HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850417 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-09 V Meeting 85-09
1'ok
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965.4717
SPECIAL MEETING
7 : 30 P .M. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Town of Portola Valley's
Wednesday Multi-Use Room
April 17 , 1985 765 Portola Road
AGENDA Portola Valley, California
(7 :30) ROLL CALL
BOARD WORKSHOP : PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INVITED
1. Continuation of Discussion on Policy Regarding Use of Power of
Eminent Domain
2 . Procedures in Implementing Amendments to Brown Act Regarding Closed
Session Discussions of Property Negotiations
3 . Policy Regarding Acquisition of Land Outside District Boundaries
4 . Policy Regarding Annexation of Lands
(10: 30) ADJOURNMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT OF FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS--OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
The Budget Committee wiZZ meet at 4:30 P.M. at the District office on the foZZowing
dates: April 23, ApriZ 30, May 7, May 14, and May 21. The purpose of the meetings
is to discuss preparation of the budget for the 1985-1986 fiscaZ year. The meetings
are subject to cancellation or rescheduZing. Contact the District office to confirm
date and time.
PALO
lkLTO
vk%
NPN
WOODC110t, �` POP_-rOLA VL.Y
49,
� JQ�
0
MOWN NALL
i
Town+ HALL.
MULTI NgPO?76 ••'
IeGY7t•1 1°daK'XJNIs
O
APR 5 tz%
Star Route 2, Box 403
La Honda, CA 94020
April 3, 1985
Nonette Hanko, Director
MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Ms. Hanko:
First of all, let me thank you for your position paper regarding MROSD's use of eminent
domain, acquisition of land outside District boundaries, and annexation of lands to the
District. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that there are sympathetic people like
yourself on the MROSD Board of Directors.
So that you may better understand the positions I take on these issues, I am including
the following information. My husband and I own and occupy a home on 95 acres, west
of Skyline Blvd. This parcel was originally outside of the MROSD boundary, but has now
been included on the infamous Brown Act list.
Our first encounter with MROSD was over the Coplon property. Although we share
a quarter mile of common boundary with that property, MROSD did not notify us of the
hearings on the condemnation of that parcel; we attended the last bearing on the issue after
learning of it from one of our neighbors. When we protested this oversight at the hearing, a
member of MROSD's acquisitions staff beligerently asserted that MROSD had no obligation
to notify us, since we lived outside the District. We pointed out that the majority of the
parcel being condemned was outsi,-ic the District, at which point a member of the legal staff
loftily told us that MROSD was in no way constrained to keep its acquisitions within (or
even near) the bounds of the District. We then sat and watched the Board politely ignore
nearly 20 people who protested the Coplon condemnation. Instead, the Board chose to
listen to a variety of rather silly excuses from the acquisitions staff as to why it was totally
impractical to permit the Coplons sell MROSD only the front part of their property (the
part in the District's boundary), while building a single family home on the back portion
of the property (next to ours). The Board voted to condemn the entire property, leaving
many of us with the impression that we had just seen a "kangaroo court" in action.
I left that hearing with a strong feeling of "There, but for the grace of God, go 1". Had
we happened to have acquired our land and attempted to build our home a mere 5 years
later than we did, MROSD could well have stopped us from fulfilling our dream of living
in the country, as they had so effectively quashed Coplon's dream. As it was, we weren't
out of the woods, for part of MROSD's stated justification for condemning all of Coplon's
property was to provide a potential link to the various County Parks via Mindego Creek,
which bisects our property.
From then on, we regarded MROSD with a fear that grew into loathing. We came to
see it as a cancer, slowly spreading across the landscape, gobbling up parcels, and stepping
on any of the Skyline residents who happened to be in the way. Over the years,we watched
it take in many of the parcels we had looked at before buying our property, and wondered
if there would be any place left for us to move to when MROSD ran out of other people to
pick on and came after our home.
Then came the Brown Act and the infamous list, which included our parcel; again we
found out about it, not from MROSD, but from a neighbor. My husband hit the roof; I
merely crawled off to bed and cried for hours. It seemed that our worst fears were coming
to pass—MROSD's shotgun approach to land acquisition had a pellet in it with our name
on it.
We attended the workshop on March 30, and discovered several things. First of all,
we were not alone--a lot of people were extremely upset about the District's policies (or
lack thereof). The good news was that the Board seemed to feel that reasonable, humane
policies should be established, documented, and adhered to. The bad news was that the
MROSD staff still contained the same people that "got" Coplon, and they hadn't changed
their attitudes one bit. It was not clear whether official policy changes by the Board would
have any effect, since the staff people advising on and implementing the policies obviously
like things the way they are.
Because these issues affect me at such a deep emotional Ievel, I was unable to stand up
and say what I feel at that workshop. I am instead writing you, in the hopes that you can
persuade the rest of the Board to adopt some much-needed reforms. My positions on the
issues are as follows.
First of all, I believe that MROSD should never have been given the power of eminent
domain. Recreational space is a diffuse need—the failure to acquire any single parcel may
be esthetically unpleasing to MROSD, but does not jeopardize the overall concept of open
space not when there are so many available parcels which remain on the open market for
months or years. Therefore, I see is no moral justification for "big brother" MROSD to
acquire land by force,which is what condemnation amounts to. The arguments I have heard
about it being needed to establish a fair market value are highly unconvincing. Truly fair
market value can only be determined by negotiation between a willing seller and a willing
buyer, both of whom have the freedom to walk away from the deal if they don't like it.
Condemnation locks the buyer and seller together, and leaves the determination of price
up to a judge or jury. In this urban area, the odds are that this judge or jury will have no
interest in nor appreciation of rural values in general and the subject property in particular.
They are most likely to vote their pocket-books, deciding on a low price to save money for
the government, hence for the tax-payer—hardly a fair situation for the seller to be forced
into.
However, I am a realist. I understand that a bureaucracy like MROSD is unlikely to
voluntarily give up power, particularly when advised by a staff which so seems to enjoy
using, or at least threatening to use, this power. Therefore, the best I can hope for is that
the MROSD Board will adopt a policy of extreme restraint in the use of eminent domain.
It should be used only after prolonged negotiation, and after the MROSD negotiator has
completely broken off negotiations at least twice. It should never be used as a threat, either
expressed or implied. Its use should require at least a 2/3 majority of the whole Board, and
preferably a unanimous vote.
Condemnation should never be used against privately owned, improved property—
whether occupied by the owner, a renter, or temporarily left vacant. In fact, MROSD
shouldn't be acquiring this type of property at all, since it will invariably lead to embar-
rassing decisions about whether to bulldoze the structures, leave them vacant for vandals to
destroy, rent them out, or have District personnel move in—any of which will offend some
2
r
segment of the public. Also, improved properties, especially relatively small parcels with
single family homes, tend to be a waste of MROSD funds, since so much of the value is in
the improvements rather than the land itself.
I also believe that MROSD needs to draw firm boundary lines, permanently delimiting
the area in which it will be active, and within that area, make known their plans as to what
priorities are attached to the various parcels. This allows land owners to know for certain
whether their land has been targeted, and to make appropriate plans. It also allows anyone
looking for rural property (whether a first-time buyer or one MROSD has displaced by a
previous purchase) to select a home site that is permanently outside the District, hence
safe from MROSD acquisition. It is extremely unkind to leave people uncertain, living in a
state of fear for years, which is the effect of the current lack of policy.
Acquisitions outside of the District should be strongly discouraged, and should never
involve the use of condemnation. Annexations to the present District boundaries should
happen one parcel at a time, and only with the consent of the property owner. Furthermore,
some means must be found to assure the public that all of these policy changes are binding,
rather than something which can be changed back to the original abuses once the heat dies
down.
Adoption of these policies will reassure many people. However, it will take many years of
rigorous adherence to these policies to dispel the distrust that MROSD has earned to date.
This process can be hastened, however, if MROSD makes it obvious that they have turned
over a new leaf. One way in which to do this is to replace the members of the staff who have
been responsible for past abuses. Certain members of the acquisitions staff in particular
have alienated many members of the community with their arrogant, obstructionist, and
generally unsympathetic attitudes to human values. It is my belief that these people have
cost MROSD far more in good will lost than they could ever save MROSD in dollars; in
F fact I believe that you will find they are now costing MROSD dollars as well, as land owners
escalate their prices to pay for the aggravation of having to deal with these people. I feel
that a change of personnel would be of benefit to all.
Well, thank you for listening to my thoughts and beliefs. I sincerely hope that you are
successful in bringing some much-needed reform to MROSD's policies.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Marsha Quam
3
y
.fit i J y
t�
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
w FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 11, 1985
C J
�k, K v
Z Written Corunut ation presented to
w� Y 4 the Board of Directors at April 10,
L
n C. 1985 Board meeting.
? E q
er e G
y O c'
SANTA U CLARA
L
E
V
R SOUTH SKYLINE ASSOCIATION
D PEOPLE CONCERNED WITH THE BEAUTY AND THOUGHTFUL PLANNING OF THE SOUTH SKYLINE,
April 10, 1985
Ms. Teena Henshaw, President
Board of Direetors
tiidpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, D 1
Los Altos, CA
Re: Sempervirens Annexation No. 687--A
Dear Ms. Henshaw and Board Members;
The Board of Directors of the South Skyline Association opposes District
annexation of private lands when the owners of those lands are opposed
to the annexation.
We feel that the situation with Sempervirens No. 687-A is analogous to
a larger annexation by vote of the people. In this case, the people (Bar Y)
voted IIno.II
If the resolution before you is approved, a precedent of coercion in
annexation might be set.'
We urge the Staff and the Directors of the 111idpeninsula Regional Open
Space District to research all alternative methods for annexation or
enforcing District regulations on the District controlled lands in this
area.
Sincerely yours,
7�,;:.�- E �i .%'�t.-�c.tom:--,;•_��i
Janet H. Schwind
11825 Skyline Boulevard
Los Gatos, CA 95030
cc: Santa Cruz L.4FC0 (I am a voter in the MROSD)
COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTF' S 10 1385
Peninsula Conservation Center
2253 Park Blvd., Palo Alto,California 94306*
Phone: 327-5906 or 328-5313
HONORARY PRESIDENT Co-inty of 94 n t n Clzr= 1 7 7 103 5)
Wallace Stegner Forl -r-tin-1
PRESIDENT I -1'"test 9eldinrr .)tr-�,
,
Len Erickson S "I Jos ' , Cr; 95110
VICE PRESIDENTS Donr 'lembars Of the COM-1ission :
Marilyn Bauriedel
David Bomberger
Sandra Cooperman urge you to aD,)rove th - routine request by
Ciddy Wordell tli� Nlidpeninsula Regional open Space District to
SECRETARY Frinex 11171 ! crr-s of land within th mRr-)SD sphere
Betsy Crowder of influl2nc:� tind in San kleteo County.
TREASURER
Barbara Behling v. ur'. her, -nore, we recomr,2nd ths!t VOU deny S a n
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ilDt,�:O County LAFCO's raquest for jurisdiction on
NRI�'
Marion Blukis SD ann?xallions in San Mateo "Ounty.
Douglas Fuchs
Terry Lobdell 1,1e base our position on a number of precedents
Sara MacDwyer anl reasons. H,)w-:-,v-:3 r
Marc McGee I th��! -105t si -nificant
Jett Miller issue for your considarat- ion is theneed to
Hans Moravvitz N1,1intain clear and consistent process for
Jerry Perkins hindling district s t r i c t b�o Cindy Rubin undary jurisdiction
Jim Wheeler decisions. The requ?st before You is for a
ADVISORY COUNCIL routin :, annexation which originally was
Donald Aitken recor,.-imenlcd by the San 11Fteo -County LAFCO
Pat Barrentine executive. To split the MROSD District . between
Betsy Bechtel Santa Clara qn,11 San 'Ila' eo confuscs the lines of
Chris Berka e
Robert Brown responsibility and would involve Santa Clara
Mary Davey County L417CO in cornpl-x side issule3 which are
Walter Droste not its responsibility and are irrelevant to
Barbara Eastman
John Gilliland L41FCO bound=iry decisions.
Bob Girard
Nonette Hanko O�.her r for or our recommendations m-:�nd at ions are that
L
Lois Hogle S Clara County
Ellie Huggins L - CO !-!as handled M R 03 1)
Thomas Jordan. Jr boundary issues for t
Bill Leland approvc�d t1ne current I be last 13 years and
Sidney Liebes sphere of influence
lands are within
Bob Mark in 791 , Of district
Richard Mierk Sant-1 C 1 -r a Cou n 1:y. T h property owners
Diana Miller
Alan Newlands, involved have a,r;rc-�_,d to the annexation.
Nits Nilsson
George Norton S_Jnc r.�ly yours ,
Bob Reese
Jean RLIsmore
Isabel Sewell
Jon Silver
Frances Spangle ridjy Wordell , President
John Stoddard
Ruth Troetschler
Howard Wilshire 0 5 D Bo d 0 f 9 i r c ct,o r s
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATES
Linda Elk,nd
Lennie Roberts
COORDINATOR
Georgia Perkins A REGIONAL GROUP WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
y
0ge.
RilDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Richard Bishop
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: 4/11/85
APR 1995
3/29/85
Enouirer- Bulletin
961 Laurel St
San Carlos CA 94070
Editor;
In your last two issues you presented one side of the Hassler controversy
without mentioning the other vied. Those opposed to the reconstruction of
the Hassler buildings have some valid agruments, in ay opinjon:
The image that the buildings need only renovation is not true. The estimate
presented by the Arts people makes no mention of earthquake standards, for
example; to bring these buildings up to those standards would require
reconstruction from the foundation up. The heating plant alone would cost
their entire estimate to replace; repair on a system that old is out of
the question.
The Arts people are private citizens trying to acquire public lands for
private use. However noble their cause, they have no legitimate claim on
public land, especially one designated for open space use by all - not
closed rooms to be used by a privileged fees.
They have argued their case at public forums and lost. They pursued their
case in court and lost. They were warned that they night have to pay for
the additional costs incurred by the delay of demolition; they now demand
to be absolved of that consequence of their actions. They are pressuring
local politicians to try and achieve by the back door what they couldn't
achieve thru legitimate means. With every further tactic, they are appearing
less and less the patrons of the arts and more like greedy individuals who
see a chance to have their own foundation complete with directors, grants
etc - at the expense of the taxpayers who have alrea3y paid for the land.
You spear. of "Hassler preservation ralists" and a Coyote Point type of facility;
the buildings cannot be preserved - they Are too old, too weak and trashed
beyond anything short of total rebuilding. The locked rooms at Twin Pines are.
not to me a Coyote Point type of facility.
You say give the Coalition time to raise money; they've had months and months,
and as I understand it have received pledges of about y,200,000. The public
support for these private citizens, however noble their cause, does not exist.
Give them a chance to "put up or shut up,,? I heartily agree. Now that they've
gone thru legitimate public channels and failed, and tried the courts and
failed, when are they going to shut up?
Jerry O'Donnell
3355 Brittan -'4
gyp/ �y San Carlos 593-2926 .
a
.MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Nanette Hanko
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: 4/11/85
SACRAMENTO ADDRESS
State Capitol
Sacramento,California 95814
(916)445.8188
DISTRICT OFFICE Ai5scinhig
San Carlos Gl Mall
tl u.tl([fUrllitt ��Eg� i(cZtUC� APR Secon Floor
666 Elm Street
San Carlos,CA 94070
(4151 591-5544
�l ROBERT W. NAYLOR
ASSEMBLYMAN. TWENTIETH DISTRICT
ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN LEADER
April 4, 1985
Ms. Nonette Hanko
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Ms. Hanko:
Thank you for our recent conversation and
for sending a copy of your recent memo about the land
acquisition policies of the MROSD.
We appreciate the sensitivity and thought-
fulness of the proposals you advance.
Please keep us informed and we will continue
to follow this issue closely.
S' ely,
Ji ourgart
nistrative Assi tant
JB:af
b
look
MIDPENINSUL.A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 12, 1985
11255 Mt. Crest Place
Cupertino, California 95014
April 12 , - 1985
Mr". Jan Sutter, Editor
Coast & Skyline Express
P.O. Box 4
La Honda, CA 94920
Dear Jan:
I have just seen a copy of ;your most recent Coast & Skyline
Express, in which you tell your. readers to call the MROSD
office for "advance reservations" to the April 10th Board
Meeting, but "don' t ask for Charlotte MacDonald because she
just quit. "
What you and your .readers need to know is that I didn' t "just
quit. " My resignation from my position as Public Communications
Coordinator, which I held for the past six years, was tendered
at the end of January for complet6ly personal reasons. Not
only was my resignation unrelated to the issues to which you
have so faithfully dedicated your publication for the past
month or so--those issues had not yet arisen when I made my
decision to change my career.
Thanks for including this information in your next publica-
tion and for helping to correct the -record.
Sincerely,
Charlotte MacDonald
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
r
V
.a
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 12, 1985
—
`~~=^` �a~~^`^~~^TI"N Sunnyvale , Ca,
D&eetzrug85-05 March 21 , 1985
Macxib 37, 1985
N5115
v'.
Board of Directors
Midpenin5ula Open Space District
� 375 DiStel Circle
Suite 0-1
Los Altos , Co . 94023
�
� Dear Board Members :
� I was sorry to reed that you were subjected to abuse at your
� recent board meeting by a typical selfish special interest group.
I hope that your vote not to condemn #s . DooIey * s property represented
� your true beliefs and that you did not panic because a bunch of
� people were yelling at you ,
� I agree t -)at the Open Space District should respect the property
rights Of residents Of long Standing in the mountains . MS. Dooley ,
� however , is n different breed of cat ' She Is obviously one of the
� new rich aristocracy Of Silicon Valley , many Of which would like to
stake Out their ow-i little five acre mountain dOmGin. If this kind
� Of development is allowed to continue , there will oOOn be little
� left in the mointalnS for the hOi pOlIOi to enjoy .
� I frankly don ' t give a damn whether Ms . Dooley ever gets her
dream home Or her Christmas tree farm--but I do want to see our
[ grandchildren and great grandchildren have something left Of their
� natural heritage . The way the Santa Clara Volley is going, you (we)
� must save every beautiful natural area that can be saved.
�
� If Ms. Oooley ' s property , or any like it , is really necessary
� to preserve the integrity Of an open space area , I encourage you
� to go after it . You may have Ma . Dooley and a few of her friends
�
� screaming at you , but ycu will also have thousands of valley
dwellers applauding your every move . A 20 year old tract house Or
a 1200 sq. ft . condo will d0 for Dooley , as they are doing for
thousands Of Other local residents .
I have Only praise for the work done by the Open Space District
since its inception . You--and the board members who preceded you--
have done a magnificent job and you have kept your eye On the b8II
at all times . Your concept of the job to be done has been the
COITeCt one , and you must not let the M5 . DOoleys Of the world
shout you down .
Sincerely ,
� ���_ ��
w�'«��x " '�aAw4~~-
Walt Marsh
511 Humber Ct .
� Sunnyvale , C8. 94087
11255 Mt. Crest Place
Cupertino, California 95014
April 12, 1985
Mf. Jan Sutter, Editor
Coast & Skyline Express
P.O. Box 4
La Honda, CA 94920
Dear Jan:
I have just seen a copy of ;your most recent Coast & Skyline
Express, in which you tell your readers to call the MROSD
office for "advance reservations" to the April loth Board
Meeting, but "don' t ask for Charlotte MacDonald because she
just quit. "
What you and your readers need to know is that I didn't "just
quit. " My resignation from my position as Public Communications
Coordinator, which I held for the past six years, was tendered
at the end of January for complet6ly personal reasons. Not
only was my resignation unrelated to the issues to which you
have so faithfully dedicated your publication for the past
month or so--those issues had not yet arisen when I made my
decision to change my career.
a
Thanks for including this information in your next publica-
tion and for helping to correct the -record.
Sincerely,
Charlotte MacDonald
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR
APRIL 17, 1985 WIORKSHOP
Phyllis Cangemi
517 Lincoln Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94061
415-363-2647
April 16 , 1985
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Board Members,
I am writing this letter to express my personal support
for the important land preservation efforts of the Open Space
District. As you may know, I feel very strongly that there
is no more pressing concern that faces our society than the
preservation of our natural environment. Without that natural
environment, no life could exist on this planet.
As you may also know, I am involved and concerned with
problems in our human society. I also deeply respect and
support the rights of individuals. However, there are times
when serious choices must be made to benefit all, including
the other inhabitants of our natural kingdom. These choices
should not be made without serious consideration. However,
that does not mean that they should not be made.
In conclusion, I would say that while I would prefer to
see out of court solutions to certain land preservation issues,
sometimes that is not possible. I do, however, feel that the
district should not take an action that would threaten a
person' s domicile. I might add that if I were personally
a landowner I would hope that I would voluntarily make the
decision to sell my property for open space. What better gift
could I give to future generations? I hope that I would have
the courage to do this.
Yours truly,
Phyllis Cangemi
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR APRIL 17, 1 WORKSHOP
Quints Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, Calif. 94020
April 12, 1985
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite DOI
Los Altos, Calif. 94022
Dear Board Members:
Things are looking up! Im' sure your friends from the Skyline appreciate
your obvious sincerity in overruling staff recommendations in Dooley and
Bar Y matters. Your efforts to arrive at compromise in condemnation, Brown
Act, annexation and outside boundary acquisition through public workshops is
certainly a cause for our greater trust.
I know how hard it is to sit before a group of your peers and hear constant
complaint. You will find that your job will become more satisfying and
pleasant when you are able to say more often, "That seems like m reasonable
suggestion, Mr. Smith. It will be noted in the minutes of Lhia meeting and
. . . (action) will take place by . . . . (date) !" You don' t lose control
and the citizen feels that his ideas are of some value. "I hear you" is like
a kiss from a fence post!
I hear the plaintive cry, "Stop the cheap shots! " it' s a_ two_way street:
For instance , when your Craig Britton says in a public meeting that "Mr. Bullis
told me he was hoping to make a million dollars on his division of Russian
Ridge Ranch," many took the remark as your pg1ij, that profit was a dishonest
motive in the United States! How ridiculous and immature for your Acquisition
Manager to imply such foolishness and Flub such a "cheap shot. "
We realize you have to defend your staff in public. It may be well to talk to
Grench, Britton and Hanson along the lines that the Board does not relish the
image of insensitivity, that you wish to protect the IiLtLe guy and respect the
minority and avoid confrontation!
It ' s a little strange giving advice like this, but I hope I am being construe-
tive. The Board only loses face and you dig yourselves in deeper by not
addressing the legitimate concerns of your neighbors with compassion Ind #ijpjtcL!
The road to Portola Heights is a great example. Those people are expressing
valid concerns. They certainly never invisaged a "Park" sharing their road with
600,000 "constituents." Then comes Grand View and the upset of the long term
residents of the area, including a former mayor of Woodside.
How can you improve your image when you continue to make such public relation
errors? Relax, and avoid confrontation for awhile. Your stature will sky-
rocket when you learn that every battle you win because your staff or attorney
says "you have the power, " the closer you come to losing the war!
-2-
Now to summarize outstanding problems:
1) Condemnation. Little more can be gained by further workshop time.
Everything has been said. It's up to you to digest and come up with a plan
that no one will really like--compromise.
2) Annexation. No unwilling property owners, no "islands" of unhappy owners,
absolute minimum of acquisition outside District boundaries. Excuse that your
boundaries were hastily drawn is poor. All annexation to improve your boundaries
should be done with the property owners'prior vote. Creeping purchases and
annexation is unfair to owners outside Your District. The question will always
arise, "Why all the activity outside your boundaries when you have so much to do
inside? The use of P.O.S.T. and Sempervirons and Save the Redwoods to enlarge
your District Boundaries by creating a checkerboard that then must be filled is
disconcerting. Certainly these agencies have every right to buy land anywhere
from willing sellers just as you have. But when it's done inIollusion with
M.R.O.S.D. to circumvent your boundaries the public is not happy. M.R.O.S.D.
must recognize publicly what L.A.F.C.O. said in creating M.R.O.S.D."s sphere
of influence. To paraphrase, "We give you this area to expand into in the
future, but we invisage no proactive acquisition until you have satisfied your
thirst for open space within your present boundaries."
3. Brown Act. Less paranoia on your part. Recognize the absolute right
of the public to be aware of your actions with minimum of secrecy. Hire an
outside prestigious legal expert to write your guidelines with direction that
you want a fair and open policy. My attorneys say you may only discuss PRICE
and TERMS in secret -- nothing else! Your foot dragging in granting requests
for information createsanimosity. Have a recognized authority draw up your
obligations in this area, too--someone who is not identified as your "house
Dick." I bet the District Attorney of San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties would
write an opinion for you that would cover both areas and put the complainers to
rest!
Now is the time for rebuilding mutual respect and trust. Now we can cease the
adversary posturing and get about the business of thoughtfully enlarging and
administrating this wonderful public and private land with neighborly cooperation!
Sincerely,
�_Dl
Richard S. Bullis
cc: Janet Schwind, President, So. Skyline Assoc.
cc: Bob Fisse, Treasurer, So. Skyline Assoc.
cc: Carol Doose, Portola Heights Assoc.
cc: Jim Warren, President, King's Mt. Assoc.
cc: Anna Eshoo, Supervisor, San Mateo County
cc: L.A.F.C.O. , San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR "k 16 1%5
APRIL 17 1985 WORKSHOP 22400 Skyline Blvd. 421 .
La Honda. Ca. 94020
Aprii i3 , 1985
MROSD Board of Directors
375 Distel Circe
Los Altos . Ca. 94022
Dear memoers of the Board,
WROSD was created ')y action of the voters in Santa Clara
County in 1972 . Fo- ears later portions of San Mateo County
were annexed into t:he district , also b y ballot vote . Since
then the district has been expanded by numerous small
annexations contiguous to their boundry line.
Tie district has expressed its desire to obtain properties
along the creek corridors and other potential trail connections
from Skyline to the sea. It would seem if it is the districts
Plan to extend into these areas, that the proper procedure
would be to put the entire area where MROSD is aquiring land
and planning trail connections into the district tnrougn the
election process . It is erroneous to assume that the areas
neighboring the district, where the aquisitions and annexations
are to+ .nZ place are unaffected and deserve no voice in the
issue .
The aistrict has interpreted the sphere of influence to be
an area where they can buy lands outright or in conjunction
with other private aquisition groups and then connect these
holdings to the district. By so doing they create inholdings of
private property and corridors of district properties. Few
landowrers understand what the sphere of influence really is or
that sucn an area even existed . Many were surprised to find
their lands included and are concerned about MROSD' s expansion
into their neighborhoods without their Knowledge or consent.
This simply is not the American way. The voters of Santa
Cruz County and of the portions of San Mateo County who are not
in - the district should be offered the opportunity to accept or
retiect the„ aistrict . If annexed into the district these areas
should combine wi�tn area of similar interests to constitute a
new ward LJitn an elected representative to the board . If not
annexed the district sh�o}�ld restrict their purchases to within
their current boundry . phis would relieve LAFCO of the burden
of dealing with numerous small annexations . It would help
clarify tie issue of the districts plans for the sphere of
influence areas and allow tnoes areas some say in the olans .
Sin0 rely ,
Carol j. J v e
I
cc. LAFCO, San Mateo , Santa Cruz, Santa Clara
Board of Supervisors, San Mateo County
Janet Schwind, S. S. A.
Jim Warren , P.C.A.
Assemblyman N ayior
Senator Morgan
i
I
Communications received for Aoril 17. 1985 Workshop
phone call from Tom Harrington, 4201 Page Mill Road (on April 15) . He feels
strongly that eminent domain should never be used on occupied property.
I
S
EPr=NERrT bctrWr-AAJ i°I►P�s's Li 85�cTi --�—
Q0 NOT $cW re) QES5U2.E To ��CP USA p
E171w"T D0trA7W. Tf1r5 3:5 A CPzzxCAI FXAAL
'f00i— TO UFT A COH,65ivC BoVti'DAPY h-r ToPAX.s
FA=FZ PP-TCE. J:F 'YOU DROP rHzs r-OnL) -YOU WI-L-c-
S v 83 EC T ry
UsC A5 A 1-AS-r P-ESoP—T.
tltt
��zG C�I VIEy.ZFE—LONE WRKFNT USE To CuR12ENT
OWNE125 "D TENHA.`'TS �%cv- cc12 RJ1Trc.Ls�.
• G LV I D-YEAe C 1.' nrT �}go TO L jj�Q12EN T
OWN�P_5 AND TF ;AN'tsC cop popA72C�}S,r
726 -3 75 Z �Joir 2q 8�GkA�A�Ay CA