The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About19850612 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-15 Meeting 85-15 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965.4717 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7: 30 P.M. Town of Portola Valley' s Wednesday Multi-Use Room June 12 , 1985 765 Portola Road Portola Valley, California (See map on back) A G E N D A (7: 30) ROLL CALL BOARD DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON POLICY ALTERNATIVES CONCERNING: 1, Use of Eminent Domain 2. Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments 3. Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries 4 , Annexation PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION OF POLICY ALTERNATIVES 1 (10: 3 0) ADJOURNMENT I Members of the public are invited to attend this Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. During the meeting, the Board will be discussing the reports submitted by the Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use of Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amend- ments , Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries , and Annexation. The Board will invite public comment on its discussion of the policy alternatives formulated by the Committee. The Committee' s report and supporting material are avail- able through the District office. These materials will also be available on the night of the meeting. (Map on Back) l PAW ALTO LPN i WOO DC71Dt, �` POPI-r0l-A VL.Y a ' J o SOWN NALI� � TOwN unl.� i 1 L�yE QL MULTI PuoloflE itGbM PAPJ4N& O M-85-95 (Meeting 85-1.4 .4 31,11 5 , 1985) MIDPENIN'SULA REGIONAL. OPEN SMCI: DISTRICT MEMORANDUI-I June 4 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: N . Hanko, R. Bishop, and- II . Turner SLJBJECT: Second Report of COmnlitte,-� to Study District Policies Regarding Use of Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amend- ments, Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries, and Annexation The Committee has completed its present charge and presents the attached Policy alternatives for your consideration regarding the Brown Act, acqui- sition outside District boundaries , and annexation. POLICIES C I Retain lisL of 695 names (no changes except updating and corrections) 2 . Retain list but delete the following as requested by owner: C-1. occupied residential parcels , or b. improved parcels, or C. any parcel 3 . Retain list, but agree not to discuss parcels in closed session unless agreed to by "owner a. occupied residential parcels, or b. improved parcels , or C. any parcel 4 . Withdraw the current list and adopt a new list which includes all property owners who give written consent to be on the list. Any property owner may be removed upon owner's written request. Future additions to the list shall be treated as follows : a. informational memo in packet b. subject parcels and the names of their owners shall be printed on the published agenda C. emergency additions shall be orally announced at the beginning of the public meeting d. minutes of the public portion of the meeting shall reflect all such emergency additions S . Withdraw the entire current list and : a. list the parcels and owners, names on the published agenda for that meeting' s closed session b. orally announce at the beginning of the public meeting any emergency additions . C. minutes shall reflect the names and parcels of all such addition d. written notice shall be given to the property owner which shall be mailed at least 5 days prior to the meeting at which V, property is discussed. In all emergency situations, staff shal - L a t t emP LO contact: the property o-.-Ilner by telephone. 6 . Withdraw the entire current list and discontinue discussion of nego- tiations in closed session. 7 . Policies adopted by the Board shall be publicized. Manner of publicizing shall be determined by Board after policies are e adopted) 8 . Write an explanatory letter to all landowners or tenants whom the District has good reason to believe ware offended by the initial list. Definition Request District will make request forms available to any landowner. (3) PILE POIIICTI-;�; 1110R, CIONF>IDI-' :'TON i.,;:i ti.on of liok"Idc- r-Y aria Related Policies No lands shall be acquir-ed by the District outside the boundary of the District . 2 . VIhere land 0c,:nership lies both within and outside District boundary, such lands may be acquired by the District_ 3 . District may consider acquisition of lands within its adopted sphere of influence. 4 . A. District shall limit its acquisitions to lands wholly within the District boundary or the adopted sphere of influence. B. District shall limit its acquisitions to lands wholly or partially within the District boundary or the adopted sphere of influence.. 5. There shall be no extension of the adopted sphere boundary unless A. LAFCO approval only B. LAFCO and voter approval of the entire District 6 . in establishing routes for. trails, the District shall respect the privacy of developed communities . Annexation of Lands to District 1 . All annexation shall be according to State law and LAFCO procedures. 2 . All annexations to the District shall be approved by the voters of the entire District. 3 . All annexations shall be approved by property owners of land to be annexed. 4 . All annexations shall be approved by property owners adjacent to lands proposed for annexation. 5. The District shall consider annexation of lands owned by the District or in which the District owns a legal right. 6 . The District will consider annexation of parcels or land area initiated by LAFCO or by petition. Do f-iri i t ions District boundary The legal boundary of the District, including the original District plus subsequent annexations . Sphere of influence - An area somewhat larger in four places than the area within District boundaries. Adopted by the Local Agency Formation Con'uAssion as the places where extension of the District boundaries through annexation might logically occur in the foreseeable future. A111OLNINSULA Rf.GIONAL OPEN SPACE J)js-j-jtjC-r MEMORANDUM May 21 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ad floc Committee to Formulate Alternative policies: Harry Turner, Dick Bishop, Nonette Flanko SLJIBJE'CT: Use of Eminent Domain Dear Colleagues : The Committee makes no recommendation regarding Policies, how- ever, presents a list of Possible policies for full Board consideration. Some Policies stand alone, while others are related. Alternative policies for Eminent Domain are grouped (such as 3a, 3b, 3c) . Please note that some alternatives are compatible with one another, and "Issues" have been recognized. Also attached is a separate Policy on arbitration, and an "Agree- ment" which could implement policy 49 of Eminent Domain. Ile recommend that the Board consider the Eminent Domain Policy and that the workshop format be continued. Iledii-c-sdaj,-June at 7 : 30 ,P.M. is a suggested date and time. Once the Board has chosen from the list Of Policies, the Committee is willing to redraft them into more concise and compatible form. POSSIBLE 1101,1CIES ON USE' O_F E'ITPENT DOC_IAI_N' 1. Interests in land shall. be purchased only from willing sellers . 2. if owner has clearly indicated a willingness to sell. property, but there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion on the price to be paid for the property, based on an appraisal. which the District has obtained from a professional appraiser , the District may utilize eminent domain to acquire the property, subject to all legal requirements . Issue : How is "clearly indicated" to be demonstrated by staff? 3a. In negotiations or discussions with landowners, District staff shall not threaten eminent domain. 3b. In negotiations or discussions with landowners , District staff shall not, without prior Board approval , threaten eminent domain. 3c. If the subject of eminent domain is raised, District staff may explain relevant law and District policies . 4a. Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an occu- pied parcel developed to its legal density. 4b. Eminent domain maynot be used by the District for the partial acquisi- tion of an occupied parcel , unless there is a subdivision initiated or a division of ownership of contiguous land under one ownership on May 1, 3-985 . 4c. Eminent domain may be used by the District for the partial acquisition of the undeveloped portion of an occupied parcel , provided: A. the residence and surrounding lands of reasonable size shall be- exempt, and B. the owner shall be entitled to retain such casements as are needed for reasonable access and use of property. 5. Eminent domain may be used when requested or consented to by the land- owner. 6. Eminent domain may 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,. and where there are no feasible current or prospective acquisitions that would achieve the District' s objective . 7. No twi th standing any other provisions of these policies, eminent domain may hc-! used to acqu-*Lro improved or unimproved land : A. If a subdivision application is filed or division of ownership is recorded to create more than one additional parcel or ownership, or B. if more than one (1) subdivision application is filed or division of ownership is recorded within ten (10) years for any contiguous land under one ownership on May 1 , 1985. S. Eminent domain may be used to acquire a portion of improved property to connoct two or more District parcels, subject to legal requirements and the following conditions : page 2 District P1_c)PE`rtY is necessary to provide a trail col111C.�ctAorl between the pal.celsf an(! 3. The District has boon Unable by voluntary means to acquire land to connect the parcels with a safe and useful trail , including somewhat longer and less convenient trail routes, and C . The land for the connecting trail shall not ordinarily exceed 100 feet in width , and shall be as far from any existing residence and as close to the property line as practicable, and D. The owner shall have the opportunity to designate any additional portions of his/her land which may be included by the District in the acquisition, and E. The owner shall be entitled to retain an easement over the land acquired by the District, where necessary, for access to the land retained by the owner. Issue: Thi's Policy applies to improved property only. If applied to unimproved property, above requirements should be modified. 9. The District shall encourage open space casements or contracts with landowners to assist in the continued preservation of private open space lands . Issue : Application of contract apply to vacant and/or occupied- land? 10. Policies pursuant to restraint of the use of eminent domain shall be adopted by ordinance, legally noticed and freely publicized. Definitions: a. occupied. . .six months a year minimum b. improved. . .includes occupied legal or legally non-conforming residences and excludes trailers, mobile homes, and temporary structures. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-12 8, 1985 (IT afifuxnra COMMITTEES: REPLY TO VICE CHAIR: TOXICS AND PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT ❑ SACRAMENTO ADDRESS STATE SENATOR MEMBER: EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL REBECCA Q. MORGAN ENERGY AND PUBLIC SAC NT s6747 814 ELEVENTH DISTRICT UTILITIES (9916 4 TRANSPORTATION ❑ DISTRICT OFFICE JOINT COMMITTEE ON 830 MENLO AVENUE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUITE 100 JOINT COMMITTEE FOR MENLO PARK,CA 94025 May 6, 1985 REVIEW OF THE MASTER (415)321-1451 PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , CA 94022 Dear Members of the Board: As a long time supporter of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, I find the recent adverse publicity the District has received to be disturbing, as I am sure you do. The District' s actions have frightened its friends and neighbors . I believe that the property owners ' heightened fears of condemnation have been prompted by mistaken actions on the part of the District, specifically the initiation of eminent domain proceedings against Rosemary Dooley and the District' s method of compliance with the Brown Act revisions. The District needs to adopt policies that reassure residents of the right to a home safe from District condemnation. I am encouraged by the communication and understanding that is developing between the Board of Directors and the concerned residents of the area as a result of District workshops. I am confident that the Board can adopt policies which will again build goodwill between the District and its neighbors. I support the proposals for dealing with the Brown Act outlined in Harry Turner' s memorandum of April 23, 1985 ; I do not think the risks taken by such policies are unacceptable. Again, I trust the Board can adopt policies that will adequately reassure your neighbors. I am very much interested in this matter and in finding ways to avoid future concern. I know that you are giving this matter serious attention, and I appreciate your consideration of my views. Sincerely, REBECCA Q. GAN RQM/ssw Distributed by Jim rren at Board Workshop 2/85 Skyline Area Meeting Everyone Welcome OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ACTIONS IN THE SKYLINE AREA an open community meeting co-sponsored by Kings Mountain Association, host South Skyline Association Portola Heights Association Thursday, June 201h, 7:30pm Kings Mountain Community Center over the Kings Mountain Firehouse, bayside of Skyline Blvd., just South of Alex's Restaurant about 8 miles north of Skylonda [the intersection of La Honda Rd. & Skyline Blvd.] Officials who have accepted invitations to participate include: Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District: Harry Turner Nonette Hanko Dick Bishop County Supervisors of San Mateo County: Tom Nolan Anna Eshoo 7:30pm: Opening comments — Jim Warren, President, Kings Mountain Association The official MROSD Master Plan shows virtually all of the Skyline area an desirable open space, deleting only a few small pockets of closely- packed residential lots. This Master Plan—the official guideline for MROSD actions—has never been modified to delete other occupied areas. An open space memo, "Open Space Management Scenario #1" distributed in March, 1984, proposed the assumption that the ultimate District size would be 40,000 acres. MROSD currently owns about 18,000 acres. Recently however, District Directors have stated they don't know how much the District plans to eventually acquire. Discussion of Issues — Chair: Peggy Newton, Director, Kings Mountain Association* This is expected to be a large meeting. Speakers are encouraged to be brief and to the point. To be fair to all, the Chair will limit each speaker to 3 minutes at any one time, though anyone may speak more than once. 7:45pm: Use of Eminent Domain Condemnation for Forced MROSD Land Acquisitions MROSD has initiated legal condemnation proceedings ten times, beginning in 1974. They used it against unwilling sellers, to acquire parcels ranging in size from one acre to 293 acres. Three of those ten parcels had homes or other structures on them. Some of those homes have been and/or are now rentals for District staff; most structures have been bulldozed. At least one parcel remains completely disconnected from all other District lands. An 11th condemnation was proposed this year. It was eventually rejected by a majority of the Directors, but only after vociferous objections from members of the public at packed meetings spanning several months. There are widespread all tion that other property—including homes—was acquired under threat of condemnation (to which there is essentially no legal appeal. At least one widely-circulated letter from the MROSD Land Acquisitions Manager to a seller states that, had the owner not voluntarily sold for the price the District offered, the Manager would have recommended that the District use condemnation to acquire the property—which included a home. After 13 years and growing public urging, the Directors are considering the possible adoption of some policies to guide their use of condemnation to acquire land and/or homes. 8:45pm: Public Notice of Proposed MROSD Acquisitions & the California "Public Meetings" Act Effective this year, the state Public Meetings law ("Brown Act") was amended to require that public agencies pursuing the acquisition of real property publicly identify property before conducting closed discussions of such acquisitions. The MROSD Directors voted to implement this state requirement by displaying a transparent overlay of a three-county map on which parcels were outlined and numbered 1-696, and numerous smaller parcels were identified only by asterisks. This overlay was accompanied by a sometimes incorrect list of last names of current or past owners of the numbered larger parcels, plus the note that "(* = small parcels)". The overlay covered — and expanded upon — the property noted as desirable open space in the MROSD Master Plan. All property in the Skyline area, including parcels outside District boundaries, was listed. Thereafter, acquisition of these parcels could "be discussed in a closed session". MROSD Directors are currently considering revising their approach to meeting the requirements of the amended Public Meetings law. 9:00pm: Impacts on Neighbors of Public Use of MROSD Preserves by the Public There have been numerous complaints about adverse and/or hazardous impacts of MROSD visitors on adjacent private property and residents. The District has 13 rangers and 3 ranger aide— and over 18,000 acres scattered from mid-Santa Clara County to north Kings Mountain. MROSD visitors have asked local residents for water and restrooms. They may have increased health risks for downstream water users due to lack of sanitary facilities on upstream MROSD lands. There are a series on ongoing problems over use of shared access roads that were never designed for public use. Motorcycle use of their recently acquired Purisima Canyon preserve is reported by neighbors to be increasing. Mountain residents have repeatedly expressed concern about increased fire dangers from naive or malicious visitors, unaccustomed to rural hazards. The District has made some effort to address these problems. Numerous residents have described the efforts an inadequate. more next page, please 9:15pm: MROSD Acquisitions of Property Outside District Boundaries Although there are many thousands of desirable acres within MROSD boundaries, almost 8% of the District's acquisitions have been entirely outside the District, and even outside of the two counties where voters created the District. Residents and property owners outside of the District have no voting rights regarding District elections or policies. Directors are considering possible policies regarding such out-of-District acquisitions. 9:30pm: Annexation of New Areas into the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District After the voters created the Midpeninsula Regional Parks District by ballot initiative, and specified its boundaries, the District renamed itself from"Parks" to "Open Space" and has annexed five new areas. The first five were within Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties and included consent of all annexed landowners. However, earlier this year—in direct opposition to current MROSD policy—District staff pushed for an annexation that would have included acreage where the owners were adamantly opposed to the annexation. The staff proposed to annex 303 acres — but only 95 acres were owned by MROSD, and 35 acres were owned by individuals opposing annexation. This would have been the District's first annexation into Santa Cruz County. Still another 1985 annexation proposed by the General Manager would have created an in-holding — unannexed property completely surrounded by District boundaries. Only after multiple hearings in which members of the public strenuously opposed the General Manager's proposals, did a majority of the Directors eventually vote against these annexations. The Directors are now considering policy alternatives regarding annexation. 9:45am: "Sense of the Communities" — Discussion. Dronosals and votes. including (but not limited to): (The following resolutions were adopted on an urgency basis,at a May 16th Skyline area community meeting,with the understanding that they would be reconsidered after open discussion of the issues with MROSD representatives.) Resolutions proposed for discussion, modification, and adoption or rejection: 1. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District should not use eminent domain. 2. MROSD should budget sufficient resources to provide ample protection for its property, and for protection against adverse impact or hazard for its neighbors. 3. MROSD should not annex new areas except as logically defined regions, and with a majority vote of the region to be annexed. 4. MROSD should purchase property only within the District's boundaries. Other resolutions may be proposed following discussion and voting on these proposals. "N21L Because I wish to take an active part in this discussion, and because I have in-depth information and strong opinions on the issues under consideration, I have asked one of the KMA Directors, Peggy Newton,to act as a neutral Chair for the discussion and voting portion of this meeting. —Jim warren, KMA President Largest Skyline Meeting of County Supervisors to Consider Elected Officials in Decades Allowing "Granny Apartments" The Skyline-area meeting on Thursday, June on Some Acreage Parcels, June 11th 20th, may be the largest turnout of elected public For almost a year and a half, 2nd units — so- officials ever held on Skyline, taking place 1n the called "in-law" apartments — have been permitted Kin.gs Mountain Community Center in the north in the more crowded, R1-zoned single-family areas Skyline area, beginning at 7:30pm.Addressing major issues surrounding the of Skyline and the unincorporated bayside. acquisition and management of huge public open The Supervisors will consider allowing a few space holdings, the meeting is drawing three of the 2nd units on some non-RI, acreage-sized parcels. seven elected Directors of the Midpeninsula Bayside planners proposed allowing only 5% of Regional Open Space District. With over 18,000 these larger, usually-rural parcels to have 2nd acres, the MROSD is the largest single landowner units — if they are miles inland (outside the in the Skyline area. Coastal Zone), and are not among the 100-or-so Several of San Mateo County's elected homes in the 22,000 timber zone acres (TPZ). Supervisors have shown a keen interest in the Resolutions calling for more lenient Open Space District's practices and will also be regulations were discussed at a May 16th Skyline attending the meeting. Their interest was area meeting, and adopted almost unanimously — accelerated by MROSD's acquisition of the Hassler with one no„ vote and one abstention (someone property west of San Carlos — and its demolition, who opposed any regulation at all). The South over the vehement objections of the San Mateo Skyline and Portola Heights Associations adopted Arts Council and some of the County Supervisors. even more lenient resolutions. The meeting is co-sponsored by three Skyline- The Supervisors hearings will begin at 2:15pm area community associations, and is open to all on Tuesday, June 1lth, in the County Government interested individuals. Center in Redwood City (rescheduled from June 4th). Call 363-4161 for details. I M-95-79 (Meeting 85-12 May 8, 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 May 2 , 1985 To Board of Directors From : Nonette Hanko Subject : Brown Act; closed session/ personnel exception Dear Colleagues Upon studying the new ( Dec. 1984 ) State of California Publication Open Meeting Laws regarding the Brown Act requirements for local agencies; I wish to raise a serious question as to the Board's current procedure for determining the amount of salary increases for Board appointed officers in closed session. I have attached what I believe to be the relevant pages from Open Meeting Laws for your attention. It appears to me that prior to 1983 , the best advise on this subject was the attorney general's opinion 283 ( 1978 ) , " that it was proper under personnel exception to discuss in private the salary of the manager of a special district and the discussion could include his work history and his suitability for his position ", ( page 17 attached to this report ) . However, in 1983 , in San Die�v. City Council ( 146 Cal. App. 3d 947 ) " the court concluded that a closed session was appropriate for the purpose of reviewing an appointee's job performance and making the threshold decision of whether any salary increase should be granted. However all discussions concerning the amount of any salary increase should be held in public session"( page 16) The court specifically rejected the argument that the terms remploymeneor"performance as used in section 54957 should be interpreted to include salary level determinations. The court stated, Salaries and other terms of compen- sation constitute municipal budgetary matters of substantial public interest warranting open discussion and eventual electoral public rati- fication " . The decision goes on to a variety of other factors for open meeting discussion including in relative compensation of similar positions elsewhere, both inside and outside of the jurisdiction,' " I I Herbert A.Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin (Brown Act; cl. --d session/ personnel exception ) page 2 In the introduction of page 1 it is noted that Attorney General opinions , unlike appellate court decisions, are advisory only and do not constitute thr law of the state"; so I would personally conclude that the 1983 San Diego Union v. City Council decision would take precedence. I believe such salary increase dis- cussions would affect each of the Board appointed officers , ( general manager, legal counsel, and controller ) . As a member of the legislative committee, I wish to request that the Board refer this matter to the Legislative Committee for full review with our legal counsel, and with instructions to return with whatever procedural policies the committee believes appropriate for Board consideration. Nonette i F . Permissible closed sessions Authority for closed sessions must be fo und in the explicit terms of the Act or inferred from some other confidentiality provision in the law. (61 Ops. Cal . Atty . Gen . 220 ( 1978) . ) The Act itself contains several purposes for which a legislative body may meet in private or in closed session. Additionally , the courts and this office have held several other situations to fall within the closed session exception to the open meeting requirements of the Act. Prior to or after holding any closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall state the general reason or reasons for the session. The legislative body may also cite the legal authority under which the closed session is held. The scope of the closed session shall be limited to matters covered by the legislative body ' s statement of reasons . The legislative body is neither authorized nor required to include in its statement of reasons information which could constitute an invasion of privacy or otherwise unnecessarily divulge particular facts concerning the closed session. ( Section 54957 . 7 . ) 1 . Expressly authorized closed sessions a . Personnel exception The Act provides in Section 54957 for closed sessions to consider the appointment, employment, performance, or dismissal of a "public employee" as defined by the Act or to hear complaints and charges against such "public employee. " This exception is commonly known as the "personnel exception. " An employee may request and require a public hearing where the purpose of the closed session is to discuss specific charges or complaints against him or her. A general discussion of an employee ' s job performance may, however, be held in closed session irrespective of the employee ' s desires. (61 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen. 283 ( 1978 ) . ) We have held that "public employee" as defined by the Act does not include anyone elected or appointed to an elective office ; that the definition contemplates only "nonelective officers" insofar as it may include officers . ( 59 Ops. Cal . Atty. Gen. 266 ( 1976 ) . ) Moreover, mayors , chairpersons of boards of supervisors , and other presiding officers , although receiving separate appointments to their presiding offices , are not employees within the meaning of Section 54957 . Therefore , complaints against such presiding -14- i officers may not be discussed in a closed session . ( 61 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 10 ( 1978) . ) In Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School District ( 1981) --I2T- Cal . App. 3d 231 , the court he 1 d that discussions regarding the qualifications of an independent contractor to sell surplus land for the district should have been conducted in public. The personnel exception set forth in Section 54957 is specifically applicable to the hiring of employees , but the court refused to apply it to independent contractors in this case. Since special services contracts are not subject to the bid process, the court commented that the need for public consideration of the independent contractor' s qualifications was especially important. The legislative body must report at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or at its next subsequent public meeting any action taken during its closed session , and the roll call vote thereon , to appoint, employ , or dismiss an employee. ( Section 54957 . 1 . ) This reporting requirement applies to all legislative bodies irrespective of whether they are otherwise required to act by roll call vote . ( 59 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 619 ( 1976 ) . ) However, the requirement has been construed to apply only to actions to "appoint, " "employ , " or "dismiss . " Accordingly, an action to establish the compensation of a hospital administrator need not be reported at the next subsequent public meeting of the legislative body . ( 63 Ops . Cal . Atty .Gen . 215 ( 1980) . ) --- The personnel exception is probably the most widely used permitted closed session device . This office has opined that the primary purpose of the exception is to avoid undue publicity and embarrassment to the affected employee and that an ancillary purpose of the exception is to encourage the free discussion of personnel matters by the legislative body . ( 63 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 215 ( 1980) ; 61 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 283 ( 1978 ) ; 59 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 532 ( 1976 ) . ) Examples of its application may be helpful to demonstrate that in addition to actual hiring and firing , it has a legitimate intermediate scope . i . In Cozzolino v . City of Fontana ( 1955) 136 Ca 1 . App 2dd 609, the court upheld —a closed hearing to consider the propriety of a past firing by the chief of police , and to ratify such action . -15- � � . In Letsch v. Northern San Diego Count Hosp. Dist. -(-1966 ) 246 Cal . App, 2—d -7671 the court held that a hospital board could meet in closed session to discuss the qualifications of a radiologist, who was apparently an independent contractor, prior to terminating the radiologist' s contract. iii . In Lucas v. Board of Trustees ( 1970) 18 Cal . App.3d 990, a decision not to rehire the district superintendent of a high school district was held to be properly made in closed session . Also, in 59 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 532 ( 1976) , this office upheld the use of a closed session by a school district governing board to discuss and evaluate the performance of its superintendent. •--■} iv. In San Diego Union v. City C o u n c i 1 ( 1983) 146 C . 3d 947 , the court considered whether the city council could meet in closed session to consider the job performances and salary levels of certain appointed officials. The court concluded that a closed session was appropriate for the purpose of reviewing an appointee ' s job performance and making the threshold decision of whether any salary increase should be granted. However, all discussions concerning the amount of any salary increase should be held in public session . The court specifically rejected the argument that the terms "employment" or "performance" as used in Section 54957 should be interpreted to include salary level determinations. The court stated, "Salaries and other terms of compensation constitute municipal budgetary matters of substantial public interest warranting open discussion and eventual electoral public ratification . " ( San Diego Union v. City Council , supra , at page 955 . ) The court stated that although an individual ' s job performance could be considered in closed session , there were a variety of other factors that must be considered in determining the appropriate salary level , e. g. , availability of funds ; other funding priorities ; relative compensation of similar positions elsewhere, both inside and outside of the jurisdiction . -16- This opinion calls into question the opinions discussed below , which appear to have taken a broader construction of the "employment" and "performance" exceptions . ._.�„ In 61 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 283 ( 1978) and in several letter opinions of this office , it was held that the personnel exception could be used to discuss the salaries of individual employees as opposed to discussing salary scales in general . Thus , in I . L . 66-184, we took the view that it was proper under the personnel exception to discuss in private the salary of the manager of a special district, and the discussions could include his work history and his suitability for his position . In I . L . 68-117 , we held, however, that it was not permissible for a school board to hold a close d session to consider i er the salaries of all i the teachers of the school district, since there were no individual qualifications to be discussed. Similarly , in Santa Clara Federation of Teachers V. G —n Quern 1981 116 Cal . A 9 tart pp . 3d 831 , the court held that the board ' s consideration of a hearing officer ' s decision on teacher layoffs must be held in public . The holding of a closed session by a county board of supervisors for the purpose of discussing salaries of specific employees , although permissible under the Act, may , however, be prohibited by Section 25307 , which provides , inter alia , that all meetings of the board pertaining to salaries of county employees shall be open and public. ( 61 Ops . Cal . Atty .Gen. 282 ( 1978) . ) V . In 63 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 153 ( 1980) , this office held that abstract discussions concerning the creation of a new administrative position and the workload of existing positions are inappropriate for a closed session. However, if the workload discussions involve the performance of specific employees , a closed session may be proper. vi . In 65 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 412 ( 1982) , we concluded that a county retirement board could review in closed session the medical records of a county employee seeking a disability retirement. -17- I I its legal counsel , based on existing facts and circumstances , there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency ; or ( 2) Based on existing facts and circumstances , the legislative body of the local agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) of this subdivision . ( c) Based on existing facts and circumstances , the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation . Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section , the legislative body of the local agency shall state publicly to which subdivision it is pursuant. If the session is closed pursuant to subdivision (a ) , the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed , unless, the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency ' s ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unnerved parties , or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage . The legal counsel of the legislative body of the local agency shall prepare and submit to the body a memorandum stating the specific reasons and legal authority for the closed session . If the closed session is pursuant to subdivision (a ) , the memorandum shall include the title of the litigation. If the closed session is pursuant to subdivision ( b ) or ( c ) , the memorandum shall include the existing facts and circumstances on which it is based . The legal counsel shall submit the memorandum to the body prior to the closed session if feasible , and in any case no later than one week after the closed session. The memorandum shall be exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 6254. 1 . For purposes of this section , "litigation" includes any adjudicatory proceeding , including eminent domain , before a court, administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority , hearing officer, or arbitrator. § 54957 . Closed sessions Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions with the Attorney General , district attorney , sheriff , or chief of police , or their respective deputies , on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings or a threat to the public ' s right to access to public services or public fac11ties , or from holding closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of _39_ i performance , or dismissal of a public employee or to hear coco p Ia' ints or charges brought against such employee by another person or employee unless such employee requests a public hearing . The legislative body also may exclude from any such public or closed meeting , during the examination of a witness , any or all other witnesses in the matter being j investigated by the legislative body . f a For the purpose of this section, the term "employee" shall not include any person elected to office, or appointed to an office by the legislative body of a local agency ; provided , however, that nonelective positions of city manager, county administrator, city attorney, county counsel , or a department head or other similar administrative officer of a local agency shall be considered ee em topositions ;employee and provided, further that nonelective positions of general manager, chief engineer, legal counsel , ' district secretary, auditor, assessor , treasurer, or tax collector of any governmental district supplying services within limited boundaries shall be deemed employee positions . Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent any board, commission , committee, or other body organized and 9 I operated by any private organization as defined in Section 54952 from holding closed sessions to consider (a ) matters affecting the national security, or (b ) the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance , or dismissal of an employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against such employee by another person or employee unless such employee requests a public hearing . Such body also may exclude from any such public or closed meeting , during the examination of a witness , any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the legislative body. § 54957. 1 . Report of employment determinations The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or at its next public meeting any action taken , and any roll call vote thereon , to appoint, employ , or dismiss a public employee arising out of any closed session of the legislative body . 5 54957.2 . Minutes of closed session (a ) The legislative body of a local agency may , by ordinance or resolution , designate a clerk or other officer or employee of the local agency who shall then attend each closed session of the legislative body and keep and enter in a minute book a record of topics discussed and decisions made at the meeting . The minute book made pursuant to this section is not a public record subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act ( Chapter 3 .5 -40- The attached material was available to public at the workshop of June 12 , 1985 . I, i I I i Peninsula Citizens' Action (415)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 WRITTEN CKW1NICATION Meeting 85-13 85 May 6 May 22, 1985 Board of Directors hand—delivered at May 8 Meeting Midpeninsula Regional Open space District 375 Distel Cir. Suite D-I Los Altos, CA 94022 Greetings, This has two parts: The first part is a repeat of an earlier personal communication to Nonette, Dick and Harry. The second part contains responses to the May 4th workshop, relative to this now-repeated proposal. The first part is an edited version (sadly, not spelling-checked) of a more informal letter that I submitted to "the Committee" on April 17th. Given Director Dan's comments at the May 4th workshop, it seems appropriate to make this a formal communication to all of the MROSD Board at this time. Hvr)othcses: My reading of the Board, as of the mid-April meeting was as follows: I believe that a majority of the Board has already moved to a position where they would adopt a policy prohibiting condemnation of owner-occupied dwellings. I believe that a majority are also near or past a position where they would adopt a policy prohibiting condemnation of any occupied dwellinp. For whatever value it may be, I would like to praise the fairness and equitability of those of you who have moved to that position, and particularly praise the promptness with which you have examined the pros and cons of the circumstances and made these — presumed — personal committments. It is a delight to find elected officials who illustrate such concern for equitability and principle in what I know is a trying time. Since I assume that Harry's stated position — that MROSD should not use condemnation against occupied dwellings — can and will win the vote of a majority of the Directors, I will not further address that issue — though, certainly, plenty of additional comments could be made about it. In all of this, I am also presuming that the Directors will follow Nonette's publicly expressed concern that a way be found to make "the condemnation policy" permanently binding on future Boards — just as dedication binds future Boards. Hopefully, we all recognize that to do less will be of little value to anyone. On these assumptions, I will make no futhcr comments supporting those positions, though certainly much more could be said in their favor. Other-Than-Subdivision Proposals: What would happen if MROSD adopted a policy saying that it will not use condemnation against property having occupied dwellings, but will feel free to use it against any other property? If I owned undeveloped land, I would immediately begin building, even if I had no plans to build, prior to the District adopting such a policy. I have heard of at least two landowners who are pursuing exactly that course, right now, for exactly that reason — until your recent discussions, they had merely "planned to probably build, someday." Thus, such a policy encourages — rather than discourages exactly what the District does trot want. OK — how 'bout expanding the policy to say that initiation of a building permit well may trigger District acquisition, by force if necessary? This, also, is frought with problems: For a starter, there is the ethical problem of telling landowners that they can own their land, and pay taxes on it, only as long as they don't try to live on it. Secondly, there is some body of case law, and perhaps statutory law, that might view this as inverse condemnation — which courts have already rejected in much more tenuous circumstances, relative to planning policies. I would like to propose a solution. But, first, I want to offer an observation, pertinent to the proposal: If the District builds the 62,000 acre open space area that Herb proposed in his 1982 published statements (13,000 acres was "one fourth" of the planned total), spread over a 2-3 hour driving range, District rangers almost certainly cannot adequately protect it from harm by a naive or malicious public. However — as is now the case, in the circumstance of much more limited current public use — local residents can and will help protect it ... simply as a matter of self defense, if nothing else. Therefore, it is desirable to have some local residents, presuming that the District cannot afford many hundreds of rangers, and will be unlikely to afford them in the next decade or two. page Thus, while the District certainly does not want to encourage construction of new single dwellings, it should not look at them as being automatically unacceptable. My proposal: Adopt a policy that condemnation will be considered and may be used only under any one or several of the following circumstances: 1. If a formal subdivision plan is filed with the applicable planning jurisdiction to create more than two parcels. (This would allow, for instance, a parent to create a scperate parcel for their offspring — a situation currently prohibited in the SMC coastal zone, much to the distress of many of the coastsides' old-line farming families — who would very much like to continue the agricultural use of their family farm, but want room for their offspring to "keep 'em down on the farm." OR 2. If more than one subdivision plan is filed within ten years for a given 1985 parcel. (This would put speculators clearly on notice that such attempts to circumvent Part I by "2 by 2- ing" would void their protection.) OR 3. If there is a clear public necessity to connect two major District parcels, with the following circumstances: 3A. There is a formally adopted District Plan to create a public Preserve that includes sonic trail connecting the two disconnected parcels. AND 3B. There is no voluntary means for acquiring land to connect the two parcels in such a way that would allow the creation of such a trail, even a trail that is rather indirect in its route. (Note: The trail need not be a short-cut, or shortest-distance or straight-line trail; few Preserve users are concerned with such issues.) AND 3C. Acquisition could be accomplished in such a manner as to acquire no more than — say — a 100'-wide parcel that would connect the two District parcels, and be appropriate for the publicly needed trail, and keep the trail at least — say — 1000' away from all structures on the property owner's land. If a #3 condemnation is used, as a matter of fairness, the District should grant the owner the option of including arty contiguous part, or all, of their property in the condemnation. Le., the District should not carve out a "prime part" of the land-steak, and leave the owner with the grissle. This would address the circumstance of an owner, forced to give up part of their land, wanting to either keep it all or give it all up. It would also address the circumstance of an owner being forced to have their property split in two by the needed trail, and perhaps not desiring to retain one of the two parts. In a #3 circumstance, certainly an owner should also be offered a deeded easement permitting them to cross the District part, if their land is divided in two. Truly "Friendly" --Fair — Condemnation: Directors have a responsibility to the majority. However, particularly in this state and nation, they also have a responsibility to the minority — as is clearly being pursued in the creation and actions of your current Committee. I would propose that — under the extreme circumstance of taking someone's land from them by force — one of the District's responsibilities is to assure that, truly, "fair market value" is paid for the property acquired by force. This is normally assured by going through the expensive and antagonizing exercise of formal condemnation proceedings. This serves no one well, is costly to everyone concerned, and often generates adverse publicity for the District. I would like to suggest a reasonable alternative: There is a body of law built around the use of binding arbitration to address disagreements between parties to a contract. Given that the District is forcing a landowner to give up their land, it would seem only fair and reasonable that the District offer to pay the costs of binding arbitration of the real fair-market-value sale price. 1. Since knowledgable advocates of the buyer and seller would be consulted in such an arbitration, this would assure that the District was, in fact, honorably paying fair market value. 2. It would be far less expensive than a formal court proceeding. 3. The District's willingness to pay the costs of such out-fo-court arbitration would encourage a seller to enter into such binding arbitration, rather than bearing their own costs of formal court litigation. 4. But, most of all, it's the fair thing to do in this society, where government is expected to exercise major self-restraint in its exercise of its powers and force. page 2 Place Condemnation Authority in }lands of Neutral Partv: Another idea is based on fairness. (It is certainly not based in the reality of government agencys' joy of power.) The District might admit that (a) its Directors and staff arc not neutral parties, and (b) acquisition is its primaryfunction, rather than a function incidental to some other goal. Since the Directors are inherentlyadvocates dv ocates of acquisition, they can hardly maintain the neutrality of judgement that is appropriate in considering public necessity for use of condemnation force. Therefore, that condemnation power should be turned over to a body of public officials who are more likely to be truly neutral judges of the real public necessity. The most appropriate bodies that come to mind arc the governing bodies of the jurisdiction in which the forced acquisition is desired — e.g. a City Council or County Board of Supervisors. Admittedly, it would be a major move for a governmental agency to admit that it had too much power, that it might sometimes fail to function as a fair and neutral body, and that it should give up the powers that it might not always exercise in a neutral manner, however ... I urge you, as people of good will and high ethical principle, to give this very careful and fair consideration. Other thoughts: Allow condemnation onlv where there is a specific well-defined Board-adopted development or use plan that calls for the necessity of acquiring the property in question. Le., do the planning first; then the acquisition. (Can you name any other circumstance in which a responsible adult would do less?) Specify some reasonably explicit criteria defining "public necessity" Le., do not continue to permit "public necessity" to be defined as nothing more than the "whims of the moment" of five individuals. Urgc prompt action by your fellow Directors, to defuse the escalation that is currently occuring, before damage (further damage?) is done to the District. In the near future, I would like to propose a number of active outreach programs and cooperative efforts that I believe are feasable and mutually valuable, to be organized between the District/staff/docents and the neighbors/landowners who are near District lands. We could work together for everyone's common benefit, and we should. I would like to help with this, and will turn my attention to this as soon as we get passed this condemnation issue. In this, I firmly believe that — in most cases — we, who live here, are this land's foremost caretakers. The vast majority of us respect the mountain's beauty and nature, and are actively and knowledgably caretakers of it. These are additional comments, added after the May 4th workshop: The Artemis/Big Sur Exception: Artemis pointed out that the above proposal would fail to address the circumstance of the Big Sur property jointly owned by her family and two other families. Most rules have exceptions. The above proposal still works. It specifies only that the District may use condemnation in the context of more-than-two-parts subdivision within ten years; it doesn't say the District must use it. In fact, it would be appropriate to append to the above proposal a formal exception policy — permitting the Board to be able to grant an exception to a landowner wishing to subdivide into more than two parts; an exception that would guarantee no forced condemnation of any or all of those parcels. (I am not at all concerned that the District would make unreasonable use of such an exception ability; I do not envision the Directors ever being "pro-subdivision.") Prior Restraint Prohibiting Subdivisions: I believe one of Dan's notions was that permanent protection against condemnation should be granted only to those parcels that can never be subdivided. Sadly, neither the District nor the landowner have much control over this. Permitting subdivision is a whim granted only to City and County Planning Commissions. And, I suspect that case law has struck down recorded deed restrictions that prohibit subdivision, in perpetuity (I assume the District's legal counsel is researching this, as part of its charge to inform the Directors of their legal alternatives.) There should not be concern that a commercial subdivision could be completed prior to the District being able to condemn. Most certainly, the wheels of Planning mills do not turn rapidly page 3 in Peninsula county governments. Additionally, I would expect that the Boards of Supervisors of both counties would look favorably on a citiZen-supported ordinance instructing their Planning Departments to notify MROSD whenever a significant subdivision plan is filed — particularly if such an ordinance was requested in the context of the District's restraining its condemnation powers. Retaining Condemnation for Larger Parcels: Dan seems inclined to retain condemnation authority for use against larger parcels — as I recall it, he suggested those larger than 160 acres. This is more appropriate for a Parks District, than for an Open Space District. Certainly, the District's destruction of Hassler has amply illustrated its million-dollar preference for "open space" rather than "park and public recreation" facilities. If the District wishes to (a) stretch its limited tax dollars, (b) support the notion of privately-held open space, and (c) support and encourage continued agricultural use of land for farming and grazing, then it should not retain condemnation force for use against large parcels for which no commercial subdivision is proposed. Please note that this does not keep a large parcel from being acquired for use as a public park. It merely keeps the MROSD acquisition agency from acquiring it by force. If there was truly a "public necessity" for such an acquisition, then the County or State Parks Departments could use their condemnation powers to acquire the property. These agencies do not have the obviously biased view that their primary raison detre' is the acquisition of property. Pror+_osing Action-Format Policy• Please note that the policy I am proposing specifies the circumstances in which the District may take the action of condemnation — and the only circumstances wherein such action may be taken. This contrasts with the alternative of trying to say when the District will not use condemnation. In a sense, those who own the several hundred thousand acres in the "target zone" for the Midpeninsula Acquisition District, are asking for the District to issue some insurance that is appropriate for this nation, which does not have a history of massive government take-over of private land by force (except, of course, from that taken from the indians, English, French, Spaniards, etc. ... hmmmmm). And, the best kind of insurance policy is an "all risk" policy that names its few exceptions. Who Pays Whom for Nonsubdivision/Noncondemnation Agreements• Someone proposed that landowners should pay money to the District for MROSD to agree not to condemn their land if they won't subdivide. Our view is exactly opposite to this. Part of the historical value of land, since the beginning of time, has been the opportunity to use it. If a landowner contracts not to subdivide or develop their property — sort of a "non-development" easement, they are obviously giving up a characteristic of their property that is provably of great value. That "easement" would be granted explicitly for the benefit of the District's goals and for the general benefit to the public. Valuable consideration should be paid to the landowner for any such casement or contract, just as is normally done for any other easement that benefits someone other than the property owner. To coerce such a contract or casement from a landowner — much less demanding that the property owner pay money, to boot — by threatening condemnation if the contract is not given, would be a blatant, reprehensible and absolutely intolerable example of blackmail by every definition that word has ever had. I urge the Directors to discard any further consideration of any proposal that landowners give away their property rights for the benefit of others, without receiving fair payment for such reduction in property value. Ply, a o for ,our consideration of these comments, I remain, Sinm , founde page 4 Peninsula Citizens' Action (415)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 1r+zRITT1U4 CaNINI Ji�1ICATION Meeting 85-13 May 22, 1985 85 May 7 Hand--delivered at May 8 Nleeting,: MROSD Directors Midpcninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distcl Circle, #D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Greetings, This provides a response to Director Harry Turner's recent written proposals. We consider this to be an official written communication to the Board. i Harr,p's proposal: "There should be a moratorium period of two years during which the District will not initiate an eminent domain proceeding." We wish to reiterate our position, outlined several months ago: j A ban on use of condemnation power that is limited in time — be it two months or two years — is unacceptable to virtually everyone concerned about these issues. We well recognize that, by definition, it offers only temporary protection. Fifty years ago, Chamberlain taught the world the consequences of accepting the philosophy of "Peace in our time," when dealing with a powerful and aggressive adversary — and his opponent hadn't even published a list of desired acquisitions. A ban on use of condemnation power — with or without a time limit — that is merely adopted by the current Board without a statutory or contractual assurance of permanance, is equally unacceptable. Most home-owners well recognize that the current Board or any Future Board could reverse such a policy at any time. Our recommendation: Adopt a set of permanent restrictions on your powers of condemnation, and seek to bind them by statute or legal contract. We already have opinions from Sacramento contacts that legislative action would be prompt and cooperative, if the District joined with concerned citizens in seeking statutory implementation of mutually acceptable, District-adopted condemnation restraints. Harry's proposal: Consider withdrawing the 695-Plus-Asterisks list. Your list has stated your desires. Once stated, they are not refuted by withdrawing the list. Your now-stated desires can be refuted only by a permanent prohibition on use of condemnation, backed up by statute or binding contract. Our position: We don't care whether you withdraw the list, or not. The shot has been fired; the wound cannot be unmade. Harry's proposal: "The threat of eminent domain shall not be made" [during the two-year moratorium). Like "The List," the threat has been made; it cannot be retracted merely by failing to repeat it. Your List-Plus-Asterisks, coupled with your past actions and continuing staff attempts at condemnation and annexation in January, February and March, have made the threat. The only means for withdrawing the threat is by substanth,e action that produces permanent, binding restriction of your condemnation powers. Our position: We don't care whether your representatives repeat the already-made threat. (We suspect, however, that the staff has already vigorously erased the word from their public vocabulary, or at least stored it in a "For Later Use" wishfilc.) Harry's proposal: If the moratorium on use of condemnation is rescinded "Residents whether owners or tenants, will not be subject to involuntary removal from the land n which.1 e d o they live." Y This wording is disturbingly ambiguous. The Perham acquisition — in which forced condemnation was initiated — meets the proposal's criteria, since the elder Perham was granted page 1 life tenancy in her cx-home that the District took by force. As stated, this proposal is unacceptable to us — all the more so due to its false facade of protection. Our recommendation: Unequivocably state proposed policies in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. To do less engenders justified criticism for remaining ambiguous, even after complaints about the ambiguity — such as this one — have been formally stated. Under that circumstance, the most adverse interpretation must be adopted by readers ... and writers. Harry's proposal: "Exclude the Ducker's and other communities from development in the District's master plan." This implies a willingness to possibly exclude some selected, presumably more populated communities from forced acquisition, while retaining the freedom to force acquisition of the smaller minorities who occupy less populated areas. Even worse, it recommends to the Board that the District exclude one community, without adopting any overall plan and set of criteria or principles to use in selecting communities that will receive such a reprieve, and those from whom it will be withheld. Such a capricious "benefit to some" — without a plan, without formally specified and adopted criteria, and without fair and equal treatment for all — is not acceptable to Peninsula Citizens Action, nor to most of the area's mountain and rural residents and community groups. Our recommendation: Do not "exempt" any neighborhood until and unless you have formally stated and adopted criteria and principles for such exemptions. (PCA would view such "unprincipled" treatment of any community as being grossly inequitable and inflammatory, regardless of the self-serving relief felt by the single community receiving such special treatment. This certainly includes the community along our area of Swett Road. Such action by MROSD would guarantee an immediate, massive direct-mail campaign by us.) Disturbing events: Until Harry's April 23rd and April 24th memos, we had the impression that the Directors were moving towards a set of solutions likely to be mutually acceptable. However, we have the strong impression that Harry knows the English language quite well, and has ample ability to express himself accurately. We assume that he recognizes the above-noted implications of his statements. We are seriously concerned that his ambiguities may have the approval of a majority of the Board. His written proposals — plus two verbal statements — have prompted serious concern on our part. Regarding the verbal statements that have caused us concern: 1. Mort Levine, the Publisher of the Country Almanac, told us that — during a recent conversation — Harry indicated he was seriously considering a proposal that the District entirely give up its condemnation powers. Yet, the actual proposal, submitted after that conversation, was to give up the condemnation habit for only two years — a radically different suggestion (like giving up cigarettes ... for two hours). We are concerned that Publisher Levine had one impression, while a far-different proposal was submitted to the District's decision-makers (and copied to Mort). 2. During the April 24th Board discussion of the LAFCO matter, Harry alluded to, "giving ammunition to our enemies." lVe are enemies, 2aL of the use of force to take of our homes and lands — as Harry surely knows. For a [presumed] middle-of-thc-roadcr to refer to us as "our [the Directors'] enemies" — without objection from any other Directors — seems to further imply that the Board hopes to retain the power to take our homes or lands by condemnation. Of: We are seriously concerned that Directors might believe these proposals could have the effect (a) de-fusing the growing public outcry and opposition to the District's current condemnation non-policies, by temporary fixes that can be easily reversed at some later (late, (b) discussing and discussing and discussing — providing the facade of action, but no substance — hoping that our organization and resolve may decay over time, in the face of inaction, (c) offering the illusion of protection, while — by ambiguous phrasing — retaining the right to wield condemnation as you have done ten times in the past, and (d) a divide-and-conquer tactic wherein some communities are assured of safety — at least, temporarily. As with Chamberlain, the Third Reich provided ample illustration of such a tactic in its land acquisition efforts, taking one area at a time, while assuring others of their [temporary] safety. Concluding the WW 11 analogy (Bitburg remains in the news): Germany's major thrust was grabbing land to build their vision of a better world. Your troops arc massed on our border, and page 2 you've already shot down ten of our fellow landowners. You have done nothing to withdraw from this hostility, except tell your warriors to sheath their bayonets— for the moment. Even as we have been negotiating, your General has aimed at condemnation and annexation targets at the rate of one per month. If this offends you, please note that it was one of your own, generally more temperate members — not any of us — who first characterized our relationship as one of "enemies" to whom "ammunition" should not be given. We urge the Directors to give favorable consideration to our recommendations regarding Harry proposals. Thanking you for your attention to these comments, I remain, Sincerely, Jim Warren, founder Page 3 Jim Warren (415)8.51-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-13 85 May 8 District Directors May 22 , 1985 Midpcninsula Regional Open Space District Hand—delivered at May 8 Meeting 375 Distel, #D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Greetings, This concerns Herb Grench's performance as the District's General Manager, and the ever- so-handsome compensation package he receives. It is raised because numerous long-time District observers have suggested that Herb may be the source of many of the problems that are now surfacing. In these comments, I am assuming that Herb exercises excellent control over his staff — that recommendations to the Board and public statements by staff almost always have Herb's prior approval. WHO'S DIRECTING WHOM? Many have alleged that — until the public outcry, this year — Herb has adroitly manipulated the Board, using such ploys as incomplete information, limited lists of options, "loaded" phrasing of proposals, perhaps inaccurate information, and — as Jay Thorwaldson suggested — possible "traveling committees" (wherein he met with sub-quorum groups of the Directors, one after another, "selling" them on his proposals out of sight of the public. Only you Directors can evaluate whether this occured.). To illustrate his success in this manipulation, District critics point to the fact that, until this year, the Board has apparently approved of every condemnation and annexation proposal Herb has submitted. However, consistant Board approval of a Manager's proposals is not necessarily a criticism — a competant and astute administrator should earn almost complete cooperation from his Directors. I have no personal observations of what happened prior to 1985. However, I have certainly seen what I consider to be attempts at such manipulation in his/staff's actions, this year: Dooley condemnation . . . for a bicycle trail: Consider the flacid rationale that over-riding public necessity required condemnation of the Dooley parcel for, in part, a bicycle trial. At best, the rationale was ludicrous. At worst, it was ill-concieved and illustrated poor judgement regarding the political and public relations impact of such reasoning. It was an example of providing "any of rationale" to get the Board to accept his proposal — no matter how frail and deficient the rationale might be. Either he is accustomed to an obedient Board, or he evaluates the Board members as being unreasonably naive, or he arrogantly offered inadequate support for his recommendation. Whatever it was, it was an example of poor judgement, inappropiate for an $83,000+/year Manager. Santa Cruz annexation antics: He proposed more flawed logic — plus incorrect information (and lack of information) — for the Santa Cruz County annexation. He said the District couldn't protect its property unless it was annexed. False: Your agents can protect your 90 acres — whether its in a 495-acre area of untouched Santa Cruz County, or its in Humboldt, or in downtown Los Altos. They just can't exercise full police powers. Similarly, Simpervirons can also [continue to] protect their turf. He said you only had two options approve the annexation, including the delicious Bar-Y, or reject the whole works. In fact, you and he — had at least three other options: You could have asked for a rehearing, or a continuation, or you could have rejected it and returned in another several months with a new application. The fact that — he said — he didn't know about the possibility of a rehearing was, at best, naive. The first thing one does, when receiving an undesired decision from a governmental agency, is to seek routes for rehearings and appeals. After 13 years of dealing with other agencies, he should have known this. The fact that he failed to aggressively argue for the Board's 100% policy before the Santa Cruz LAFCo illustrates a variety of shortcomings in a manager who is supposed to represent you and defend your adopted policies. page 1 The fact that he failed to neutrally present all of your alternatives to you, severly smacks of manipulation. You should not continue to tolerate it. ONGOING POOR JUDGEMENT The Open Space District is a luxury — it not a bcd-and-butter governmental necessity. It certainly has its detractors — who have been around long before the current outcry. As such, its continuation and growth depends on astute, polished public relations. Its General Manager must have significant P.R. abilities — or, you must have a p.r. budget that would please the DoD. Herb has amply illustrated a poor public relations sense in a number of key recommendations to you. To the extent that he "persuaded" you to adopt these unwise recommendations — or failed to fully warn you of the extent of the adverse publicity consequences — he has served you and the District poorly. These include: The List-Plus-Asterisks: Directors keep saying you had to adopt the list in January. We keep pointing out that you absolutely did not have to adopt such a list. All you had to do was what all other agencies are doing to meet the Keene ammendment — identify parcels prior to conducting closed discussions of negotiations for those identified parcels. This could have been an interum policy, given you "breathing time" in which to work out a more viable implementation of the Keene ammendmcnt — or seek Keene's cooperation in quietly modifying it for your benefit. This is what Herb should have recommended. Grench and his staff (and you) should surely have forsecti the furor that publication of such a list would — or at least could ... and did — create. This was a monumental p.r. blunder, proven by the consequences with which you are now dealing. More importantly, it seems to illustrate an intolerable arrogance — as is amply illustrated by responses from virtually legislator, publisher and reporter who knows about it. The Hassler Hassle: I won't make any statements or allegations — I'll simply ask questions. Was the fury and bad press generated by your approval — and obstinate, continuing support — of Herb's. desire to destroy every one of the Hassler buildings worth the result? Could the District have done better things with the several hundred thousand dollars of legal fees? Could it have found better uses for the $700,0004900,000 it is spending on the demolition? Did Herb prepare you for the likely consequences? Did he predict how the San Mateo County Supervisors would surely react to the attempted bull-dozing, after an apparent agreement to talk things over? Did he suggest some alternatives — e.g., give the Arts Council one building and rip the rest? Did he suggest waiting for a year or two, to see if things would cool off? Did he inform you of your hired Historian's report? Did he compare Hassler's condition and historical value with that of Thorncwood or Fremont-Older? Did he evaluate how such a comparison could be used by District critics? If he failed to fully evaluate the likely consequences, and failed to carefully and fully report your alternatives to you, then ... how competant is he to serve as an $83K+ General Manager of a publicity-sensitive agency? MANAGEMENT Bah humbug! It's almost time to leave for the Board meeting, so I must wrap this up without completing it. Continuing the issue of Herb's competency to serve as General Manager, I was going to question his management practices. In this, I was going to raise the issue of the several out-of- court — or out-of-office — settlements of sex discrimination claims, the selection of the previous Acquisitions Manager and the circumstances of his departure, the attempted burial of huge amounts of concrete [five photos, enclosed] on the Coal Creek Preserve (that was aborted by the County), etc. COMPENSATION I was going to expand on my queries — initiated at the last Board hearing — regarding Herb's Cadillac compensation package. (I would like to thank Nonette for her prompt presentation of her proposal for what appears to be court-mandated open discussion of the level of compensation of the General Manager, presumably responding to my April 17th queries.) In this, I was going to make comparisons to other top administrators of public agencies on the south Peninsula and in the Bay area. This would include City Managers, Parks & Rec Directors, and other Parks and Open Space District General Managers. Comparisons would be made by number of staff, size of district properties, complexity of district properties, size of operations budget being managed (excluding the huge baloon of page 2 acquisition funds), performance of key responsibilities (e.1o. accurately apprising the Board of their alternatives and of the likely consequences or recommended choices, management that avoids sex discrimination charges, and public relations that maintain--, a positive image of the District), and comparisons of professional training and experience for public administration and .public relations. I would have also compared other top managers in the areas of extra special retirement contributions, and "administrative leaves" stacked on top of legitimate vacations (next thing you know, Physics Ph.D. Grcnch will want a sabatical). In the issue of compensation, I would certainly raise the cry — repeatedly voiced to us by several Directors — that you have a responsibility to make best use of limited public funds in your trust, and "buy" the most for the least cost. I believe you could find equivalent talent to manage a 22-staff District for $10,000 or $20,000 less, or get a much better manager, public relations specialist and Board advisor for the $93,000+ you are paying for 1984-1985. This letter is not written to "shoot down" Herb. It is written to ask that you very carefully evaluate how well — and how poorly — Herb is now serving the District's goals. If he is a key source of the growing District problems, then you should correct his inadequacies or replace him ... presumably with a handsome "golden handshake" and a trail or preserve named after him for the good service he has performed for the District in the past. Whomever the General Manager is, he must be able to change and grow to meet the current and future needs — all of them — of the District and the "cause" of Open Space. you ing Th for your attention to these comments, I remain, ing you Sinc rely Warren P.S. P.S. — I would like to mention that I have received consistently eexcellent and patient cooperation in my several contacts with Craig Britten, David Hanson, and Jim Borland. (I have had essentially no contact at all with Herb.) page 3 .w 85-07 All I MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE 0•1.LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 30 , 1985 WORKSHOP MINUTES Robert Fisse - Said that the District should buy land from willing sellers only and that it should never use or imply the "threat" of condemnation on land negotiations. Said eminent domain should never be used on improved properties , never after the start of building or subdivision procedures , never on a portion of a person' s property, and never to obtain easements . June Janis - Said there should be a binding contract between the Board and property owners stating that eminent domain would never be used. James Warren - Suggested that information be gathered from other agencies regarding eminent domain policies. Janet Schwind - Speaking in behalf of the South Skyline Association, k said eminent domain should not be used at all. Said individuals had been told when the District was formed that eminent domain would not be used and now they felt deceived. Said that the District should change its approach and redefine its attitude. Said that the Board should force staff to cooperate with land owners and that the County should be used in an eminent domain appeal process. H. Turner - Said he was repelled by the coercive aspects of eminent domain and that alternate methods for land acquisition should be explored. Said that he would be willing to forswear .use of eminent domain and that the District should not remove people from the land on which they are living. D. Wendin - Said that eminent domain should not be used on owner occupied dwelling units and added that the use of eminent domain should not be eliminated completely. Said the Board needed to figure out where to draw the line , noting categories to be con- sidered were: (1) owner occupied; (2) occupied, not by owner; (3) building plans submitted; (4) subdivision plans submitted; (5) raw land, no plan submitted. E. Shelley - Stated that the Board needed a well stated policy on the use of eminent domain. Said it should not be used on owner occupied properties. R. Bishop - Said it was necessary to look at the District's objec- tives to create a permanent greenbelt for future generations, notingthat conflicts . could 1d arise with ow property ners Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Dully,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin 85-07 Page two Sharon Fogarty Bloomenthal - Requested the question of condemnation of part of a person' s. land be addressed. Lennie Roberts - Said use of eminent domain not unique to MROSD, and that District might want to consider using it in some cases where land is under subdivision. Artemas Ginzton - Discussed her opposition to use of eminent domain. Said Stevens Creek connection involved willing sellers , not eminent domain. Carol Doose - Said "only" situations regarding when eminent domain might be used creates other problems , noting it may cause people to develop their property. Said MROSD needed an active community outreach program and that the threatening actions concerning eminent domain from District caused alienation. James Warren - Said he wanted a permanent, binding policy (either a contract with property owners; legislative action; or permanent restraints) . Said the Board should state when eminent domain would be used and when eminent domain would not be used. Richard Bullis - Discussed the interaction and conversations he had had with staff regarding Russian Ridge Ranch. K. Duffy - Said it was necessary for MROSD to have power of eminent domain in order not to be "held for --ansom" over the cost of a piece of property. She said public money was involved and that there are exact and precise procedures regarding the use of eminent domain. Said some guidelines are nee-f.ed regarding use: (1) no threat or coersion from staff; G ! no trespassing; (3) seek other courses first. N. Hanko - Said her ideas were expressed in her letter to the Board; discussed long-term guarantees to owners beyond current Board; and said an outreach program was needed. William' Obermayer - Said there should be a 7-0 vote to use eminent domain and that the matter should also go beforethe Board of Supervisors. Robert McKim- Said long-term effect of use of eminent domain on fair market value was a negative effect. David Leeson' - Said that by using eminent domain, MROSD can't expect positive attitudes regarding the District from the public. Said private open space important, as well as commercial open space. Said a checks and balances system was necessary with respect to the use of eminent domain. Betsy Crowder - Said some people less than honest in the use of land, for example, land speculators. Said the idea of how eminent domain relates to fair market value should be explored. Alan Hoskings - Said a small number of acres have been acquired by MROSD using eminent domain and noted ".friendly" condemnations must be considered. sy R5-07, ( / Page three C. Britton - Said in eminent domain procedures, a jury decides fair market value; he discussed the tax advantages of eminent domain and "friendly" condemnations. He said the Board exercises resolu- tion of public necessity, not the staff. E. Shelley - Questioned whether current Board could bind future Boards legally and asked staff to address condemnations of part of properties. R. Bishop - Said eminent domain might be used when there was a willing seller, but the property involved was over-valued. Charles Touchatt - Said whatever anyone willing to pay for a piece of pproperty should determine fair. market value. Said appraisals could be manipulated. Robert Schwind - Said no middle ground on this gut issue and that the threat of eminent domain impacts individuals ' well-being. Said use of eminent domain destroying MROSD and called for the replacement of District staff members if Board really wanted to change course. Supervisor Tom Nolan - Said various San Mateo County agencies involved in land preservation should meet and discuss their plans. Unidentified Speaker_ - Questioned how much land MROSD needed and called for input from residents in the Skyline area. Mrs. Steers - Said she was opposed to use of eminent domain whether land developed or not. George Norton - Said MROSD' s use of eminent domain struck terror in the hearts of Skyline residents. Said it should not be used on owner-occupied land. Said other situations exist where the use of eminent domain is appropriate. Purusha Obluda - Urged MROSD representatives to meet with groups of people. Expressed concern regarding whether legal requirements of eminent domain law have been met. C. Britton explained the requirements of the law and said they had been met in each case. Dr. Fogarty - Discussed condemnation for public necessity vs. condem- nation for recreational pursuits. Asked whether Board members felt they were working on everyone' s behalf and whether MROSD policed developments. H. Grench - Discussed the Board' s notification policy for eminent domain proceedings. N. Hanko - Said she felt additional notification procedures needed to be addressed by the Board. H. Turner - Said MROSD does not police all developments, noting if a development was in conflict with MROSD goals then the District would get involved. ' He said Directors are elected representatives and that he felt public support exists for what the District is doing. d 5-07 Page four iL David Bomberg - Said'MROSD should do whatever it can to preserve the undeveloped greenbelt; noting eminent domain may be needed' to acquire some parcels. Robert Fisse - Said the Board should consider "family" aspects of land and that a non-owner occupied situation may be due to the owner's temporary move out of the area. Said the District was timeless and that land could be purchased when available. Said MROSD uses eminent domain without foresight. Said MROSD should be proactive in land acquisition only within District boundaries. James Warren - Asked if a Board member would be willing to trade his or her home with person whose home is condemned. Said renters are people too. Said the Board should not leave any statement drafting to staff alone. Said there should be a check and balance system with another agency and not hearing before a Board "who want to get that land" when eminent domain concerned. Richard Bullis - Discussed report by Mr. Peters of a recent meeting between C. Britton and Colin Peters regarding Russian Ridge Ranch, noting he felt staff' s actions were inappropriate. Noted he wanted to be present when any District representative was on Russian Ridge Ranch. C. Britton recounted what had transpired in his recent meeting with Mr. Peters. David Leeson - Discussed the value of a person' s property, noting value was not only measured in dollars . Said people in the At. Umunhum area were concerned about the District' s actions . Discussed use and safety of District lands, said they were dangerous to use since unsupervised. Said meetings were essential to building trust and that eminent domain should not be used. June Janis - Discussed the interpersonal utility concept and the anguish of land owners with respect to the use of eminent domain. Said no government agency should use eminent domain. H. Turner - Said the Board should exclude eminent domain where personal residences involved and noted a Board committee should be appointed to draft an eminent domain policy. E. Shelley - Said he felt a Board committee should draft policy representing all Board members ' opinions. He said the Committee should summarize input and recommend a draft policy which should be disseminated in advance. The Board agreed to place a workshop follow-up item on the agenda for the April 10 Regular Meeting. Written Comments Received DuringMeeting: Anthony Such - Said he opposes use of eminent domain by MROSD in any form; if MROSD does not forswear use of eminent domain should be an appeal process involving an appeal board made up of owners who may be subjected to use of eminent domain. No annexation of properties without 100% consent of owners involved ., Stbil Plank - Said he wants a permanent no-condemnation policy. Asked that the question of partial condemnation be addressed. Jean II. Fiddes , District Clerk Cecilia A. Cyrier, Secretary Meeting 85-11 der� s-:ti.•.,.. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D 1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY 4, 1985 WORKSHOP MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 9:55 A.M. at Las Lomitas School , 299 Alameda de las Pulgas, Atherton, California. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Nonette Hanko Richard �s op, and Harry Turner. ' Members Absent: Edward Shelley. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Jean Fiddes, Stanley Norton, and Emma Johnson. II . BOARD WORKSHOP T. Henshaw stated minutes from the workshop of April 17, 1985, to be considered for approval at the May 8 Regular Meeting, had been distributed and asked if any member of the public wished to request any corrections. No corrections were requested. 1 . Continuation of Discussion Regarding Procedures in Implementinq Amendments to Brown Act Regarding Closed Session Discussions of Property Negotiations Jay Thorwaldson - Said he is sensitive to the need for a degree of confidentiality in land acquisition activities and believes Senator Keene should not have given the District advice on how to circumvent the new law. He suggested that it would be ill-advised for staff to use "less-than-a-quorum" exception to acquaint Board members with acquisition matters. He said there is the appearance of the District being secretive and manipulative and that there is a high level of mistrust of the District. He said the way out is to establish a good set of policies and that a great deal of attention has to be paid to implications of actions of the District. He suggested the District take the narrowly defined exception to the Brown Act rather than the broad end, and a bajic: commitment to open policies. Jim Warren - Said it was his impression that the District vent to Senator Keene, asking if the publication of the list would be within the intent of the amendment. He echoed Mr. Thonvaldson's proscription of using less-than-a-quorum meetings with the Board and staff on land acquisition matters . He added his impression that the District is up-front, manipulative only in that some feel threatened with condemnation, but agreed that the District has an over-riding power over the lives of the people in the 'Skyline .area. He suggested that staff contact Tom Casey in the San Mateo County District Attorneys office who has been reviewing and making a presentation about Brown Act implementation to the Board of Supervisors. S. Norton - Commented he would welcome talking with Mr. Casey within the next few weeks. H. Grench - Said the District had been concerned about the singular use of having to announce what parcel would be discussed in Closed Session. He said that Senator Keene was sensitive to the District's situation, felt the situation was unique, and amended the bill to use the plural so that the District could announce more than one parcel but not discuss all of them. A.Grench.General.Manaaec...ssrarft�l.dicer_uz«,_K,at6.ecin�t�,.G.._ronaeRa_r u......... t...., ,.....,,,__4_...._.s.._.._...�.r._- ....._�. ._ _ �._t�..,..__._.�. Meeting 85-11 Page two D. Wondin - Noted that the Board has been studious not to enter into less-than-a-quorum meeti ngs R. Bi.sho Suggested that comments focus on alternatives to the current implementation method that would accomplish the District's business. He said the idea of a 3-person committee to confer with staff on land acquisition matters was unanimously rejected by the Board and that the full Board should meet with staff on matters of acquisition. -He said an alternative would be to announce at each Board meeting which parcels would be discussed in Closed Session, but that the biggest problem with this method would be that some landowners want their negotiations to remain confidential . He said if parcels to be discussed were announced, third parties could intervene in negotiations, bid against. the District, resulting in increased costs to the District and the public. N. Hanko - Noted one alternative was for staff to obtain options of 10-60 days, so that the price of the land would be established before the name appears on the agenda for consideration. D. Wendin - Said the problem with the option approach is that the Board would not have been involved at an early stage in the acquisition process and staff would be acting on its own. He said the problem is how to give direction to staff. K. y Dyff - Suggested keeping the list for the broad general plan area but removing resi- dential enclaves and communities from the map and list. She said possible trail connectio ' or ranger residences would be discussed with involvement of the total community. Janet Schwind - Asked if staff had determined flow other open space districts implemented the Brown Act amendments. C. Britton - Responded that he had contacted other agencies and the information would be distributed at a future meeting Charles Touchatt - Cautioned against tying the Board's hands and said the list should have been realistic andused sensibly and that names of people could have been removed from the list when it was requested which would have been compassionate and would not have led to distrust. He asked how many people want to have their negotiations with the District secret. C. Britton responded that about half of the people who negotiate with him request confidentiality. Robert Hanko - Asked if the removal of a property from the list would preclude the Dis- trict from putting it back on the list. Charles Touchatt - Stated his belief that property owners should be able to change their minds to be ableto get their names back on the list. Artemis Ginzton - Questioned whether property owners on the list could be given the formal opporfi,—fv to decide if they wished to. remain on the list. Janet Schwind the problem with the list is that it threatens the ability to sell a piece of propert.-, adding that inclusion on a more limited list would never allow a piece of property to be sold, except to the District. Jim Warren - Agreed with R. Bishop's concerns about third parties potentially escalating the price- of a parcel , but added that if eLvelopers outbid the District, then that is the fair market value of the land. He said the Board should adopt a more explicit, reasonable acquisition plan and sequence, and follow the plan. Ht. su;,,-2sted keeping the list but doing away with the use of eminent domain. He noted he fa'Vors staff functioning as "brokers", acquiring options for the Board to consider. He said announcements about properties at the end of Board meetings are inadequate, that it should be done in public forum to give the public an opportunity to know about it. Jay Thq_rLialqson - Said that many people would be disturbed if the District "gave away" its power of eminent domain, that the issue is the protection of peoples' rights to live where they are living. He added that the District should have a rational eminent domain policy that recognizes the right le to live where they are now unless they take action to create a subdivision Mich'wouledopput them back on the list. Meeting 85-11 Page three Carole Doose I - Suggested that if the District did not buy land Outside of its sphere of influence, the list would be reduced. Dick Carter - A Portola Park Heights resident, said he lives Outside of the District's boundaries , and has no votein District elections but he is on the list. He added that he lives in a Timber Preservation Zone (TPZ) and asked what the District's relationship is with the State agency that demands he hire a private forester. C. Britton - Clarified that TPZ indicates timber produc tioij zone and the State requires logging- -plans to be filed for parcels identified as land with harvestable timber. He added that there is no relationship between the State agency and the District, and that the District is required by law to notify the State when it proposes to buy TPZ land. T. Henshaw - Explained that the Board would not take action during the workshop, but follow-up action, referring items to the Board Eminent Domain Policy Committee, would be taken at the May 8 Regular Board Meeting. D. Wendin - Asked for more discussion by the public to Jay Thorwaldson's earlier sugges- tion—that being on the list of property owners and uotential eminent domain actions could be related to whether or not a property could be subdivided. Jim Warren - Said the idea fails to address someone building more than one unit on a single parcel that is not Subdivided and remains under single ownership. He said the Board may want to consider the possibility of saying that if -a subdivision involves more than one family or division into more than two parcels in a ten-year period, then it goes back onto the list for potential acquisition. He said that almost any land is capable of being sub- divided except as it's restrained by ordinance. Charles Touchatt - Voiced agreement with Mr. Warren, but added he feels the problem is in large acreage parcels. Carole Doose - Questioned the definition of subdivision, since some families split parcels for their children. She added that some land in private ownership is open space that could remain that way. K. Puffy - Stated her agreement with the concept of private open space and said arrange- ments can be made with private owners. N. Hanko - Noted that D. Wendin's proposal regarding the link between the list and eminent I`domain is one alternative being discussed by the Committee. H. Grench - Said the District has tried to acquire open space through conservation ease- ments, thus allowing land to remain in private ownership. T. Henshaw - Noted that when the Committee presents its recommendations to the Board, 'F--- t e pub-1 will have additional opportunity to comment. She encouraged members of the public to forward comments to the Committee or to the Board. Jay Thorwaldson - Said the District and POST could help the landowners keep their land as _pr_ivate—open space by informing them of available options. He encouraged the Board to make partners of the people living in the area. Robert Hanko - Said there are two types of open space land: visual and recreational . He Fi-t6-d an—exception to the Brown Act granted to the Regents of the University of Cali- fornia for acquisition of land and suggested the District may be granted an exception by the Legislature. 2. Policies Regarding Annexation and Acquisition of Land Outside District Boundaries Robert Fisse - (Written Communication read into the record by T. Henshaw) : Purchase land only wit hi—n-the borders of the District. Annex land to the District only by popular vote of the electorate within the area proposed for annexation. ( If 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. ) Meeting 85-11 Page four William Obermayer - Suggested the District could act on major subdivision applications �pr�rcels or mare) , rather than subdivisions being made for families . He said his idea of private open space is that it is not necessarily for public trails or use but the idea that the owner will not subdivide or develop the property. Bob Piety - Suggested the District have contracts with landowners stating that as long as the land remains in open space, there would be some guarantee that the District would not use eminent domain to acquire the property. Norton_ - Said that the Committee is investigating the contract concept, adding that it is beyond the power of the Board to give up power of eminent domain in his opinion. Carole Doose - Suggested that the District get together with other levels of government state) to establish an act or zone for dealing with private open space, exemptinc parcels that are private open space from eminent domain procedures. She added that such a program should not be under the control of the District. Charles Touchatt - Stated his agreement with Ms. Doose's concept, adding that giving away an easement was not the idea, that it would be merely a commitment to keep property as open space. He said the kaw could be changed if everyone is in agreement. Artemis Ginzton - Cited a, personal example of family land at Big Sur which could not be divided among the 3 original-owner families because of the Coastal Act, and that the families cannot use. the land. She. noted she didn't know how to write a policy that would address specific problems and unique situations. Robert Augsburger - Executive Director, Peninsula Open Space Trust stated that under existing law, an easement does not have to mean public access to an individual 's property and that the mechanism already exists, thus the law doest,not have to be changed. Carole Doose - Said she was proposing a,statewide program that would protect the land- owners ' rights with respect to open space. T. Henshaw - Read, for the record, a petition which will be considered at the Board's May 8_, IT8_5 public meeting. The petition states: "Please stop all actions which include (1 ) use or threat of use of condemnation, (2) buying land outside the district, and (3) annexations until the public workshops are completed and policy revisions have been estab- lished. " The petition was signed by 53 individuals. H. Grench - In response to D. Wendin's request, summarized the procedures and rules concerning annexations. He said that up to the present, District annexations have had a 100% consent of landowners involved. He said a sphere of influence defines how far a political boundary might expand in the foreseeable future and is primarily aimed at sewer districts and cities. He said a recent court decision required that every juris- diction have a sphere of influence, noting the District's sphere of influence went beyond the District's political boundaries in 3-4 places which were logical areas for the Distri� ! to expand to protect the Skyline Scenic Corridor, trail and corridor connections, and in the case of Mt. Umunhum, rounding out an area. He said the District's original boundaries were established according to topographical points, following major ridge lines, as well as Political considerations and existing jurisdictional lines. He said when the sphere of influence was created, there was an attempt to be more consistent with the mission of the District. He said there are some people who live in the District's sphere of influence who are not District voters. N. Hanko - Said the founders of the District wished to avoid creating an impact on school a-istricts, people who were in dire need to fund their school districts. Robert Augs.burge - Speaking as a private citizen, said the boundaries of the District were accommodated to existing political lines and didn't always make geographical sense, citing Windy Hill and Langley Hill as examples . He added that the District is preserving open space without destroying communities. William Ob,ny��Ytr - Said he was not aware of the District's sphere of influence, and expresse(I his Opinion that the District is afraid to have a popular vote on the other side Of SI�Y, ine Boulevard. He agreed with Mr. Fisse's idea of a popular vote and the District Page five not. haying property outside of its He said the people along Skyline have no rep-)enta 'Lion becau,,e of the vIdY W(AI-J-, clr�2 livid-d and compared the District acquisitions in Lire Portola Park Heights area to "fingers" of District land which affect surrounding land. Jim Warren - Expressed his belief that the District has annexed only with 100% consent of owners involved but said the District should take an entire logical area and determine if the whole area wishes to be annexed by Popular vote. He questioned the District's claim of scenic corridor protection since some District-owned lands are well outside of the- sphere of influence and are not visible from Skyline Boulevard. Carole Doose Stated her support of Robert Fisse's suggestion but felt the wording con-r cerning voting was ambiguous. She said a broad area should be given a chance to vote before land purchases start taking place. She suggested it may be necessary to address the Current boundary lines to create more logical boundary lines. Robert Hanko' - Observed there are two kinds of people: those who look at a landscape and see beauty and those who see money. He said the people who see beauty do not want to take away the power of eminent domain. Fie said there are two classes of land: visual retention land and public access land; visual retention land could be achieved through contracts/agreements stating eminent domain would not be used or land would not be subdivided for a stated period of years. He said the two options for public access land would be purchases or easements. David Leeson - Said the annexation procedure can be threatening or accommodating and recommended the Board work to create a better public image, involving cooperation for annexations. He said the procedure of "checker-boarding" does not create a good impression Barbara Weisner - Asked if the people vote to be annexed and assessed by the District. H. Grench - Replied that when private property is annexed into the District, the Dis- Tr—ictreEeives a portion of the property taxes but the taxes paid by the voter do not increase D. Wendin - Asked for public comment on how to deal with the Bullis property which is partially within the District' s sphere of influence but outside the District boundaries . Janet Schwind - Said it may be okay to acquire land if it is adjacent to MROSD bounda)'-ies but the problem comes with checker-boarding. Charles Touchatt - Said the problem is people's fears that the District will keep on a ding land and-won't leave the people alone. Tony Such - Suggested that POST or Sempervirens Fund buy land to keep for open space until it istiguous. He recommended the District not buy land unless the people are repre- sented politically. Jim Warren - Stated his belief that there is nothing inconsistent with annexing the area first, then acquiring the Bullis property. lie said if boundaries are illogically defined, they should be redefined in a logical manner. Carole Doose - Suggested Mr. Bullis work with his neighbors and the District to get the item OF-a-ballot fcr a vote of the people, adding that the District should not checker- board or "creep". Janet Schwind - Stated acquisition is fairly harmless except for checker-boarding and i-f the District wants to acquire land outside of its boundaries it must not be considered 2, part of the District unless the whole area is annexed by popular vote. Mary Alexander - Said the people feel the District has circumvented the rules. Jim Warren - Commenting on spot acquisitions inside or outside District boundaries, stated that if such acquisitions are unplanned, they should not be made. He said the Dis- trict should develop an orderly plan and then follow it rather than pursue "targets of opportunity" . Charles Touchatt - Suggested POST could acquire land, give or sell an easement and then pu the _re__ina_i_ndeF—back into private ownership. Meetit"'i 85-11 Page Six Wi I I i,-jili Obe rjiLiayer - Su, ted MROSD should change, its i tude and give people a vote and a n� ward to represent t I e Sky I i ne area. Tony _ SLIC11 - Suciqesteri the District' s annexation applications Should go to the pertinent county involved. He said he has no representation in Santa Clara County LAFCO. Robert Representing POST, said that POST had notified landowners with 40+ acres of the sphere of influence, explaining reasons and implications , and inviting questions and responses , but did not receive any responses from the public. He cautioned against tying the hands of the District in instances where people want the District to acquire their land. Carole Doose - Expressed her opinion that LAFCO guidelines are not appropriate for an open space -a"i strict and suggested the District's Legislative Committee give input for redirection for working with LAFCO. She said the Board should not use LAFCO as a free-for- all for acquisition. Karen Noqa - Stated her concern about being on the listing of property owners. She asked the District not to take land unless people are willing to sell and to purchase only withi- District boundaries. H. Grench - Clarified his response to B. Weisner, saying his earlier answer was correct for Santa Clara County, adding that for San Mateo County, the District would not get a share of the property tax by policy of the Board of Supervisors. K - Stated that acquisition is a public action and the Public is given opportunities �Llf f to speak out and to express concerns, particuarly in eminent domain actions. D. Wendin - Stated his opinion that acquisition outside of District boundaries is the major problem, creating fingers and checker-board in-holdings. He suggested the Committee compile some ideas on a policy for acquisition outside District boundaries and return for another public session. R. Bishop - Said he would like the Committee to put down some possible alternatives , and when theycome up for adoption at a future meeting, further public input would be sought and encouraged. N. Hanko - Said the Board should bring in a planner to work with the people who live in the Skyline area with the sole idea of protecting the communities with buffers, trails going through the communities, and have them listed as communities exempt from land acquisition plans of the District. She said if District boundaries are extended (with minor exceptions) it should be done by a vote of the entire District. H. Turner - Stated the Committee should present alternative ways of complying with the Broom Act after its work is finished with eminent domain. He stated his concerns regard,-, lack of voting representation within the sphere of influence and urged that all actions having to do with votes, acquisitions, annexation, etc. be done in a context of sensi- tivity to feelings of people in the area. He continued that every ten years there is a process for establishing ward boundaries and that he would like to have the Board address the issue of a Skyline representative. He said that in the meantime, the oublic should give their ideas and thoughts to representatives individually or collectively. He said the District has more to do regarding the sphere of influence particularly along He added Skyline and would like to have it on an agenda as a public participatory process. t, .. , thAt '-(' sees a lot of rerit in deleting -xistinn communities from the Master Plan. D. Wendi-n - Stated his Agreement with C. Doose's statement that another workshop would be desirable after the Committee COMDiles a draft that can be addressed. He said 'it, was imperative for members of the public to have ample review time of any draft policies betorE the public workshop is held. ADJOURNMENT T. Henshaw adjourned the meeting at 11 :35 A.M. Emma Johnson Secretary USE OF THE POWER 0-F -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 bearing. 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 OFNECESSITY COYSIDERED 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 Paach 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 Catos 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. Lavyer 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 t EMINENT DOMAIN POLICIES May 2, 1985 Ever Used Agency Written Policy Informal Policy For Parks EBRPD None used as sparingly as possible. Yes '° (Used only .for most critical parcels) (One pending) (One recommended) MPRPD None In-holdings, case-by-case basis. Yes (Adhere to State law) Ease of acquisition is a major consideration. Santa Clara County \None No condemnation for last 4 years. Yes (Adhere to State law) San Mateo County None No acquisition money for parks, Yes (Adhere to State law) therefore no condemnation. (Previously used only when exhausted other methods to acquire critical parcels.) Marin County None Condemnation not used for parks No or open space. (CSD`s have used) Contra Costa County None No funds for parks acquisition. Yes State of California None Condemnation used as last resort Yes (Adhere to State law) on case-by-case basis. (About IO pendi, Tahoe Conservancy See attached Government Code Sec. 66907.5 See formal policy. Only been in business for 5 months. Coastal Conservancy State law Purchase only from willing No sellers. Used approximately roximatel 25 times overall ll �I M-85-87 (Meeting 85-13 May 22 , 198 5) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM May 17, 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: 11. Grench, General Manager. SUBJECT: Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use of Eminent Domain Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments, Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries, and Annexation The Committee, consisting of Directors Bishop, Hanko, and Turner, will have met three times by May 22 and expects to have its report ready to present at that Board meeting. The Committee does not intend any action to be taken on May 22 except to schedule a special Board meeting at another location similar to the workshops (except perhaps not in exactly the same format) to hear public comments and have discussion on the policy alternatives to be presented. Attached are data compiled regarding other park agencies ' policies regarding use of eminent domain. i f ,Moetinq 'e,`3-14 &Ule Jan IrIr 1985 rr�c ' or�; !")'oard of ro"11 E. Shelley Subject : Policies on the Use of -Eminent Domain, Tmplimentation of the Brown Act, Acquisition of Lands outside District Boundaries and Annexation. Since 7- will be out of the area during t1=e continued dis- cussions of the above policy topics and may not be present when action on these policies is taken, [ will. attempt to present my Position for your consideration. 'Where practical I will include my arguments for my position. Use of Eminent Domain T will discuss my position in terms of the options suggested by the committee. A) Threat of use of eminent domain by staff during negoti- ations. T support 3c and 3b in that order. The staff should definately be prepared to explain the law concerning the District' s po,,,;ers of eminent domain. Care must be used to avoid the use of this explanation as a veiled threat- . T would recommend that the staff be furnished with a Board approved written statement explaining the District' s powers and policies. T support 3b because, if the _--�oard makes a 'Geiitative decision that the use of eminent domain may be justified for the acquisition of a specific piece of land, it is reasonable for the staff to so inform the land owner when negotiations are at an impasse. B) Use of eminent domain powers to at-r-quire a portion of improved property. 2 o C I:i of 0 h%-, n S report. Policy Provi(iet; maximum protection of the improved property L t eliminating the ultimate, limited use of eminent domain :t) insure the completion of critical trail links. C) General Policy on the use of eminent, domain. T support item 6 of the committee ' s report. T feel that this t-e r n clearly steltes our present policy. I further support most of item 4 concerning restraints on the use of eminent domain to acquire occupied Property, subject to the exception covered under item 8, which T discussed above. I limit my Support to most of item 4 because T do not fully appreciate the implications of item 4b. D) Use of eminent domain when requested. T J 1:-epj 5 of the committee ' s report. The rationale is that unless the District considered the subject property im- portant to the achievements of its goals the subject would not arise. The option to use eminent domain powers under those conditions could save money for the District since it could affect the seller' s tax position. While these policies do not provide absolute protection of occupied and improved properties; if carefully adhered to, they III do provide reasonable protection. With time these policies should result in the elimination of the unjustified fear of property owners that prevails under our present operating procedures which do not include clearly stated policies. E) Arbitration At this time T do not support the establishment of arbitra- tion procedures in conjunction with the District' s use of eminent Ty) "0' y likr l co,!-i--licate. rather streaniline the procedure:. 7- might be convinced otherwise if there is evidence of its successful application by other agencies for similar purposes. L- presume the advantage would be possible reduced costs for both . par-ties. I, ) Contr:icts with property owners. I support the type of con act suggested bY Stan Forton in his report of Flay 6, 1985. 1 would support the use of a period .:,neater than 10 years, if legally acceptable, in order to provide f-CY more permanent protection af the owners. Such contracts could give true meaning to the concept of privately held open space. There would be no direct cost to either party. The land owner could break the contract at his will; thus the value of the property would not be diminished. As long as such a contract was in force, the property owner would be fully protected against the District' s threat of eminent domain. ImDlimentation of the Bro%,in Act A) I have not received the committee ' s report on this sub- ject nor on the subjects of Land Acquisition outside District Boundaries and Annexation. T think that it is essential that th ., Board continue -to meet with the acquisition staff in closed session to discuss land ne-otiations. T am also convinced that it is in the public' s best interests that confidentiality be maintained with individual land owners when requested. The "list" was adopted to satisfy the law while retaining the District' s ability to maintain L> confidentiality. The primary disadvantage of the list was that to sor!;.., inflividuals whose names Iliece included . s many speakers at our workshops stated, that 11D-rm has already been done and cannot be undone by eliminating C> the list. Pror)`:r policies on the use of eminent domain should eliminate most Of the unjustified, but underst ' lable, fears gener- ated by the adoption of the list. The problem of fear could be further reduced by removing most developed proper-ties from the list. T support the continued use of the list (after the rei,.ioval of most developed land units) as an appropriate implimentation of the Brown Act. Acquisition of Lands Outside the District' s Boundaries A) I do not support any changes in the Dil;trict' s existing L> Policies. Prior to the requiredtimplimentation of a District Sphere of Influence, the general 'unwritten policy was to acquire only those lands outside the District which were immediately adjacent to the District ' s boundaries and which were needed -to protect or round out acquisitions withinDistrict boundaries. The rare exception was a gift or exceptional bargain sale. Such acquisitions were necessary because the original District bound- aries were based on other jurisdictional or Political boundaries and not on reasonable or rational geographical boundaries. Those reasonable and rational geographical boundaries were recognized by the IAFCO and were approved as the District' s Sphere of Influence. I support the uniform application of all acquisition policies throughout the District' s Sphere of Influence Acquisition outside the Sphere of Influence should be limited to gifts and on a Annexation A) Our existing annexation policies should be adopted and clearly stated. Minor annexations should be limited to parcels with 10OZ connent of the land owners. Generally, this means the annexation of District-owned lards only. Major annexations should continue to be by a majority vote within the annexation area as required by state law. There would be no rationale for not annexing District owned lands unless we also adopted a policy of not acquiring lands outside the District. If the latter Policy were adopted the Sphere of Influence would have little meaning. I apologize for the somewhat rambling arguments presented above, but I find myself in -the "Jim Warren" mode . I just could not get to this task until the night before my departure for a three week trip; thus I did not have the luxury of a rewrite. CLOSED SESSION POLICIES -- LAND NEGOTIATIONS Agent Written Policy Informal Policy How Operates EBRPD Follow letter of the law None Publicly announce parcel and owners MpRPD Only for litigation None Discuss negotiations in open session on basis of prior list and status Santa Clara County Follow law None Very seldom occurs, then announce parcel San Mateo County Follow law Not appropriate for closed session Marin County Only for litigation None Have generalized "shoppi-S lis; and review status with Ccmmiss: not Board Contra Costa County For litigation only Unnecessary State of California Current law Don't run closed sessions Tahoe Conservancy Follow law Unnecessary Deal only with willing sellers at appraised value Coastal Conservancy Follow law None Incomplete information I M-85-88 (Meeting 85-13 May 22 , 1985) MIDPLNINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM May 22 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Scheduling of Special Meeting to Discuss Eminent Domain and Other Policies The accompanying report of the Ad 110c Committee suggests a meeting for June 5 . In addition to choosing the date (and perhaps an alternative) , you may wish to indicate a preference for the geo- graphical area in which to hold the meeting. Staff has tentatively reserved the Tow,-, of Portola Valley 's Multi-Use Room for June 5 from 7 : 30 to 10 : 30 P.M. in the event you decide to meet at that location again. Attached for your information is a compilation of how some other agencies handle discussions of land negotiations . i 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 g 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 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 9 p y to spend my time on such an amendment. Herbert A Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors.Katharine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop.Eaward G Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G.Wendm I 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 oppbrtuhi.ty 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 cupzed 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. M--85-71 a hr �,I I �*�r III .' MPENIISULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE;, SUITE D.I.LOS ALTOS.CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)955-i7 17 April 23, 1985 To: The Co,i-qittee on Eminent D01713in Policy; District Counsel From: Harry A. Turner I 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 eminen t domain and the prospect of a recommendation to the Distric t 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 el iminate the exercise of em inent against people living on land they love In this case the objective is to seek a re �rela tionship that is compatible �l P Y.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) N (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 i e that proposed developments are scrutinized and controlled b1Y CEso [AuProcesses and the power of the county to withhold development ithe The county planning staff and commission is an additional forum for theimplementation 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: I. 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. H#1b@11 A Gr•^C.h,G.n�.�r 4/�n�^a boa•d pt D,r.ctors KalMnrr�D) If,,Nonotle G HanAo.:.ens N.nsna� R,tnuC 5 S- 1^69 Ec-s a G u aaa a.A a`a s A. :;/ad!u[1♦A A 2. The threat of c�i e- +,.nent 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_ S. 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 that are essentially in their natural state will not be acquired by use of eminent domain proceedings except in those extraordinary circumstances i n w whi ch th e public benefit demonstrably outweighs the loss of individual property ownership and in which no feasible alternative is available. Ili ail I March 30, 19R5 AIMPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SLICE DISTRICI- 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) vc-as entirely outside District when acquired 4. 40 Of value Of land (as Of aca-u-is-i -&-ion date) was entirely outside District ANNEXATION Purpose: Statement of Reasons from Board-adop-%_eC:'-, resolution: "Whereas, the purpose of the proposed annexation is to avoid challenges to enforcement of Districtordinances on the basis that open space lands are not ui-t h-:"n the District and to bring District-owned lands within p' olitical 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. M-85-70 N, h1IDPEN NSULA REGIONAL 01'1:N SPACE DISTRICT 375 OISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS A:TOS.CALIFORNIA<M022 (415)%5 4?17 April 23, 1983 To: The Board of Directors, District Counsel From: Harry A. Turner Compliance:ect Sub Com� with the P Brow n Act Position: An alternative method of compliance that t 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 thin 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 providingmeaningful information regarding District objectives. g 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. i Nerpe•t A Grencn.Ornr.,r{fanap.r &,o,cr o/p,rrcrMf Katnertne 0.1ty,No"lto G Nanko•Teens Mrnanaw-Rcnar0 S B,Ihop,EGwarO G Shelley,He,,,A Turnar.dan-et G Wo"m Lompiiance wir-P. !jro*.-n Act 2. Whenever thv District Board intends to meet it, 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 EGERT(:5N E__) LAKIN (1006-1968) GEORGE H NORTON* THOMAS D. REESE* FRANK A SMALL THOMAS J. CAHILL* LEE S PAN7ELL RICHARD H. ROSENTHAL JESSICA F. ARNER SHERRY 0. HAWORTH CAROLS BOES ROBERT L FLETCHER MARGARET W PASHLEY CAROL B SCHWARTZ J. A TONY VILLANUEVA BONNIE FRANK NANETTE S. STRINGER S C O T T H MILLER E A K I N • S PEAR S ANDREW M. SPEARS' OF COUNSEL *.-.1-C.... .T 285 HAMILTON AVENUE - FIFTH FLOOR, PALO ALTO, CA - 94301-2588 TELEPHONE (415) 32B-7000 TELECOPIER (415) 329-8925 Attorneys at Law June 10 , 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional open Space District 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Board Members: I am writing you as a representative of Save Skyline, an organization of 95 members particularly interested in the Skyline Ridge. We want to thank you for your careful reconsideration of your policies relating to land acquisition and the use of eminent domain in the Skyline area. We feel that you have done an excel- lent job in trying to make it clear to resident land owners that you do not intend taking their land. Our group would generally support your taking a position that you will not use the power of eminent domain to displace residing land owners. However, we do not think that you should be precluded from taking land when unique scenic areas are threatened with subdivision development. Obviously, it would be preferable to obtain any land through negotiation with the owner and we urge you to do that when it is at all possible. Yours _tJ?uly, OR H. NORTON GHN: lf V MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I . DATE: June 11, 1985 I i SACRA('FNTO ADDRESS State Capitol �yj Sacramento,(916)California445-8188 95824 ASS � (916)445-8188 e DISTRICTOFFICE San Carlos City Hall Second Floor 666 Elm Street ,l.��rs, ¢fie t ,ysSan Carlos,CA 94070 &It i" ;` 1 Keg- to ;v (415)591-5544 ROBERT W. NAYLOR ASSEMBLYMAN. TWENTIETH DISTRICT June 4 1985 Mr. Herb Grench Executive Director MROSD 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Herb: I have been pleased to follow the ongoing positive communi- cations between the MROSD and its neighbors over a variety of issues. My hope is that the District, individual neighbors, citizen groups, and other governmental entities will come to a mutually accep- table resolution of the outstanding issues. It is my understanding that the issues under discussion include, among others; (1) the eminent domain power; (2) LAFCO jurisdiction; (3) out-of-district annex- ations and acquisitions; (4) public notice of properties under consider- ation for acquisition. Some issues may be resolved through policy determinations, while others may require legislation. I stand ready to introduce legislation, if necessary, on these and other issues. Please feel free to call upon me for assistance. I hope to work with the District and its neighbors on issues of concern to both. Your communication is always highly valued and appreciated. Sincerely, ROBE W. NAYLOR i RWN:af cc: Board of Directors, MROSD 1 '•lay 22, 1985 The Country Almanac 19 IN OUR OPINION L Why no ' fwo,. 'de-mnation . ".. . 1 : �a � _ . One major step which the district could well, t. take is to fore use of condemnation.It might ght even y THE BELEAGUERED.Midpeninsula ask Assemblyman Bob Naylor to carry a bill to strip t Regional Open Space District has been fighting off k the district of such power, rather than a bill to call ! glancing blows from a number-of directions.But the for a disannexation election. alienation of a diversity of constituencies because of -' Let's look at what is at risk ' . a series of circumstances and bloopers, certainly • In terms of purchases,the district has never makes.long=standing-friends.of the district have ; once gone to condemnation. some deep concerns: • Facts prove public agencies pay more when Demolition of the Hassler Health Home was condemnations come up before juries to decide the decided on s with seemingly little regard for the kind price., = of opposition which would ensue. Publication of a . • The district's staff insists it never has (and list of every conceivable (arid a few inconceivable) never will) hold condemnation over heads of acquisition targets threw a shadow across many prospective sellers as a threat. hundreds of privately owned homes and acreages.: •. In the rare event that a district purchase is LL Some district directors now agree this"hit"list was being undertaken to block development (which needless and universally misunderstood. raises a whole series of other questions about a - Residents of the Skyline area particularly,are 'single purpose agency), then clearly it could lobby rallying support for- some stringent curbs on the the zoning.body. It could rally public support to '-,i power of this giant "neighbor" each of them must' _ make the development less onerous. rconfront'' '- • If .a - property owner is planning to do ' ' And in the executive suites of develo pers, `something deleterious to MROSD's adjacent open:,! more than a feat lips are being smacked thinking of, space preserves, the,district still has the same the possibilities of •the district were- to be access to courts-- for civil, remedy; as any other; ,,dismembered or seriously,weakened. " property owner. ` --TM =n - .,►. � ► :. Giving up condemnation power could do much , There is general agreement that the district's tb prove that the district really isn't the ogre some accomplishments to date have been significant and 'accuse it of being. needed.Perhaps the old saw about not being able to And along the line, less-frightened neighbors I make an omelette"without shattering the eggshells will begin to see that open space preservation is is relevant. But with two thirds of the district's long ' very much in their interest as it is in the interest of term land goals already reached, perhaps it is time those living far from the wooded trails and rolling to do some rethinking about the way business is meadows saved for all of us for all time. carried out. Star Route 2, Box 403 LaHonda, 2 CA 9 40..0 April 3 1985 Nonette Hanko, Director MidPeninsula ,Re gional�ional Open �, p n 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. lily 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 hearing 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 e t parcel being condemned�.ned was outside the District, at which point a member of the Legal staff e loftily told us that NIROSD 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 Co lon con demnation.zatioz . Ins tead, d, the Board chase 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 hearingwith a strong feeling of there, but for the grace of God, go I". ITad we happened to have acquired our land d and attempted d to bu ild'p uild our home a mere 5 years later than we did, MROSD could well have stopped>e d us from fulfilling our dream of Iiving i 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 an of the Skyline residents who o happened Y pp d to be in the way. the ears I� Y 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 carne after our home. 1 i Then came the Nro,.vn tact arid the infamous list, which included our parcel; again we found out about it, not from N'TROSI), but from a neighbor. My bu 1 0 sband hit the roof; I merely crawled off to bed and cried for hours. It seemed that our "vorst fears w---re coming to Pass—MROSD's shotgun approach to land acquisition had a C� on it. Pellet ill it with our name 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 I their attitudes one bit. It was not clear whether official policy changes by the Board would 0 have any effect, since the staff people advising on and implementing the policies obviously like things the way they are. 0 Because these issues affect Me at such a deep emotional level, 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 argurnents 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 awilling 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 segment of the I)ul)li(-. Also, i",I)roved properties, especially relatively small parcels with single family homes, tend to be a ,vast e of Nll�OSI) funds, since so much of the value is in the improvements rather than the land itself. I also believe that NIROSD 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 NIROSD 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 C. 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 hurrian values. It is my belief that these people have cost MROSD far more in good will lost than they could ever save MIZOSD in dollars; in fact I believe that you will find they are now costing NIROSD 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. 0 Well, thank you for listening to my thoughts and beliefs. I sincerely hope that you are successful in bringing some much-needed reform to MIZOSD's policies. Sincerely, Mrs. Marsha Quarn 3 M-85_by i tth( �_ IN"DPE-NENSJi:-k REGIONAL OPEN SRACE MSTRICT 375 FIST c�.C.RCLE. SUl T E D 1,LOS ALTOS.CAUrORN1A 13,1022 (415)96Sa717 April 24 , 1985 To: The Board of Directors From: Harry A. Turner Subject: Land Acquisition Pl n Position . Some uncertai nties regarding our land acquisition guidelines need to be clarified. Rationale. We have received a reasona ble request from e u m q George an d Sarah Ducker 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 Ducker'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 Ducker South Skyline Association Portola Heights Association Kings Mountain Association Hem,on A G,ench. lUenip.r 80,010 of 6,1►cfw3 Ka?"Im*D tty,Nonette G Nanko,Teen&Hansha,..mcnerd S S�Xhop.EC."G Shelley,Ha,ry A Tumer,Daniel G wend-n _ M--85-62 Meeting 85-08 April 10, 1985 Hill -All '. .u�ensi► C.. +C MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D 1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 April 9, 1985 To: The Board of Directors From: Harry Turner i Subject: Proposed restrictions on the use of eminent domain in land acquisition Dear Colleagues, When the Committee on Land Acquisition policy meets I will advocate the following policies. I invite your co-sponsorship of this approach. Position. The use of eminent domain proceedings should be infrequent and reserved for situations that "maximize the public good and minimize private harm." F Rationale_. The district, like all other public agencies, has been given eminent domain power. But even though the public support for its use to acquire open space is significantly less than for its use by cities, counties, and school districts, the potential for its use is present in every land acquisition. This potential, without evident restraints, has created anxiety by neighbors with whom the District would like to maintain good relations. These people deserve the relief that would be provided by an explicit policy. Moreover, the continued absence of the restraints needed to assure the public that eminent domain will be a minor part of the District's acquisition program may cause erosion of public support for the District's objectives. The District has wisely employed a strategy of dealing with willing sellers and creating many alternative ways to fulfill its basic objectives. The public good can often be achieved, for example, by an indirect, less than optimum travel route, rather than a direct one. The personal damage inflicted on persons who are committed to long term residence on land they love, and may have improved with their Own labor and emotional energies, can never be offset by mere payment of fair market value. To "minimize private harm" in these situations is nearly impossible. The District's purposes are to acquire and preserve, for public benefit, use and enjoyment, undeveloped lands. Therefore, acquisition of residences is incidental to its primary purposes and is unlikely to ever "maximize the public good." Herbert A.Grench,General Mani er Board o!Directors Katherine 9 e e I I Duffy,Non ito G.Hanko Teena H n h aH Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A. Daniel G.W en in Restrictions on the Use of Emineiit Domain ll April 9, 1985 Page 2 Recommendation. The District should adopt the following eminent domain policies: 1. Residents, whether owners or tenants, will not be subject to involuntary removal from the land on which they live. 2. Lands that are essentially in their natural state will not be acquired by use of eminent domain proceedings except in the most extraordinary circumstances and in which no feasible alternative is available. Sincerely, 1,s Harry Tu er -STRIBUTED AT —ARI) MEETING Peninsula Citizen.s' Actio -i February 27 , 1985 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 85-Feb-217 Greetings, re: MROSD threats/actions against desires of home/property owners I would be pleased to include articles focusing on those practices of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District that are considered coercive, in my next newspapers — the 20,000 circulation Peninsula Citizens' Advoacate, issue #4, and the 100,000-circulation Silicon Gulch Gazette, issue #41. At Least One More Advocate As promised, there will be at least one more edition of PCA. Editions beyond that will depend on the level of financial support received from the communities served. (This is not a- solicitation; financial realities will be detailed in PCA #4.) Note: I had originally planned for January edition, however, I now have #4 scheduled for a publication sometime in late March. It was first delayed by the departure of my editor —' at my request. Next, I indulged in the luxury of a much-longer-than-expected "vacation" — spending it in glorious marathon-mode programming of the typesetting system illustrated in this letter. (OK so I have a strange notion of vacations.) This new system is far more powerful than the previous system, and will make it much easier and faster to produce the camera-ready copy of the publications. Skyliue/Coastside Views Distributed to Silicon Valley The SGG is a free-to-readers microcomputer newspaper that I began in 1976, published on the same highly sporatic basis as the PCA — i.e., I produce an issue whenever it is useful and I was twilling to pay its significant costs. Of its 100,000 circulation, approximately 50,000 readers are on the west coast, 45,000 are in California, and about 35,000 are in the Bay area — primarily in Silicon Valley. The SGG and its editor (me) are well known to that readership, and believe — well respected for "tellin' it like it is." I am producing the next SGG for two clients — who also •happen to be actively supportive of my PCA efforts. I plan to piggy back a 'PCA as an insert in this next SGG — thereby reaching that very significant audience of Silicon Vallcy and California "movers and shakers" with our concerns and views, and saving the postage of putting the PCA out to that audience, seperately. Postage is the biggest single Cos:-_-crter of an issuc. (Of course, I/PCA will bear the additional costs of producing and printing, that PCA insert.) An Informational Outreach Effort is Essential I have concluded that mass distribution of accurate and comprehensive information is an absolutely essential element of any successful effort to "motivate" obstinate and/or unresponsive elected and appointed officials to be less abusive and more equitable. We, who desire change, must reach beyond our own miniscule constituencies and inform the constituencies who are naively supporting those officials, unaware of what they are actually doing. I hold the strong belief that the essence of-a free and equitable society is founded in an accur qtely and..completely informed electorate. This Volunteer Effort Needs Your Assistance I have my hands full, just managing the editing and production of the Advocate, plus writing some or all of the stories. I have essentially no time left for attending meetings, monitoring hearings, and doing the research that must be done to support accurate reporting. (We'll ignore the additional functions of living my life, and pursuing my computer work — which I did ignore for most of 1984.) I need your volunteer time, effort, and expertise. To the extent that it is forthcoming, I can cover the MROSD in PCA. To the extent that you are unable to assist — I won't/can't cover MROSD activities, given the severe time and staff limitations of this already-costly community- Support effort. There is far more to do than any one person can do. If someone will round up the volunteers, I will be delighted to hold a meeting at my house in north Skyline, discuss what is needed, find out what talents and recources arc available, and assist in coordinating v assionnicnts and projects. To the extent that information and time is available, I plan to do the same comprehensive, documented presentation of information about MROSD activities and finances as I did in our 32- page PCA #2 that detailed Building Inspection Department practices and finances. Here's a pa-c 2 Wis' of what I nccd and/or could use: & Docut-nc-ntation: I v- 1111 not publish information without adequate documentation. I necd personal copies of MROSD minutes, letters, statutes, directives, ordinances, etc., documenting allegations we publish. In the cases of statements of personal experiences, I need to have them in writing or at least or, tape, and fairly and carefully questioned. Allegations and rumors need to be carefully researched and questioned — as a matter of fairness and principle, and because they will destructively backfire (as they should) if they are published and proven false. I need for volunteers to seek out this documentation, copy it,and get it to me. Here are some of the items that would be useful: — documented information about when MROSD was formed, what the exact ballot results were, %vlien it changed its names, copies of the name-change motions and voting and, if available — transcripts of the discussion/testimony regarding those name changes, — copies of MROSD's original charter, and all modifications to that charter, — complete details — includins ballot results, dates, and published statements for each expansion of the MROSD's boundaries, — listings of all MROSD expenditures and checks, preferably from the beginning, including dates, amounts, payees, and purposes, — details on all bond issues and present and potential indebtedness of the District, — a complete listing of MROSD property, with parcel numbers, amounts paid, and copies of purchase contracts, documented information regarding "special deals" made by MROSD — e.g. the building complex rumored to be only for family use, but being rented; special valuations and deals that have favorable tax consequences for sellers; homes owned by MROSD but occupied by "friends of MROSW, etc. If we arc going to be coerced and abused, let's make sure we are all abused and coerced equally — no "special deals" for the few and the powerful.), documentation on all Property purchases by MROSD, outside of their District (tax payers tend to dislike having their money used for someone else's benefit), documentation on all sales and trades of property by MROSD, including parcel numbers, dates, amounts received, copies of the sales contracts, and transcripts of the discussions justifying such sales, — the original text of the 1984 Brown Act modifications, — the actual text of the statutes used by MROSD in condemnation proceedings, — documented information regarding the legal and tax ramifications of "friendly condemnation" vs. any other kind of condemnation (apparently, the former has better -tax consequences for the victem.), complete details concerning all legal actions by — and against — MROSD, particularly including copies of co,",rt transcripts, official correspondence, hearings records, _ MROSD costs for all legal actions they pursue or suffer, — biographical sketches on all MROSD Directors and key administrative staff, when each Director was first elected, when key staff were hired, how much each is paid, non-financial additional benefits, etc., an accurate description of the District's boundaries and the electoral districts for each Director (those published in several newspapers were grossly inaccurate), and as much documented detail as possible about who Gerrymandered that district, and how they were able to accomplish it. Also, some years ago, I recall talking to a woman who told me of renting a cabin behind a mountain home, leaving the area for the summer, returning to find the property purchased by ..MROSD and her cabin bulldozed and belongings missing, having MROSD refuse to even reimburse her for the missing belongs, and having to suc — successfully — for compensation. I can't remember who told me of this; I would like documented details of it and the litigation and court transcript. Personal Stories: Stories of governmental actions are often considered boring and remain unread — inconsequential stuff ... like policies about nuclear weapons. it is of ma jor importance to obtain in-depth stories from people who have personally suffered inequities or mistreatment due to MROSD coercion, condemnation, or functional downzoning. Those people need to be located and encouraged to be interviewed. I will do the interviews, or possibly some not-yet- found volunteer reporters might do them. The most valuable stories will concern forced aquisition of peoples' homes or planned Personal homesites by initialed and/or completed condemnation proceedings. Stories regarding the supression of commercial developments are of much less value — regardless of whether oryc agrees or disagrees with such supression — they will not motivate sympathy and support, its from MROSD's constituents. Photo rcci -7— �rahs�& G�raphLicK. For a printed medium to be accepted and read by a casual Pie"t, it must appear interesting and have "graphic relief" — photos, drawings, charts, flans, etc. I need for volunteers to generate black-and-white photos of pertinant subjects, obtain copies pac:c 3 of plaris and overlays, etc., and get It" cm to Me. In the case of photos and otlicr-than-public dra%%-;r,-s and plans, I need a siLr:cd release from the photographer, draftsperson or artist perrn�tting nne to use them — and would be delighted to run a credit line on them. simple pen-and-ink drawings would be useful fillers — animals, trees, vistas, etc. Cartoonist(s): Though this is a "graphic", it is so important that I am listing it seperately. We can greatly enhance the communication of our "messages" if we can present their key points in the form d well-executed political cartoons, or even a minimum-text comic strip. These would be designed cooperatively, and produced as a volunteer (unpaid) effort — as I am producing the Advocate. As an aside, "Dennis the Menace" cartoonist Hank Ketcham had a major hassle with his town's bureaucrats a coupla years ago. As I recall it, the Perfect Planners of Carmel refused to give him permission to have his cartooning studio in his home! Another observation is that "Farley" cartoonist Phil Frank recently gave up his nationally syndicated strip in preference for doing a strip focusing on local topics for the San Francisco Chronicle. I believe he lives in or around Sausalito. Competant, Accurate News Writers: It would be of great assistance to find one or several part-time volunteer (unpaid) reporters. They need an academic researcher's dedication to care and accuracy, an ability to communicate effectively and concisely, and an ego that will tolerate my editing (possibly butchering) their stories to accomplish our motivational goals — I know, an impossible dream. Stories and approaches would be chosen cooperatively. I would be delighted to run bylines on such stories. Careful. Accurate -Typists and Proof-Readers: I can always use people willing to type articles, listings, property data, etc. into the computer at my home. And — as this unproofcd letter probably indicates, I can always use proof-readers (Us Stanford inginers kant speel vcri wel.) CaN,eat Lest anyone have a misimpression of my position, I must state: When the Midpeninsula Regional Parks District was first on the ballot, I worked for it — somewhat — and voted for it. Basically, I approve of such an organization — for parks and/or for open space. I support their cxistance, and their aquisition of any property they can purchase — and protect and maintain — at a fair market value and without price dcgredation through functional downzoning by cooperating county planners, geologists and building departments. My disagreements are with (a) their use of coercion and condemnation to force otherwise unwilling owners to give up their homes and land, (b) presumed cooperation with county planners, geologists and/or building officials in downzoning and cheapening of property desired by NIIROSD, (c) covert action, if any, and (d) incomplete and/or misleading public information — such as the recently published "hit list.,, A civil government that cannot operate in the open, should not operate, at all — at least, not outside of Russia and Poland. I propose that we work together to make sure their past, present and future operation is very much "in the open." It is also my initial impression that MROSD's elected Directors, and most or all of their staff, are well-meaning dedicated individuals, primarily motivated by a wish td build and maintain a desirable environment and "make a better world." I have no particular quarrel with their obstinacy and egotism — anyone (certainly including me) who puts forth the time and effort to make a positive contribution to society has a stron& dose of egotism ... and more the a little obstinacy, if they are effective. My only quarrel is with their use of the heavy hand and power of governmental force against citizens' homes and land in building their monuments. And, I believe the productive egotism of MROSD's Directors is actually the strongest tool we have for seeking redress of the inequities, coercion, and possible covert actions we fear. As those inequities, and coercive and/or covert actions arc exposed to public scrutiny, principled individuals such as most of the Directors and staff will modify that behavior. Nuf sed, for now — in my usual, ever-so-terse style (better too much information, than too little). I remain, Sine i m NVarren, found c Publisher, ieninsj Citizens' Advocate cc: to each MROSD Director and senior administrator — JVe do not pursue covert actions or hidden agendas. D-"LstriWted at Board Work-shop 4, 1985 rry i* . i r-le 1_,Os Altos , C-a I jJ 4 0 2 2 April 15, 193' o a rd of D ro c tors Ois el '1°ircle 10:3 Altos , -,A 94C22 Re', . Land ac,-iaiqition and S_-3221() 1 . 'Emiriend Domain. `"here has been mention of not exercisin- power of eminent lomain where there is an occupied residence . 'dhat about the property boup;ht by a family y for future occupation in retiremerit, or occupation when fortune benifits them ? given thouill,'It tile use of eminent do gain has '.0een limited , the threat of it has forced some sales . And the "list" has caused cons id�rar,le emotional distress and public outcry . I nr000s(-, use of eminerit domain only on a friendly con- demnatloo Mhere the fair market price is decided by the co_ir .21here shall be no use ofeminent domain when the not wisli to sell . 2 . S .3 . 2t-16 The broad interpretation of "pri-r" wherein you list every bit of property and make it subject to discussiona IC. any time in the future without other notice is , to say the least, repulsive . i4ost general use and interpretation of "prior" is in the announcement being mado in the agenda published for a meet- ing or in the meeting itselfjust prior to the closed session. W i th d r aw the "11.,st" im-nodiatly and ,7et the pulDlic off your back . 3 . Acquisition outside district boundaries . Taxpayer ai)-oroval of the district gave there the right to expect the district to re-nain within its bo'undaries , and for these -taxpayers use of itc:; 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 -�-Jthin district boundaries . . - If' it is felt that a property outside the boundaries is essential, then the jurisdiction, iii which the sought after 1)1J roperty lies should Darticipa-L-le al'-, least or. a 50-50 basis for purchase and I maintenance . but as for the district buying,, properties, outside i-t_; boundaries on its own , Jjo lip : Land -i arid S 221 pale 2 i�jlsitiot 0 4 . Annex-- tl..,Dn outside district. As in 3 above , it is , as taxpajers , our district. Arid it is f,.,:,_r,erally felt it should re?naln so. If other areaswant <,., regional park district- , let their, vote to join our:; or establish -",-heir Own . Anriezatioll outside the district boundaries is thus a lit Harry H. Har-ussler, Jr. �1Y 4, 19 g 5 WbrYshop DAVID LUGH Fi(J)DGLI-31s, M APR 2 5 1985 11755 Sk-ykine Blvd Los _ -gas ,S CA 95030 Board of Directors IMOSD 375 Di stel Gar. Los Altos CA 94022 I Dave 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 than): 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 t> public your successes create a conflict which, if you respond knowleCge- 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 remainingla - 1- ! 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 resistance, the outcry about the Brown Act , and, you can be certain, Urill cause more conflict doi%•nstream. 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. Ilea The MROSD has plenty of time -- yourpurpose is to create for the future; i.after all-- so you can be secure in the knowledge that acquisition of 3 parcels to complete you project will be passible 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 clizinges which artificizally 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 cW- 1 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 O-f 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. Th-mik YQu. David Rodger March 30, 1985 Nib INUE)PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT COMPLIANCr, 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 thatdesignates 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 ma-,,, 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 The intent in creating the map and list was to be as cor.,:_-!ete as Possible in mapping par- cels within the District ' s planningarea and sphere of influence, rather than to make any judgments about specific parcels, the potential acquisition of which woulr'; depend upon the many factors listed in the Master Plan. L v TBUTED AT 9BOIL,) ME FT1 NG February 27 , 1985 Cl 0 S A N T A U CLARA L E v A SOUTH SKYLINE ASSOCIATION R PEOPLE WITH THE BEAUTY AND THOUGHTF� UL PLANNING OF: THE SOUTH SKYLINE February 24, 1985 Tucr rr President' , rcara cf D-i:-ecl-.c---- 1"-dr)eninsula, Prejicraj Cz)e,-, Space District 375 D-istei Drive Los Altos, CA r-4022 .-.e: D.-strict im_r lementa"C ion of S.t. 2216 -(azendment to Erown Act) Dear 1'r. Tuorner; Tte method c`' in=iementation of S.B. 2216 and the formulation of a list of prop %I-L - er"C& fcr potential acouisition is causinF, the District considerable da-mage to its, credibility for the following reasons. 1,. Inaccurate and inc=rjete identification of -orc-perties. Trc list , itself, is unlyrofl-ssionally done with misspellings, nar:es, and lack of identifying parcel nurabers. 1`-c zcc,�; pcny4r:' nap, which r-,-;C,1h.t as 51 st in idsritification, is - not ava-ilal-Ie in a form that can be distributed to those who request it. . it appears that some parcels have been selectively frc2. t,-.- list, in contradiction to the " --intent to e as cc as POSsible MarPirg parcels within the District's area an zpl,ere of influence." B- Does not conzt- tute what is comrionl,,: co nsidered "notice:" We think that most people would consider a notice of an agenda item to include a date, time and place, but this method merely states that a subject RM be discussed at an undetermined time in an -Andefinite future. C. 1 'vch0iC-fica] Stress or. property ow-erS. A"rc—d�- we 1--ave witnesscd V-r-xietY amonE property owners in the L areas c"' acquis-4ti-rn, as they "wait for the other shoe to fall.,, They fear that the D-.;,--'Lr-Lct may interfere with their dreams to live out t'-cir liven on their property and pass it on to their children. D. Severe reductlon- in the riarf-et for properties. Bair_;, o'n t1liz- lic-1 has the effect of talking the properties off the open r—arket should their owners wish to sell. There are ve ry mew Peorjac Vno would purchase these properties, (w,.--.ich reouire ::ruck effort +10 develcr and maintain) if then'knew that the District could force th.-en to sell in the future. are our re-cc)7'C 1. The District sh-culd cease publication of the list of erties, and adop't-, the methOJ Of Public notice as the properties come u.r p A Or discuSsion or a similar timely procedure. 2. Property Owners should be notified individually in advar-ce of any discussion regarding their property. 3. If th e list is zerpetuated, all a-wrners included on it shall be individually rotifled OIL their inclusion on the list. L. If the list is pertuated, any owner shall be taken. off the list at his request. We trust that you and the other nembers of the Board will seriously consider our reco7-::;eridations, Z-n-xthiE-: issue is considered a very serious one in t-.- -,yjjne area, as, it wil' be in other areas of the District When the x,.,crd c-, readh. Very sincerely yours, Janet Sch.wind, president 1121 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 195030 V, 1-J'LTIEN 'OP4MUNTCATTON VIORI'S11011 Narcl, 30, 1985 Peninsula Citizens'Action 5)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 District Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Cir. # D-I Los Altos, CA 94022 Greetings, This is written to address two topics: 1. This outlines the course of action we�arc now pursuing and will continue to pursue for as long as there are functional threats against our homes and land. 2. To pursue 2, possible resolution 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 Prefacinga_Co)2imeirts.- 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 measure,; 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 taken-en an Absolute position — namely, you should have total - freedom to threaten or pursue forced acquisition of our homes without any restraints or guidelines, whatsoever. We sincerely feet 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 bcinp,_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, including AfROSD. This differs from Lthe past — when only the families who were forced to give up their E—onics and land againsttheir will suffered adverse consequences. Our mutual actions, however, arc 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 I And, it will take an emotional toll on citizen-hoincowncrs, and oil District leaders thouoll 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 jidvcrsqly__affcct LM_9�1_Dboi- valuations Ld v incuelectionificant election _ j u, qEs ill the future. It may p�x n s for ballot initiatives or recall elections created with timing that forccs—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 arc 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 an al action — initiated by homeowners or by MROSD — it will drain In- - Ml c_9____ financial resourc es that NIROSD 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 fostcrin!,,morc 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 prcdilccations that have dominated mountain and rural lifestyles on the Peninsula for the past 15-20 years — predilections that have permitted NIROSD 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. Our Plait of Action- Our initial thrust is a two-part public inforniation effort. (A) We plan to inform mountain and rural residents and J—rc s -Mom—cuty. owners of our a tions and plans, current events, and their_OPtions�i ncgoFi.—itingand possible legal action. (B) We seek to inform an(I tourh bayside residents -- your passive constituency — detailing, for them, MROSD actions and Poli�c_icsthat ;��c feel are unreasonable, and •aniply describing District aggressions against folks' homes and property. 4> To engender and maximize baysicic 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 aquircd under threat of condemnation, any special deals or offers made toosomc property owners but not to others, use of in-District tax revenues for out-of-Distri ct ict 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 arc 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 pa-c 2 ————— — — — — -- coil cc rned. L—'raLlIcl—ion: Information that we Publicize will be attributed and documented. If matters of public record are withheld, or their i availability s unreasonably delayed, prompt legal action ,vill 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 suprcss 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 sLich 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 Primary InLornintion Tools: 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 !it least 20,000 homeowners in the baysidc 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-or-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-lit formatio I i 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 newswoELhA, 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 ncy%. p - r -ested in the issues WC have raised. This 1��tcrs inter includes one that was reportedly quickly transferred—to other work after raisin 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 voit knowthe Afidpeninsida Regional Open Space District has forced x families to "give tip their homes and/or land, bull-dozing some homes, and lettin- District staff occupy others?" It is highly likely that numerous othero truck "billboards" are available from truckers and companies who are supportive of our positions, just for the asking. page 3 Of course, anything NvC P1151iCiZC Will be dOC'Uniented and easily verified. We arc alread.), in contact With some Bay area "talk show" hosts, and will expand those contacts as well as pursuing PIA sLj()t.s on local tclevisio-1-1. 2. Proposal that Directors and Concerned Citizens Promptly Meet to Seek Solutions I sincerely doubt that anyone on either side really wants to in tj c costs"I " cur S " that now stem likely, outlined in the prececclingo 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 i I support all attempt to cooperate, we have in opportunity to at least sincerely try to work together, to attempt resolution of our differences — before the current situation r escalates and such cooperative efforts become more and more difficult. L f tLrthe 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, acid 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 nuttually acceptable solutions in a timely manner: Create a Citizen-Director_Conimittee.- By majority vote of the Board of Directors, instruct and a ut}iorize the Boarci Chairperson to appoint a Committee to formulate mutually acceptable proposals regarding MftOSI use of condemnation powers. Committee n7nke-U.- You might consider the following suggestions as possible guidelines for Committee appointments: appoint Committee members who arc 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 bc1li.-crcnt, 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 tile area's mountain and rural communities, and/or respected within their communities," — include — as non-votin- nienibers — the MROSD General Manager and Acquisitions Manager, — instruct the General Mlianagcr to assign a secretary to attend all Committee meetings. Sitg,,,Irestions for Committee Members: The Directors amply reflect the desires or 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 citizcn-mernbers of the Committee: — Bob Fissc, long familiar with MROSD activities, past President o Association (SSA), and current Treasurer of SSA (he's willing to serve), f the South Skyline — 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 mitt-'60's, and Committee for Green Foothills supporter in the early '70's (available). Bob Fisse (851-2365) has suggested Janet Schwind and Bccz Jones as other possible candidates for such a Committee (availability unknown, but likely). Instructions to the Committee: Given the time-sensitivity or this matter, you might consider instructing the Committee to hold meetings of at least 4-hour clurations, at least once a .vcck — until it can report mutually acceptable proposals to the Directors, or until a majority ofof its voting members agree that they cannot agree on any proposals. Instruct the Committee to hold all of its meetings oven to reasonable notice mailed to the MROSD "interested parties' list. There observation, with here must be no -hint of Page 4 attempts at self-serving astecial deals" for ind ividuals.duals. `f I You might instruct the Committee th at.It it is to a �cratc on consensus -s not o simple majority P rule — far proposals must have broad approval if they arc 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 incremcntaaslls 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 zo ning and h ► 'a�sIn$ density regulations g tha cate ories of 5t are already applied to g 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 arc willing to execute contracts and deed restrictions prohibiting subdivision (being paid fair compensation for limiting the value of their property in that way), — subdividable parcels for which no subdivision proposals have been submitted to local planning agencies, — subdividable parcels for which subdivision requests have been filed, — etc. There arc almost certainly those who obstinately prefer the status quo — and recognize, as ►ve 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 Nowt: 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 malable 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 'to 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 alternatitc 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 Adi,ocate and Gazette are already scheduled for publication — to address other time-sensitive topics, as well as "the condemnation issue." I urge you to ere" tc the proposed Committee, nnw, at your March 13th meeting. There is no reason to delay; there is ample reason to take effective action in good faith, immediately. If there arc 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 Hat-c Charmed: A Director commented at the 2/27 meeting that, "Nothing had changed," with the publication of the List of 700(7). We disagree — here are sonic 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 aquire 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 r vote in the most expensive state Senate election ever run. 4 — T),Vo nc',ti'Spapers(?) will repeatedly carry massive coverage of all District policies and actions that svc 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 arc 2-8 times greater than, say, the Country Almanac. And — the writcrsjreporters 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 ►vorth►vhile. 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 E 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. d i i i page 6 M-95-79 (Meetincl 85-12 1,,I;iy 8, 1985) AIII)PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE.SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 940?? (415) 965-4717 May 2 , 1985 To Board of Directors From : Nonette Hanko Subject : Brown Act; closed session/ personnel exception Dear Colleagues : Upon studying the new ( Dec. 1984 ) State of California Publication Open Meeting.Laws regarding the Brown Act requirements for local agencies; I wish to raise a serious question as to the Board's current procedure for determining the amount of salary increases for Board appointed officers in closed session. I have attached what I believe to be the relevant pages from Qp.e�n Meet for your attention. It appears to me that prior to 1983 , the best advise on this subject was the attorney general's opinion 283 ( 1978 ) , " that it was proper under personnel exception to discuss in private the salary of the manager of a special district and the discussion could include his work history and his suitability for his position " ( page 17 attached to this report ) . However, in 1983 , in San Dieg6.,V- City Council ( 146 Cal, App. 3d 947 ) " the court concluded that a closed session was appropriate for the purpose of reviewing an appointee's job performance and making the threshold decision of whether any salary increase should be granted. However all discussions concerning the amount of an salary increase should be held,in public session"( page 16) The court specifically rejected the argument that the terms "employment'or`performance as used in section 54957 should be interpreted to include salary level determinations. The court stated, cSalaries and other terms of compen- sation constitute municipal budgetary matters of substantial public interest warranting open discussion and eventual electoral public rati- fication " . The decision goes on to a variety of other factors for open meeting discussion including " relative compensation of similar positions elsewhere, both inside and outside of the jurisdiction.' Herbert A Grench.General Manager Board of Directors.Katherine Duffy.Hdrbara Green,NonetteG.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop.Edward G Shelley.Harry A.Turner,Daniel G Wendin (Brown Act; )sed session/ personnel exception page 2 In the introduction of page 1 it is noted that " Attorney General opinions , unlike appellate court decisions, are advisory only and do not constitute thr law of the state"; so I would personally conclude that the 1983 San Diego Union v. City Council decision would take precedence. I believe such salary increase dis- cussions would affect each of the Board appointed officers , ( general manager, legal counsel , and controller ) . As a member of the legislative committee, I wish to request that the Board refer this matter to the Legislative Committee for full review with our legal counsel, and with instructions to return with whatever procedural policies the committee believes appropriate for Board consideration. 4/1 Nonette F . Permissible closed sessions Authority for closed sessions must be found in the explicit terms of the Actor inferred from some provision in the law, other confidentiality (61 0p . . t y. Gen . 220 ( 1978) . ) The Act itself contains several purposes for ' which a legislative body may meet in private or in closed session. Additionally , the courts and this office have held several other situations to fall within the closed session exception to the open meeting requirements of the Act. Prior to or after holding any closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall state the general reason or reasons for the session . The legislative body may also cite the legal authority under which the closed session is held. The scope of the closed session shall be limited to matters covered by the legislative body ' s statement of reasons . The legislative body is neither authorized nor required to include in its statement of reasons information which could constitute an invasion of privacy or otherwise unnecessarily divulge particular facts concerning the closed session. ( Section 54957 . 7 . ) 1 . Expressly authorized closed sessions a . Personnel exception The Act provides in Section 54957 for closed Sessions to consider the appointment, employment, performance , or dismissal of a "Public employee" as defined by the Act or to hear complaints and charges against such "Public employee . " This exception is commonly known as the "personnel exception. " An employee may request and require a public hearing where the purpose of the closed session is to discuss specific charges or complaints against him or her. A general discussion of an employee ' s job performance may, however, be held in closed session irrespective of the employee ' s desires . (61 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen. 283 1978 ) . ) We have held that "Public employee" as defined by the Act does not include anyone elected or appointed to an elective office ; that the definition contemplates only "nonelective officers" insofar as it may include officers . ( 59 Ops. Cal . Atty. Gen . 266 ( 1976 ) . ) Moreover , mayors , chairpersons of- boards of supervisors , and other presiding officers , although receiving separate appointments to their presiding Offices , are not employees within the meaning Of Section 54957 . Therefore , complaints against such presiding -14- officers may not be di scussed in a closed session . ( 61 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 10 ( 1978) . ) In Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School District 1981 ) —1-21 - Cal —231 the court he I d t h-a-t- discussions regarding the qualifications of an independent contractor to sell surplus land for the district should have been conducted in public. The personnel exception set forth in Section 54957 is specifically applicable to the hiring of employees , but the court refused to apply it to independent contractors in this case . Since special services contracts are not subject to the bid process , the court commented that the need f o r public consideration of the independent contractor' s qualifications was especially important. The legislative body must report at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or at its next subsequent public meeting any action taken during its closed session , and the roll call vote thereon , to appoint, employ , or dismiss an employee . ( Section 54957 . 1 . ) This reporting requirement applies to all legislative bodies irrespective of whether they are otherwise required to act by roll call vote . ( 59 Ops. Ca I . Atty . Gen . 619 ( 1976 ) . ) However, the requirement has been construed to apply only to actions to "appoint, " employ , " or "dismiss . " According y-,,�_a�,tion to establish the c 0 m p e n�s—Mi o n of a hospital t subsequent public meeting o-T—tiiY—l'-e-gisl-a-i7i�-ie--b-o-dy. ( 63 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 215 ( 1980) . ) The personnel exception is probably the most widely used permitted closed session device . This office has opined that the primary purpose of the exception is to avoid undue publicity and embarrassment to the affected employee and that an ancillary purpose of the exception is to encourage the free discussion of personnel matters by the legislative body . (63 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen. 215 ( 1980) ; 61 0 p s . C a 1 Atty . Gen . 283 ( 1978 ) ; 59 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 532 ( 1976 ) . ) Examples of i t s application may be helpful to demonstrate that in addition to actual hiring and firing , it has a legitimate intermediate scope. i . In Cozzol i no v. City of Fontana ( 1955) 136 Ca I . App . fd- 6-6-8 , the court t-p-E—eTd—a closed hearing to consider the propriety of a past firing by the chief of police, and to ratify such action . 15- f In Letsc_h v . Northern San Die o Co_uunnt_ Hosp . Dist. ( 16966 ) -�-4 6 Ca . App . 2d J, the court held that a hospital board could meet in closed session to discuss the qualifications of a radiologist, who was apparently an independent contractor, prior to terminating the radiologist' s contract. iii . In Lucas V. Board of Trustees ( 1970) 18 Cal . App . 3d 990, a decision not to rehire the II'I district superintendent of a high school district was held to be properly made in closed session . Also, in 59 Ops . Cal . Atty .Gen . 532 ( 1976) , this office he use of a upheld t closed se ssion P ssion b school Y a s district governing tog board to dis cuss us s and eval uate ate the performance of its superintendent. ---° - iv. In San Diego Union v. City Council ( 1983) 146 Cal . App . 3d 947 , the court considered whether the city council could meet in closed session to consider the job performances and salary levels of certain appointed officials . The court concluded that a closed session was appropriate for the s Pur Pae of reviewing an appointee ' s job performance and making the threshold decision of whether any salary increase should be granted . However, all discussions concerning the amount of any salary increase should be held in public session . The court specifically rejected the argument that the terms "employment" or "performance" as used in Section 54957 should be interpreted to include salary level determinations. The court stated, "Salaries and other terms of compensation constitute municipal budgetary matters of substantial public interest warranting open discussion and eventual electoral public ratification . " ( San Diego Union v. City Council , supra , at page 955.)The court stated that although an individual ' s job performance could be considered in closed session , there were a variety of other factors that must be considered in determining the appropriate salary level , e. g. , availability of funds ; other funding priorities ; relative compensation of similar positions elsewhere , both inside and outside of the jurisdiction. -16- This opinion ca I I s into opinions discussed below , which appe.' ' t taken a broader construction employment" and "performance" excepti ., In 61 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen . 283 in several letter opinions of this oft was held that the personnel exception c.,,- used to discuss the salaries of indi -. a employees as opposed to discussing s. Y scales in general . Thus , in I . L . 66-10 e took the View that it was proper unde;� personnel exception to discuss in private z -- salary of the manager of a special distric - and the discussions could include his work history and his suitability for his position. In I . L . 68-117 , we held, however, that it was not permissible for a school board to hold a closed session to consider the salaries of all the teachers of the school district, since there were no individual qualifications to be discussed. Similarly, in Santa Clara Federation of T Teachers V, Gove,rninq Board JW held that the board ' s 19817 116 Cal�- . �� 831 ' the court —r- � consideration of a hearing Officer ' s decision on teacher layoffs must be held in public, The holding of a closed session by a county board of supervisors for the purpose of discussing salaries of specific employees , although permissible under the Act, may , however, be prohibited by Section 25307 , which provides , inter al ia ., that all meetings of the board pertaining to salaries of county employees shall be open and public. ( 61 Ops . Cal . Atty .Gen . 282 ( 1978) . ) V . In 63 Ops .Cal . Atty .Gen . 153 ( 1980) , this office . held that abstract discussions concerning the creation of a new administrative Position and the workload of existing positions are inappropriate for a closed session . However, if the workload discussions involve the performance of specific employees , a closed session may be proper. V i . In 65 Ops . Cal . Atty . Gen , 412 ( 1982) , we concluded that a county retirement board could review in closed session the medical records of a county employee seeking a disability retirement. -17- its legal counsel , based on existing facts and circumstances there is a s ' n '> > fic r azt exposure t 9 p o litigation against the local agency ; or ( 2 ) Based on existing facts and circumstances , the legislative body of the local agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) of this subdivision . ( c ) Based on existing facts and circumstances , the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate 9 nitiate Y or is deciding whether to initiate litigation . Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section , the legislative body of the local agency shall state publicly to which subdivision it is pursuant. If the session is closed pursuant to subdivision (a ) , the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed , unless, the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency ' s ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties , or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage . The legal counsel of the legislative body of the local agency shall prepare and submit to the body a memorandum stating , the specific reasons and legal authority for the closed session . If the closed session is pursuant to subdivision (a ) , the memorandum shall include the title of the litigation . If the closed session is pursuant to subdivision ( b ) or ( c ) , the memorandum shall include the existing facts and circumstances on which it is based . The legal counsel shall submit the memorandum to the body prior to the closed session if feasible , and in any case no later than one week after the closed session . The memorandum shall be exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 6254 . 1 . For purposes of this section , "litigation" includes any adjudicatory proceeding , including eminent domain , before a court, administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority , hearing officer , or arbitrator. 54957 . Closed sessions Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions with the Attorney General , district attorney , sheriff, or chief of police , or their respective deputies , on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings or a threat to the public ' s right to access to public services or public faciIties , or from holding closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of -39- I II __ performance . or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints- -or charges brought against such employee by another person or employee unless such employee requests a Public hearing . The legislative body also may exclude from any such public or closed meeting , during the examination of a witness , any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the legislative body . For the purpose of this section , the term "employee" shall not include any person elected to office , or appointed to an Office by the legislative body of a local agency ; provided , however, that nonelective Positions Of city manager, county administrator, city attorney , county counsel , or a department head or other similar administrative officer of a local agency shall be considered employee positions ; and Provided, further that nonelective positions of general manager, chief engineer, legal counsel , ' district secretary, auditors assessor , treasurer, or tax collector of any governmental district Supplying services within limited boundaries shall be deemed employee positions . Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent any board , Commission , committee, or other body organized and operated by any private organization as defined in Section 54952 from holding closed sessions to consider ( a ) matters affecting the national security, or (b ) the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance , or dismissal of an employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against such employee by another person or employee unless such employee requests a public hearing . Such body also may exclude from any such public or closed meeting , during the examination of a witness , any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the legislative body. 54957 - 1 . Report of employment determinations The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or at its next public meeting any action taken , and any roll call vote thereon , to appoint, employ, or dismiss a public employee arising out of any closed session of the legislative body . 54957 .2 . Minutes of closed session ( a) The legislative body of a local agency may , by ordinance or resolution , designate a clerk or other officer or employee of the local agency who shall then attend each closed session of the legislative body and keep and enter in a minute book a record of made at the meeting . topics discussed and decisions section is not a The minute book made pursuant to this public record subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act ( Chapter 3 . 5 -40- MINUTES OF APRIL 17 WORKSHOP To be considered for approval by the Board of Directors at their May 8 Regular Meeting. P i I I i i i i i 85-09 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 17 , 1985 WORKSHOP MINUTES The following corrections were made to the Workshop Minutes of March 30 , 1985: ' Page 1: H. Turner - Said he was repelled by the coercive aspects of eminent domain and that alternate methods for land acquisition should be explored. Said that he would be willing to consider foreswearing use of eminent domain and that the District should not remove people from the land on which they are living. Page 2: Artemas Ginzton - Discussed her opposition to use of eminent domain. Said Stevens Creek connection involved willing owners who were willing to grant trail easements, not eminent domain. Page 2: William Obermayer - Said he didn't think there should be any condem- nation at all but if Board felt it was necessary to have specific piece of land there should be a unanimous vote of Board of Directoi_,� and Board of Supervisors in area where property is located. Page 4: David Leeson - Discussed the value of a person' s property, noting value was not only measured in dollars. Said people in the Mt. Umunhum area were concerned about the District' s actions. Dis- cussed use and safety of District lands , said unsupervised use of lands is dangerous to neighbors because of issues such as fires. Said meetings were essential to building trust and that eminent domain should not be used. Policy Regarding Use of Power of Eminent Domain Bob Brown - Commended MROSD on its use of eminent domain in the past. Hopes that instead of saying "never" to use the power of eminent domain,, that MROSD would say "hardly ever use it again. " MROSD must be respon- sible to all taxpayers in the District and therefore should pursue and complete the task before them. Janet Schwind - Representing the South Skyline Association, stated that MROSD' s eminent domain policy should be "interest in land shall be pur- chased exclusively from willing sellers. " She stated MROSD has developed a coercive approach and that more cooperative methods of preserving natural areas have not been explored simply because it is easier to use the force of law. Need to develop working relationship with Counties, other agencies and private property owners . William obermayer - Asked what MROSD' s task at hand was and whether there was a limit in the District' s land acquisition program. 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 Pa<je Two 85-09 Alan Hoskings - Asked if MROSD can acquire property outside District bound- aries by use of eminent domain. He said that the County had created inverse condemnation situations by downzonings and building moratoriums. S. Norton - Said the District can acquire property outside District' s boundaries by use of eminent domain. Robert Fisse - Stated he personally felt that policy regarding condemnation should be: "District shall. buy only from willing sellers that are within the District' s boundaries and that the threat of condemnation shall never be used in negotiations. " He said his position is based on fact that voters believed, at the time of the District' s formation, that the District had finite boundaries. Charles Touchatt - Said that establishing policy was good, but asked how the public could be assured that new policy would be carried over and remain in effect over future years. H. Turner - Said that he, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop would be working on pre- paring a policy regarding the use of eminent domain and that members of the public should feel free to contact any members of the Committee to submit ideas. E. Shelley - In response to Mr. Touchatt' s question of how the public is to be assured that any policy would remain in effect, E. Shelley said that that is the most difficult item. He said that his own feeling was that any Board would have to rely on policy and hopefully precedent and that, if a Board establishes limits on use of condemnation and holds to them, such action would be the best assurance available. He did not believe there is any way that the current Board can legally bind future Boards under the law. N. Hanko - Indicated she had asked District Counsel to investigate legal means of binding future Boards. R. Bishop - Said he didn' t believe that the current Board could adopt policy to bind future Boards. He said he believed that the current Board had been adhering to established policy, that policies are quite durable, and that there would be a moral commitment on future Boards not to change the policy. K. Duffy - Said it is her belief that widespread distribution of the eminent domain policy by Board, staff and landowners is the best way to assure adherence to the policy. David Leeson - Said that the binding element of the policy is admirable but not reassuring. He suggested that the District grant an easement to landowners saying eminent domain would never be used. He said such a binding contract would assure property owners . He asked for clarifica- tion of partial condemnation for a right-of-way over private property. R. Bishop - Said he felt there are some cases where District would want to retain its power of condemnation over a portion of a person' s property and that he did not favor a policy that would prohibit all partial con- demnations. He noted that every case is different and needed to be judged on its own merit. E. Shelley - Stated he felt that by retaining a policy that would allow par- tial condemnations would give the Board more leeway in being more restric- tive on use of overall condemnation. He said that at the moment he is not in favor of adopting a policy of never using eminent domain for partial condemnation. 85-09 Page Three Richard Bullis - Said that the Board is beginning to show sensitivity by holding workshops and referred to the letters from N. Hanko and H. Turner. He said he has never received any straight forward decisions regarding Quinta Ranch and that in his development of Russian Ridge Ranch he wants to work toward and share his plan of dedicating 81% of the remaining land for open space. Hans Morawitz - Expressed his appreciation for actions by MROSD and said he hopes MROSD will continue to use eminent domain when necessary to protect the interests of "flat landers" since they wish to see lands remain open space and available for public use. Bill Sorich - Reported that he had received a map in the mail recently that showed his land in green; he said he was not a speculator and wanted to live and let live. C. Britton stated that map being discussed was sent to William Obermayer and referred to a road maintenance agreement only. Paul Storaasli - As a Portola Heights resident, he said he is part of a com- munity that feels threatened. He said he is in process of developing his lands and believes his plans support District ' s ideas of open space. He asked for a specific definition of undeveloped property and said he cannot support a policy of eminent domain, noting acquisitions should be from willing sellers within District boundaries. Allan Cox - A Skylonda resident for over 25 years , he indicated that the quality of his life has been enhanced by the work of MROSD. He said he hopes that eminent domain continues to be used for the greatest good and believes that in 50 years , if population records are an indication, that there will be very few green islands in the area. Judy Storaasli - Said she felt further consideration needs to be given to defining developed/undeveloped property and that her goals for their property complement the District' s goals. R. Bishop - In response to question regarding limits in the amount of land to be acquired, R. Bishop said that as land prices go up there will be less money to spend on acquisition and as more lands are acquired more money will have to be spent on management of these lands. He said that within the next 10 years MROSD will have to be very selective in acquisition and that the District always prefers to deal with willing sellers. E. Shelley - Stated, responding to the question regarding private property either held in open space or developed in a manner consistent with goals of MROSD, that one problem is a change in the long-term use of that property. He said one approach is an open space easement given in perpetuity. H. Turner - Said there is need for creative thinking to make eminent domain policies binding on future Boards. Lynn Penek-Holden - Asked if there was harm or a problem if a private owner did not plan to develop their land and wished to leave it as private open space. She asked if it is necessary for the District to have trails over all open property. Sandra Touchatt - Asked if MROSD has a master plan for hiking trails and if any consideration had been given to communities that are already built. Page Four 85-09 N. Hank o - Said she would take into consideration areas with established communities. R. Bishop - Said that the District 's Master Plan shows land as it relates to open space. E. Shelley - Said that the District' s Master Plan does not show trails. Candace Stone - Stated that since there seemed to be so much protest and since there were other agencies acquiring land in area (such as State Parks and Save-the-Redwoods League) , trails should circumvent the Portola Heights area. Jeannette Bullis - Said she is very much in favor of what MROSD is doing, adding that there is room for residential areas in the Skyline area too. Ms. MacPhearson - Said she has worked hard to build home in the Portola Heights area and is concerned with what she will be able to give to her children. Bob Piety - Said he didn ' t think anyone at meeting was against open space, rather they were against the use of eminent domain since it might shatter someone' s dream. He said that since MROSD has acquired most of its 18 , 000+ acres without the use of eminent domain, the District shouldn't have to use it in the future. Carol Norton - Said that she appreciates what MROSD is doing, that only land she owns on Skyline is MROSD land, and that she wants MROSD to continue to purchase land. She said eminent domain is a tool that needs to be kept and used where and when necessary. E. Shelley - Said that individuals in the Skyline area are aware that there is no permanence in zoning restrictions , adding that zoning describes only what is presently the highest and best use of land. He said he felt it is no protection for long term use of open space and was an unfair way to protect open space. R. Bishop - Said that the District 's Master Plan does not have specific parcels identified and that it rates land by desirability and quality for open space. E. Shelley - Said that MROSD relies on schematic plans from the two Counties for trails and pathway plans. H. Turner - Described the thrust of the District's acquisition program and said that further acquisitions will be limited by financial constraints. He said it has been shown that approximately two-thirds of the land that MROSD will ever acquire has already been acquired and that MROSD is shifting from an aggressive land acquisition policy to more emphasis on land management. Tom Kavanaugh - Said that Board has no control over staff ' s use of eminent domain to threaten landowners. He related his personal dealing with staff regarding giving some land to the District. He said staff had requested they contribute $50, 000 . Said that the Board was not going to do anything to work cooperatively with landowners , adding that if they did, the District ' s lobbyist in Sacramento would protect them. 85-09 Page Five C. Britton - Responded by saying that the balance of Mr. Kavanaugh' s prop- erty was to be developed , the dedication area consisted of 4 to 5 acres of wetlands that had accumulated a lot of trash and that staff felt if MROSD was to take over the area that $50,000 would endow the additional maintenance costs. Bob McKim - Asked the Board about fair market value, noting it was when a willing seller is paid the price the seller and buyer agree upon. He asked how long fair market values could be maintained as truly fair as the District acquires more land. Jean Rusmore - Said how appreciative she is for thousands of acres pur- chased by MROSD for open space and that she felt land values have been enhanced for property near MROSD lands. Charles Touchatt - Said he was very much in favor of open space, but ques- tioned how much more open space is needed. Robert Fisse - Responding to H. Turner' s statement that further acquisitions will be limited, said that he felt the District had been expanding its acquisition periods over the years. Richard Bullis - Said that MROSD runs on a capitalistic system, and ques- tioned if it is wrong to make a profit on one ' s land. Imraan Aziz - Said he was from Canada, that everything in this area seems to be becoming urbanized, and that open space is important so people have a place to go for enjoyment. N. Hanko - Responding to Mr. Fisse' s comment regarding land acquisition said that there is no adopted policy stating the District would only acquire land during its first ten years of existence. She said that when the District was formed there was an informal agreement with the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County that only 5% of the District' s fund would be used for development initially so that it was clear to everyone that MROSD was in the open space acquisition business. K. Duffy - Said that she applauded private open space and that, in some ways, it was a means whereby MROSD could save money. She said people could work with POST or the Trust for Public Land as well. She said the capitalistic system does not guarantee that the investments you make work out, and that after MROSD purchases land, the fair market value of surrounding lands probably does increase. She said the law of eminent domain can resolve, through the use of a third party, situations where there may be a willing seller asking an "unwilling" price. E. Shelley - Said he believes that governmental agency purchases cannot be used for establishment of fair market value. In response to Mr. Fisse' s question of acquisition and development policy over the District's first 10 years, he said that over the last 5 years the land management budget has gone up more rapidly than the entire budget itself. He said MROSD has been developing its lands and it will continue to do so. Paul Storaasli - Said that certain landowners had gone through various eminent domain issues with Castle Rock and Golden Gate National Recrea- tion Area, and that now the MROSD was threatening them and that land- owners are uncomfortable with this threat around them. Page Six 85-09 N. Hanko - In response to a question from Sandra Touchatt, said she would take into consideration established communities in policy relating to planning areas. Directors Bishop and Turner also agreed an this con- sideration. Bob Piety - Said he appreciated open space, adding that private open space should not be threatened with eminent domain. Diana Piety - Said she enjoys open space land, but MROSD has an adverse effect on people in Skyline area. David Leeson - Said that he wants to determine future course of his land, but threat of eminent domain from MROSD tells him he cannot have his land. He said the objectives of MROSD are admirable and that he believes they can be attained by patience and willingness to work with people and without using power of eminent domain. Richard Bullis - Discussed use of comparable sales between owners and MROSD and how they are used in eminent domain process. Betsy Crowder - Said that all governmental agencies have the power of eminent domain and that MROSD is a much more responsive agency than larger agencies in area. Procedures in Implementing Amendments to Brown Act Regarding Closed Session Discussions of Property Negotiations S. Norton - Gave a summary of the 1984 legislation pertaining to the Brown Act. (1) if public agency wishes to discuss acquisition in Closed Session, has to announce in public session name of property owner and location of property, (2) MROSD did map of sphere of influence and indicated those properties it thought it might some time wish to dis- cuss in Closed Session, (3) MROSD did not aspire to acquire all listed properties (this is what has caused concern to land owners) . K. Duffy - Said that small parcels indicated by asterisk, not named or listed, would have to be announced in public session if to be dis- cussed in Closed Session. George Ducker - Said he had lived in vicinity of area of parcels 84 and 83 on Master Plan overlay for 31 years and since this is a developed community of 18 homes, he was requesting that a property line be drawn around these parcels and that they be excluded from MROSD list. R. Bishop - Said he thought the suggestion was very good and that it would be considered. List was not put together to threaten people and list should be modified or done away with completely. Must address how we can carry out function of meeting with staff for land acquisition. We do control our staff by having meetings in Closed Session to give them direction. H. Turner - Said he also would give thought and consideration to Mr. Ducker's request. He said he believes MROSD acts in good faith both in the spirit and the letter of the law. We did not forsee fear that arose, and we would have acted differently if we had forseen fear. The task before Board now is to eliminate that fear. 85-09 Page Seven E. Shelley - Said policy of excluding areas makes sense but first must work out policy for use of eminent domain. K. Duffy - Fear of eminent domain is basic fear, consideration of eminent do*main is an exemption to Brown Act. First task is to establish policy on use of eminent domain to allay fears that have arisen. Sandra Touchatt - Said Board was completely out of line in putting names of Portola Heights land owners on list; the value of their land has been devalued. Beez Jones - Asked for clarification of how particular acquisition becomes an eminent domain case. S. Norton - Explained in detail the legalistic aspect of the eminent domain process. K. Duffy - Explained that without list and without Board having discussed possible acquisition with staff, staff would be discussing possible acquisition and if they found themselves at an impasse and considered the property of great importance to the plan, they would come to the Board in Closed Session and recommend that the Board consider using the eminent domain process to obtain the property. Janet Schwind - Representing South Skyline Association asked that list be withdrawn, adding, however, that staff must not stop communicating with Board about potential acquisitions. She said the Association asks that the District: "1) honor the public ' s right to know, 2) allow Directors ' input on potential acquisition, 3) protect the seller' s right to privacy when desired, 4) not jeopardize the property rights of the 'whole to protect the few. " She said that if MROSD firmly adopted the "willing sellers only policy, the list would be almost innocuous, recommended the Open Meeting Laws pamphlet be read, and asked how many owners wish their privacy in land negotiations be honored. C. Britton - Said that approximately 50% of property owners who want to sell property to MROSD do not want their name announced while negotia- tions are being conducted. Charles Touchatt - Said that there must be a reasonable list of property owners with whom MROSD are negotiating or with whom they anticipate negotiating and that it was absurd to put everyones name on list and consider that as complying with the Brown Act. He said the Brown Act states "timely" notice is required. Tom Kavanaugh - Requested that at the next meeting a copy of the Brown Act be available for everyone. He said that the listing of property owners was poorly done, an insult to public, and that names were incorrect. He said that names should be clarified and parcel numbers should be included. He said agendas should list the names of property owners to be discussed in Closed Session, as well as litigation cases and lawsuits. He requested that MROSD help pass legislation that anyone violating the Brown Act would be penalized. S. Norton - Said the law currently states that if anyone knowingly violates the Brown Act they are subject to a misdemeanor. Page Eight 85-09 Candace Stone - Asked why there was a need to discuss acquisition of land in private since it will eventually be presented at a public meeting. E. Shelley - Said there are two ways to handle acquisition: one is for the staff to act on its own and then bring proposed acquisitions to Board at public meeting or a far better way is for Board to have discussions with staff in Closed Session. He said many land owners do not wish their intent to sell to MROSD to be made public until negotiations are completed. David Leeson - Stated that the District should do what the Brown Act says. He said since the list exists, it can never be taken away or reversed. He said that since MROSD is a public agency using public money, it must announce a seller' s name publicly, that the District should endeavor to find out what other public agencies do, and that MROSD should not accommodate people who want to negotiate privately. Hildegard Johnson - Said that since MROSD had become such a powerful agency it was time for public to sit in on Closed Sessions. She said she did not trust any of the Board members. S. Norton - Said that State law does not allow members of the public to sit in on a Closed Session of a public agency. William Obermayer - Said that his name could never be removed from the list since the list exists, that the only things that need be discussed in Closed Session are price and terms; and that the public has the right to know what is being discussed. He said MROSD should send an apology to everyone on the list, and that since MROSD has no Master Plan, no one knows what lands the District plans to acquire. Richard Bullis - Recommended that MROSD send letters to everyone on list in order to comply with the Brown Act and that Board seek an independent body (e.g. , District Attorney of Santa Clara and/or San Mateo County) to write how MROSD should implement the Brown Act. H. Turner - Said it was in public interest to meet in Closed Session to instruct negotiators on land acquisition matters. He presented two possible solutions on instructing negotiators: 1) create a land acqui- sition committee of 2 or 3 Board members , meet in private to discuss and then present in public to full Board for final decision; and 2) allow staff to negotiate, buy an option for minimal amount of money and then present the matter to the full Board. N. Hanko Said that, as a member of Legislative Committee, she would like this Committee to deal with the problem and effect changes in the Brown Act. She said the listing of property owners should be withdrawn and staff should work on other methods of implementing the Brown Act. She said she likes H. Turner's idea of buying options. C. Britton - Said he would contact other agencies to inquire how they are complying with the Brown Act. E. Shelley - Said that, at the moment, he proposes that the listing of property owners should remain, but reasonable and workable ways to reduce the size of the listing should be found. He said he felt a clear policy on use of eminent domain is best way to reduce the impact of the listing. 85-09 Page Nine K. Duffy - Said she agreed to accept the current listing because she felt that a limiting list would really be threatening. She said that she believes some rural community areas could be removed from list, that the Board is not using the list to hide behind; and that negotiations are complex and the Board does give direction to staff in Closed Session. Tom Williams - Said he felt that the listing used to comply with the Brown Act has been a disaster. David Leeson - Feels that list does not meet requirements of Brown Act and said people on list should be notified and given the opportunity to have their names removed. He said he would like his name removed from listing unless MROSD intends to negotiate with him. Paul Storaasli - Asked, if one' s name is not currently on list, could a person have the option of asking to have their name put on the list some time in the future. K. Duffy - Said that, as list exists now and if nothing were changed, there would be an opportunity to update or add to listing or remove name from listing as the Board felt appropriate. She said she believes that things will change. E. Shelley - Said he disagreed with the suggestion of announcing what land negotiations are to be discussed at each public meeting because some individuals do not want their discussions public knowledge until the negotiations are completed. H. Turner - Said that he had another option to add to his ideas regarding the Brown Act: withdraw the listing and announce prior to each Closed Session the names of those acquisitions going to be discussed. He said this could be risky process (pay higher prices, some people would not want to deal with MROSD under these conditions, and possible third party competition) . He suggested this latter process be tried for a year and then evaluated. Written Comments Received During Meeting Richard T. Mork - "The first time I heard the words 'green-belting' was almost twenty years ago in Germany outside Hanover when I questioned how it was possible to have so much open space in close proximity to a dense urban area. I thought then how wonderful it would be if such a concept were possible in the U.S.A.--especially in my home, the S.F. Bay area. Since then, through MROSD, that concept has begun to become a reality. I strongly support the work and policies of MROSD, and urge their continua- tion. I hope the Board will continue an aggressive policy of land acquisi- tion for the benefit of all the people of the greater Bay area and their children, and their grandchildren; and, for the Board not to succumb to the special interest pressures of individual land owners trying to block the green-belting process for short term interest or gains. " The Board scheduled a third public workshop for Saturday, May 4 beginning at 9 : 00 A. M. at a location as near as possible to the location of the April 17 Workshop. Jean H. Fiddes , District Clerk Cecilia A. Cyrier, Secretary VJRITT- COMMUNICATION Meeth 5-14; 6/5/85 RECEIVED at the May 22, 1985 Kings Mountain Association Regular Meeting M-85--13 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 (415)851-7075 85 May 21 Board of Supervisors and District Board of Directors County of San Mateo Midpcninsula Regional Open Space Dist. County Government Center 375 Distel Circle, #D-1 Redwood City, CA 94063 Los Altos, CA 94022 re: urgency resolutions regarding certain MROSD activities, and invitations to a June 20th Skyline-arca community meeting Dear Supervisors and Directors, On May 16th — with less than six days notice — approximately fifty Skyline-arca residents attended an all-business meeting of the 40-year old Kings Mountain Association at the north end of Skyline. This is the largest non-banquet meeting held by the KMA in almost two years. Some attendees came from as far away as the Highway 9 area near the southern end of Skyline, a 30- mile round trip. The major topic of discussion was the Midpcninsula Regional Open Space District — including the discussion and passage of four resolutions. Though the meeting was hosted by the Kings Mountain Association — and considerably more than a quorum of KMA members were present — the resolutions were expressly characterized as statements of an area-wide community meeting. They are not resolutions of merely the Kings Mountain Association that represents only the northern end of Skyline. Similar resolutions have been adopted by other community associations, including the South Skyline Association and the Portola Heights Association. The resolutions are as follows: 1. Do Not Use Eminent Domain Condemnation resolved: "The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District should not use eminent domain condemnation." (Note: Somewhat to my surprise, attendees rejected — by a large majority — the following less-stringent resolution that was originally proposed: "MROSD should permanently limit its use of emincnt domain condemnation. It should not be used except possibly in the circumstance of commercial developments, or acquisition of limited-width, essential trail corridors, far from private homes. es. Since MROSD considers acquisition to be a ma jor or or primary purpose, forced acquisition by condemnation should be allowed only after approval of a neutral agency. Therefore, MROSD should be permitted to exercise condemnation, only after majority approval of each city and county having jurisdiction over the property being proposed for MROSD condemnation." 2. Protect of MROSD Property & Avoid Being an "Attractive Nuisance" resolved: MROSD should budget sufficient funds and staff t to reasonably protect its property, and to assure ample protection of its neighbors against adverse or hazardous impacts resultingfrom public access to MROSDproperty. P 3. Limit Annexations resolved: MROSD should not annex new areas except as logically defined regions, and with a majority-vote of the region to be annexed. 4. Purchase Only Within District Boundaries resolved: MROSD should purchase property only with the District's boundaries. Reconsideration Scheduled for June 20th KMA Meeting These resolutions were passed on an urgency basis, recognizing the policy issues that arc about to be considered by the MROSD Directors. The resolutions will be given another hearing at the already-scheduled June meeting of the KMA, to which we are inviting Directors and representatives of the Open Space District and the County. page I I I i r County Supervisors Invited to June 20th Meeting Concerning MROSD We would like to invite and urge several San Mateo County Supervisors to attend the June 20th Skyline-area meeting hosted by the Kings Mountain Association. The scheduled topic will be policies and practices of the MROSD. Recognizing the limits mandated by the Brown Act, we would like to particularly invite ANNA ESHOO, and TOM NOLAN or JOHN WARD — as representatives of the mid- and south- County Districts — to the meeting. It will begin at 7;30pm in the Kings Mountain Community Center on Skyline. MROSD Directors Invited to June 20th Meeting Similarly, we would like to invite several Directors of the MROSD to attend that June 20th Skyline-area meeting. To meet Brown Act constraints, we particularly invite Directors HARRY TURNER, DICK BISHOP and NONETTE HANKO — as the representatives of the northern wards of the two-county MROSD. We urge their attendance, to present MROSD plans, desires and concerns, and to discuss residents' views, proposals and concerns. This could and should be a significant step towards establishing desirable working relationships between the District and the communities that are its mountain neighbors. Thanking you for your attention to these comments, I remain, Since y, Ji ren, President page 2 MR-11MEN COIM�ITUNTTci\TTOII Mhotinci 85-07 PeninSUla Citizens' Action April 10, 1985 (4 15)85 1-7075 345 S�sett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 85-Mar-29 re.- March 30th "Condemnation" Workshop NIROSD Directors N1idpcn nsula Regional Open Space District This is submitted as a formal written 375 Distel Cir #DI communication, to be included and distributed Los Altos CA 94022 as part of the MROSD public record. Greetings, We would like to propose the following positions and analyses for your consideration. For vervoric's benefit, a serious attempt has been made in this presentation to amid the rhetoric and loaded" phrasing that these emotion-laden topics tend to engender. [I must apologize for the typos and misspellings that will surely appear in this proposal. I had planned to write it Monday or Tuesday, providing time for proofreading, and time to get it to you folks be Wednesday or Thursday. However, the week has somehow been consumed, and I am once again producing a document/proposal in a last-minute effort. — JW1 1. CONDEMNATION POLICY ALTERNATIVES The presumption, here, is that at least a majority of the Directors feel that it is now appropriate for MROSD to formulate and adopt a set of policies and/or. regulations restraining the mention and/or initiation of condemnation as a tool for acquisition — or, at least make some policy statements regarding mention and use of condemnation. If this presumption is correct, then the issue is: What should those policies be? 1.0. Background There appear to be very few people who oppose MROSD acquiring property from voluntary Sellers Linder terms that are mutually acceptable. At issue is the use of the "force" of eminent domain condemnation — or [alleged] mention or "threat" of such condemnation — by District staff or by formal Director-adopted action. It is generally true that few people are prone to giving up their powers and options without ample justification; and most people arc greatly inclined to retain and expand their powers and options, whenever possible. It is perhaps the mark of responsible officials and the ultimate character of our free society that government agencies in this state and nation formulate and follow self-rcstraining policies. I.I. Other Agency Policies There appears to be some — but relatively little — precedent from which to seek guidance. Although perhaps most government agencies have the power of eminent domain condemnation, very few propose that land acquisition is the primary purpose or their agency. Instead, property acquisition is usually a minor function of a single department within a larger agency, e.g., a small office within a county public works department, or a small department within a state division of highways or divi'sion of parks •& recreation. It is our impression that most agencies that have a department, or even an office, concerned with acquisition and possible use of eminent domain on any repeated basis — e.g. the California .Parks Department — have formal policies specifying when use of that power may be considered, and the conditions under which it may be proposed during negotiations, much less actually initiated. It seems appropriate for MROSD to have similar, formally stated, Board-adopted policies — all the more so in that MROSD is widely viewed as considering acquisition as its priniary function. It is equally appropriate to review the policies of other, more experienced and established agencies. Recommendations: 1.1.1. To the extent that a majority of the Directors can reach agreement on some set of condemnation policies, regulations, restraints, or guidelines, please adopt them promptly. 1.1.2. However, specify that these policies are to be considered interim policies, to remain in force only for only a month or two, until a broad survey can be accomplished, obtaining and examining the policies of other agencies that have repeated occasion to consider use of condemnation powers. page Instruct staff to obtain complete statements of the condemnation guidelines a n d policies used by other agencies of local. county, regional, state and federal government. This rcqLliFCS little more than a day of research to identify the agencies, and a day or two of phone calls and form letters. Instruct staff that they are to seek such policies from highway, public works, and parks agencies, as well as from other space agencies. Specify that this is an important matter of high priority, to be pursued in an aggressive and timely manner. Ask that the Staff report their progress in the public, written communications to the Board on at least a monthly basis — including dates of staff action, agencies contacted (including names and addresses of contacts) and policies received. 1.1.4. Specify that copies of policies received from other agencies are to be made readily available as MROSD public records, and that those policy statements that are less than — say — 20 pages are to be included in the "communications" portions of the packets distributed to Directors and the public, as soon as possible after they are received. 1.1.5. Unequivocably specify that time is of the essence — that staff is to treat this as a high-priority matter, and that a reasonable effort is to be made to avoid even any appearance of i unnecessary delays. This s appropriate as a practical, "political" matter, in light of the current level of citizen interest and concern. More importantly, it is appropriate as a matter of principle, given that the "list of 695" formally expressed the District's interest in possibly discussing the acquisition of 500-1500 parcels that include homes. Hopefully, there is agreement that even the possibiliti, of taking an occupied home by the force of condemnation is a most serious matter, and the absence of any guidelines for such action must be addressed in a very prompt manner — as is being initiated by the Directors via the March 30th, 3-hour workshop. For, until there is a policy, the default policy remains that the staff can mention and recommend forced condemnation, completely at their discretion. Matrix of Alternative Condemnation Policies It is worthwhile to catalog the alternatives that are available for consideration in setting condemnation policy. There is a matrix of such positions or alternatives — at least including the following: la One may consider a combination of occupancy and owner-proposed use, as criteria for allow i ng/proh i biting mention or use of condemnation, e.g.: 1.2.1. owner-occupied homes 1.2.2. homes occupied by other than the owners 1.2.3. unoccupied, but habitable, dwellings 1.2.4. property where plans have been submitted for a new dwelling 1.2.5. property where no construction or subdivisioil plans have been submitted 1.2.6. property where subdivision plans have been submitted We support "the Artemis Ginzton proposal" --- namely that the District should acquire property only from willing sellers. We adamently support a prohibition of use of condemnation in any of the circumstances of alternatives 1.2.1. through 1.2.5. Candidly speaking, there is almost-universal mountain support for a prohibition on forced acquisition under the first five conditions; there is widespread but not universal support for a prohibition on forced condemnation under the sixth circumstance. L'. In another dimension, one may consider use of condemnation to obtain "partial" acquisition, e.g., acquisition of: 1.3.1. absolute property ownership 1.3.2. cascnwnts for essciritially-unlimited public access 1.3.3. prohibitions on remodeling existent structures 1.3.4. prohibitions on construction of new dctatched dwellings 1.3.5. easements for public access, far-distant from family compounds 1.3.6. prohibitions on subdivision/development Given that we oppose an}, use of forced condemnation, this is a possible ranking of the importance of alternatives for partial acquisition. We strongly oppose condemnation used for 1.3. 1. through 1.3.4. If condemnation force is to be permitted to acquire partial rights to part or all of a parcel, then we propose that it be District policy to allow the owner to specify whether the acquisition is to be absolute property ownership, or some partial acquisition-by-force of casements or prohibitions. Le., if MROSD wants to take some property rights by condemnation, then adopt a District policy permitting the owner to determine how much more rights MROSD must also take. Regarding essentially-unlimited public access: Aside from the mass of legal, liability and administrative problems such a circumstance poses, most mountain dwellers live there — and accept the numerous inconvicnences of those secluded and distant homes — precisely because they desire (or "need") that "elbow-room." For most, it would be as bad or worse to force nearly- page 2 1111111110tcd public access as it would be to simply take their homes and land, outright. Regarding possible public access to areas i'ar-distant from family compounds — say, 1000 yards or more — though certainly undesirable, It may be more tolerable to many owners than outright acquisition, prohibitions, or less-limited encroachment. 1.4. Still another dimension of alternatives concerns the "portion" of property acquired by condemnation, e.-., acquisition of whatever rights or ownership as it pertains to: 1.4.1. portions of parcels, distant from family compounds 1.4.2. entire parcels Consider the circumstance in which the District was going to use condemnation force to obtain rights or ownership of a parcel, but would be willing to leave out the family compound and some portion of property surrounding it. In this circumstance, we propose that it be District policy to allow the owner to select between entire-parcel acquisition versits part-parcel acquisition. 1.5. Definition of "Owner-Occupied" If owner-occupancy is used in setting criteria for prohibiting/allowing use of condemnation, then "owner-occupied" needs to be carefully defined. Issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to: 1.5.1. current occupancy, e.g. owners vacationing 1.5.2. length of permitted owner absences without occupancy by others 1.5.3. length of permitted owner absences with occupancy by others 1.5.4. definition of "owners", e.g. offspring, relatives, etc. 1.5.5. dual occupancy, ex. owners and others, housernatcs, etc. 1.5.6. how identity of occupants will be determined It' protection against condemnation is to be afforded a property on the basis of owner- occupancy, certainly District policy should clearly delineate the circumstances under which such occupancy is "validated" and the circumstances under which ,in owner might loose their home or land duc to "incorrect" owner-occupancy. 1.6. Mention of "Condemnation" by Staff and/or During Negotiations There have been alle-ations that the threat of forced condemnation has been implied, mentioned or used in negotiation with unwilling property owners. Others have denied that such tactics have been or are used. We ask that the Directors clearly state the explicit circumstances under which anyone under the control or MROSD may imply, mention or propose condemnation — prior to the actual initiation of legal condemnation action. If no one has been using this "lever" in contacts and negotiations, then the staff are not in any way restrained from doing what they have been doing, all along. Under any circumstance, it is appropriate for the elected Directors of MROSD to clearly specify the circumstances under which any person acting on their behalf may use such a strong — ultimate — negotiating tool. In the absence of such a Board directive, the default directive is that District representatives may use it any time they, unilaterally, choose to do so. We recommend that Directors adopt the public policy that — if condemnation is to even be mentioned to a property owner — such mention is to first be authorized by the Board (in closed or, preferably, open session), 1.7. NN"ho Drafts the Specific Statements of Condemnation Policy There are several altcrnatives for who wi!1 draft the actual phrasing and statements of whatever condemnation policies the Board will formally consider for Director-modification and/or ultimate adoption. With instructions and direction provided by the Board, the proposed policy statements might be drafted by: 1.7.1. a Dircctor-appointed committee of concerned citizens, including those supporting and those opposing use of condemnation, with the input and advice of staff, but with staff having no "voting" power over the final phrasing of the draft policy statements to be submitted to the Directors for their consideration, modification, and finally, adoption 1.7.2. a Dircctor-appointed committee of concerned citizens representing all major views, plats members of the staff 1.7.3. the MROSD Directors, themselves 1.7.4. the MROSD staff, exclusively Under any circumstance, it is clearly understood that the Directors have the responsibility and authority to modify such draft policy statements in any way they see fit. We support the first three alternatives, in decreasing oi�der, and stron-1.), oppose the fourth. It is reasonable to believe that there are informed, responsible nicnib"ers of the public who represent all major views on this matter, who would be willing to serve on such a committee. page 3 Where oj)posing factions COLIM not agrcc on one statement or anotlict, \%,c recommend that Directors instruct them that they arc to draft statements for their alternative positions, leaving it up to the Directors to select and modify as the\, choose. If the senior staff were generally believed to ' to be neutral parties in this issue, without their own strong biases, it would bc Usual and appropriate to assign this task to such a neutral administrative body. Flowc%-cr, the apparent reality of the situation is that few, if any, senior staff members favor any signil'icant formal restraint on their ability to mention condemnation or recommend condemnation as their pursue their responsibilities as they percievc them. This is not a criticism — merely a statement of likely fact. If this is the case, it is unfair to the staff, to the portion of the public who favor some limits on condemnation, and — ultimately — to the Directors and the cause of fair creation of open space, to assign this task exclusively to MROSD staff. 1.8 Assure Property Owners that Condemnation Restraints are Permanent There is concern that policies restraining condemnation may be adopted by the present Board — perhaps responding to current public outcry — that can or will be reversed by this Board at some future date, or reversed by some future Board. In fact, various Directors have repeatedly pointed out that (a) the current Board cannot bind the hands of future Directors, and/or that (b) the current Board does not wish to restrain the alternatives available to future Boards. We observe that — in fact — this and past Boards have regularly taken the action of dedicating property, which specifically restrains the freedom of future Boards to sell property — without the approval of the voters (as we currently understand "dedication"). To restrain the freedom of future Boards' acquisition of property by forced condemnation would be no more than a balancing decision — though the legal system may mandate a different implementation of such an acquisition restraint. We propose that the Board make every effort to seek a permanently binding restraint on present and future exercise of condemnation powers, to assure concerned citizens that they never again need fear the District's exercise of condemnation — beyond whatever powers are finally selected, now, by this Board. We ask that the Board seek Ic.-al and legislative advice on how it may assure itself and the public of the permanency of whatever condemnation restraints it seeks to adopt. One possibility is to explore deed-recorded contractual alternatives for assuring permanent restraint. Another possibility is to seek legislative action — less stringent than that suggested by Senator Becky Morgan in 1984 — that would restrain but, presumably, not cancel the District's powers of condemnation. Being candid, once again: Few people really expect the District to voluntarily give up all condemnation powers. We feel there may be some justification — in extreme and highly unusual circumstances — for the District to be able to exercise Condemnation power to acquire an absolutely essential parcel, c.q. when the District has completed a Highway 92 -to- Highway 17 continuous trail except for one small parcel which the owner refuses to sell for even 5 or 10 times the reasonable market value. Recognizing this rare-case possible need, perhaps the following is an appropriate self-restraint to place on -In �agency that views itself as primarily in 7 the land acquisition business: By legislative action, require that (a) the full Board must approve any exercise of condemnation power, and (b) at least 4/5ths of the County Supervisors of the concerned County must also vote for such acquisition. It may be fair to observe that an agency viewing its primary charge to be the acquisition of land from private owners is hardly in a position to make a fair and impartial judgement regarding when it should and when it should not exercise forced condemnation. We urge the Board to %oluntarily pursue the creation of legally-binding perinament self- defitied restraint on its use of condemnation powers. 2. ANNEXATION The District's master plan appears to say little about policies for expansion of the District's sphere of influence (SOI) nor set comprehensive guidelines for when annexation will be sought. This must surely provide a temptation to seek to grow larger and expand the District's control, authority, and influence. It seems reasonable and fair — to the public, to the tax-payers, and to the staff — for the Directors to specify and adopt formal policies regarding its intent and plans for its ultimate size and scope. To do less is — almost by definition — "unplanned", and hardly appropriate for any tax-supported public agency. It also leaves the door open to temptations of adventUrcisin, perhaps-justified accusations of "land grabbers", etc. It is appropriate that such a specification of plans for the future be included in the pad e 4 0 District's master plan. Certainly, if the District later decides to modify those plans and expand further, it can do so -- but it would be clone through fair public notice and public hearings, as Planning by public lc,,Crlcics is typically done. 'I'licre are at least several issues that might be addressed regarding expansion to new areas by the District: 2.1. expansion of MROSD's sphere of influence by any means other than approval of the registered voters in the proposed new area 2.2. annexation of areas within the District's SOI where ?VlROSD owns no property, and a majority of the affected property owners oppose annexation 2.3. annexation of areas within the District's SOI where MROSD owns some parcels, but the annexation includes non-MROSD parcels and a majority of the property owners oppose annexation 2.4. annexation of areas where all owners approve the annexation 2.5. annexation of areas exclusit,eh, composed of MROSD parcels We propose that the Directors adopt a policy explicitly rejecting 2.1. through 2.3. and explicitly approving expansion and annexation onli, under the circumstance of 2.4. or 2.5. If LAFCo insists on a District-desired annexation thai is described by 2.1. through 2.3., we propose that District policy should be to oppose the LAFCo position, even to the extent of withdrawing the NIROSD application for expansion, if necessary. 3. OUT-OF-DISTRICT PURCHASES As with annexation and/or expansion of the sphere of influence, it is fair and appropriate for the Directors to publicly adopt a formal policy regarding "function expansion" outside of the District via out-of-district purchases. It seems apparent that this should also be a part of the District's master plan, for it can have significant impact on the District's financial, acquisition and annexation plans. The District property is obviously fragmented, with 18,000 acres scattered over 30-60 miles or more — perhaps in hour's drive or more from one extreme to the other. Yet, numerous fragments remain unconnected. The District has significant, but none-thc-less limited financial resources. To the extent that they arc spent on acquisitions outside the District's boundaries, they reduce the District's ability to complete connection and cohesive or orderly "cicvelopmernt" or its fragmented parcels. We propose that the Directors adopt the policy that no acquisitions be considered nor made outside of the District's current boundaries unless and until all parcels within the current boundaries — that arc (teemed by the Board to be desirable — haie been acquired. If the District desires to make ou--.of-Di strict purchases, adopt a policy of first expanding the boundaries, then pursuing the acquisition. This would insure orderly and publicly-licard planned expansion. 4. BROWN ACT ISSUES From our position, the Keene amendment was of great value to the area's mountain and rural residents, for it encourages the District to publicly state its intentions and plans. We have no particular objection to the amendment's current form, however feel it could be "improved," as could its implementation by the District. District proponents have objected to the requirements of the Keene amendment, stating that it forces the District to either list every parcel In which it could concievably have any interest — as was done with the "list of 695" — or else give public notice of District interest in particular parcels as those parcels "become interesting." The objections to the latter condition are: 4.1. Some property owners wish for there to be no public notice of their negotiation with the District, no matter how obscure. It is said that this violates the privacy of the property owner in a private business transaction. Our response is that this is not a private business transaction. As a transaction with a government agency, it may have significant obligatory ramifications for tax-payers and adjacent property owners. The public's "need to know" outweighs the property owners desire for privacy. 4.2. The second objection proposed that giving public notice of District interest in a given parcel opens the door to 3rd party advcnturism and other responses from members of the public that may hamper negotiations or District acquisition, or might increase the price to the District. pa.-e 5 For so long as NIROSI) retains the right or condemnation, the District has an absolute power to cur}, i, possible 3rd party adventurisin. As to price, it is fair and reasonable that the District pay the often-disputcd "market value" for any property it obtains. In this case, we take the most basic, fundamental definition of "market value" — whatever amount a voluntary buyer is willing to pay a voluntary seller. As to possible public response to District plans for a specific acquisition, such public response is completely appropriate. Once again, this is not a private business transaction between indi% iduals or companies. It is a transaction involving public funds, public benefits, and positive and perhaps-negative impacts on some or much of the public. There is a long history of government plans being given public airing and fair hearings — prior or to goiernment action — so that positive and negative impacts can best be evaluated, by the agency decision-makers and by the affected individuals and concerned citizens. This principle should apply to specific planning, as well as general planning. The apparent intent of the Keene amendment was to provide fair prior public notice of the planned acquisition of property by a government agency. We support that intent, and would be willing to work with District representatives and Senator Keene to make that intent more clear and the means of its implementation less ambiguous. 4.3. Withdrawal of the "List of 695" If the Feb. 13th list of 695 names — plus the multitude of others who were included only by asterisk — is to be "withdrawn," we urge the Directors to clearly define what is meant by "withdrawn." We support its withdrawal, provided it is clearly stated that such Director action means that there will be no closed-meeting Director-discussions of possible acquisitions until and unless there is new public notice of such intentions, as mandated by the Keene amendment. 4.4. Proper Notification We support the position that proper notice, adequate to meet the requirements of the Keene amendment, should include the complete name and address of the owner-of-record for the parcel(s) to be discussed in closed sessions, and at least include assessor parcel numbers and some nominal written description of the approximate location and character of the parcel(s). A transparent overlay of a two-county map is clearly inadequate [a pun I couldn't resist]. Under any circumstance, to do less gives at least an appearance of perhaps-questionable or inadequate "Public notice." Certainly few would disagree with the comnicnt that the list, as adopted and published, did little good to the District's reputability and presumption of fair and open operation. These comments and proposals do not reflect a formal position adopted by any organiZed body of citizens. They do, however, certainly reflect the feelings and desires voiced by many mountain and rural residents. We believe that a free society must include a restrained government. Thanking you for your attention to these suggestions and comments, I remain, Sincerely Jij,K \Va r rc n, founde cc: various individuals, elected officials and community groups fin page 6 WRITT ")MMUNICATION M, �_.ig 85-04 Feb. 27 , 1985 I i Quintal Ranch Star Route 2, Box 310 La Honda, Calif. 94020 I Fehruary 20. 1985 l �I TO: Board of Directors Midpeninsuln Regional Open Space District FROM: Richard S. Bullis and Jeaan,�tt�. A. Bullis SUBJECT: List of more or less 700 parcels published in meeting of 2/13/85 purporting to meet requirement of Brown Act as amended. Please furnish the writers of this latter forth=.•i.th: I . Nimes of all otmers of lands on the Suhject list. 2. Addresses of owners. 3. Assessors parcel numj�grti. 4. Description of each jzjj_gu as to %hcther developed or undeveloped and, if developed, 0iethcr as n howestend or other, and- acreag ,c. I 5. Legi+le map showing all parcE�ls and their relation to present District land 1101din7s I-A thin and without District b undaries. This request is made under the- "Cr)lifgrnia Public Records Act , " to obtain all the information to the l.oard of Directors of M.R.0.S.D. that is i not re,9sv:.ahly classified. If the District has not compiled the above requested information the writers v.ould request a prompt disclosure of that information presently available with a St. elnent o when the District will produce the balance. Rich; ra Bu l l l s Jr nnette A. hulks cc: Michael McCracken, h.,,q. David Byers, Esq. I i Distributed at 110a.17d li:orkslic)p May 4, 1985 2 9 A;-:ril 27, IPFi5 APR 1985 T:,: The Ii!R'25-9 o; Directors Subject: The issue of use of Eminent Dur.:ain Dear Directors : I applaud what MRESD has done and haparully 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, I as a shorter list could have done. In fact the long list only succeeded in snaring every Skyline resident. Clearly the possibility of eminent domain needs to remain for such crucial vie+:rshed 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 regain for non-residen- tial ,properties, such as was used in the Novitiato case in Los Gatos. Sincerely, Thomas Williams Cupertino C s A, K 9Z { Written Coru i� -Ation presented to �P Y 4 the Board of Directors at April 10 , I 1985 Board meeting. N (+ ? E ,p P g G y O e� SANTA U C L A R A 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 Directors M idpeninsula 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 "no." 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 t,:idpeninsula Regional Open Space District to research all alternative methods for annexation ur enforcing District regulations on the District controlled lands in this area. Sincerely yours, Janet H. Schwind 11825 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (I am a voter in the 1�IROSD) cc: Santa Cruz Iy4.r C0 1%TRI71T21 COMNJNICATION Meeting 85-12 r>ay 8, 1985 MAY 7 >= �LLtIYx"tt 7J e t ��rze COMMITTEES: REPLY TO 'V VICE CHAIR: TOXICS AND PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT ❑ SACRAMENTO ADDRESS STATE SENATOR MEMBER: EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL REBECCA Q. MORGAN ENERGY AND PUBLIC SACRA MENTQ CA 95814 UTILITIES 191 61 445 6747 ELEVENTH DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION ❑ .DISTRICT OFFICE JOINT COMMITTEE ON 830 MENLO AVENUE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUITE 100 CA MENLO PARK. .145 i 94025 May 6, 1985 JOINT COMMITTEE FOR f61 51 32 1 1 REVIEW OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION i Bo ard of Directors � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Members of the Board: As a long time supporter of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, I find the recent adverse publicity the District has received to be disturbing, as I am sure you do. The District' s actions have frightened its friends and neighbors . I believe that the property owners ' heightened fears of condemnation have been prompted by mistaken actions on the part of the District, specifically the initiation of eminent P 1 t domain proceedings against Rosemary Dooley and the District' s method of compliance with the Brown Act revisions . The District needs to adopt policies that reassure residents of the right to a home safe from District condemnation. I am encouraged b the communication and understandin g ing that � is developing between the Board of Directors and the concerned residents of the area as a result of District workshops . I am confident that the Board can adopt policies which will again build goodwill between the District and its neighbors . 1 support the for proposals dealin with the Brown Act outlined in Harry y Turner ' s memorandum of April 23 , 1985; I do not think the risks taken by such policies are unacceptable . Again, I trust the Board can adopt policies that will adequately reassure your neighbors. I am very much interested in this matter and in finding ways to avoid future concern. I know that you are giving this matter serious attention, and I appreciate your consideration of my views . Sincerely, REBECCA Q. N GAN RQM/ssw .:..i••ril+W M.-:, .. SC:j.:..l• :A.:.��_p'M.•71r.W�1•�''�•'�YI•'MI"A.ati.-4..w... .... .. ... .. •w.• .... , ....i. .. - v .. .. 01 rr N 1 C �► L J .J 0 '+1 4j L 0 11 d O N L ••+ !d N. N.d N » rd 41 J: 3 r6 L9 r6 3 4j ? 0 L 7 v oars U s •.. r. r ;� T o »j w 'v r. .1 t 0 ..4x y a uo3 ., b: C, A � ,JC -N 4J a d C .4J - 0,d '0. N N ill •i• +� CL .� N i !L N +) U ] > � 3 '� S IJ rL t. C = .. ., y 4- t0 •.0 N 0 Q +r .. .LD dl In •., AIn U C 4j > ID + 6 a m 0. ❑ 1 ,. N s7 .4j :J.-it - 3 0 L 1 N 41 Ili a W rp d 0 . :J > 0 - 'b .j » U1 N y 'L 1 0 16 .0 L 'L dl ' CL :j 2 14 - :1 /_ Ul = U C I N h JI 3 c •+ L 13. N in •-r � Q1 0 V* .0 Oi',+! WC 0 S 0 0 - 3 — m 11 r3 S i rL %. .0 y L = to 0% 4+ x > v -+: A In rd U 0 .. v .� CL w y .0 a 11 u U li7 a1 QI of y- Tj > -0 1 -+ •+- > C X 'J U rd J 3 .i�• tU tU- •0 C. W m L U N A W rd 5 + 4- :j 0 d {L y ul + rr 1 N i d Cn- .. rL .•D C 41 4" 0 N ❑ ?� CQ L ., .] •+ U —L .411 W d C n1 G l] A rd c o 01 rd 0) + U rd Y. 0 cA , L S 0 'd d •4.. In 4) Q '0 •+ CL C N U :Y J w- In 17 O +� to :i :: C a to •D W 1 a '0 In `J ❑ + 0. 7 41 Ri ❑ 0 . p �� , rd r i Il d.) 4.) a 0 rd N L U 0 - B E N •+ U � Cn E •11 0 0 � L N + :� }- 0 .j vCV T ., Q N 0 E M+ 9 Ld � .0 . In U .,, rJ :+ 1U u rU \i. . W 71 IJ i. 0 1 + -) m N. 0 w m U 3 f) ft3 _J O %0 0 a i. C U L .0 •+ rd .3 y. -" :J L :+ N m rd r6 m > C Ga 1 U tr In •� :, rL :� :d :: 0 i U n 4j W C V. L1 0 + rd — fj L f. in {: + C al al In M .!L N S W N� C a ..{ +4 is rd x rd y, ..a rU >- F- W 0) i7 C ;g 16 in W u N rd rd > N 0 a► C E 0 U . L 4J 4- +' IL U •j r$ < Cb C i !a O W d N J £ rd > L C (3 01 ri 3 U 0 rJ rd ►+ W in U '- rd M rd rJ J Id 4- c] 5' CJ C •1 +) 'U 4J N CL 0 s N S_ 3 41 •0 rd iJ .j r3 1 h 0 s 3 •+- h 0 3 In 0 .►i c C .4 41 Id C (D W :: Cf. ^• 0 0 y A 0 .• . :::rd N N rd .Y N rd rU l) E .. tU IU 4d 'N u 0 V 0 al In (0 N .. 41 E U tl U -N N • [) CL -+ m •-+ L rd 4j N C A C d d •,U rr. N ti rJ •-+ - v w L r] ;, :) itt v to A U ri c 0 t] 3 3 0 1z x c :S W L rJ x -0 s: c u :j 11 in 'n » N w W U1 .c .0 N .+ in 11 .. +r .. Cs_ rd W N ii : h rd •+ 0 a J i, .J 41 ., U :j +, rJ lit rd p o 0 0 +r E +/ + " 4J :1 nj v+ U i. tJ 0 is -+ N a- 1U O Il 3 ?r tJ .0 U L C 4J U ::) 0 C] T} ►� N V '> 0 .s �l 0 '. •• 17 +J L_ N 01 a W LA 0 C In 4j :J In 'A ,• S_ + 4j d al 0 C •-r .+ . LI L1 >- W r N 4• Ll L In U 0 0 ^+ L1 f "I i4 0 :i _ S: ._ u W .1 3 ►+ 3A 4J In -• 0) 0l rL = al rJ U ,a ., .+ (l1a � lu +/ J] 414.� i W ti 0 :J 0 0 41 ri S L 1] 0. 0 0 •+ W > C O 11 » 0 AJ i. s. 0 c •• C ••+ � 'b 0 'U LJ a 4.) 0 a) U 'tt 0 0 `+ 0 A u x C) 3 U) ,.V L 41 .0 0l +! ^J ;j in 0 .. U N R tJ .0 0 rd w tri N al ro U ._ s ti- L). t7 4j ►i1 IIt +J ID 0 t7 D C11 > IJ rd n+ ar lJ C y !! '. U4j •+ L U W .. r. .0 L C 0 c at 41 In U + 0 ri 4J IL N w U U r ... V 0 0 3 E 41 •-+ C C (J1 LL m 0 - r3 Ln ti .. :i L rl 0 a :i U :. (d h •'+ 4J 0 aJ 0 CI i7 C In C S _ 17 M rd (3 J] CY v : 41 E 4.) 4J L rl N 0 ri .� W ,J 0 E N L tq U C A ++ S: C) it ,: 4j r✓ _J +r ra U m ri 41 + 0 Lq L C 0), 0 W N L Di U C IR 41 0 41 Q1 L1 +/ :. t: tr \ W +r rd .J 4! [ C L I:r (U C 0 U 17 0 -4 L. C1 Z In •i 0 41 m A N :j _ r4 ) i•, .. d 0 � 0 t'J W A x I •• 0' A -0 •-+ N J1 4' ++ t: Cl L CJ .. _ Cti rU Lr C F -• I- G .: a C h tn + V4 Ln U M. P N 0 61 CL A ++ !1 is + + ,^ 4-) 111 LT W ri L a: (,r 0 A :5 0 U FJ C) 00 L U 1 I U •-• v Cl E L1 .+ i Z' 41 w W C 0 () 0 0 U Q_ 13 01 L tr :' W Id G' i'1 U +1 ra '9 A U rd 0 ++ 3 = E M V C r JJ •+ :; � v .� i:1 �, E s.. 2 Ln ti U 41 .c -C 0 11 0 i s 7 ., ,, Q •• L ►, U rd +: L r3 .N - rJ' nl 00 .• .. •4- N `±- 0 C Ql C C L 4J 0 + A L W r. T+ L'. 1 C CI U C I i 4' > �Y 03 In 0 J] 0 :J T7 — ❑ •-+ +' M L l:l C 4- i L Cri Cn r: »• 0 .,. .,1 L Cr N 41 0 1) rJ 03 CL 3 0 >+ 0 ` r!i Cl 0 0. © c N tl N In 0 17 ,.. : 0. U .+ !` +1 0) � C J: U ;, L ,, 4_1 a, 1_ rt ti U 0 -L U -I r I A •• ., L m CI L' �_ LL Cr E C r Ll M ►+ In U {iJ L• U ►+ CI U .' t; 0 U 4, 4J -'-r N A C W .= m Ui In J: L1 CrI q C C: tJ •-+ .0 +1 C V " — .i:. L a) G tr m 4' : Cr. L I UJ f 4 0 tT C in ID c C J 0 t! C ^ t d: U 41 .. U rS -.• 4. fJ u > IU V :. 101 r. � C7 04 Cr Ln LI P r t 0 > 0 -+ U c .. [r 0 42 Ci c rd rd C L n W — +° 1,1 U 'J Cl rl C E 4 CL N 0 (J 4r r r, s: rd r1, ❑ ¢I 0 n' 0 tJ c w »- i. a X E 0 0 L ai r..l a• c C t: L L m E+ Ml. .1 E F, U 4j C N 3 +r !] 4' to U W 0 +) 3 L LL fd F Ul 0 (L �L. L L CI. � U i _ >- Ji i. C: L' -• �i 0 Lb 0 0 a ro U` y n :J 'D 4 �+ o J .1 .3 n ;n T .+ 3 y -� 1 ul rQ 00 0 0 U i ,, U1Ll � U U N 0 A U RJ s: 41 17 S N Cl • ♦J ) [1 -P rQ m \ 0 r 4 m•+ u tJ J 41 .41 tU G :) + U Cn U ., + rJ aJ iJ M O W Q U rl tJ L a 41 •� (!1 (D p 0 I) .r.. N tl to Ll is rL S- > C er l7 ) r4 t7 N .rd In w EL rd r3 In (J U ' C :J M (J is ;i 0) Cl Q .•• P,} ?. .• �a 0 0 0 C Ui rj C: T_r.. r} In ul .) U ID L mn IN u L c. ed w ¢ ej tl m U ++ LL C, .. L r ul el u 3 U U M s (', v U' Bob Fisse 20225 Skyline Blvd. Woodside ma i 1 to: Rt.2, Box 4O" a Honda 9402PR 3 0 Pho ne (41� 8;1 2365 19Q 5 Distrik,uted at 130awd TVbrksi May 4, 1985 101' 29 April 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Los Altos 94022 Regarding Workshop 4 May 1585 Dear Directors and m�fellow l members of MROSD 1 will not be able to attend the 4 May workshop where t our land acquisition q ion policies regarding the District will be discussed. I would like to have my following statement read into and becana part of the record. I . 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. (If the area is approved by the voters for annexation thin , the District can buy all the land it wants from willing sellers in the new district area.) I I 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 tha district I hope that these will not be token recommended changes. Sincerely, XW4-4-1-� Bob Fisse I I I i 11TRTTTEN CVMMLJNI, Meeting 85-,_ March 13, 1985 EGERTON 0 LAKIN (1086 ANDRE. 1 SPFIIIS' C.EORGE H. NORTON' T.1J1F, F, ,FUSE' FRANK A SMALL Ti,'O.AS -) LEE S. PANTELL JESSICA F ARNFIR SI"IERRY O. "AWORTH RICHARD i,t ROSFNTHAL CAROL S. DOES IVIARGAREr w PAS.LFY ROBERT L. PLETCHER J A TONY VILLANUEVA CAROL B. SCHWARTZ NANETTE S. STRINGER LAKIN - SPEARS 285 HAMILTON AVENUE - P. O. BOX 240 - PALO ALTO, CA 04301 25BB TELEPHONE (415) 32B-7000 TELECOPIER (415) 326-7000 Attorneys at Law March 5, 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Board Members: I have had the chance to talk to some of you personally as well as Herb Grench. As you know, I have been distressed by the bad image that the District has obtained through the "listing" procedure. After giving the matter a lot of thought, I strongly believe that only a complete withdrawal of the list can restore the District ' s name and credibility to the land- owners on Skyline. I realize that taking everyone off the list somewhat restricts your ability to have the free hand you would like. On the other hand, I believe that any action short of withdrawing the whole list will not be sufficient to overcome the bad image you presently have. I know that there are other ways of accomplishing your purposes which are perhaps not as convenient but possible. When you do publish names of properties that you are going to discuss, I believe it should be a meaningful list where you actually do intend to or have started negotiations . I would be happy to have my name on the list as I have already entered into negotiations with Craig Britton and continued them for a couple of years. I also hope you put the Peters property on the list as I think it should be clear that that is an area that you want to acquire. Taking off all of the other scared Skyline residents will greatly improve your public relations position. I also think you need to do something on a public relations basis with Skyline residents. Too often your representatives have been regarded as having a callous heavy-handed attitude toward home- owners. Whether or not this was intended, it exists, and I do Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Page Two March 5, 1985 believe the damage can be repaired with a little effort. An apology letter to all of the homeowners on the "list" would be a good start. A statement of policy that the District has no present intention to condemn any occupied home would be extremely helpful. An invitation to meetings set up by the District where you could explain your policies and general plan would be helpful as well . At the meetings, you want to establish an attitude of listening to what the residents ' concerns are . Since y, GE H. NORTON GHN:rk � Bo� -\ssa 20225 Skyline Blvd. , Wr lde* CA ��O�2 � ' ^mx� � V�lZITl�T (%)��L�|I(�� D Board of Directors Meeting 85-I4 "^ Midpen)nsula Regional Upnespace District �one 5, I985 375 0isLe\ Circle � Los Altos, CA � I June lq8� Re: Land Acquisition Policies. � .' ' Dear Directors* The purpose of this letter is to add arguements to my already presented opinions regarding the present land acquisition policies that we are in the process of reformulating. 1 . Eminent Domain. My already stated opinion: BUY ONLY FROM WILLING SELLERS. reasons: a. Eliminate the fear and intimidation that the power of condemnation has on parsons. b' Since the District is so well along in its land acquisition goals the mem6 for this power is really unnessary. c. Our dollar goes further dealing with willing sellers. d. Any further use of the power will only add more nmgetYve public feeling towards The District. 2. Area of acquisition. My already stated opinion: PURCHASE ONLY WITIHIN DISTRICT BOUNDERIES. reasons a' The public voted on a finite district. Purchasing outside of the district reduces our feeling that you are representing us and are spending our mon- ey "away from home" b, concentrate your resmmrses and manpower to improve the i6stricL from with- in. Seek out willing sellers within the district and deal with them. 3` � x already stated up o �n' Annexation. M 7 l ANNEX AREAS BY POPULAR VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE WITHIN THE AREA OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION. | reasons: a. Adding land outside of the finite bomnderies of the district gives the impression that we are "land grabbers". b. Annexation without voters approval , even though it may be for specific � district owned properties or with approval of other privately held prop- erties causes other adjacent private holdings to become neighbors of the district without their say in the process. The perception is that the district is an umoeba* slowely inQulflng th~~l-hey become adversary neighbors. 4. The Brown Act.My already stated mpiniun: : | stand behind the South Skyline Letter on this subject but more succinctly: O3 � ,° . ' � reasons: a. Don' t try to find ways to circumvent the law* even zho^th they may be tech- nically legal . Thera is some distruet of the District Board of Directors � because of the amount of secret closed sessions that take place. True this � is the nature of a land acquisition agency but because (bf the makeup ufthe � Board of Directors many feel that they are left out of the process. � b. Since the Board consists of Directors who have been serving� since the district � was formed, who were originally oppu>nteJ and reelected (some already � on their f��th term) there is a generally accepted feeling that the Board � ' ` is closed and ingrown in their 6ecYslnm making. That outside ideas are hard to come by' .8y limiting the directors to two terms and not resigning pr6or to the termination of their term and appointing a new director chances would � be available for other "outsiders" to become part of the Board of Directors. � This would lessen the concern that many feel that the public is being left � out. Concern that the letter of the Brown act is not being fb4)4)owed would � be lessened if an "outsider is on the B(bard and participating in secret sessions � � In review, and Dan was right (as usual) "all of these items intermingle. for example: A vote to annex to the district would have a chance of passing because the electorate would know that their property would never'-be cendemned. Others who would want to sell to the district would be in favor of annexation because they would have to be in the idstrict in order to sell to the district. The Zistrict could grow, wanted properties outside of the C strict could be added and the goals of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District could be achived with my changes in the land acquisition policies. The majority of the District. Advisories are not an ti MROSD. They are Anti the Boards land acquisition policies. The district can be an asset and a great one, to its neighbors if we can work together. Few want our area to be overbuilt. Most relish the open space Around us I truly believe that if the Districts land acquisition policies are not drastically changed that there will be an increasing anti public sentement towards the district. By incompassing my ideas I feel that many, many of the present district advesaries would become fervant district supporters. That our district can and will gxtew to the benefit all of us working together. p,uv- ca kr Sincerely Bob Fisse COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR 6 1985 APRIL 11.E 1985 WORKSHOP 22400 Skyline Blvd. #21 . La Honda. Ca. 94020 April i3 , 1985 MROSD Board of Directors 375 Distel Circe Los Altos. Ca. 94022 Dear Members of the Board , MROSD was created by action of the voters in Santa Clara County in 1972. Four years later portions of San Mateo County were annexed into the district, also b y ballot vote . Since then the district has been expanded by numerous small annexations contiguous to their boundry line. The 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 through the election process. It is erroneous to assume that the areas neighboring the district, where the aquisitions and annexations are taking place are unaffected and deserve no voice in the issue. The district 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 landowners understand what the sphere of influence really is or that such 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 re, ect_ the. distrk,et: If annexed into the district these areas should.. camobine with, arlis of similar interests to constitute a new .wzirdl(tith an elect representative to the board. If not annexed th,e district sId restrict their purchases to within their current boundry. would relieve L.AFCO of the burden of dealing with numerous small annexations. It would help clarify the issue of the districts plans for the sphere of influence areas and allow shoes areas some say in the plans. Sin rely, Carol J. Daase ce. L_AFCO, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara Board of Supervisors , San Mateo County Janet Schwind , S.S.A. Jim Warren, P.C.A. Assemblyman Naylor Senator Morgan COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR APRlL 17 185 WORKSHOP ;,LPpk Quinto Ranch Star Route 2' Box 310 La Honda, Calif. 94020 � April 12' 1985 Board of Directors � � }liJpeninoula Regional Open Space District � � 375 Diotel Circle, Suite DOl � � Imu Altos, Calif. �823 . � � Dear Board Members: � � T6ioQo 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, ooueootinn and outside boundary acquisition through public workshops is certainly a cause for our greater tr"ot. 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, ''Iket seems like o reasonable suggestion, Mr. Smith. It will be noted in the minutes of this meeting and . . . (action) will take place by , . ^ , (date)! " You don' t lose control and the citizen feels that his ideas are of some value. nI hear you" is like a kiss from e fence post! I hear the plaintive cry, "Stop the cheap ahotm! /' ` street! - For instance, when your Craig Britton says in a public meetio � �--------- Dul��o told me he was hoping to make a million dollars on his division of Russian ' Did�e Ranch," many took �6e remark a y that profit was a dishonest motive in the United States! Bow ridiculous and immature for your Acquisition Manager to imply such foolishness and tlo6 such a "cheap shot. " We realize you have to defend your staff in public. It may be well to talk to Crench, Britton and Boneoo along the lines—that the Board 8oco not relish the image of insensitivity, that you nin6 to protect the little guy and respect the minority and avoid confrontation! Zc 'a a little strange giving advice like this, but I hope I am being construc- tive. The Board only loses face and you dig yourselves in deeper by not addressing the legitimate concerns of your neighbors with compassion and jj��tc�! The road to PorLoIo Heights is o great example. Iboao people are expressing valid concerns. They certainly never innioa8ed o '/2ark/' sharing their road with 600'000 '/cnoatituento, // Then comes CranJ 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 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 pomer," the closer you come to losing the war! � -2- Now to summarize outstanding problems: 1) Condemnation. Little more can be gained by further worksho" 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 incollusion with M.R.O.S.D. to circumvent your boundaries the public is not h�ppy. 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, f 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 APRIL 17, 1985 L-.IORKSHOP 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 Communications received for April 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. 5Ut3T c--r; EhTN,5A,-r 17A-7W roAPk'_rSs 1)0 NoT 800 CO PRESSUP-C TO DP-CP Usc oP- E17rA;, Nr b �iA=M. �W i 5 s5 A Cf?3.-rI CAL F-ctAL TaOL TO GET A COHES-Z-V, Eav�'DA�Y li 1 o�ys FA=(Z PQ.zCc. IF -You DRIP T-wc-s 'U001-) YOU Wrk ac Sc�83Ecz- roYXPEtis��E ''ff�i� -c�v 's. o i1Z;C A5 A 1-A-S-r PZESCP_T.. Kszy' �k1L O G.EVE �ZFG-Li%'NG Gi��2tJ/�'T VSEnMTD C�-rFEN7' 0WNE1-S $ND -r&A)r-)A-TS (WA;- Cc'P.. t-P- 1Tx-C-Vi: ,r o C-:r !a-YEAS c�sP-�?Enrt U5C7 70 cvRlZcti)T OWtiEP_� AND TEtiANrSCCOP_Pcpl}T�c�g15.�� 1 �(1 S) 72E '375 n k cc�� 9YC/3 com"lu".IC 1,J- 85-0� io , 0 rl?7, ciwm r7 p n )'-rLco n llz4on4y nr(l, not 4o lont7 qt,,o, ai W7A 10 p4o,fOt of P71 01 9(117 i,—m !in� i --nvila! C. ,lo lov,-4o f",af. 7�,? .lanrI4 cf)uAl a�,40 Pllovirl�- C�OJ�' lo 4o-nl, •wd of doolz ?,-cAea,4ion, oppelz- -11A.ouA innovative and ar4l inirdod in it'j conc.- ion,, the d4f/ti.Ct jee-T-i 4io have been rz44imi laded im& .4,,he Jqjtm and Aa4 now become /w/zY of the /'—r, thCq U,*-/?, 10 40&e. .'I/C4 of the can, Santa rIz,q 'O,mtain a,7(?a i4 /zan.c4 aryl aural 7AeAt, azo la,,u*lq4 uAo have omned .theist pzope1rtie-4 /o/z qeneqaUonA. -�4 P7,, ol! /tanc' jiqn,4 corm d01117 an' AP nCCe44a4q %�,GSJ Jie;naQ,e j led ` tyre jj jr, la� Cfl(ZlaC-i'7/Z of the 17.1ea Chlmt�pj' 5.e 'I'lliel colmlp'y IZOO(14 1)ecome- burdened tm;y; % open jmce.j at,, paved �olz paz�inq and uwr e -lccii. . Ae publi c, uii A Aeiyz m llfilrle o! 4,oeriaL ir-ielze4t4, ove,7,,zun. Ae.land aj the acc,?,jj inczeajej. /'Izivale .lanr' ounezj uAo wiA to IrA",?Izve open jrace, qel cb) not lep.l .it nPC044qqq OP, 'Vi4e 10 have 1461 Or-'On JraC,? &nll ava/jble t0 .the public and tndez and ,7vnaqP,,?onl plan a,,?e 'pui in an aalwriArl Pojiiion. '-'a n I; uk) tvpvte content u,�44A ;t;.(? .landa4 i�4 yu4 have wrle ailempi4 4o imptove -thej/z lmopeA.tie4 a,) zej,wnr-e Yo n,70-active aqttiji#ion m(),7,?am in the a2(7a. .1V;1-AOuqA ii ;,i on,. q now .that the ij c-onjirleltino poticy 'moloc"tion, of i,t Aa4 on 51,t i .that a� Ottnel hwl 6eliez build and/wz ma e iml--4overr rd4 qui C'I, O/Z could and uvuM iale the .land �Oq baigin pltice'j. the m7x)unt of dev,t',.,p-nenl Planned 4ince 1"e4ence ha4 been fell in 1.1te azea Aould 6e 4IIM'cien,4 to i.lZ,mlfide .the Real elplect4 tv�ich aze the ieju.lJ- of .the mean !?q Sze di4bzic-i io accompliA the.i,z goal4. 11 Aa4 6ecome-, in rwzl, a 4eLt- P2()Ce44. The (64tAi& claim4 i.t )64 ujed .the of eminent dotraine 4pa,,zinq the 4noidedie that i'e Aaj the potrx?,,z, emph"i�ed bq Vie in4inua. .i.on4 u4c precludeo n of arfusliq onpacoo TAP poynq. The immilicaRonA 0; 01maliq jyjain'; it, SYNN Ave the ottnWre,lijonl little oplion, than 10 4elive AVON Conlemnalion ptoceeNno,l Oninq cannied To comnleation. . f4iond rx)inlpal out fo rre That eminent domaine il quile /ite the bomb. One. near' oniq 1palinn demonOnatioal of &A powes, after WWO the TWA of me, We-d lip mesa eQ4112nCe 0! The PoWel & AUfficient 10 pao;Yuce the SAW el/eN. In it, cam 0! MITS9 the luxaenrle,4 of plopens e4 pen� , dite To �ean o� I,hein inevitable lom iA TAP W&W SAN. The expanNon of NNOSO in the OqKne anew combined 1AW the bnow!nlae of ",'2GSTj potivelz o! eminent domaineW AN a 4obeAZT1 e4le& upon ffany Aa4 not enleAvl the nNqUo6oal with the jenNe Aelpecl be'lifting .its a4ANN a4 the new ,ztdirt,?, &4ce bq /"wen iaheove-,z. teen aquili-tion, come #h nasqe4A, MITI Ovin low in nuKes, hint in yo'We yoqAam. (btdonanco-4 1011Pqn to .the wisa,l lbjloniCajl,I, aZp Ua/WP,,,4M. Wa famed ja?o q1tol, azlA,)j e( I , /) 7,)c7,1 .4191u,,1 'zoTealion mz4t be !ouqll fon. oltn-/Z,l noacl Wnn,livolq, 01,1q4 One 40M&Ave. '041 !avoz the concept Oqce Zaml AN qqOJKOn X194 aWPAKvP umi,lition 1>zo�:zam and non- ti-le and n7nagenonJ plan. Some find the doll-14,j and dea.l,j can. opfen Onlicinq, ej,nzciallq i- 10, alt,?,,utaliv�, ij a pao,zaO.&Y unjucceful ne,0620ona.4 OAK -venfualiq veal A OTORal dommino plocending, 0,1, o1l-,14 have been lucr-e4lodly 400 TO fleonq Mal d loccaale i4 an,/ m---Yzn.j to achieve itl comple0ion 14 acceptable. The lame tleoAq nafionaWyol the um ol .the bomb. In mtj heazl I do -v,, IWAr n an,othen Mal. I Gel eve alucati.on and mx comrtil cation anl coopoza-tion. ane the 6P-4 r mean too 4eaching a goal. The AQ 1=9 have 'Pon We to pooduce an excellent oape, Aecool of account sheet.- and accuin- ulaiel acesais. Abarven, Seq have al,lo meafed anNNo4ify People Jo we4e aillin -9 A Y1170 010 4"CA a dOWN Sava been alieoqhk Aq 51074 " may lyle" sit'? 17 oven of TAP anew. TO IeApenaip !_w,,jA ukicl /ea,/ To "1YS9',j concoplion- 4aj been j,ic(S94Q. T4eAp anq now oven ISrrO -.Lczej ()I 'V Y) lands alone. l believe the 6oa,-,d liould con2l.1,41ye Sminyva,l, heave a Kqk o! Adief On Sit piO, Then 40be Spin APYA clean and We a NO SO at The way 11014 ane now. 4,,j 1 am not a ne.4irlonl in. an uz6an anoa. and I 4a4elq 4?PA nocneationaj open 4pice expenjence-4 in .the AQW4 on lootAWN anea,l, I am not pe44onally &Klw will the pe4enve4 any 07011am,l in lhoe,l anna, IV leelinq 0, Sourven, , That They 'ale quUn mccempty. a,4,1um9fio.,z ttoulry (,)e ?out 44010 ate mote '941 Val" than blast -wz4,j on .the 40100A plant. I feed N 4"c' a Kod Wele MAN Orl; 10, gold 'Ita,"'i 1"'"Uld pae'yomin ppllq ')e in columns Walinq to n7o4sav2A w'u*cA ale nenne, to tie alban a4eaA. 0 tows An sonv 401400,4, amo,,,n-,, I"t- lo,,ze o_1?,.,iou,-j i4 ,pleas accsaaib<1 Mere 24P 0104 ANZWON Q 4scce44 Pat an, ao, Aebled to plydica? a4pecV. Tke.ne is a '"Ilcioloqio-zl Colon a7uunq undlanip?d poop& TAe/ze AQ ane uncon.,iciou4.1y unde"Z'llood and arcepIed, �tml as !on jet and co7aw.,Iel 4-cI ba4irze'J'i i4 no l()nqe,7 an anea 49aci&r item. The cortilaal Noin pKIRM pioxiiliq of people, pj0jQpo4eA Kem to accqolarce of and b"c of p1blic Zjn&4. 71e atinal aneaj ane culfuia/l, diflenen?. TO r"qCological d0lmiiiort of the coll"Ifil poop-le i4 not tindeijtoo--< !,q Ike mr7"jonilq of the cilq dup4fl"'j and "ban Aq,W44peoplv. Aesp is a veiq 41norl And 4pecific identi firntion on a veyj P0140nal level. I'anq Ivinal a,4ilontj 2rzvo a !ool in 6ofk ut)n1f1,,j. Tie,1 undelt&tand un.!'an;7zlion and have in /7zai AeAdenh piscieve Ike diAxicl a_j Aninginq Ike 11160ni?Ajon to them any 10 the jaMy'l wkick k'ZI been "CourdAy". TORP arcs MIA of the counhq 10044 6eco"KAJ lecleal.ionly Inaffic Jaw any .the eventual 4olqVioi Wnq Win nx.viaNcz to Tione a,z,a 'fea,,zj iAai cwwt Ae' ,till 1,ecol, an obwle!e lean, Arplacp 6y open jracr, juji as asial comet to connote anclealional. TV inAvidugA woo comsWe :the sqnQ, coinlaq rx;pilaUon aWyl "role e0locl in the anea. Thoop No an-ap 'l biven off will Q a44imilafod AP qnrafe.a uihaniyl 414W. 7 im'T)lone q,)!I, of IN 60011, to 4PYf imme an aluOilion tpq Bend r4ajq pailloq On 111 Altk?ll dejeaved vacation. ia.1,e time to rano"'I"lq conWes the namilication. of Vona pjqa4! A qou could proceed adonq qo", ymeaf coqn4e. 70, time to neview and evaluate all the planning anea. See i! C4717,12qJ COY111 PAPOWPI Q Made AN NOW HIM IsAven the diAnic-0 and abo ye.Aeave Ike 'obnomenon of aural, "Co-labol" oilttae in -the anea. Al the venq inimirn each and Pvell One Ol you VOW We Ike time 10 PpoAonallq and lknouv% ion, fie aneaAt and Vj,j'4, with fie people jeje PO4,61e' in Ike a7pwi Opfze !itl,tne aqnjitioa 4eemi 04inalle. 30pebliq if 9VI have a beRP.,z a,'La-zeno. ,ji o! the Paejeni uje4 of the anea and even Ike 4AqUeif tindeajiandin� of ihe nonninel coil WY1 will not be if) anxiouj An the anea to become a ps, of the open 4pace/ necloasiona? NOW J too anallen Wan Sinceaelfl' 2109 Shqjine AN. V J►� to R }\\\�1►\1 may.. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I. DATE: June 11, 1985 SACRAOLNTO ADDRESS State Capitol Rf " Sacramento,California 95814 (916)445-8188 )4 DISTRICT OFFICE San Carlos City Hall Second Floor 666 Elm Street ,yea- I,,+�r San Carlos,CA 94070 &Ufarnin lKeg L.�++�ka e (415)591-5544 ROBERT W. NAYLOR ASSEMBLYMAN. TWENTIETH DISTRICT June 4 1985 Mr. Herb Grench Executive Director MROSD 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Herb: I have been pleased to follow the ongoing positive communi- cations between the MROSD and its neighbors over a variety of issues. My hope is that the District, individual neighbors, citizen groups, and other governmental entities will come to a mutually accep- table resolution of the outstanding issues. It is my understanding that the issues under discussion include, among others; (1) the eminent domain power; (2) LAFCO jurisdiction; (3) out-of-district annex- ations and acquisitions; (4) public notice of properties under consider- ation for acquisition. Some issues may be resolved through policy determinations, while others may require legislation. I stand ready to introduce legislation, if necessary, on these and other issues. Please feel free to call upon me for assistance. I hope to work with the District and its neighbors on issues of concern to both. Your communication is always highly valued and appreciated. Sincerely, ROSE W. NAYLOR RWN:af cc: Board of Directors, MROSD Way 22, 1985 The Country Almanac 19 IN OUR OPINION .y not aloe up , con e hobo tTowerOne major step which the ist t 7 e di ric couid well. ' P t take is to forego use of condemnation.It might even ' TH E BE]L g � EA GUERED . ask Assemblyman Mid a Bob Na for to car a i n t n sbill to strip u la Py carry P i Regional Open S ace District h the district of such P as been fighting ch ower, rather than a ill t hti b o call n of l glancing g s f P , y g c�ng blows from a number of directions.But th for a disannexation election. e alienation of a -< t. dwersity of constituencies because of Let's Look at what is at risk: f a series of circumstances and bloopers, certainly • In terms of purchases;the district has never t: makes.long-standing-,fnends-,of the district have e once gone to condemnation.. some deep concerns.,,.' • Facts prove public agencies pay more when Demolition of`the Hassler Health Home was condemnations come up before juries to decide the decided on with seemingly little regard for the kinds Price. of opposition which would ensue. Publication of a . • The district's staff insists it never has (and list of ever y conceivable (and a few inconceivable) t never will) hold condemnation over heads of acquisition targets.threw a shadow across many Prospective sellers as a threat. hundre ds of privately owned names a � • In the rare event that district. and acreages. , e e a s purchase is ` Some district directors now agree this"hit"list was being undertaken to block development (which , needles s and universally misunderstood. raises a whole series of other questions about a - Residents of the Skyline area Particularly,are single-purpose agency), then clean it could lobby Pa e Y Y Y. Tallying 'support for- so me P P e stringent curbs on the the zoning body. It could rally public support to, power of this giant neighbor" each,of the make the"development ment less onerous. m_ . . must P . . . .: t confront. • I f a r rt owplanning�- M p ape y her is to do And in the,«executive swtes something deleterious of to MROSD s adjacent I developers, g1 open ,'I than ofe w Ii s a re b i P e rig smacked thinking of space.preserves;. the-district still,has the same ` the possibilities }if the district were- to be ` access to courts' for civil._remedy,�as any other.; dismembered or seriously.weakened, property owner. Givingu condemnation .. `p power could do much . , There is general agreement that the district's tct prove that the district really isn't the ogre some accomplishments to date have been significant and accuse it of being. .'- needed.Perhaps the old saw about not being able to And along the line, less-frightened neighbors I make an omelette`without k shattering the eggshells will begin to see that open space preservation is is relevant. But with two thirds of the district's long ' very much in their interest as it is in the interest of term land goats already reached, perhaps it is time those living far from the wooded trails and rolling to do some rethinking about the way business is meadows saved for all of us for all time. carried out. , 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM May 21 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ad Hoc Committee to Formulate Alternative Policies: Harry Turner, Dick Bishop, Nonette Hanko SUBJECT: Use of Eminent Domain Dear Colleagues : The Committee makes no .recommendation regarding policies, how- ever, presents a list of possible policies for full Board consideration. Some policies stand alone, while others are related. Alternative policies for Eminent Domain are grouped (such as 3a, 3b, 3c) . Please note that some alternatives are compatible with one another, and "Issues" have been recognized. Also attached is a separate policy on arbitration, and an "Agree- ment" which could implement policy #9 of Eminent Domain. We recommend that the Board consider the Eminent Domain Policy and that the workshop format be continued. Wednesday, June 5 at 7 : 30 P.M. is a suggested date and time. Once the Board has chosen from the list of policies, the Committee is willing to redraft them into more concise and compatible form. II DRAFT 5/15/85 POSSIBL-E- POLICIES ON USE OF EMINENT- DOINIAIN 1. Interests in land shall be purchased only from willing sellers . 2. If owner has clearly indicated a willingness to sell property, but there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion on the price to be paid for the property, based on an appraisal which the District has obtained from a professional appraiser, the District may utilize eminent domain to acquire the property, subject to all legal requirements.. Issue: How is "clearly indicated" to be demonstrated by staff? 3a. In negotiations or discussions with landowners , District staff shall not threaten eminent domain. 3b. In negotiations or discussions with landowners , District staff shall not, without prior Board approval , threaten eminent domain. 3c. If the subject of eminent domain is raised, District staff may explain relevant law and District policies. 4a. Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an occu- pied parcel developed to its legal density. 4b. Eminent domain may not be used by the District for the partial acquisi- tion of an occupied parcel , unless there is a subdivision initiated or a division of ownership of contiguous land under one ownership on May 1, 1985 . 4c. . Eminent domain may be used by the District for the partial acquisition of the undeveloped portion of an occupied parcel , provided: A. the residence and surrounding lands of reasonable size shall be exempt, and B. the owner shall be entitled to retain such easements as are needed for reasonable access and use of property. 5. Eminent domain may be used when requested or consented to by the land- owner. 6. Eminent domain may 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, and where there are no feasible current or prospective acquisitions that would achieve the District's objective . 7. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these policies , eminent domain may be used to acquire improved or unimproved land : A. If a subdivision application is filed or division of ownership is recorded to create more than one additional parcel or ownership, or B. if more than one (1) subdivision application is filed or division of ownership is recorded within ten (10) years for any contiguous land under one ownership on May 1 , 1985. S. Eminent domain may be used to acquire a portion of improved property to connect two or more District parcels, subject to legal requirements and the following conditions: page 2 A. The District Board finds that the property is necessary to provide a trail connection between the parcels , and B. The District has been unable by voluntary means to acquire land to connect the parcels with a safe and useful trail , including somewhat longer and less convenient trail routes , and C. The land for the connecting trail shall not ordinarily exceed 100 feet in width , and shall be as far from any existing residence and as close to the property line as practicable, and D. The owner shall have the opportunity to designate any additional portions of his/her land which may be included by the District in the acquisition, and I E. The owner shall be entitled to retain an easement over the land acquired by the District, where necessary, for access to the land retained by the owner. Issue: This policy applies to improved property only. If applied to unimproved property, above requirements should be modified. 9. The District shall encourage open space easements or contracts with landowners to assist in the continued preservation of private open space lands . Issue: Application of contract apply to vacant and/or occupied land? 10 . Policies pursuant to restraint of the use of eminent domain shall be adopted by ordinance, legally noticed and freely publicized. Definitions -. a. occupied. . .six months a year minimum b. improved—includes occupied legal or legally non-conforming residences and excludes trailers , mobile homes, and temporary structures. Page 3 In a" Cases in %,hicil ei%inent 0 tin procecdings have been coai;wn-,.-eC, , the D-' st,_-.i (-t -,hall Offer to arijit-rate the issue of reasonable value , in a binding arbitration, under the following rules and procedures: 1 . Within ten days after the adoption of a resolu- tion of necessity, the District shall. notify the property owner of its offer to arbitrate. 2 . The owner will -have thirty days after receiving :lotice in which to accept or reject said offer. If said offer is not accepted in writing by the owner within thirty days, the offer to arbitrate shall be deemed rejected and %.!ithdr,-,,.,n, and the matter shall proceed as a court case, as provided by law. 3 . If the offer to arbitrate is accepted in writing within said thirty day period, arbitration shall proceed as provided by law. 4 . There shall be three arbitrators. The District and the owner shall each appoint an arbitrator, and the two said arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator. If they cannot agree, the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the County in which the subject land is situated. 5. Each party shall pay the fees and expenses. of the arbitrator which it appoints, and each party shall pay half of the fees and expenses of the third arbitrator. 6 . Arbitration shall then proceed according to the Provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 7 . The arbitration award shall have the same effect as a judgment of a court of law in an entinent domain proceeding CGP. part 3, Title Vll. Chapt. 11 M-85-95 -14 (Meeting 85 June 5, 1985) MII)PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM June 4 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: N. Hanko, R. Bishop, and- H. Turner SUBJECT: Second Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use of Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amend- ments, Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries, and Annexation The Committee has completed its present charge and presents the attached policy alternatives for your consideration regarding the Brown Act, acqui- sition outside District boundaries , and annexation. (2) BROWN !sClp COMPLIANCE pOSS B POL I C-F E 1 . Retain list of 695 names (no changes except updating and corrections) 2 . Retain list but delete the following as requested by owner: a. occupied residential parcels , or b. improved parcels, or C. any parcel 3 . Retain list, but agree not to discuss parcels in closed session unless agreed to by "owner a. occupied residential parcels , or b. improved parcels , or C. any parcel 4 . Withdraw the current list and adopt a new list which includes all property owners who give written consent to be on the list. Any property owner may be removed upon owner's written request. Future additions to the list shall be treated as follows : a. informational memo in packet b. subject parcels and the names of their owners shall be printed on the published agenda C. emergency additions shall be orally announced at the beginning of the public meeting d. minutes of the public portion of the meeting shall reflect all such emergency additions 5 . Withdraw the entire current list and: a. list the parcels and owners names on the published agenda for that meeting' s closed session b. orally announce at the beginning of the public meeting any emergency additions . C. minutes shall reflect the names and parcels of all such addition!, d. written notice shall be given to the property owner which shall be mailed at least 5 days prior to the meeting at which the property is discussed. In all emergency situations , staff shall attempt to contact the property owner by telephone. 6 . Withdraw the entire current list and discontinue discussion of nego- tiations in closed session. 7 . Policies adopted by the Board shall be publicized. Manner of publicizing shall be determined by Board after policies are adopted. 8 . Wrif-e an explanatory letter to all landowners or tenants whom the District has good reason to believe. wbre offended by the initial list. Definition Request District will make request forms available to any landowner. (3) POSSIBLE POIJCIES FOR CONSIDERATION Acquisition of Lan(].-, Outside District Boundary and Related Policies 1 . No lands shall be acquired by the District outside the boundary of the District. 2 . Where land ownership lies both within and outside District boundary, such lands may be acquired by the District. 3 . District may consider acquisition of lands within its adopted sphere of influence. 4 . A. District shall limit its acquisitions to lands wholly within the District boundary or the adopted sphere of influence. B. District shall limit its acquisitions to lands wholly or partially within the District boundary or the adopted sphere of influence. 5. There shall be no extension of the adopted sphere boundary unless A. LAFCO approval only B. LAFCO and voter approval of the entire District 6 . In establishing routes for. trails , the District shall respect the privacy of developed communities . Annexation of Lands to District 1 . All annexation shall be according to State law and LAFCO procedures. 2. All annexations to the District shall be approved by the voters of the entire District. 3 . All annexations shall be approved by property owners of land to be annexed. 4 . All annexations shall be approved by property owners adjacent to lands proposed for annexation. 5. The District shall consider annexation of lands owned by the District or in which the District owns a legal right. 6 . The District will consider annexation of parcels or land area initiated by LAFCO or by petition. Definitions District boundary - The legal boundary of the District, including the original District plus subsequent annexations. Sphere of influence - An area somewhat larger in four places than the area within District boundaries. Adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission as the places where extension of the District boundaries through annexation might logically occur in the foreseeable future. b .�aaaaaaa � �. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 D{STEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-i LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 V ....... .... MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL ©PEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I. DATE: June 11 , 1985 I . i May , e Country Almanac 19 � 22 1985 The C l I IN OUR OPINION n uy of give p .w 71 cohdem nation 1 p0we� One,major step which the district could well, t take is to forego use of condemnation.it might even ' THE BELEAGUERED M i d pe n i n s u la ask Assemblyman Bob Naylor to carry a bin to strip Regional Open Space District has been fighting off the district of such power, rather than a bill to call glancing blows from a number of directions.But the for a disannexation election. alienation of a diversity of constituencies because of Let's look at what is at risk: a series of circumstances and bloopers, certainly • In terms of purchases,the district has never makes.long-standing-friends of the'district have' once gone to condemnation. * some deep concerns: • Facts prove public agencies pay more when Demolition of the Hassler Health Home seas condemnations come up before juries to decide the decided on with seemingly little regard for the kinds price. of opposition which would ensue. Publication of a • The district's staff insists it never has (and list of every conceivable (and a few inconceivable) riever will) hold condemnation over heads of acquisition targets threw a shadow across many prospective sellers as a threat. hundreds of privately owned homes and acreages. • In the rare event that a district purchase is Some district directors now agree this"hit"list was being undertaken to block development (which needless and universally misunderstood. raises a whole series of other questions about a Residents of the Skyline area particularly,are single-purpose agency), then clearly it could lobby rallying support for some stringent curbs on the the zoning body. It could rally public support to power of this giant ",neighbor" each of them must _ make the development less onerous. t confront: • If a- property owner is planning to do G s are being more than a few And in the executive suites of developers, something deleterious to MROSD's adjacent open p g smacked thinking of - space preserve$; the district still has the same .a the possibilities -if the district were to be access to courts for civil.remedy;';as any other,:,' dismembered or seriously weakened. _ property owner. Giving up condemnation powercoulddo much :. There is general agreement that the district's tQ prove that the district really isn't the ogre some accomplishments to date have been significant and ° accuse it of being. M` needed.Perhaps the old saw about not being able to F: And along the dine, less-frightened neighbors make an omelette"without shattering the eggshells will begin to see that open space preservation is is relevant. But with two thirds of the district's long '= very much in their interest as it is in the interest of term land goals already reached, perhaps it is time those living far from the wooded trails and rolling to do some rethinking about the way business is meadows saved for all of us for all time. carried out. 86 Subprogram 84-85 84-85 85�p-0o86 8- - - Pro ect ( 11 } 84-85 P nses tenses protcfget sed Contin,d Notes & Cast Basis of Budgeted Amounts Bud et _ _ L 457 SITE OPERATION, - -- -- - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - MAINT=CE & REPAIR f Ol Structures/Exterior 02 Structures/Interior 03 Electrical - 04 Water Suer/Septic - - _ - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 06 Heating 07 Parking Area 08 Roads I 09 Trails -� I 15 Protective Barriers 12 Signs ._ _• ._ - .. w .,. ... .� .. ... _ ... w - - - - ..� i 16 Resource Management �7:7 Miscellaneous ~, . 458 PROPERTY TAXES {ti 459.1 MISCELLANEWS - I t J O AL-SERV ICES AND SUPPLIES