Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850330 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-07 i •fir feeting 85-07 I �Sli3?Z�LRlZR� � MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 SPECIAL MEETING I BOARD OF DIRECTORS 9: 00 A.M. Town of Portola Valley 's Saturday Multi-Use Room March 30 , 1985 765 Portola Road A G E N D A Portola Valley, California (9 : 00) ROLL CALL BOARD WORKSHOP: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INVITED 1 . Policy Regarding Use of Power of Eminent Domain 2 . Procedures in Implementing Amendments to Brown Act Regarding i Closed Session Discussions of Property Negotiations 3 . Policy Regarding Acquisition of Land Outside District Boundaries 4 . Policy Regarding Annexation of Lands (11 : 30) ADJOURNMENT PAW M.TO i Nay WooD(11nt, F0P-rOL,A vL_Y 13 49- C] j VOWN H4L, / TOWN HALL MULTI PUt`POClE RG�M f'ArAN& O Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board o/Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin March 30, 1985 AA� MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE WITH BROWN ACT In order to comply with Section 54956.8 of the Government Code (SB 2216 -- The Brown Act - Chapter 1126 of 1984) , which enables local legislative bodies to meet in closed session under specified conditions to give instruction to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, the list entitled "Property Owners on Master Plan Map Overlay" has been compiled by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The list, which includes the name of property owners, corresponds to an overlay that designates the parcel lines on the District' s Master Plan. This overlay is available for pub- lic inspection at the District office. It must be emphasized that the overlay map and list, created to comply with the Brown Act amendments, do not represent parcels that the District intends to acquire; they represent no more than a compilation of parcels one or more of which may be discussed in a closed session of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Most properties under consideration come to the attention of the District at the initiative of the landowners, and the District is careful to respect the landowners ' wish that negotiations be kept confidential. The intent in creating the map and list was to be as complete as possible in mapping par- cels within the District' s planning area and sphere of influence, rather than to make any judgments about specific parcels, the potential acquisition of which would depend upon the many factors listed in the Master Plan. March 30, 1985 Ilk or MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ACQUISITION OUTSIDE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND ANNEXATION ACQUISITION Basic Policy: The primary thrust of District policy will be to acquire lands within its own boundaries. The District will consider acquisitions outside the District only if exceptional purchase opportunities arise that clearly would accrue to the benefit of the District. Statistics: 7. 6% of District land (parcel area) was entirely outside District when acquired 4 . 4% of value of land (as of acquisition date) was entirely outside District ANNEXATION Purpose: Statement of Reasons from Board-adopted resolution : "Whereas, the purpose of the proposed annexation is to avoid challenges to enforcement of District ordinances on the basis that open space lands are not within the District and to bring District-owned lands within political boundaries of the District. . . . " Statistics* : Total number of annexation resolutions : 5 Number of annexations proposed by District without consent (or vote) of all landowners within area to be annexed: 0 *Action to correct LAFCO oversight in Saratoga boundary realignment not included. USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN 3/30/85 Basic Policy: The power of eminent domain will be used only in those instances where all reasonable attempts at voluntary negotiations fail and the parcel in question is central to the open space program of the District. Any contemplated condemnation action will include a full public hearing. As in all condemnation procedures, fair market value as decided by a jury and based on adequate appraisals will be paid by the District. RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY CONSIDERED BY BOARD DATE OF ADOPTION VOTE PRESERVE FORMER OWNER STRUCTURES ACRES 5/08/74 5-0 Rancho San Antonio Perham Homes and farm 394 buildings 1/22/75 5-0 Monte Bello Black Mountain Ranch Vacant 47 10/08/75 5-0 Fremont Older Radin et al. Vacant 68 6/13/79 6-0 Rancho San Antonio Petersen Vacant 80 2/27/80 7-0 Monte Bello McNiel Minor structures 97 7/09/80 5-0 Russian Ridge Coplon Vacant 238 2/25/81 7-0 Foothills Guiffre Vacant 1 9/28/81 7-0 Los Gatos Creek Novitiate Vacant 267 1/27/82 6-0 Hassler San Francisco Many 293 1/25/84 7-0 Coal Creek Hybl Vacant 15 -- 2-5 Coal Creek Dooley Vacant 5 Previously offered to County, then District. Life estate to owner. Lawyer for estate suggested the District action as a means of settling differences among heirs as to price as well as funneling decision process. Overall statistics on adopted Resolutions of Necessity By Area: 8% of District acreage By Number: 8% of District acquisitions Frequency: Overall average of less than 1 per year MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 March 27 , 1985 To Board of Directors From : Nonette Hanko Subject : Implementation of S. B. 2216 Proposed policies regarding use of Eminent Domain, acquisition of land outside District boundaries , and annexation of lands Dear Colleagues : I believe that S. B. 2216 and our attempt at implementing this law can have a positive end result if we work at it. It has focussed landowner attention on the absence of adopted policies regarding the District's use of power of eminent domain. Concerns for such policies have been voiced ever since our first workshop in 1973. However, arguments such as lack of experience in use , and unwillingness to tie the hands of our negotiator have pre- vailed in the past, so the policy has been no policy. Now we have gained the attention of a sizable number of land- owners living in the District's acquisition planning area; and although our use of the power of eminent domain has not been widespread, we are no longer novices in its use. I believe we have an excellent oppor- tunity to develop realistic and humanistic policies to guide our staff. I plan to listen carefully to both landowners and land acquisition staff members during this process. S.B. 2216 The chosen method of implementation was neither considered nor recommended by the Board's Legislative Committee; but was a staff solution toward providing the Board with continued oversight of land negotiation business in closed session. The resultant list of property owners has proven to be not only unpopular, but is considered an invasion of privacy. My position is to withdraw the list. Our Legislative Committee ( as one member ) i should be working toward an amendment to the Brown Act which takes into account the fact that we are an acquisition agency and the need for Board oversight of negotiations. I would agree personally to spend my time on such an amendment. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors.Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S Bishop,Edward G Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin page 2 In the meantime, I am willing to forego such oversight because I believe our land acquisition manager to be highly capable; and that oversight can be accomplished through periodic informational reports," particularly as to financing acquisitions. I would be opposed to listing non-optioned properties on the agenda to be considered in closed ses- sion because I think this could open the door to third party opportunism. Instead, I believe that our land acquisition staff should either obtain 10-30 day options before placing properties on the agenda for our con- sideration, or simply surprise us with a property now and then. Eminent Domain When the District was formed in 1972 , there was no alternative to development . Many of us became " environmentalists " because of a subdivision plan that destroyed the natural heritage of our youth. The use of the power of eminent domain is an important last resort when all reasonable methods of compromise have failed and the property in ques- tion is key. But there are owners of land in the District planning area who don't know if their land ( or home ) is key. I believe we have a respon- sibility to clarify the ideals in the light of this reality. In recognizing that human beings are also a part of our natural environment and that some of them live in our acquisition planning area, I would like to provide exemptions to existing , primary, occupied residences ( probably should be legal residences, but I remain open on this ) on legally allowed density sized lots. I would like to see such exemptions guaranteed through whatever legal mechanism exists for this purpose. Any subdivision of remaining land would not be exempt. I would like to encourage greater use of life estate agreements especially with residences of larger acreages. There should remain the oppdrtuhily for a " friendly condemnation where the owner wishes to sell but desires a fair market price to be de- termined by the court. Right of entry on private property by District personnel should be by permission of the owner. Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries No Board adopted policy exists on this subject. The original boundaries of the District were established by Santa Clara County LAFCo based on existing school and water district boundaries. The adopted District Master Plan is based on these boun- daries. In 1982 , LAFCo established a sphere of influence based on District agreement of lands which represented important scenic and watershed interests. I believe it is important for us to define what our interest is in these additional lands. The Master Plan should be updated to include them and our policies regarding them as soon as possible. % page 3 This process should include a special meeting or workshop to include the public interest expressed in the Skyline area. My personal belief is that the District should confine I-ts land acquisition plans to lands within the sphere boundary established by LAFCo and apply the same exemptions to occupied residences I am recommending under Eminent Domain of this report. Annexation of Lands Following District practice to date, I recommend against annexation of lands where there is a protest by the landowner. i 4RI`I'TEN COMMUNICATION WORKS11OP March 30, 1985 Peninsula Citizens' Action (415)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 S5-Mar-11 District Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Cir. # D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Greetings, This is written to address two topics: 1. This outlines the course of ction w r now pursuing — and will continue to pursue a e are o a � for longas there are functional threats against our homes and land. o as g 2. To pursue a possibleresolution of our differences, this proposes the immediate appointment, by the Board, of a committee — composed of several MROSD Directors and several concerned citizens — with instructions to promptly seek and formulate mutually acceptable solutions to this long-discussed problem. 1. The Planned Course of Action by Homeowners Pre facinz Comments: These action plans are not stated with belligerence or bluster. On the contrary — they are stated with sincere sadness ... and some degree of frustration from recognizing their necessity. They are presented here, so District Directors and staff decision- makers can more adequately evaluate the likely consequences of permitting past and current District policies and staff actions to continue. This is not a threat of action. It is simply a factual statement of what we are doing_ Please recognize, however: Our actions are taken for nothing less than the defense of our families' homes, land and communities from an often-used threat of forced acquisition. We make no "demands." for "demands" simply create obstinacy and intransigence in any person of principle. Demands deter — rather than support — the seeking of reasoned, equitable solutions to sincere disagreements. We are simply stating what defensive measures we are finally taking in response to what MROSD has done for years, and continues to do. Our actions recognize the different principles held by our two groups concerning condemnation. We take these actions to encourage you to modify your decisions ... or to lay the foundation for changing the decision-makers, and/or the powers granted to the decision-makers. At this point, we feel you have ak n an Absolute nosition — namely, you should have total freedom to threaten or pursue forced acquisition of our homes without any restraints or guidelines, whatsoever. We sincerely feel such an absolute position is unreasonable. Through community working sessions held March 4th, 6th and 10th — plus smaller group sessions on other dates — these plans are already being implemented, We are not waiting for a possible MROSD response; mountain residents have been waiting for years for requested changes. Waiting merely continues a status quo that is no longer tolerable. We will — we must — continue our plan and actions, until and unless District Directors and decision-makers choose to modify current policies and actions to provide safety for our families' homes and land. Your actions and our actions will now become costly to everyone concerned, includink MROSD. This differs from the past — when only the families who were forced to give up their homes and land against their will suffered adverse consequences. Our mutual actions, however, are also producing some benefits — at least for rural residents. The Costs: For mountain and rural residents — and for District staff and Directors — it will be costly in terms of time, effort and money. For MROSD and the cause of open space, it will almost surely reduce public support and increase public suspicion and disapproval. No government agency can easily maintain public respect in this post-Watergate era, and we believe there are ample, documented actions by the District that will cause the public to seriously question MROSD actions and policies. page 1 And, it will take an emotional toll on citizen-homeowners, and on District leaders — though nothing comparable to the trauma already suffered by mountain families who have been forced out of their homes by threat of condemnation. More concretely, it may advcr§elv affect MROSD bond valuati n in the future. It may incur significant election expenses for ballot initiatives or recall elections — created with timing that forces off-year special elections. A long-time political organizer, Sandy Weiner, stated that the administrative and operational costs to a local agency for a special election are about $70,000 in San Mateo County. They are likely to be far greater in Santa Clara County with its greater population. This ignores the expense of staff and Directors' time and effort, addressing bond valuations and election efforts — time and effort that could better be expended pursuing acquisition of available property voluntarily available on the open market. [You might wish to ask your General Manager to briefly research how much it will cost the District to conduct off-year special elections, forced by voter petition.] Finally, to the extent that there is any legal action — initiated by homeowners or by MROSD — it will drain financial resources that MROSD could otherwise be using for open space, an issue we would certainly address in a broad public forum. Yes, we know legal action will also drain our resources. But, that's not the point for MROSD Directors; the point for District decision-makers is ... will you choose to expend District resources in that manner — with ample publicity of that choice — rather than using District resources to obtain other desirable property that is available on the open market? The Benefits: There do not appear to be any benefits for MROSD, its staff or its Directors. However, for us, there are several: This is already fosterin.R more community. spirit, neighborhood cooperation, and organized community action than has been seen among the Peninsula's mountain and rural residents since the '60's or earlier. It has overcome much of the go-it-alone, isolationist predilecations that have dominated mountain and rural lifestyles on the Peninsula for the past 15-20 years — predilections that have permitted MROSD to "knock us off", one by one, until now. And, to some degree, it is overcoming the "me first" attitudes that have dominated much of the '70's and '80's. Cur Plan of Action: Our initial thrust is a two-part oublic information effort. (A) We plan i to nform mountain and rural residents and vroverty owners of our actions and plans, current events, and their options in negotiating and possible legal action. (B) We seek to inform and touch bayside residents — your passive constituency — detailing, for them, MROSD actions and policies that we feel are unreasonable, and amply describing District aggressions against folks' homes and property. To engender and maximize bayside support for our positions, we will emphasize the "human interest" aspects of MROSD actions. These will include personal stories of those families forced from their homes, staff and/or VIP occupancy of MROSD holdings — particularly those aquired under threat of condemnation, any special deals or offers made to some property owners but not to others, use of in-District tax revenues for out-of-District purchases, sales of property by a District that is supposed to be in the acquisition business — particularly sales at a loss, unusually high staff salaries, purchases through POST that could have been acquired directly without broker fees, etc. We will also publicize possibly illegal actions by MROSD staff — e.g., trespass, appraisals without legally-required owners' presence, highly questionable assertions in applications filed by MROSD with LAFCO, and state and U.S. agencies, etc. In all of this, we will prominently associate MROSD Directors and key staff decision-makers with MROSD policies, and actions. The actions of "the District" are only a function of the actions of the District's decision-makers — who are, and must be, accountable for their/your actions ... and inaction. Political Action: City, county, state and federal elected officials are being contacted for support — and to reduce or eliminate their support of MROSD, as long as it elects to threaten or use unrestrained condemnation powers. We are seeking revocation or restraint of condemnation powers for acquisition of park and open space property, particularly when other desirable property is available on the open market. We will also challenge MROSD applications for state and federal funds, and closely examine them for accuracy and completeness. We are currently examining possibilities for recall elections and ballot initiatives. Whether we can win in such efforts is only part of their value. They will focus considerable publicity on MROSD practices, and on the issue of a government agency using condemnation to force families out of homes. And, they will sap MROSD financial and energy resources which would otherwise be used in continuing threats against us and our homes. Yes, we well recognize that such efforts would also make demands on our resources. As stated previously, this will be costly to everyone page 2 concerned. ' Legal Action: Information that we publicize will be attributed and documented. If matters of public record are withheld, or their availability is unreasonably delayed, prompt legal action will be filed to assure public availability of public records. We will amply publicize any such action — and its cause, and will encourage the Newspaper Publishers' Association to participate in that action. Property owners will be fully informed of their legal rights, and encouraged to file civil or even criminal complaints against anyone who violates those rights. At a minimum, this includes the issue of trespass. Apparently, MROSD has never been forced to take condemnation proceedings through to their legal conclusion. We are now pursuing the creation of a legal defense fund, along with a mutual-aid pact and solicitation of financial support pledges. This is a miniscule version of the mutual-aid agreements between police agencies, or small nations who feel their homes and communities are threatened by powerful, aggressive neighbors. I state this last "legal" point — hopefully, only for the sake of completeness: Should any apparent attempt, whatsoever, be made to supress publication and distribution of documented information, or otherwise coerce those participating in this citizen effort and public information activity, I am personally prepared to dedicate a significant portion of my personal financial and professional resources to a defense effort. Any such attempt would no longer be a matter of philosophical differences over condemnation; it would be a matter of the most basic principles on which this nation was founded. The ACLU would certainly be encouarged to participate on "free press" issues. The Pri1nary Information T 1 : For our information efforts, the main tools are extensive computerization and analysis of information, plus widespread distribution of the results in our sporadic newspaper, the Peninsula Citizens' Advocate. Issues of the Advocate will be distributed to at least 20,000 homeowners in the bayside and coastside foothills. (At this point, there is increasing support for a 30,000 circulation — just like the last two Advocates.) Copies will also be "piggy-backed" — essentially postage-free — as inserts in an end-of-April 100,000-circulation Silicon Gulch Gazette newspaper, reaching most of the Peninsula's high tech community ... with ample and provocative explanation of why it is being included. Information that has been or will be computerized, includes — but is not limited to — MROSD expense and income records, parcel acquisitions and sales, prior and post ownership (pun intended), brokerage and appraisal fees, lease arrangements and revenues, District voter records, parcel records, purchase agreements, purchase prices and "comparables" — which should prove useful to prospective sellers, etc. It also includes parcel and homeowner lists, voter registration lists, and lists of groups likely to be sympathetic to, and/or financially supportive of, this homeowner effort. Other Information Tools: We will issue news releases to Bay area media — announcing our activities that may be deemed newsworthy, and detailing any possibly newsworthy MROSD or staff actions. This particularly includes ample publicity of any aggressive actions against homeowners. Several press conferences and newsworthy events are being planned — to expand community awareness and support for our efforts, and to encourage general media coverage of the issues we raise. It might be noted that, in the past, the mere publication of the Advocate engendered media coverage. And — unlike the building inspection issue, where most residents fear to speak out — homeowners will readily speak out on the issue of threatened condemnations. After all, the most we can lose are our homes — and those are already threatened with forced acquision, by default. There are already several newspaper reporters interested in the issues we have raised. This includes one that was reportedly quickly transferred to other work after raising issues critical of MROSD actions. We believe that even the District's most influential friends in publishing will be unable to squelch general media coverage, as we gear up to pursue widespread community action. It has been our experience that reporters are highly independent (as they should be) — independent of us, and independent of MROSD — and some number of them have the energy and tenacity to pursue stories that have any appearance of governmental excesses, improprieties or cover-ups. At least fifty truck "billboards" — truck sides and backs — are already available for signs presenting our messages. As with any advertising, their text will be motivational. One example might be, "Taxpayer awareness message: Did you know the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has forced x families to give up their homes and/or land, bull-dozing some homes, and letting District staff occupy others?" It is highly likely that numerous other truck "billboards" are available from truckers and companies who are supportive of our positions, just for the asking. page 3 Of course, anything we publicize will be documented and easily verified. We are already in contact with some Bay area "talk show' hosts, and will expand those contacts as well as pursuing PIA spots on local television. 2. Proposal that Directors and Concerned Citizens Promptly Meet to Seek Solutions I sincerely doubt that anyone on either side really wants to incur the "costs" that now seem likely, outlined in the preceeding pages. However, until and unless a majority of the District Directors act to modify their current "absolute" position on use of condemnation, we — who are home- and land-owners — have no other alternative than to pursue the outlined plans. On the other hand, if at least a majority of the District's Directors will support an attempt to cooperate, we have an opportunity to at least sincerely try to work together, to attempt resolution of our differences — before the current situation further escalates, and such cooperative efforts become more and more difficult. Legally inadequate or equivocating policy changes, or policies that have facade rather than substance — perhaps formulated by staff and rubber-stamped by the Directors — will do nothing but enhance and expand support for our citizen effort, add fuel to allegations of circuitous behavior, further imply that the staff runs the Directors rather than the Directors running the staff, and delay mutually acceptable solutions. For the benefit of the District, the homeowners, and the general "cause" of open space, I urge you to give serious consideration to the following proposal for working together to seek mutually acceptable solutions in a timely manner: Create a Citizen-Director Committee.- By majority vote of the Board of Directors, instruct and authorize the Board Chairperson to appoint a Committee to formulate mutually acceptable proposals regarding MROSD use of condemnation powers. Committee make-up: You might consider the following suggestions as possible guidelines for Committee appointments: appoint Committee members who are likely to be able to persuade a majority of MROSD Directors, and persuade most or all key "citizen activists" to accept any solutions on which the Committee can agree, — appoint Committee members who are likely to be reasonable, practical and efficient; avoid those who are belligerent, intransigent, or "wheel-spinners", — appoint 3-5 MROSD Directors who reflect all major Director biases, — appoint 3-5 homeowners who are knowledgable of the District, knowledgable of the area's mountain and rural communities, and/or respected within their communities, — include — as non-voting members — the MROSD General Manager and Acquisitions Manager, — instruct the General Manager to assign a secretary to attend all Committee meetings. Suggestions for Committee Members: The Directors amply reflect the desires of the District's bayside constituency. Pragmatically, the citizen members should reflect the homeowner and property-owner constituency, if the Committee is sincerely designed to effect solutions that will be widely accepted. If I may, I would like to suggest that the following mountain residents be considered, among others, as some of the possible citizen-members of the Committee: — Bob Fissc, long familiar with MROSD activities, past President of the South Skyline Association (SSA), and current Treasurer of SSA (he's willing to serve), — Larry Hassett, another past President of SSA, known to be reasonable and articulate (not yet contacted), — Bob Scaby, Editor of the Kings Mountain Echo, widely respected within the north Skyline area, quite articulate and perceptive, and a long-time school teacher (not yet contacted), — me (Jim Warren), currently the only nominee for President of the Kings Mountain Association (election is Saturday, 3/16), a 20-year Skyline-area resident, ... and a Sierra Club member since the mid-'60's, and Committee for Green Foothills supporter in the early '70's (available). Bob Fissc (851-2365) has suggested Janet Schwind and Beez Jones as other possible candidates for such a Committee (availability unknown, but likely). Instructions to the Committee: Given the time-sensitivity of this matter, you might consider instructing the Committee to hold meetings of at least 4-hour durations, at least oncp q week — until it can report mutually acceptable proposals to the Directors, or until a majority of its voting members agree that they cannot agree on any proposals. Instruct the Committee to hold all of its meetings open to public observation, with reasonable notice mailed to the MROSD "interested parties" list. There must be no hint of page 4 attempts at self-serving "special deals" for individuals. You might instruct the Committee that it is to operate on consensus: not simple majority rule — for proposals must have broad approval if they are to be likely acceptable by the major decision-makers on all sides, and are likely to produce the desired de-escalation. You could instruct the Committee to report partial or incremental proposals to the Directors, without having to wait for creation of a single, all-encompassing solution. For instance, the Committee might consider developing condemnation policies to be applied to categories of parcels similar to different zoning and housing density regulations that are already applied to categories of parcels. The categories might be: — parcels with homes already built on them and occupied, — "smaller" parcels on which planning regulations permit a maximum of one primary dwelling, — "larger" parcels for which owners are willing to execute contracts and deed restrictions prohibiting subdivision (being paid fair compensation for limiting the value of their property in that way), subdividablc parcels for which no subdivision proposals have been submitted to local planning agencies, — subdividable parcels for which subdivision requests have been filed, — etc. There are almost certainly those who obstinately prefer the status quo — and recognize, as we do — that committees can be used (abused) to provide the delusion of action while pursuing endless inaction A typical way to do this is to require that a committee do more work than it can do in a reasonable amount of time. We, who's homes are at stake, will not cooperate with such an attempt — I urge you, who are the Directors of the District, not to permit the attempt of such a farce. Please — Act Now!: As attorneys like to say, "Time is of the essence." To the extent that the Directors choose to delay or take ineffective action, we must and will continue with our plans. Please note: Mountain and rural residents are most malablc and open to negotiation, now. As we continue to overcome the inertia of past inaction, it will become more and more difficult to work together to achieve mutually acceptable solutions; it will be more difficult to cancel the momentum of new action. And, as our efforts to gain public support have any "successes" whatsoever — given that, to date, we have had no effective public support — it will fuel our actions, and add resolve to our positions ... making negotiated solutions still more difficult. Please understand — you have given us no alternative ... other than to passively and and obediently await the moment when District staff decide its time to pick up off, one by one. This is no longer an acceptable alternative for a rapidly expanding group of mountain and rural dwellers. Our homes are at risk. The District has provided the "List of 700" to assist our organizational efforts. (Actually, due to the overlay's asterisks, it appears that it may be more like 1,000 or 1,500.) And, the Advocate and Gazette are already scheduled for publication — to address other time-sensitive topics, as well as "the condemnation issue." I urge you to create the l2roposed Committee, now. at your March Qth meeting. There is no reason to delay; there is ample reason to take effective action in good faith, immediately. If there are legal restraints against officially creating the Committee without prior public notice, then — if the majority of the Directors will support its eventual creation — I propose that the Board Chair "informally ask" individuals, who will later be legally appointed to the later- created Committee — to begin meeting and seeking solutions, now. There are numerous examples of the Board's pursuing other issues in an informal manner that is efficient and effective. We are all well aware that the District can take prompt and effective action — if it chooses to do so. One Closing Thought — Things Have Changed: A Director commented at the 2/27 meeting that, "Nothing had changed," with the publication of the List of 700(?). We disagree — here are some irrevocable changes: — 700-1,500 homeowners and property owners are now being notified that the District has listed their property for possible acquisition discussions in closed Directors' sessions, and the District has shown on numerous occasions that it is willing to threaten and initiate condemnation proceedings to aquirc property, including property with homes on it. — Ample organizational and operational resources (PCA and mine) are now dedicated to this effort. Their effectiveness has been proven in eight years of creating the largest end-user microcomputer conventions in the world, plus action that appears to have successfully changed building inspection excesses in San Mateo County, and efforts that may have provided the swing page 5 vote in the most expensive state Senate election ever run. — Two newspapers(?) will repeatedly carry massive coverage of all District policies and actions that we feel arc significant. One has been well known and widely read for eight years. With only three sporadic issues totalling less than 60 pages, the other has established a significant following and widespread reputation for vigorous and effective advocacy. Each have circulations that are 2-8 times greater than, say, the Country Almanac. And — the writers/reporters for these publications are obviously not subject to control of baysidc publishers. To quote from MROSD Board Chair Harry Turner's letter about PCA and Advocate efforts, published over his signature in our issue #3, "Any device that makes bureaucrats and elected representatives accountable for what they do is worthwhile. I support the informed approach that you take to the issues. Keep the heat on." We appreciate Harry's praise, will continue our focus on publication of verifiable information support our claims, and will follow his advice concerning warmth. Thanking you for your attention to these comments, I remain, Sincerely, Jim Warren, PCA founder & Publisher, Peninsula Citizens' Advocate cc: South Skyline Association San Mateo County Coastal Landowners Association Growth Policy Council & San Mateo County Development Association San Mateo County Supervisors Tom Nolan, Bill Schumacher and John Ward Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Local Agency Formation Commissions (3) Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey, Esq. Mike McCracken, Esq. Ruth Waters, Committee to Save Hassler P.S.— I consider this to be official correspondence to the Board, thus to be included in the reprints of written communications and other Board papers distributed to all interested parties. page 6