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