HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850504 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-11 Meeting 85-11
dam
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
9 : 0 0 A.M. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Las Lcmitas School
Saturday 299 Alameda de las Pulgas
May 4 , 1985 Atherton, California 94025
A G E N D A
(9 : 00) ROLL CALL
BOARD WORKSHOP : PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INVITED
1 . Continuation of Discussion on Procedures in Implementing Amend-
ments to Brown Act Regarding Closed Session Discussions of
Property Negotiations
2. Policy Regarding Acquisition of Land Outside District Boundaries
3 . Policy Regarding Annexation of Lands
(11 : 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
following dates: April 30, May 7, May 14, and May 21. The purpose of
the meetings is to discuss preparation of the budget for the 1985-1986
fiscal year. The meetings are subject to cancellation or rescheduling.
Contact the District office Ato confirm date and time. �JF
F.•• MENLO •J' J 'r�♦-`f`,� /\♦ 4 !"♦ •"v♦+^ .4 Y ......,..-. • m\sr v,r cp \c' •'. 'rn raR.a' r '�.y..
41
:•: ( � r�'F. r` `$ °`` .r 7 �r. 4 ♦R r?♦h � j 3 'n ri .+r � :7 i a�r ��, � >. t♦ �" . r..;,�..
'r'r:� \ ara COUNIAV / c'�/. 7 /, ''0ri +'vh"r•rr, r7•r � rti � 'y'' r `rr a~ r•�oj � a 2• oa• / - ti 9,+;:;:
I':=: �\ aouu 'r7. �"•++•.�� +P � r • 6 �'"r .$nr 4� ! 4�TMr o �e y' mar ��` � W f rr .:�::
Clue- N ram• }a • / cr ♦r
I;}:. �• �c, o o tr / �or p ♦ Q.rr a +7/rary ++. =-` ' ` ro ..d o♦ 4.v.�
:?•�, `� ++F 44 oaf 4Af a "r'g /[., r!sr r� r / i: ti ♦n, q. -.�'_ 40 +r -ry ♦e` / /\�,=":
ri�•y, o° rci �o•trc.r[C �� � � o♦ � � r: r V + l�to rR/,D"lyry s+♦r'• �"♦j:.\i^`}.:r c+� �74h b♦ a♦ y� ^w N..K]... !'.�.00 { :
.0 `� 1 / /O • j/r e � ♦� � C •�Yr?r r♦ ``�`��• .�. U-cb$yvr�♦0 ros :•::'
:•.!` \a - o' :nuf.. n�`1s ����� o ry ,� •t ♦ o♦ 3 y :,v^ J ♦ J 1 a[}
:p, �' ."�',. \ � r ��v. ��. +r �✓r•es^'+�.♦[o>>• ��>: ,�� _:fin •r ♦$,�•• � r6'� r V
':�.�d oe�c •s •YFIA„r f • ,4 `�a't ry��`'. s�i]q.P 7 F�ni �� f o :•,� s �
' 3'J' ov •` .C♦r C r` A y`� .. ♦4,rr ri�u4 d''v' ,�+. � �~i.+ ,Y n J . . _ o .
�]° R 4♦ �r R,at w,.,., _ r // 4 Si� �♦\ r n,y�f o�,•�; _ 's;vo��� \,r �� f, RD., � r.r �w
y.. rr • 4rr•` 1 �7�• ♦» r+a r: "� rr r.'v•`•r r. ayd 'a•l ' i ?..:.� • ♦ / , Ir. ``l. ` of t•. /� .�+`� Fa: �! Y :.; 3_'1 �hh.r o'er' ♦r•'�� J 4 t ,.,a0 /
J r : :!o dt' \ �ri'rr.� °r a 'wv ,°+ "prr"+8 T� 'rh,+. ... ,"•sr _
Special Meeting Location
r? LAS LOMITAS SCHOOL - J° a x °, ? a;'c i - ..FV�•,,.. :::
/ sra.vfORP •• ,
299 Alameda de las Pulgas ( :-`ti ^r c 3 :ice%.� <�'� ':�_ /c " ^'��• . _,;:•.
K* Atherton .r<."°4•
LAS LOMITA3 SCHOOL
�♦X r�s�F+t!+ -a SNARON XE/GX7S \ ++.).•sue
OLF, r�tNU g41R:V �aF
f ` COU'IiR�= C[UB i+a In
1 c cF»I r
v"or
RO Cano p� —
��' 1Ial1
LIVFAR
1 : - VIVOxu
I -- tt .
\� _--- - --- Alameda de las Pulgas -=`
Las Lomitas School District
DB/101
Rev. 6/74
APPLICATION for use of SCHOOL FACILITIES
Date of Application: April 24, 1985
Facility Desired: Las Lcmitas School Multi-Purpose Po m
Location (school): Las Lomitas School
Day of the Week: Saturday, May 4, 1985
Time: From 8:00 A.M. to 12 Noon Indicate AM or PM
Dates: Beginning: May 4, 1985 Only Ending:
Purpose: Public Meeting of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors
An admission charge will be made Yes ( ) No (X )
Contributions will be solicited Yes ( -) No (X )
Person in charge: Name H ��CS
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Address 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1; Los Altos, CA 94022
Telephone (415) 965-4717
The undersigned adult citizen believes the above statement to be correct and agrees to be
responsible for compliance with the rules and regulations of the governing Board with respect
to the use of school facilities , including the payment of,,fees.
SignatureVt' 4 _b_/
Mid A insula Regional Open Space District
Address 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1; Los Altos, CA 94022
Telephone (415) 965-4717
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved, and reserved for date and hours specified.
Signed
CO-Imunit 11 Ues
P 1410 1418
General
The Governing Board encouragc:; the use of school facilities for
non-school activities. Qualified community, groups are permitted to use
the school facilities when such use does not conflict with the scheduled
school program. Such groups ordinarily will not be subject to a fee.
Eligible Organizations
A "qualified community group" is one in which a majority of the members
are residents of the District. Typical organizations would include P.T.A. , Camp
Fire Girls, BOY Scouts, senior citizens, and associations formed by citizens
for recreational, educational, political, economic, artistic, or moral activities.
Facilities Available
Permits shall be issued for specific rooms or facilities which have been
,declared available. Playgrounds shall be posted to design-ate restricted or pro-
hibited uses, as determined co-operatively by the District administration, and
local recreation and law enforcement agencies. District property Is not
available for use except witil the expressed authorization of the building
Principal. Request to use District equipment away from school property must
be made in writing to the Superintendent.
Use for Profit
If an admission fee is charged, or contributions or dues are solicited
and the net receipts are not used entirely for pupil welfare or charitable purposes,
a fee shall be assessed for the use of the school property.
Application for Armroval
Application for the use of any facilities shall be made on a prescribed
form, and shall be subject to approva. by a properly designated officer of the
District.
Fees
In cases of use when a fee must be charged, the Business office will
bill the user organization. Such charges will be based on the costs to the
District, including the salaries of District personnel required for supervision
and custodial ser-,rices, and a fair rental value for the facilities used.
Responsibility of Organizations
All organizations using school premises shall oxecute an agreement
assuming the costs of repairing any damage to school property arising from
such use. Decision as to the extent of damage and cost of repairs rests
solely with the Governing Board.
E.C. Socs. 16551 16566
Policy Adopted
12-10-69
M-85-71
At AS,
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)9654717
April 23, 1985
To: The Committee on Eminent Domain Policy; District Counsel
From: Harry A. Turner Art
Subject : Exclusion of Emi ent Domain from All Land Acquisition
Transactions
Position. There should be a moratorium period of two years during which
the District will not initiate an eminent domain proceeding. This
moratorium should begin soon and should extend to all discussions between
the District staff and landowners: the potential for use of eminent domain
and the prospect of a recommendation to the District Board for its use will
not be discussed.
Rationale. The rationale for this policy is different from the rationale
for prior recommendations to restrict or eliminate the exercise of eminent
domain against people living on land they love. In this case the objective
is to seek a relationship that is compatible with land use policy making
governments.
In the impartial LAFCO analysis of District powers (in 1972 and 1976) it
was stated, "The powers of the District include acquisition and disposition
of property, with right of eminent domain, ...(except that such actions
shall not interfere with city or county property or activities), ..."
(emphasis added) . As we all know, the District has no zoning power and it
operates under legislative mandate to make only acquisitions that are
compatible with city and county master plans. It is also true that
proposed developments are scrutinized and controlled by CEQA processes and
the power of the county to withhold development permits. The county
planning staff and commission is an additional forum for the implementation
of the county's land use policies and guidelines. All of these facts lead
to a strong observation the the District's intended and appropriate role is
harmony with public land use authority.
We should also note that the mere existence of the eminent domain power is
a counter-productive incentive against the District's objectives.
Undeveloped lands beome more secure against its use when they are improved
with residences.
Recommendation. The District Board of Directors should adopt the following
eminent domain policies:
1 . The District shall not acquire land or interests in land by
exercise of the power of eminent domain. All land acquisitions
shall be from willing sellers.
HerDen A G,*n_h,Gene/a/Manlpe, Ncwro of D"ef10r3 KAtherine Dutty,Nonette G HankO.Tema Hen3hs. Richard S 9�shoo Ea-410 G Shelley,Marry A Turner.Dsn.et G wonain
Eminent Domain
2. The threat of eminent domain shall not be made.
3. These policies will expire after two years from the date of their
adoption unless they are re-adopted by resolution of the Board of
Directors in public session.
4. When developments are proposed that are incompatible with current
or prospective public open space, the District will present its
concerns to the appropriate government agencies.
5. In the event that these policies are rescinded, then the following
policies will take effect:
a. Residents, whether owners or tenants, will not be subject to
involuntary removal from the land on which they live.
b. Lands
La that are essentially in their natural state will not be
acquired by use of eminent domain proceedings except in those
extraordinary circumstances in which the public benefit
demonstrably outweighs the loss of individual property
ownership and in which no feasible alternative is available.
k
I
• c
y M-85-70
r
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE.SUITE D-1.LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)%5-4717
April 23, 1985
To: The Board of Directors, District Counsel
From: Harry A. Turnerq V1
Subject: Compliance with the Brown Act
Position: An alternative method of compliance that risks increased land
acquisitions costs should be given a trial.
Rationale: Our publication of the properties list has produced conse-
quences that we did not foresee. If they had been forseen I doubt that the
District would have published it. Some other means of complying with the
Brown Act would have been devised.
Although our policies have not changed we have unintentionally and
regretably frightened many people. This effect alone is sufficient to make
us find another solution. A most important thing has changed, we have
frightened our friends and neighbors.
In addition, we have unintentionally selected a process that gives the
appearance of avoiding the spirit of the Brown Act. And, since the list
includes vastly more properties than the District has the capability to
acquire, it has given the appearance of not providing meaningful
information regarding District objectives.
One of our motivations was to serve the public interest by protecting the
District's negotiating position. Specifically, we accepted the argument,
"Not only would the District be exposed to opportunistic third parties,
good faith negotiations with landowners would suffer, since most owners
consider such discussions to be personal and confidential."
I believe that the general sentiment in favor of open processes requires us
to accept the proposition that "democracy is expensive" and to evaluate the
risks involved.
Recommendation. The District Board of Directors should take the following
corrective steps:
1. Withdraw the previously published list. In addition, make request
forms available to any landowner who chooses to declare an
unwillingness to talk with the District's land acquisition staff.
MerDert A Grench,Oaneret Manger BGerO of OrrectWs Katherine putty,Nonette G Manko.Teens Menshar.,A#Chafd S 9fshop.Eo..are G SMney.Merry A Turner.Daniel G Wendin
w �
4V
II
+ Compliance with the )wn Act
2. Whenever the District Board intends to meet in closed session to
instruct its negotiators it shall
a. List the subject parcels and the names of their owners on the
published agenda; and
b. orally announce in public session the parcels to be discussed
immediately prior to the beginning of the closed session.
3. Publicize these actions.
4. Write an explanatory letter to all landowners on the withdrawn list
whom the District has good reason to believe were offended by its
publication.
cc: Assemblyman Bob Naylor
Senator Becky Morgan
M-85-69
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 OISTEL CIRCLE.SUITE D•1,LOS ALTOS,CAUFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 24, 1985
To: The Board of Directors
From: Harry A. Turner
Subject: Land Acquisition P1 n
Position. Some uncertainties regarding our land acquisition guidelines
need to be clarified.
Rationale. We have received a reasonable request from George and Sarah
Dueker to exclude a small community of homes (25 parcels, 18 of which
contain homes) from the District's master plan.
There are other similar communities that are included in the master plan.
There are developable lands on the master plan which are unaffordable and
for which cities with zoning power have encouraged development.
District objectives within the LAFCO-mandated sphere of influence regarding
preservation of the Skyline Scenic Corridor have not been subject to public
scrutiny.
Recommendation.
1 . Adopt a policy that will exclude the Dueker's and other communities
from development in the District's master plan.
2. Place the topic of "land acquisition plans" on a future Board agenda.
cc: George and Sarah Dueker
South Skyline Association
Portola Heights Association
Kings Mountain Association
Herbert A Grenth.Genera/Manager 8oerd of pvectors Katnenne puffy,NoMtte G Hanko,Tema Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G Shelley,Marry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin
M-85-77
Distributed at Board Workshop
May 4, 1985 IMW
or
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 24, 1985
To: The Board of Directors
From: Harry A. Turner
Subject: Nonette Hanko's E c�llenftGood Neighbor Proposal
Nonette has spotted a glaring District need: providing credible and clear
information regarding District purposes, actions and policies. She has
proposed the use of a newsletter of some kind to meet the need. I have
been lucky enough to receive an excellent suggestion from a constituent
regarding this need.
Background. We have all despaired at public perceptions of our actions
that differ from what we intend. To mention a few:
- Our intent to make a prompt and conservative compliance with the
Brown Act was erroneously interpreted as publication of a "hit list."
- Many members of the public are unaware of the distinction between
"parks and recreation" and "open space." They are unaware that the
District was chartered to "not duplicate efforts of the County to
acquire and develop land primarily for intensive park and
recreational use."
- Our land acquisition policy is believed to be unconstrained despite
our repeated explanations of our objectives and limits.
- Our Hassler decisions are regarded as abrupt and unconsidered even
though we worked with the San Mateo County Arts Council for a long
period of time to perfect its proposal.
Any District publication that attempts to provide information will always
be handicapped by its perception as a self-serving house organ. The most
credible source must be entirely independent of the District and be a
self-controlling organization.
Recommendation. In a fashion similar to our docent program, mobilize a
volunteer group of communicators of District actions, policies, etc. The
group should include an assortment of experts in the field of communi-
cations and public relations. It should determine its own objectives,
publications, and distribution patterns.
The first step is to put this topic on our agenda.
' Herbert A,Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Bo` isse 20225 Skyline Blvd. Wo .de
| mail to: Rt.2 Box 482, La Honda 44820
� Phone (��� 8�� 2�6�
. D1atritUted at Board Workshop 29 April 1985
� May 4, I985 ^
| Board of Directors
|
MidpenYnsuUa Regional Open Space District
375 Dlstel Circle
Los Altos 94022
Regarding Workshop 4 May 1985
Dear Directors and fallow members of MRU5D
| will not be able to attend the 4 May workshop where
our land acquisition policies regarding the District will
be discussed. | would like to have my following statement
read into and become part of the record.
1 . Purchase land only within the borders of the District. . .
2. Annex land to the District only by popular vote of the
electorate within the area proposed for annexation. ((f
the area is approved by the voters for annexation then
� the District can buy all the land it wants from willing
� )sellers in the new district area.)
� '
�
\ and many, many others throughout the entire district
�
will be watching carefully what the recommended changes that
� your committee will be proposing to the full Board. For the
sake of the future success of the district \ hope that these
will not be token recommended changes.
� Sincerely,
� Bob Flsse
�
�
�
|
| �
|
Distributed at Board Workshop DAVID LEIGH RODGERS, M. L).
May 4, 1985
11755 Skykine Blvd Los Gatos, CA 95030
Board of Directors MROSD 375 Distel Cir. Los Altos CA 94022
1 have owned 50 acres on Skyline for over 25 years, and 1 have lived
here for three years, so the actions of MROSD are of personal and gen-
uine concern to me. I wish to thank uou for your committment andachieve-
ments, and assure you I appreciate your efforts for me and for our
community.
In your charge to acquire and administer enduring open space for the
public your successes create a conflict which, if you respond knowledge-
ably, will avoid actions which are bound to cause unnecessary furor.
The more land you acquire the fewer pieces will remain to fill out the
project. Your funds are reduced by the costs of land acquisition. At
the same time funds necessary for administration of land already acquired
increase. You and your staff sense the pressure caused by the conflict,
and become concerned that the remaining lanA will escape you or become
prohibitively expensive. Faced with the conflict and concern there is a
tendency to employ means, such as condemnation, so you can continue to
make progress with the charge you have been given.
As you have found, this action induces public resistence, the outcry
about the Brown Act, and, you can be certain, will cause more conflict
downstream. If you appreciate that patience, on the part of yourselves
and your staff, will achieve ultimate success you will avoid problems
rather than have to confront them.
The MROSD has plenty of time -- yourpurpose is to create for the future,
;,after all-- so you can be secure in the knowledge that acquisition of
parcels to complete you project will be possible in due course. Of
course, value of property will increase over time, but as you show
willingness to minimize dislocation and hardship of owners you should
expect them to minimize changes which artificially increase your costs
of acquisition. Thus, a moratorium is indicated, not the imposition of
condemnation or other hard-to-defend hard-line force. A moratorium can
be made specific, understandable, consistent, fair, palatable and en-
forcable -- and, it will achieve your purpose.
An even-handed, sensitive pursuit of your goals will be a more secure
policy and one consistent with your avowed policy than one which suspends
your original intent. Your staff must temper its enthusiasm and im-
patience, yet not lose its vigor in its pursuit of your commendable goal.
None of us who attended your meeting of April 15, 1985 can but be im-
ressed with your good intent and your competence.
-- Thank l
yu
David Rodgers ,�
Distributed at Boar -)rkshop
May 4, 1985
April 27, 1985
To: The MROSD Board of Directors
Subject: The issue of use of Eminent Domain
Dear Directors:
I applaud what MROSD has done and hopefully will persist in doing. The
goal of preserving the Skyline, foothill and bayside open spaces should
continue. Eminent domain is a ruthless but occasionally necessary tool in
furthering that goal. I do not believe the power of eminent domain should
be given up entirely for either vacant or lightly-developed properties. I
do believe in some of the comments made April 17 regarding controlling the
use of eminent domain. One man from Portola Heights suggested a much shorter
list, saying he did not want to tie your hands in dealing with staff and
that word gets around as to what the District "really wants". Kay Duffy
commented later on that the long list had been used to avoid scaring anyone,
as a shorter list would have done. In fact the long list only succeeded in
scaring every Skyline resident. Clearly the possibility of eminent domain
needs to remain for such crucial viewshed properties as Russian Ridge, Kelly
Hill, Spring Ridge and in the Sierra Azul area, but I do not think the list
needs to contain any residential pockets. Perhaps we could have a policy
that eminent domain will not be used for any residential property provided
the property remains at its present level of use or, in the case of a vacant
lot, is adding a single home. By this I mean we retain right of eminent
domain only to block large scale developments and/or the subdivision of
major parcels. I also believe eminent domain should remain for non-residen-
tial properties, such as was used in the Novitiate case in Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Thomas Williams
Cupertino
I
tributed at Board Workshop
4, 1985
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
1o94 Highland Circle
Los Altos , Calif.94022
April 15, 1985
Board of Directors
IVIROSD
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos , CA 94022
Re : Land acquisition and SB2216
1. Emmend Domain.
There has been mention of not exercising power of eminent
domain, where there is an occupied residence. What about
the property bought by a family for future occupation in
retirement, or occupation when fortune benifits them ?
Even though the use of eminent domain has been limited ,
the threat of it has forced some sales . And the "list"
has caused considerable emotional distress and public outcry .
propose use of eminent domain only on a friendly con-
demnation where the fair market price is decided by the
court. There shall be no use ofeminent domain when the
owner does not wish to sell.
2. S .B . 2216
The broad interpretation of "prig" wherein you list every
bit of property and make it subject to discussionat any
time in the future without other notice is , to say the
least, repulsive .
Most general use and interpretation of "prior" is in the
announcement being made in the agenda published for a meet-
ing or in the meeting itselfjust prior to the closed session.
Withdraw the "list" immediatly and get the public off
your back.
3. Acquisition outside district boundaries .
Taxpayer approval of the district gave them the right to
expect the district to remain within its boundaries , and
for these taxpayers use of its facilities. I do not feel
district residents want others kept out as Palo Alto does
with Foothill Park, but they have a right to keep their
purchases within district boundaries . . If it is felt that
a property outside the boundaries is essential, then the
jurisdiction in which the sought after property lies should
participate at least on a 50-50 basis for purchase and
maintenance. But as for the district buying properties
outside its boundaries on its own, NO
Ret Land acquisition and SB 2216 page 2
4. Annexation outside district.
As in number 3 above, it is , as taxpayers , our district.
And it is generally felt it should remain so. If other
areaswant a regional park district, let them vote to
join ours or establish their own. Annexation outside
the district boundaries is thus a NO-NO.
C
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
• PRESENTED TO BOARD AT
THE MAY 4 , 19,,E SPECIAL WORKSHOP
PET I T ION
TO M I OPEN I NSUL_A REG I ONAL OPEN SPACE
O I STR I CT BOARD OF O I RECTORS
Qlease stop all actions which include
1 3 use or threat o f use o f condemnati on
23 buyirna land outside the district
an d
33 annexations
urnt i t the pub t i c wori•cshops are
comp 1 etec! and po 1 i cy rev i s i C30 have
been established
i
,
/YZZ
3 So
-�Q-
. (� Mo Allo g -
4g49 L C. Xle 4A l eowy c
R.X•IW -94 ya 97 lv--6
d-�49 4 0 0 VC ( � Sox ' LftV%OAlnA
- r
i
w 0
L1 �+
0
z
? 0 w
cj
cl a "' 0
3 0 z
0 0 z
< o S -� z D
I o a
3 @
Distributed at Board Workshop
4, 1985
,larry Ji. Haeussler, Jr.
1094 Hi-bland -ircle
Los Altos', Calif. 94022
April 15, 1985
hoard of Directors
1,!Wsr)
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos , -,A 94022
:fie :
e : Land acquisition and SB2216
1 . Eminend Domain.
There has been mention of not exercising power of eminent
domain where there is an occui)ied residence . What about
the property bought by a family for future occupation in
retirement, or occupation when fortune benifits them ?
Even though tire kise of eminent domain has been limited ,
the threat of it has forced some sales . And the "list"
has caused considerable emotional distress and public outcry .
I T)ror)osc use of eminent domain 2oLn2:.L on a friendly con-
demnation where the fair market price is decided by the
court. There shall be no use ofeminent domain when the
owner doe:: not wish to sell..
2 . S .3 . 22,16
The broad interpretation of "prirr" wherein you list every
bit of property arid make it subject to discussionat any
time in the future without other notice is , to say the
least, repulsive .
most general use and interpretation of "prior" is in the
announcement being made in the agenda published for a meet-
ing or in the meeting itselfjust prior to the closed session.
Withdraw the "list" immediatly and get the public off
your back.
3 . Acquisition outside district boundaries .
Taxpayer approval of the district gave them the right to
expect -the district to remain within its boundaries , and
for these taxpayers use of its facilities . I do not feel
district residents want others kept out as Palo Alto does
with Foothill Park, but they have a right to keep their
purchases within district boundaries . . If it is felt that
a property outside the boundaries is essential, then the
jurisdiction in which the sought after property lies should
-participate at least on a 50-50 basis for purchase and
maintenance . But as for the district buying properties
outside its boundaries on its own, NO
Re : band a--quisition and SB 2216 page 2
4. Annexation outside district.
As in number 3 above , it is , as taxpayers , our district.
And it is generally felt it should remain so. If other
areaswant a regional Dark district, let them vote to
join ours or establish their own. Annexation outside
the district boundaries is thus a NO-I40.
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
Distributedat Board Workshop DAVID LUGH RODGERS, M. APR 2 5 1985'
May 4, 1985
11755 Skykine Blvd Los G"cos, CA 95030
Board of Directors MROSD 375 Distel Cir. Los Altos CA 94022
I have owned 50 acres on Skyline for over 25 years, and I have lived
here for three years, so the actions of MROSD are of personal and gen-
uine concern to me. I wish to thank uou for your committment andachieve-
ments, and assure you I appreciate your efforts for me and for our
community.
In your charge to acquire and administer enduring open space for the
public your successes create a conflict which, if you respond knowledge-
ably, will avoid actions which are bound to cause unnecessary furor.
The more land you acquire the fewer pieces will remain to fill out the
project. Your funds are reduced by the costs of land acquisition. At
the same time funds necessary for administration of land already acquired
increase. You and your staff sense the pressure caused by the conflict,
and become concerned that the remaining lanA will escape you or become
prohibitively expensive. Faced with the conflict and concern there is a
tendency to employ means, such . as condemnation, so you can continue to
make progress with the charge you have been given.
As you have found, this action induces public resistence, the outcry
about the Brown Act, and, you can be certain, will cause more conflict
downstream. If you appreciate that patience, on the part of yourselves
and your staff, will achieve ultimate success you will avoid problems
rather than have to confront them.
The MROSD has plenty of time -- yourpurpose is to create for the future'
iafter all-- so you can be secure in the knowledge that acquisition of
parcels to complete you project will be possible in due course. Of
course, value of property will increase over time, but as you show
willingness to minimize dislocation and hardship of owners you should
expect them to minimize changes which artificially increase your costs
of acquisition. Thus, a moratorium is indicated, not the imposition of
condemnation or other hard-to-defend hard-line force. A moratorium can
be made specific, understandable, consistent, fair, palatable and en-
forcable -- and, it will achieve your purpose.
An even-handed, sensitive pursuit of your goals will be a more secure
policy and one consistent with your avowed policy than one which suspends
your original intent. Your staff must temper its enthusiasm and im-
patience, yet not lose its vigor in its pursuit of your commendable goal.
None of us who attended your meeting of April 15, 1985 can but be im-
ressed with your good intent and your competence.
Thank, U.
David Rodger---\
Distributed at Board Workshop |
�
� May 4, 1985 �
� |
��
� ���
.~ � �
April 27, 1985 -
To: The MRDSD Board of Directors
Subject: The issue of use of Eminent Domain
Omac Directors:
I applaud what 0R03D has done and hopefully will pe-znist in doing. The
goal of preserving the Skyline, foothill and bayaide open spaces should
�
continue. Eminent domain is o ruthless but occasionally necessary tool in
furthering that goal. I do not believe the power of eminent domain should �
be given up entirely for either vacant or lightly-deuelmpad properties. I �
�
do believe in some of the comments made April 17 regarding controlling the �
use of eminent domain. One man from PortoIa Heights suggested a much shorter �
Iistv saying he did not want to tic your hands in dealing with staff and
that word gets around as to what the District "really wants". Kay Duffy
commented later on that the long list had been used to avoid scaring anyone,
as a shorter list would have done. In fact the long list only succeeded in
scaring every Skyline resident. Clearly the possibility of eminent domain
needs to remain for such crucial viowshed properties as Russian Ridge, Kelly
Hill, Spring Ridge and in the Sierra Azul area, but I do not think the list
needs to contain any residential pockets. Perhaps we could have a policy
that eminent domain will not be used for any residential property provided
� the property remainst its present level of use or, in the
lot, is addingl this I mean we retainright
domain l k l l and/or^ only ~- ~~~~ ~^�- scale ~~`~�~r^-'-~ ~' ^ the ~"~~i°i~i~'' of
major parcels. I li
non-residen-
tial properties, such as was used in the Novitiate