; a
draft staff response was attached for Board consideration.
E. Shelley stated the Board' s consensus that the attached staff draft
response was acceptable to the Board and that it should be forwarded to
Ms . Fiant.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Martin Barbe , 1231 Vincente Drive , Sunnyvale said that he had spoken at a
Board meeting some months ago on the standardization of District maps and
brochures and asked for an update.
E . Shelley said that the matter had been referred to staff, and H. Grench
noted that staff was working on the map revisions.
William Obermayer, 3200 Long Ridge Road, La Honda inquired as to what
would be discussed under Informational Reports and Claims .
E. Shelley said that Informational Reports were not known until the reports
were made by Board or staff members and that no action is taken on these
reports unless it is an emergency item. D. Wendin said that Mr.
Obermayer had previously raised this issue and that the Board may someday
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 86-10 Page two
want to reconsider the current agenda format.
VI . ADOPTION OF AGENDA
E. Shelley stated the agenda was adopted by Board consensus .
VII . BOARD BUSINESS
A. Crippled Children' s Society Agreement (Memorandum M-86-36 dated
April 2 , 1986)
D. Hansen stated the lease had been written on a year-to-year basis
allowing the Crippled Children' s Society to construct a riding ring
facility on a portion of the Picchetti Ranch Area on the Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve.
D. Hansen discussed the revised lease that had been distributed prior
to the meeting, noting that minor wording changes had been made and
new language had been added regarding insurance coverage.
Christine Fessler, Director of Recreation and Respite Services of
the Crippled Children ' s Society urged the Board to approve the lease
since with the addition of the riding ring the Society will be in a
position to enhance greatly its services .
Motion: H . Turner moved that the Board approve the lease agreement
allowing the Crippled Children 's Society of Santa Clara
County , Inc. to construct riding ring facilities on a portion
of the Picchetti Ranch Area of the Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve adjacent to Camp Costanoan and authorize the President
to sign the lease. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7 to 0 .
VIII . PUBLIC HEARING
A. Ordinance Regarding Policy for Potential Use of Eminent Domain In-
cluding Amendment to Ordinance to Restrict Further Board' s Use of
Eminent Domain for Trails Across Undividable, Improved Property
(Report R-86-27 dated April 9 , 1986)
President Shelley asked D. Wendin to chair this portion of the meeting.
D. Wendin explained that the motion tabled at the February 26 meeting
would be brought back before the Board and that main discussion would
center on Director Hanko's proposed amendments to the Ordinance as
contained on the sheet dated April 4 , 1986, clarification language
for Section 6 and 10 prepared by S . Norton, District Legal Counsel,
and material prepared by Claude A. Look of Los Altos on criteria for
public trail alignment across developed properties and proposed
wording on a definition of a scenic corridor.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that Ordinance 86-1 be removed from the
table. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed
7 to 0 .
N. Hanko explained that her proposed amendments would protect property
owners from the use of eminent domain in clearly defined developed
communities designated on the District's Master Plan, except as re-
lated to trails and any portion of a property that was within a scenic
corridor or that follows a route of historic public use.
To clarify the new definition of a scenic corridor as presented in
the proposed amendments , D. Wendin said that scenic trails per se
are not designated by governmental agencies , rather, if anything is
Meeting 86-10 Page three
done , a scenic road corridor or trails system is designated. He
noted the definitions distributed by Claude Look at the meeting were
more exact than those contained at the bottom of the April 4 , 1986
sheet entitled Proposed Amendments to Eminent Domain Policy.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board approve the proposed amend-
ment to Ordinance 86-1 (eminent domain policy) dated April 4 ,
1986 with the inclusion of the underlined portions to Section
1 (Improved property not subdividable) and Section 2 (Unim-
proved property, not subdividable) and the second definition
under scenic corridor as presented on the sheet distributed
by C. Look that reads "Scenic road corridors or trails
systems designated as such by a city, county , the State or
in an adopted plan of the District. " R. Bishop seconded the
motion.
Discussion: In response to K. Duffy' s question as to what
had been gained by adding the underlined portion to Section
2 , D. Wendin said it provided consistency in language with
Section 1 with respect to clearly defined developed
communities.
H. Turner stated that he preferred the first definition of
a scenic corridor because a decision on a scenic trail or
road corridor should be of significance beyond just the
District' s regional scope .
Motion to Amend: H. Turner moved that the Board delete the second
definition of a scenic corridor from the motion and replace
it with the first definition ("Scenic road corridors or
trails systems designated as such by a city, county, or
the State" ) . T. Henshaw seconded the motion.
Discussion: E. Shelley spoke against the motion to amend,
noting the District has a greater regional scope than any
other agency, except the State. D. Wendin said that he
felt the language in Section 5 on Trails provided adequate
protection for landowners and he was willing to support
Director Hanko ' s motion, but could not support Director
Turner's motion to amend since he felt it caused "mischief" .
R. Bishop spoke in favor of Director Hanko' s motion saying
that it was important to protect the right to use eminent
domain to acquire trails in scenic road corridors . T. Ren-
shaw stated that she was opposed to Director Hanko' s amendments
and to the use of eminent domain for trails. She said that
she supported H. Turner ' s amendment since she did not see
the District' s function as one of defining scenic road
corridors and that the District' s interpretation of a
scenic corridor might not protect homeowners.
D. Wendin opened the Public Hearing at 8 : 30 P.M.
Those members of the audience speaking against the use of
eminent domain and the use of eminent domain for trail pur-
poses included: William Obermayer , 3200 Long Ridge Road,
La Honda; Paul Storaasli , 22400 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda;
Janet Schwind, 11825 Skyline Boulevard . Los Gatos ; Bob
Piety, 11895 Skyline Boulevard, Los Gatos; Alfonso Tatano,
P.O. Box 865 , Cupertino; Candace Stone , Route 2, Box 336 ,
La Honda; Charles Touchatt, P.O. Box 254 , Redwood City;
Meeting 86-10 Page four
Larry Hassett, 22286 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda; Bob Fisse,
Route 2, Box 402 , La Honda; Orion Larson, 16006 Montebello
Road, Cupertino; Don May, 15527 Stevens Canyon Road , Cuper-
tino; and Ruth Page , 16000 Montebello Road, Cupertino.
j* Those members of the audience speaking in favor of eminent
domain only when absolutely necessary for trail purposes
included: Hulet Hornbeck, 4807 John Muir Road, Martinez7
Claude Look, 411 Los Ninos Way, Los Altos ; David Sutton, 478
Cypress Avenue , Half Moon Bay; Doni Hubbard, 25228 La Loma
Drive, Los Altos Hills; Sylvia Ferguson, 707 Continental
Circle , #1414 , Mountain View; and Carol Norton, 620 Alamo
Court, #21 , Mountain View.
N. Hanko said she supported the second definition of a scenic
corridor because it would allow the District to designate a
scenic corridor, noting there is no guarantee that a city,
county or the State would represent the concerned individuals
in the develoned communities.
D. Wendin said he had talked with various elected officials
and none of them had suggested that the District give up
the power of eminent domain.
T. Henshaw said she had talked with various individuals and
that she had not received any comments in opposition to
her stated position that she would never vote to use eminent
domain for trails .
H. Turner, speaking in favor of his motion to amend, said
that the District could be an instrument of a city, county
or the State, as opposed to a regional trail plan imple-
menter.
K. Duffy said that it was absurd to say that the District
was not a regional trail provider and that she supported
N. Hanko ' s original motion.
H. Turner' s motion to amend failed to pass by the following
2 to 5 vote :
Ayes : T. Henshaw and H. Turner.
Noes : K. Duffy, D. Wendin, E. Shelley, R. Bishop, and
N. Hanko.
Bob Fisse asked for clarification of the words at the end
of Item 1 (Improved property, not subdividable) which read,
" . . .or follows a route of historic public use. " N. Hanko
responded by saying that definitions would be part of the
District ' s trail plan that would be developed later and
that she believed Old Page Mill Road would be an example .
K. Duffy and D. Wendin both spoke in favor of trail planning
and said that Item 5-Trails was an adequate protection,
however they would vote in favor of Director Hanko' s
amendment.
N. Hanko's motion passed by the following 6 to 1 vote :
Ayes : K. Duffy R. Bishop, D. Wendin, H. Turner, E. Shelley,
and N. Hanko.
No: T. Henshaw.
Meeting 86-10 Page five
Motion to Amend: R. Bishop moved that Item 1 of the Ordinance
be amended to read, "Eminent domain shall not be used for
trails over improved property that was not subdividable on
parcels of 40 acres or less. " T. Henshaw seconded the
motion.
Discussion: Directors Wendin and Duffy said that they could
not support the 40 acre limit as proposed by Director Bishop.
Director Turner spoke in favor of the motion to amend.
Janet Schwind, Larry Hassett, Paul Storaasli , and Don May
spoke in favor of the motion to amend. Claude Look and
Candace Stone spoke against the motion to amend. Charles
Touchatt, William Obermayer and Doni Hubbard spoke in favor
of developing the Master Plan as a guide . Bob Fisse said
that one could get around the 40-acre size by paying more
for available property, and Bob Piety said that in time land
would be available from a willing seller.
R. Bishop' s motion to amend failed to pass by the following
3 to 4 vote:
Ayes : T. Henshaw, R. Bishop and H. Turner.
Noes : K. Duffy, D. Wendin, E. Shelley, and N. Hanko.
Motion to Amend: E. Shelley moved that the Board reconsider the
Ordinance as originally proposed prior to Director Hanko' s
amendments . K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko said the policy as proposed in Item 5-
Trails�would not allow for connecting of all District pro-
perties and that a specific trail plan, as she proposed,
was needed. E. Shelley stated that the amendment sets re-
strictions on the eminent domain policy but he was not against
planningfor trails and he felt the current Item 5 provides
sufficient protection. T. Henshaw said that she supported
a Master Plan for trails, and was not in support of N. Hanko' s
amendment since its wording was nebulous.
Paul Storaasli and Charles Touchatt spoke in favor of
N. Hanko' s amendment.
Discussion centered on the interpretation of the words
"portion of a property" in the introductory statement to
Item 5-Trails , as to whether the word "property" required
to connect two or more publicly owned park or open space
parcels referred to one or more than one property.
Motion to Table Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved that the Board
table E. Shelley 's motion to amend for reconsideration of
the Ordinance as originally proposed. E. Shelley seconded
the motion. The motion to table the motion to amend
passed 7 to 0.
Motion to Amend: R. Bishop moved that the Board amend the introduc-
tory paragraph of Item 5-Trails tc read: "If a portion of a
property "or properties" is required to connect two or more
publicly owned park or open space parcels , eminent domain
may be used, subject to legal requirements and the following
considerations" - D. Wendin seconded the motion.
Meeting 86-10 Page six
Janet Schwind, Beez Jones , Don May, Paul Storaasli , Bob
Fisse, Charles Touchatt , and William Obermayer spoke against
the amendment noting they had understood the initial portion
of the statement referred to a single property. David
Sutton and Sylvia Ferguson spoke in favor of the amendment.
R. Bishop stated he would vote against his own motion based
on the public comments that had been made .
The motion to amend as amended failed to pass by the following
3 to 4 vote :
Ades : K. Duffy, D. Wendin and E. Shelley.
Noes : T. Henshaw, R. Bishop, H. Turner, and N. Hanko.
D. Wendin requested that the record show that the phrase
"if a portion of a property" in the introductory paragraph
of Item 5-Trails , meant a single property.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board remove from the table the
motion to substitute the Ordinance as originally presented.
T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0.
The motion to substitute the Ordinance as originally pro-
posed passed by the following 5 to 2 vote:
Ayes : T. Henshaw, K. Duffy, D. Wendin, H. Turner, and
E. Shelley.
Noes : R. Bishop and N. Hanko.
D. Wendin called a recess at 11 :30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 11 :40 P.M.
D. Wendin explained that he had used the word "substitute"
instead of the word "reconsider" when calling for a vote on
Director Shelley' s motion to amend. He asked that the record
show that the vote was for Ordinance 86-1 as originally
presented as a substitution for Ordinance 86-1 as amended
by Director Hanko' s motion to amend.
H. Turner said that he did not favor the different treatment
outlined for commercially and institutionally held proper-
ties from privately held properties in Item 3 - Improved
Subdividable Property and Item 4 - Unimproved, Subdividable
Property. He said that he felt it discriminated against
private preservation in that it included land owned by a
charitable trust or organization.
Motion to Amend: H. Turner moved that Definition 9 .e. be amended by
deleting the wording after the wording "churches" and the
word "or" be inserted before churches . T. Henshaw seconded
the motion.
Discussion: E. Shelley, N. Hanko, D. Wendin, and R. Bishop
spoke against the motion to amend.
The motion to amend failed to pass by the following 2 to
5 vote:
Ayes : T. Henshaw and H. Turner.
Noes : K. Duffy, R. Bishop, D. Wendin, E. Shelley, and
N. Hanko.
Meeting 86-10 Page seven
D. Wendin explained S. Norton' s recommendations concerning
a change in the title of Item 6 - Road Access for Patrol
Purposes as detailed in S. Norton' s memorandum of April 21,
1986 , noting the first addition would enable the District to
perfect title when there was a question or cloud.
Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved that the Board amend Item 6 - Road
Access for Patrol Purposes by changing the title to: "Per-
fection of District Rights" and adding the following language
at end of existing statement --" . . ., and to perfect title
to any District property or District' s interest therein. "
R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
Discussion: S. Norton said he was suggesting the addition of
a statement at end of Item 10 - "Decisions of the Board, "
so as to reinforce what was already stated and to eliminate
any question as to how it is to be determined that the Board
has complied with its adopted policies•
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board adopt the following additional
language to Item 10 - Decision of the Board and upon
the adoption of a resolution of necessity (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1245. 220) it shall be conclusively pre-
sumed that the Board has found such action to be consistent
with these policies . " N. Hanko seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7 to 0 .
In response to D. Wendin' s question as to how the Ordinance
would be officially published, J. Fiddes said that it would
be published in the Peninsula Times Tribune . D. Wendin noted
that the Action Plan calls for the preparation of a brochure
explaining the eminent domain policy.
The original motion to adopt Ordinance 86-1 passed 7 to 0 .
D. Wendin closed the public hearing at 12 :03 A.M. , Thursday, April 24 ,
1986 .
IX. BOARD BUSINESS (Continued)
B. Approval of Questionnaire for Later Director Response on Policy
Issues Relating to: 1. Implementation of Changes in Brown Act,
2 . Acquisition of Lands Outside District' s Sphere of Influence,
3. Annexation
Motion : E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt the questionnaire ,
distribute the questionnaire to the Board and interested
members of the public , have the questionnaire returned to
the Committee in 30 days , and place the matter on the next
agenda for questions and discussion. K. Duffy seconded
the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
The questionnaires were to be returned to the Committee by May 23 ,
1986.
X. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H . Grench requested information on luncheon and dinner reservations for
the Not-So-Annual Regional Park and Open Space District Conference to
be held in Monterey.
Meeting 86-10 Page eight
D. Hansen reported that 49 people participated in a successful Trail
Day on Saturday, April 19 at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve.
D. Wendin urged the Board members to see the parking lot at Picchetti
prior to discussions on a permanent solution for the Monte Bello Road
problem.
N. Hanko reported that the 2020 Task Force had hired Larry Livingston as
a consultant.
H. Grench announced that the next Board Meeting would be at the new office
at the Old Mill Office Center.
XI . CLAIMS
Motion: D. Wendin moved the approval of the Revised Claims 86-08 .
R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
XII . CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session on land negotiation matters at
12 :15 A.M. , Thursday, April 24 .
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 :28 A.M. , Thursday, April 24 .
Cecilia A. Cyrier
Secretary
CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 16 , 1986 :
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve the minutes of April 16 ,
1986 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 to 0.-
April 23, 1986 :
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve the minutes of April 23,
1986 . E. Shelley seconded the motion.
Discussion: K. Duffy requested that the first line of
paragraph two on page four be corrected to read "Those
members of the audience speaking in favor of retaining
eminent domain only when absolutely necessary for trail
purposes included: . . . . " R. Bishop and E. Shelley accepted
the change as part of their motion.
The minutes as corrected were adopted by a 4 to 0 vote.