Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19860813 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 86-19 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 AUGUST 13 , 1986 MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Edward Shelley called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Edward Shelley, Nanette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes , Mary Hale, Stanley Norton, James Boland, Del Woods , Craig Beckman, and Emma Johnson. II, APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 23 , 1986 Motion: T. Henshaw moved the approval of the minutes of July 23 , 1986. R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin requested the minutes show under Written Communications that Robert Zatkin made an oral report, using slides to illustrate his comments , in addition to his written communication regarding downed trees at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve and his proposal for use of the wood. T. Henshaw accepted the amendment as part of her motion and R. Bishop agreed to the addition. The motion passed 6 to 0 with E . Shelley abstaining because he was absent from the meeting. III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS E. Johnson reported that the Board received a communication from David Fork, 30 Summit Road, Woodside urging the District to obtain the Peters property through negotiations or eminent domain if necessary. E . Shelley stated the Board's concurrence that staff should acknowledge and respond to the letter. N. Hanko initiated discussion on the announcement from San Mateo County Planning Commission included in the packet. H. Grench said that he had been contacted by a planning staff member of San Mateo County asking for an informational presentation on current projects of the District. He said it seemed to be a low-key meeting, with only staff members attending, but subsequently he learned that it could become more formal. He added that it may be advantageous for a Board member to attend. E. Shelley said he would do so. R. Bishop added that a new Planning Director for San Mateo County had been appointed. J Meeting 86-19 Page two IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA E. Shelley stated the agenda was adopted by Board consensus . VI. BOARD BUSINESS A. Appointment of Peace Officer (Report R-86-62 of August 4 , 1986) J. Boland introduced Craig Beckman, the newest District Ranger, who had completed the necessary courses required under the Penal Code to qualify as a peace officer. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt Resolution 86-44 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Appointing C. Beckman as a Peace Officer. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. B. Final Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for the Davidson Property Addition to the El Sereno Open Space Preserve (Report R-86-57 of July 24 , 1986) D. Hansen stated that escrow had closed on the property and that staff had received no public comment. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt the Interim Use and Manage- ment Plan, name the property as an addition to the El Sereno Open Space Preserve , and withhold the property from dedica- tion as public open space . R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . C. Final Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for the Cunning- ham Property Addition to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Report R-86-58 of July 24, 1986) D. Hansen said that escrow had closed on the property. He said staff received a communication from Mrs. Merrell Glaubiger who owns a road easement that crosses the property and who was interested in District plans. D. Hansen said Land Management staff will contact Mrs. Glaubiger. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt the Interim Use and Management Plan, name the property as an addition to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve , and indicate its intention to dedicate the property as public open space. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. D. Final Adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan for San Mateo County Baylands Reserve and Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area (Report R-86-63 of August 6 , 1986) D. Hansen reported that minor changes were made to the summary charts to reflect the Board's discussion at its last meeting about direc- tional signs to Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area in Shoreline Park. He said that staff is proposing a name change for the San Mateo County Baylands Reserve. He added that the Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park would be advised of the proposed change, and the name change if tentatively adopted by the Board would be contingent upon the Cities ' concurrence. D. Wendin suggested that the Board tentatively adopt the name change and formally adopt it at a later date. Meeting 86-19 Page three Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt the Revised Use and Management Plan for the San Mateo County Baylands Reserve and the Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area as presented in the July 17 report as amended per report R-86-63 and tentatively adopt the proposed name change for the San Mateo County Baylands Reserve to the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve with the understanding that the name change will be presented to the Board in a two-month period for final consideration. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. E. Results of Questionnaire on Brown Act, Sphere of Influence and Annexation (Report R-86-59 of July 24 , 1986) D. Wendin noted that the Committee had met two times to review and summarize the questionnaires that Board members had completed. He said the questionnaire had clarified the following thirteen results for further discussion by the Board: 1. "All Board members accepted the fact that there should be a list. Twenty acres was the only alternative given as the threshold for inclusion and this seemed acceptable to everyone. We should at least touch on whether a different threshold should be used but staff believes that twenty is workable." R. Bishop suggested that this item be accepted by consensus. H. Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos said that he felt that a Legislative Analyst in Sacramento had stated that there should not be a list and that the notification should be done individually. E. Shelley said that the Committee had received the analyst' s report, and N. Hanko added that the District had received a letter from the bill' s author Senator Keene who suggested use of the list as a way of complying with the Brown Act. D. Wendin said the Committee had concluded that the Legis- lative Analyst's opinion supported using the list. R. Fisse , South Skyline Association, Star Route 2 , Box 402 , La Honda, said the list, if used, should be more specific and con- tain better ways to identify property owners or use parcel numbers. D. Wendin recommended adding the item for consideration by the Committee. Kathy Kennedy-Miller, Kings Mountain Association, 16222 Skyline Boulevard, Woodside stated the Association's belief that use of the list violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Brown Act and alienates landowners in her area. N. Hanko said she voted to retain the list so it may be used as a positive tool to invite persons in the District' s planning area to participate. R. Bishop said the list will not be as encompassing as the orig- inal ' list and that he thought there will be ways for landowners to be removed from the list. K. Duffy said the District cannot buy land without the landowners knowing about it. She said she strongly favors the list as it is necessary for the Board to be involved in land negotiations . D. Wendin added that without the list the Board would have to delegate to staff all land negotiations or negotiate publicly. E. Shelley stated that the Board will be making suggested changes to the Committee ' s report, adding that there would be Meeting 86-19 Page four no formal adoption of any policies during the present meeting. D. Wendin added that the Committee will draft a proposed policy consistent with the Board' s discussion to present at a later time. 2. "The key issue relative to the list is what criteria to use in creating exceptions (if any) to inclusion on the list for proper- ties which exceed the threshold acreage. Each of the following should be discussed as potential criteria for an exception, operating alone or with one of the others: Ila. Properties in clearly defined developed communities, with or without a request to be removed. (If this is to be an excep- tion then we must discuss the issue of how to handle the time before this concept has been defined, at the earliest some- time in 1987. This is the subject of paragraph 3 below.) "b. Subdividable versus not subdividable. "c. Improved versus unimproved." D. Wendin asked the Board to discuss criteria for being removed from the list. N. Hanko stated she may vote to permit property owners in developed communities to be removed from the list but, until a definition of developed community is clear, she favors keeping the list in its present form. D. Wendin said that when the concept of developed communities is defined in 1987 those properties should not be on the list. He recommended accepting 2a, leaving open the question of whether removal is automatic or by request, but he said he favored automatic removal. K. Duffy expressed her agreement, adding that if the District is discussing acquisition with a member of a community, the other members of the community would want to know about it, especially if trails are involved. She said that she would support auto- matic removal from the list and that any discussions with those landowners would then be publicly announced if discussed in Closed Session. N. Hanko said alternative approaches would be allowing those who live in developed communities to request to be removed or agreeing to continue to be on the list. R. Fisse said he supports removing names of people in developed communities from the list. R. Bishop said that if landowners are removed from the list, the District must make a public announcement if their land is going to be discussed in Closed Session. K. Duffy said that there are various small parcels on the map labelled VSP that are on the list and not intended to be. E. Shelley stated the consensus of the Board favoring 2a and suggested that removal from the list be automatic for land- owners in developed communities . H. Grench said that many landowners do not like to have their negotiations made public prior to appearing on an agenda and suggested a potential criterion for removal from the list be Meeting 86-19 Page five at the request of the landowner. He said staff favors that option to protect the privacy of the landowner and facilitate negotiations. E. Shelley suggested that all landowners in developed communities be off the list unless there is a request to be on. D. Wendin stated his support. E. Shelley continued that if someone wishes to be added to the list, the Board would have to make the public aware that the list is being amended. K. Duffy said that developed communities should be removed from the list with no subsequent additions from that community. Kathy Kennedy-Miller stated that landowners in developed communi- ties should be able to be removed from the list. R. Fisse stated his agreement that persons should be able to request to be put on the list at the time of negotiations so no public announcement would have to be made. R. Bishop felt that that would be defeating the purpose of the list and said he favors including developed communities on the list until individuals request to be removed. E. Shelley stated the consensus of the Board favoring exceptions to inclusion on the list for developed communities , but said there was no clear consensus as to how landowners get off the list. The Board took a straw vote on the three options : (1) Everyone in developed communities off the list with no options. K. Duffy and T. Henshaw voted aye for this option. (2) Anyone in developed communities can be off the list by request. R. Bishop and N. Hanko, who said she could vote for 2 or 3 , voted aye. (3) Everyone off the list unless they request to be on. E. Shelley, D. Wendin, H. Turner and N. Hanko voted aye. E . Shelley stated the Committee will have to return to the Board with options . K. Duffy said the only exclusion she favors is a developed community or parcel under 20 acres. N. Hanko agreed and added that if a parcel is not subdividable it should not be on, but qualified her statement saying there may be some value to keeping the properties on the list unless there is a request to be removed since some landowners may wish to deal with the District in that fashion. R. Bishop said there would be a problem in determining which parcels are subdividable. N. Hanko expressed her agreement. E. Shelley stated he concurred that the only exceptions would be properties under 20 acres or in developed communities . 3. "if properties in clearly defined developed communities are candidates for removal from the list, then we need to discuss what policy to have before that concept has been defined. The following possibilities should be discussed: Via. Wait - the properties remain on the list (unless they meet another exception, if any) . "b. Interim criteria can be adopted such as one or more of the following, recognizing that the property may be returned Meeting 86-19 Page six to the list after the concept has been defined: i) By request of owner ii) Based on acreage iii) Occupied iv) Owner occupied v) Subdividable versus non-subdividable" D. Wendin stated that the only issue is what Board policy should be between the present and arriving at a definition of "clearly defined community. " He said he favors keeping the properties on the list unless another exception is met, and a letter should be written to landowners explaining what is happening. T. Henshaw stated her agreement with the proposition to wait, but said she does not favor sending letters which would create misunderstandings. K. Duffy stated she favors waiting, and R. Fisse said South Sky- line Association favored that waiting option. E. Shelley stated the Board' s consensus for 3a. 4. "For properties not on the list there was no consensus as to when to announce that the property will be discussed in Closed Session. The choices presented were at the beginning of the meeting and just before the Closed Session. There was little support for listing the properties on the agenda." D. Wendin stated there was no consensus in the questionnaire responses on when to announce that a property would be discussed in Closed Session. E. Shelley stated he favors announcing at the beginning of a Board meeting. He said to list a property on an agenda would require too much advance notice and believes an announcement at the end of ameeting would be against the spirit of the Brown Act. T. Henshaw said unless it is on the agenda the public is not being informed since the public would have to attend every meeting to hear an announcement. E. Shelley responded that the Brown Act does not state notification needs to be on an agenda. K. Duffy said she favors an announcement at the beginning of a Board meeting since it does not announce an agenda item but states what the Board will consider in Closed Session. D. Wendin added his agreement. N. Hanko expressed support for putting the information on the agenda. R. Fisse said he supported an announcement at the beginning of a meeting and H. Haeussler suggested stapling the information to the agenda. E. Shelley said his suggestion would be referred to the Committee. E. Shelley noted that the consensus of the Board was to have an announcement at or near the beginning of a meeting . 5. "There was also no consensus as to how the property owner should be given notice for a property not on the list. The issues to be discussed are the form of the notice (written versus oral) and the time in advance of the meeting that the notice is to be given." Meeting 86-19 Page seven D. Wendin noted the question concerns two situations , one in which the owner is aware that the property is being discussed and one in which the issue is the notice to the owner who has not approached the District and the District wishes to approach the individual. E. Shelley stated he prefers status quo and that the District should not specifically notify a landowner who has property that will be discussed. D. Wendin said it may be counterproductive if the landowner learned from another source and said he feels individuals should be notified. E. Shelley said that the notification should not be a requirement, but could be general policy. N. Hanko said she favors written notice because proof is needed that the owner has been contacted and the question ishow much advance notice is needed. H. Turner said he favors giving advance oral notice to an owner and, if oral notice is unsuccessful, a written notice should be sent. C. Britton stated it would be undesirable to require written notice and that 99% of the time the District attempts to reach landowners. R. Bishop suggested an oral notice should be attempted and, if that is not possible, a letter should be sent. D. Wendin said that requiring a particular kind of notice would be restrictive, and that the method of notification should be determined by staff so as to be certain that all owners have advance notice of meetings , but in any event the owner should be notified after a meeting. K. Duffy agreed that every attempt should be made to notify the owner. Kathy Kennedy-Miller stated that written policy should require notification in writing or orally. E. Shelley stated the Board' s consensus that a general policy be that an attempt be made to notify the owner but that the inability to do so would not negate the right to carry on dis- cussions about the property. N. Hanko asked for direction as to the amount of time in advance of meeting that notice be given. E. Shelley suggested no specified time be used since it is not possible to know when the appropriate time will be. R. Bishop agreed and added that it is important that the landowner not find out after the meeting that the property was discussed. 6. "There was little support for additional notice of planned discussions for properties on the list, either to the public or the property owner." D. Wendin noted that only one Board member supported additional notice of discussions for properties on the list. There was no additional discussion of this item. Meeting 86-19 Page nine stated the consensus of the Board to send out notification with a packet of information on eminent domain and Brown Act policies . H. Grench reviewed his understanding that the brochure on land acquisition will cover eminent domain, the Brown Act, and other matters regarding acquisition and that it will be sent, along with a letter stating the recipient is on the list, to landowners. D. Wendin responded that if timing is such that the brochure is ready when the adopted list is , he agreed with H. Grench' s state- ment; but he supports sending out a special mailing as soon as the list is adopted. E. Shelley expressed his disagreement and said the mailing should not go out until the brochure can be included. D. Wendin responded that adoption of the list could possibly be delayed until the brochure is ready. H. Grench said the brochure is expected to be completed this fall. 7. "There was unanimity that the list should be re-adopted at least annually." D. Wendin said the Board unanimously supported re-adopting the list at least annually. He suggested deleting "at least" and working with staff on the schedule and timing. E. Shelley said that, while the master list must be adopted annually, the deletion or addition of names to the list must be by Board action. 8. "The potential of seeking additional legislation needs discussion. There was no consensus on this subject." D. Wendin said there was no consensus on the item. E. Shelley suggested .using for a year or two the policy that will be adopted and if it proves too cumbersome, seek legislative relief at that time. R. Bishop added his agreement. No disagreement was expressed. 10. "a. There was a strong consensus supporting use of any mode of acquisition for properties at least 50% within the District. "b. For properties less than 50% within the District, there was a consensus on accepting gifts and in participating with other agencies on trails and open space easements. The other forms of acquisition had medium to strong support but not a consensus and therefore need discussion. 11c. For properties wholly outside the District, there was little support for acquisitions of any kind except by gift (strong consensus) or as part of a joint project (no consensus - needs discussion." D. Wendin explained the issue involves parcels only partially within the District and not wholly within the District' s Sphere of Influence. He said it is assumed that the District will feel free to acquire properties that are wholly within the Sphere of Influence, whether or not within the District. He said there was a strong Board consensus for use of any mode of acquisition of properties at least 50% within the District. E. Shelley suggested that the policy state that the District will acquire land that is partially within the District by any mode, adding that the 50% figure is arbitrary. Meeting 86-19 Page ten N. Hanko suggested language stating that the District would be willing to use any mode to acquire land that is principally within the District, and have certain restraintson acquisition of land that is partially within the District. E. Shelley responded that if the part that is within the Sphere of Influence is determined to be very important (even if only 10% is within the Sphere of Influence) it is not a negative as though the District were expanding and enclosing something else that is not at all in the Sphere of Influence. N. Hanko responded in agreement, noting that the portion need not be 50% within the Sphere of Influence. R. Bishop said that if the policy is too restrictive it may keep the District from acquiring land that is very important. H. Turner voiced his agreement. R. Fisse said that he supports being able to negotiate with a willing seller if any portion is within the District's Sphere of Influence. E. Shelley stated the Board' s consensus on acquisition of property by any mode if any portion of the property is within the District' s Sphere of Influence. H. Grench said he hoped that the policy statement will give leeway to make decisions on individual cases such as gifts or part of a joint project. E. Shelley said to be consistent with the intent, more policy needs to be spelled out with respect to gifts or partial gifts. E. Shelley stated the Board' s opinion that it supports acquisi- tion by gift or significant bargain sale and by participation with other agencies where the other agency is the lead agency. R. Fisse said he did not agree since it leaves an opening for the District to acquire land completely out of the District ' s Sphere of Influence. D. Wendin and T. Henshaw said they could not support the language since they don't know where to draw the line. E. Shelley said that the definition of significant is relative. D. Wendin suggested that the Committeee consider the issue. 11. "There was aconsensus that minor extensions of the District's Sphere of Influence could be approved by our Board and LAFCO. However, there was a split on whether Board and LAFCO approval is enough for major extensions or a District-wide vote is required." N. Hanko said she favors having voters approve a major extension of the District' s Sphere of Influence. D. Wendin said that LAFCO would be a check, assuring that any major extension would be in the public interest. K. Duffy said that a vote of the people within the District would not protect the people where expansion is being considered. E. Shelley said LAFCO was established to control expansion of that sort and that the District should not go beyond what the rest of the local government does . r--tte 04r ;4o .ct i/S ezz entiat that the Dils tAict tetain the powA to acqui to it. Such an qcqui/sition i/s not a negative. . . Meeting 86-19 Page eleven H. Turner said that any significant major expansion should be beyond the power of the public' s representatives and should be sanctioned by the public who would pay for it. S. Norton said there are limits to what the District may put on the ballot, for example an advisory vote. He said he would research the question before the Committee meets again. H. Grench said that LAFCO could require a vote for annexation, but as far as he knew not for extension of a Sphere of Influence. R. Fisse said he would like to see any major expansion be voted upon by persons in the expansion area. D. Wendin stated that an expansion of major significance will occur when there is support for it and recommended being silent on the issue of elections. He recommended that an explanation of the existing procedure and law on Sphere of Influence be included in the forthcoming brochure. E. Shelley and R. Bishop agreed that the existing law should be the guide and that a policy statement is not required. 12. "The Board seemed to respond to the annexation questions with a consensus as follows: Ila. Our Board will not initiate an annexation without the con- sent of all property owners involved. "b. An annexation initiated by petition or LAFCO will be considered by our Board." E. Shelley noted the Board' s consensus with items 12a and 12b. K. Duffy said the question should not be addressed since the future is not known. 13. "The difference between major annexations and minor ones was not brought out in the questionnaire. This needs discussion, , especially the issue of whether a District-wide vote will be required for major annexations." D. Wendin asked S . Norton for an opinion on whether the District could have a vote of the existing District on a major annexation without the vote of the people in the area to be annexed. D. Wendin asked staff to make a statement to the Committee on whether to include parcel numbers on the list. F. Review of Use and Management Plans for the Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area of the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and for the Foot- hills Open Space Preserve (Report R-86-64 of August 5, 1986) Due to the amount of time in discussion of the previous agenda item, the Board concurred to continue the agenda item. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board continue the agenda item to the next Regular Board meeting. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . G. Program Evaluation for 1985-1986 Fiscal Year (Report R-86-61 of August 1 , 1986) Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board continue the agenda item to the next Regular Board meeting. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. Meeting 86-19 Page twelve H. Authorization to Solicit Bids for Public Access Improvements to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Report R-86-65 of August 13, 1986) D. Hansen reported that CalTrans and the San Mateo County Planning Commission are reviewing plans for two Skyline Boulevard parking areas for the Preserve . He said that San Mateo County staff has concurred with District staff that CEQA procedures have been sufficiently executed for the improvements . He referred to diagrams of the upper lots displayed on the wall. D. Hansen added that the lower lot area improvements will be completed with force account work, but that the lower lot cannot be surfaced without further County approval. Motion : T. Henshaw moved that the Board authorize staff to adver- tise for bids for the construction (improvement) of two parking areas in accordance with plans and specifications presented at the meeting. R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: K. Duffy expressed her concern that staff might not go ahead and implement the lower parking lot. D. Woods said the area where cars are now parking can be used, and that everything but resurfacing will proceed. The motion passed 7 to 0 . I. Co-Sponsorship of Regional Conference: "The Greenbelt ' s Public Lands; The Next Twenty Years" (Report R-86-60 of July 28, 1986) H. Grench recommended that the District co-sponsor the conference, but since the District is not directly involved as a co-host he could not recommend a financial contribution because of the prece- dent it might set for dealing with other future requests from other organizations . He said he hoped some of the Board members could attend. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the District co-sponsor the People for Open Space Conference and that the District not make a financial contribution. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . VII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS H. Hanko announced that the staff and docent recognition event will be held from 4 PM to 7 PM on September 14 at Picchetti. T. Henshaw reported poison oak is heavy at Picchetti. She also requested that the Budget Committee resume its meetings as soon as possible. Mary Hale reported that staff had met with officials of the Town of Los Gatos concerning the public event at Los Gatos Creek Park and noted three possible dates , October 11, 12 , and 18 , had been discussed. She polled the Board on their availability on' the dates proposed. D. Hansen reported that he anticipates the Monte Bello Road issue at Picchetti will likely be presented to the Board at the first meeting in September. He said that Santa Clara County staff has prepared three potential alignments for a solution, but that District staff suggests the County delay construction and investigate retaining the temporary by-pass while further studies are done on a more permanent solution that includes stabilizing the creek area. D. Woods mentioned that the County agreed to consider the possibility of stabilizing the existing by-pass road for winter use. He said that the old road may be reinstated if the drainage problem is worked on and if the temporary road is maintained as a back-up. This will give County staff time to conduct further studies and borings of the area. Meeting 86-19 Page thirteen H. Grench reported that a public field trip will be conducted at Hassler on September 9 . R. Bishop said that he would attend. VIII. CLAIMS Motion: R. Bishop moved approval of Revised Claims 86-15 . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . IX. ADJOURNMENT The Board adjourned the meeting at 11: 35 P.M. There was no Closed Session. Emma Johnson Secretary CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF AUGUST 13 , 1986 A. August 13, 1986 E. Shelley requested that his statement in the second paragraph on page ten at the end of the third line after the parentheses be corrected to read " . . .it is essential that the District retain the power to acquire it. Such an acquisition is not. . . " Motion: R. Bishop moved the approval of the minutes as amended. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . CORREC