Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19871208 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 87-29 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 8, 1987 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. Members Present: Richard Bishop, Teena Henshaw, Edward Shelley, Katherine Duffy, Gerry Andeen, and Robert McKibbin. Member Absent: Monette Hanko. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Mary Hale, Jean Fiddes, Stanley Norton, James Boland, Del Woods, and Emma Johnson. II. CLOSED SESSION S. Norton announced that legal matters to be discussed in Closed Session fell under Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision c. The Board recessed to Closed Session at 7:15 P.M. and reconvened to begin the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. III. PUBLIC HEARING Determination of Public Necessity for Proposed Stanford Property Addition to the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (report R-87-181 dated December 3, 1987) C. Britton showed on the wall map the location of the 145 acre proposed acquisi- tion, noting that it is situated between Russian Ridge and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves. D. Hansen pointed out the property location on the District map, noting that it is one of the most visible areas in the Skyline Corridor and situated between the major Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserves. He said that both of these preserves are heavily used by the public and are attractive properties that people like to frequent because of their ridgeline features and open grassland areas. He noted that the Skyline Ridge Preserve is number one on the District's Site Emphasis Plan in terms of its potential as a developed facility and that it is anticipated to become one of the most, if not the most, popular public area in the near future. He pointed out existing trails and fire roads, areas for connecting loop trails, and the major Skyline Scenic Trail route, in addition to areas which have the most potential for placement of houses on the property if it were to be developed. He continued that the property proposed for acquisition has spectacular views toward the Pacific Ocean and strong visual integrity in relation to the surround- ing land. He said it is surrounded on three sides by public (District) land which could be strongly impacted visually by development. He noted that the site has potential for seven building sites as determined by a slope density analysis completed by the County of San Mateo. D. Hansen said that while the property itself had not been rated in the District's Master Plan, the surrounding Herbert Grench,General Manager;Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andean,Richard Bishop Meeting 87-29 Page two properties in terms of their value as potential open space were rated the highest on the Plan's scale. D. Hansen noted that there were three main existing entry roads off Alpine Road, with two in the vicinity of the uppermost part of the property. He said the District has not had the opportunity to review the structure in terms of its value for a potential Ranger residence or caretaker unit but that staff feels it has that potential as well as an excellent potential for a public staging area and small parking lot site. He said the property offers many local loop trail connections and the ability to connect with existing Russian Ridge trails and back to the proposed parking lot at Russian Ridge. He went on to say that in addition, trails from an on-site staging area could head out onto the lower portion of Russian Ridge Preserve and connect back up to the existing trail that connects to the main ridge route. He said the site offers smaller loop trails through the center of the property. In terms of the planned Skyline Multi- Purpose Trail, this property offers one of the primary locations for that trail corridor, he noted. He said it is not the only option but probably rates as the most desirable. D. Hansen continued that the public has from time to time mistakenly thought this property to be public open space, although it has not been advertised or promoted as such. He said the natural visual integrity of the site is unique both in viewing the property from existing open space and in viewing the surrounding open space from this property. D. Hansen reviewed the preliminary use and management recommendations which include boundary plaques and signs, staff research to determine the potential of using the house as a caretaker unit and staging area or as a Ranger residence, the installation of hiking stiles along Alpine Road, and the repair of fences. He again noted that developing the site to the extent allowed by the density matrix would severely impact the overall watershed and viewshed. D. Woods showed slides of the property illustrating the location of boundaries, roads, the house, and the property's location relative to other District pre- serves and trails and high visual nature of the property related to the surround- ing open space lands. C. Britton explained that the District had been involved in trying to acquire the property for eight years, working first with the former owner, Mr. Arthur Wynne, who indicated that he wished the property to remain as open space and hoped that the District would acquire the property. Britton said that the District worked with Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) which made several offers, and finally directly with the present institutional owners. He said that the present owners had the property appraised and that the appraisal was $800,000. He said that District staff had received a copy of the appraisal, which staff felt had serious flaws, including the fact that the hypothetical 7 unit development was proposed, utilizing gravel roads and having no water supply for fire protection which would reduce the appraised value of the property. He said that in discussions with POST the District decided to match the $800,000 appraised value in October and that the offer was verbally accepted by Stanford, but approximately one week later an alternate proposal was made by the owners: (1) the minimum price would be $850,000, (2) the property would be sold to the highest bidder over that amount with an October 30, 1987 bid deadline, and (3) mineral rights and rights of entry for mineral extraction would be retained. He said the District could not justify paying more than the estimated fair market value nor participate in an open-ended auction, especially utilizing public tax Meeting 87-29 Page three funds. He said that the asking price appears to be far in excess of the fair market value and that, since it had been for sale, price was the only question. H. Grench reviewed the relevant portions of the District's eminent domain policy, noting that since the property is owned by institutional entities, the policy provides for the use of eminent domain. He said that the property has been on the market and eminent domain mechanism would be used to arrive at a fair market value. He added that the tenant had already been asked to vacate by the owners prior to the current District involvement. R. Bishop announced that the Public Hearing is the first step in eminent domain proceedings and that no change in the District's eminent domain policy is contemplated. He stated that the public hearing was open. Donald Maffly, Attorney for the California School of Mechanical Arts, said the District interfered with potential contractual relationship with another buyer and that he inferred that the District threatened use of eminent domain to discourage the potential buyers and drive down the value of the property. He asked that the District allow the owners two to three weeks to consummate the purchase with the other party. R. Bishop replied that the District's actions are provided for by law, and S. Norton added that they are consistent with the eminent domain policy of the Board. H. Grench read into the record a letter from Director Nonette Hanko who wrote that the District, having expressed a strong interest over many years to acquire this top priority property, should proceed with eminent domain action as a last resort, that this action should establish the true market value of the property, and that it follows the guidelines of the policy. She further wrote that she hoped the Board President will send a letter to persons on the District's eminent domain policy list if the Board decides to proceed with the eminent domain proceedings, and that it is important to develop further the good neighbor policy. She proposed that the up-coming workshop include the good neighbor policy as a topic. Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside argued against the use of eminent domain, saying that no development plans have been filed and that the parcel is not essential for trails. He questioned the need to acquire the land immediately rather than continue to negotiate. He said that under the eminent domain policy, the District could still exercise its right to eminent domain proceedings if the land were sold and then plans for development were filed. He urged that the District abide by 'the spirit of all the eminent domain meetings and restrain from exercising its power of eminent domain, which residents in the Skyline Boulevard area consider a threat. R. Bishop said that District has been patient and now is seeking to establish a reasonable value through the courts. Paul Kelly, 429 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, speaking for the Committee for Green Foothills, urged acquisition of the property through eminent domain, noting it would not be a violation of trust but an appropriate use of the District's authority. Tom Taber, 1643 Fillmore Avenue, San Mateo, said he leads field trips through the preserves and a loop trail would be desirable through the property. He urged proceeding with the acquisition. Meeting 87-29 Page four Jay Powell, 512 Second Street, Sao Francisco, speaking for People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress said the property is especially important for its proximity to the proposed Ridge Trail. Be said the District was created to preserve the greenbelt and this acquisition is in the public interest. He said be supported the acquisition. Barry 8aeuaoImr, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos proposed that the District build trails around the property or negotiate for trail easements with a new owner. He said that developments can be unobtrusive, that the cost to proceed with eminent domain will be an expensive use of taxpayers' money, and that he did not support using eminent domain to acquire the property. Larry Kaufmann, 305 Alpine Road, La Honda said be has been the caretaker of the property and said that trails on the property would be steep and undesirable. Be said that the upper portion of the property could be developed and look very nice. Claude Look, 411 Los 0ioom Way, Los Altos, said that delaying acquisition would � only increase costs, noting that the property would be a valuable addition to the � trail system and that it fits into the District's land policies, He urged � acquisition of the property. � � � Ken Fisher, 301 8murib Ibsen Road, Woodside, said be was the other buyer involved and that be feels the District interfered with his deal with Stanford and the other institutional owners. He said that they had acknowledged the deal, but did not get all the necessary papers signed, adding that the District did not take action until there was another buyer iunolved. He said that be is not a develo- per and that be wished to live on the land with his family. Daniel Weudio, 961 Regent Drive, Los Altos, said that the staff report shows why the District kept the power of eminent domain in the came of institutional ownership. He said that the District was being played off against a private bidder by the owners. He continued that a public agency has an extremely difficult time trying to negotiate in an open fashion, that it has to protect public funds, and that getting into a bidding war is difficult for a public agency. He said that without the ability to use eminent domain to deal with institutional ownership, this kind of situation is going to happen and that is why the policy was written in that way. Be said be supports the use of the policy in this case and that be feels it is appropriate. Jim Warren warned that the District should not underestimate public, political, and public relations consequences if eminent domain is pursued. Be added that a certain legislator is likely to be willing to carry a bill in the California Legislature to strip the District of its eminent domain power and that Becky Morgan is opposed to the District's use of eminent domain. Sherri Fisher, ]OI Henrik Ibsen Road, Woodside said she and her husband had been told that the property was for sale and that they wanted to u*u the property where they would live with their family. She said they do not want to develop the property and questioned bon a private individual in the Skyline area could get away from the District's power of eminent domain. Beoz Jones, 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, agreed with the Fishers, stated she opposed the use of eminent domain, said there are umuera who would not strip the land, and that the land could remain as private open space. David Sutton, 889 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, said the property is for sale and the District should acquire it. He said it fits within the eminent domain policy. � Meeting 87-29 Page five Donald Maffly said that Peninsula Open Space Trust had opportunities over the years to bid for the property. He said the owners wanted appraisals and geologi- cal surveys which were done in the summer of 1987 after which POST made an offer and another person made two offers. He said the owners submitted identical options to purchase to both parties (and others) , asking them to fill in the blanks; the Trust declined and the Fishers proceeded. He continued that when POST found out it was not going to get the property, the District presented its eminent domain notice. He said that under California law, one does not have to have a binding contract for someone to interfere illegally and that by virtue of the District's interference, it sought to prevent the property from going into private hands. E. Shelley noted that the District's policy was explicitly written to exclude institutional and commercial owners and said that he did not have a problem utilizing the policy. He said that the District had worked diligently for eight years in an attempt to negotiate before the negotiations broke down. He ex- pressed sympathy for the Fishers. T. Henshaw stated that she had talked with some residents of the Skyline area and had noted no opposition to using eminent domain in this circumstance. R. McKibbin said that the property is owned by institutions and potentially subdividable and is crucial for open space and a trail network. He said that if eminent domain action is postponed, there will be a cloud on the property. He said that he sympathized with the Fishers who are in a difficult situation. He added that the eminent domain procedure will basically determine fair market value, noting that the previous owner had requested this property be maintained as open space. K. Duffy said that she too sympathizes with the Fishers and their love of the land. She said that the Board represents the public and is responsible for the preservation of open space and the public's money and believes the central question comes down to purchase price. She added that the District has always been willing to pay fair market value. R. Bishop noted that the eminent domain action is not a departure from the District's adopted policies that were discussed in open meetings and that he hoped that the Fishers understood why it was in the best interest of the public to proceed with the acquisition of the property. He added that the property is an important link in the open space that the District has already acquired in the area. Ellen Smith, Manager of Gift Real Estate at Stanford University stated that the District was never told verbally that its offer was accepted but was told verbally that its offer was selected for a counter-offer. R. Bishop declared the public hearing closed at 9:25 P.M. C. Britton, responding to Ms. Smith's statement, said that the $800,000 offer from POST was the offer that was verbally accepted by Stanford, according to Audrey Rust of Peninsula Open Space Trust. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt Resolution 87-41, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Finding and Determining That the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Certain Properties for Public Use, to Wit, for Public Park, Recreation and Open Space Purposes, Describing the Properties Necessary Therefore and Authorizing and Directing Its Meeting 87-29 Page six Retained Legal Counsel to Do Everything Necessary to Acquire All Interests Therein (Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve - Stanford et al. Property) . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: K. Duffy, R. McKibbin, T. Henshaw, E. Shelley, G. Andeen and R. Bishop. NOES: None ABSENT: N. Hanko. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt the Preliminary Use and Manage- ment Plan recommendations in the staff report, including naming the property as an addition to the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve and indicate its intention to dedicate the property as public open space. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. Discussion: K. Duffy proposed that other potential recreational uses such as educational or day camp activities be considered for the house in addition to caretaker-ranger residence possibilities. E. Shelley and K. Duffy agreed to change the motion to add "other potential recreational uses" to the preliminary use and management recommenda- tions, E3 on page five. The motion passed 6 to 0. H. Grench announced that the other Closed Session listed on the agenda was not needed. IV. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Emma Johnson Secretary w�„ as -octential open space were rated the highest