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