Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19991110 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 99-27 Rqfie .. -ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 99-27 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 10, 1999 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California AGENDA* 7:30 ROLL CALL REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Public ADOPTION OF AGENDA *** ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR-J.Cyr BOARD BUSINESS 7:35 1 Consideration of a District Policy Regarding the Potential Use of Eminent Domain in the San Mateo County Coastal Area Under Consideration for Annexation; Review and Comment on the November 3, 1999 Letter from Supervisor Rich Gordon, Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) Chair, and On the Discussions and Public Comment at the October 26, 1999, CAC Meeting Regarding the District's Use of Eminent Domain in the San Mateo County Coastal Area Under Consideration for Annexation; Consideration of Adoption of Policy Requiring That Any District Acquisitions on the Coastside be From Willing Sellers Only, Without The Use of Eminent Domain; Provide Direction to the District's General Counsel to Research and Develop a Process for Ensuring That This Policy is Secure and Permanent; Provide Direction to Staff to Initiate Work on the Administrative Procedures for Applying to the Local Agency Formation Commission For an Annexation, Including the Preparation of a Service Plan, Financial Analysis, and Environmental Documentation; and Request That the CAC Continue to Meet and to Address and Make Recommendations on the Remaining Policy Issues It Was Charged With Reviewing (Land Acquisition Methods and Agricultural Preservation) - C. Britton *** 2 Cancellation of November 24, 1999 Regular Meeting and Scheduling of a Special Meeting for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors for November 17, 1999 - C. Britton 31,0 Drtel Circle - Ios Alton, CA 94022-1404 Phone: 050-091-1200 FAX:050-091 0485 * F mail Web site:www.openspace.or� Roam w tire(her Pete Siemens "O'n ( . D,Iv(ry,led(yr, I)rane l ittle None°tte t Linko, f;et,y ( r vder, Kenneth Nit/ a Ge nor,rt h1 uaa}3er:l t r u. ..._ q Riiltun w Meeting 99-27 Page 2 *** 3 Award of Contract for Drainage and Surfacing Improvements to Parking Lots Located at Los Trancos, Russian Ridge, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves; Authorization for the General Manager to Enter into Contract with Andreini Bros., Inc. of Half Moon Bay in the Amount of $53,850, for Drainage and Surfacing Improvements to Three Parking Lots Located at Los Trancos, Russian Ridge, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves; and Authorization for the General Manager to Approve Incremental Change Orders or Unit Price Additions in Excess of the Bid in An Amount Not to Exceed $15,000 For Items Not Identified in the Base Bid But Anticipated as Part of the Overall Project-J. Cahill 8:45 INFORMATIONAL REPORTS- Brief Reports or announcements concerning activities of District. Directors and Staff 9:00 ADJOURNMENT * Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. ** TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. *** All items on the consent calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed form the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. Regional Open .ice 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-99-143 Meeting 99-27 November 10, 1999 AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a District Policy Regarding the Potential se of Eminent Domain in the San Mateo County Coastal Area Under Consideration for exation GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Review and comment on the November 3, 1999 letter from Supervisor Rich Gordon, Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) Chair, and on the discussions and public comment at the October 26, 1999 CAC meeting regarding the District's potential use of eminent domain in the San Mateo County coastal area under consideration for annexation. 2) Consider adopting a policy that would require that any District acquisitions on the coastside be from willing sellers only,without the use of eminent domain. 3) Direct the District's general counsel to research and develop a process for ensuring that this policy is secure and permanent(such as through the Local Agency Formation Commission process). 4) Direct staff to initiate work on the administrative procedures for applying to Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for an annexation, including the preparation of a service plan, financial analysis, and environmental documentation. 5) Request the CAC to reconvene for the purpose of determining whether or not the existing CAC process is suitable for discussion of the remaining policy issues and, if deemed not suitable, recommend alternative processes that might be employed. BACKGROUND At your meeting of June 24, 1998, you declared your intent to form a Coastal Advisory Committee with responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board on certain District policies as they relate to the coastal area of San Mateo County under consideration for possible annexation into the District (see report R-98-81). The policies to be reviewed were those regarding land acquisition, eminent domain, and agricultural use. The CAC has been having regular public meetings since February 1999,primarily discussing the District's policy of eminent domain and what that policy might be within the area under consideration for annexation. 330 Distel Circle . Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 . Phone:650-691-1200 ISO FAX:650-691-0485 . E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org . Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britton R-99-143 Page 2 DISCUSSION At its meeting of October 26, 1999 members of the CAC discussed their positions on eminent domain, but did not succeed in reaching a consensus; there remains a wide division on the CAC regarding this issue. Some members of the CAC expressed their deep and continuing concerns about the potential use of eminent domain on the coastside by the District, and noted that without eminent domain the District would be welcomed. For some it is an issue of individual property rights, noting that they resent the ability of the District (or any public agency) to potentially obtain their land through condemnation. Others said that they haven't been shown why the District really needs eminent domain on the coastside, especially in light of the fact that there are other districts that are successfully preserving land without the option of using this tool, such as districts in Sonoma and Marin counties. Other members of the CAC stated that any decisions about eminent domain policy cannot be concluded without first looking at the other two policy issues (land acquisition and agricultural use) on the CAC's agenda. These members felt strongly that the process that was originally outlined for the work of the CAC has not been followed and that the District Board should consider postponing any decisions on eminent domain until the other policy issues are settled. While some noted that limited use of eminent domain might have value, they are not able to take a firm position on this issue in the absence of decisions on the other two policy issues. Public comment at the October 26 meeting was also mixed, reflecting the diversity of opinions on whether eminent domain should be an available tool. The opinions included a clear"no" to eminent domain in any form, and opposition to the potential for a new tax on coastside land. Some speakers reiterated the previous statement that without eminent domain the District would be welcomed to the coastside. It was further pointed out that the Half Moon Bay City Council, the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council, the San Mateo County Agricultural Commission, and the San Mateo County Farm Bureau have all taken formal positions opposing the District's use of eminent domain on the coastside in any form. After lengthy discussion, the CAC members took three"straw polls" to determine if there was any agreement on the issue of eminent domain. Twelve members were present and one was absent. The questions and results are summarized below: Would you support the District's annexation of the San Mateo County coast and a potential future funding measure for District programs on the coast, if: (a) use of the District's power of eminent domain was permanently prohibited on the coastside? (five members said"yes," one member said"no," and six members abstained) R-99-143 Page 3 (b) the District retained some restricted power of eminent domain on the coastside? (zero members said "yes," four members said "no," and eight members abstained) (c) the District retained its current power of eminent domain on the coastside without restriction? (zero members said "yes," eight members said"no," and four members abstained) As a result of the October 26 CAC meeting, San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon, who is also the Chair of the CAC, wrote the attached letter to the District's Board of Directors. In that letter, Supervisor Gordon noted that a majority of the CAC seem to share a sincere desire to maintain the coastside's rural atmosphere, but that the overall policy discussions became bogged down on the issue of eminent domain. He acknowledged that the CAC has not been able to define common ground or reach consensus on this issue. Supervisor Gordon pointed out that an earlier straw poll on eminent domain conducted at the CAC meeting of September 14, 1999, illustrated the two extreme positions: at that time, four members said"no" to eminent domain in any form; three members said some level of eminent domain is appropriate; and five members abstained, with one absence. Supervisor Gordon's letter states that, in light of this lack of consensus, he believes the CAC is unable to move forward and seeks direction from the District Board of Directors as to how to proceed. A summary of the October 26 CAC meeting is attached. Some members of the CAC have circulated a petition on the coastside, which states: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Coastside Residents Cooperation Agreement We, the undersigned, agree that the District and coastside residents have the potential to be excellent partners in shaping and securing the future of the coastside area. We acknowledge that we share many common goals, that the District could bring significant benefits to the coastside, and that the coastside residents could offer significant benefits to the District. We also recognize that conflict over the potential use of eminent domain on the coastside by the District is jeopardizing the success of the proposed annexation and we further recognize that our common goals can be more effectively achieved without the use of eminent domain. We therefore agree, that should the District Board pledge to permanently remove eminent domain from its policies in the proposed annexation area in a manner that is secure and acceptable to both the residents and the District R-99-143 Page 4 (possibly in the LAFCO process), that we, the undersigned, will immediately pledge our full support and best efforts to assist the District through the annexation process and that we will also pledge our full support for a reasonable tax to assist the District with its work on the coastside. This petition, copies of which will be available at your November 10 meeting, has been signed by over 100 people, including many landowners and others with an agricultural interest. At the same time, the petitioners report that there are people that, when asked, did not sign the petition, based on their opposition either to the possibility of a parcel tax, or in general opposition to the District. It seems clear, however, that a prohibition on the use of eminent domain on the coastside would result in a significant increase in support for the annexation, and for a possible funding measure in the future. This support would come from many of the coastside interests that previously have expressed opposition to the District's potential annexation, based on its retention of the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain is an important tool to have available for the District's land acquisition activities. While the District's intent and desire is always to acquire land from willing sellers, there have been infrequent circumstances where the use of eminent domain was the only viable option for preserving a critically important parcel of open space land. This method has been used rarely and only when the Board determined that the property was necessary for the public benefit, was susceptible to further subdivision and/or was clearly threatened by development or degradation of natural resources. The Board of Directors has passed a resolution of necessity (the first administrative step in eminent domain proceedings before legal proceedings can be initiated) a total of 14 times during its 27-year history. In the last ten years this step has been taken only once. This represents only a small portion(3.6%) of the 388 land acquisition transactions made during that period. Three of these 14 cases were settled prior to any legal action taking place. Eminent domain lawsuits were filed by the District in the remaining eleven cases. Of those, ten were settled prior to the issue going to court, and one final acquisition was settled during trial. Given the political ramifications and public opinion regarding eminent domain, it is unlikely that staff would recommend its use on the coastside, although in an extreme situation it is possible. A number of other parks or open space agencies are able to carry out a significant acquisition program without the use of eminent domain (Sonoma County Open Space and Agricultural Preservation District, for example). While the lack of eminent domain does leave the potential for the loss of some critical projects, that possible loss must be weighed against the real risk of significant and very negative political and public consequences resulting from its use. Staff feels that a successful annexation of the San Mateo County coastal area is of primary importance. Of secondary importance is the potential for a successful funding measure at a later R-99-143 Page s date. While the tool of eminent domain is of significant importance in critical circumstances, it is staff s opinion that retention of the power of eminent domain in the annexation area would seriously threaten the ability of the District to achieve the two top priorities noted above. Therefore, in order to maximize the probability of a successful annexation and future funding measure, it is staffs recommendation that the Board of Directors adopt a policy whereby, should the annexation take place, the District would acquire land in the coastal area from willing sellers only. Further, staff recommends that the Board direct the District's general counsel to research and develop a procedure for ensuring that this policy is secure and permanent, potentially through the San Mateo County LAFCO process. Staff also recommends that work proceed immediately on the technical and administrative aspects of the annexation, including but not limited to the production of a service plan, financial analysis, and appropriate environmental documentation in order to develop an application to be filed with LAFCO. This technical and administrative process will take a number of months and therefore needs to begin at least on a staff level. Finally, based on Supervisor Gordon's letter and the fact that a consensus was not reached, staff notes that the CAC is apparently not able to function in an effective or efficient manner. Some members of the CAC have concurred with this assessment many times during past meetings of the CAC. There is concern that, given the polarity of viewpoints on the CAC, this group might have difficulty in carrying out its review of the remaining two policies, land acquisition and agricultural use. Staff therefore recommends that the Board request the CAC to reconvene with the purpose of determining whether or not the existing CAC process is suitable for discussion of the remaining policy issues and, if not, make recommendations on possible alternative processes that might be employed in order to continue to obtain public input throughout the annexation process. Alternative processes might include District meetings with stakeholder groups, community input meetings and workshops, and the hiring of an agricultural use consultant to participate in the public input process. Prepared by: M. Smith, Public Affairs Manager L. Craig Britton, General Manager S. Schectman, General Counsel Contact person: L. Craig Britton, General Manager r . RicHARDGoRDoN Board of Supervisors County of San Mateo November 3, 1999 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Directors, In November 1996,voters on the San Mateo County coastside by a 55%majority approved Measure F,an advisory vote on the extension of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to the San Mateo County coastside. In response to that vote you chose to take the next steps to explore annexation of the coast. One step was the formation of the Coastal Advisory Committee. The Committee was composed of representatives from elected bodies and key stakeholders. The Committee members as one of their first acts filled three at-large seats. You asked me, as the designated representative of the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County, to serve as Committee Chair. This designation was ratified by the Committee and I have tried my best to fill this role. I must candidly say that this has been the most difficult assignment of my public life. You asked us to make recommendations on three policy issues: 1. Land acquisition policies 2. Eminent Domain as a land acquisition technique 3. Agricultural land use We held our first meeting on February 9, 1999. Since that time we have had fifteen meetings and have conducted two field trips (one to MROSD properties and one to agricultural properties). At every meeting we have provided time for public comment and there has been extensive public comment. I believe that there is an area of agreement: the maintenance of the rural character of the coast. Unfortunately,we have not been able to reach agreement on the means to achieve that end. Specifically, we have bogged down over the single issue of eminent domain. 0 $-h County Government Center � c Direct (650) 363-4569 401 Marshall Street °UNa$n sb� Coastside (650) 573-2222 Redwood City, CA 94063 Fax (650) 599-1027 MROSD Directors, Page 2 November 3, 1999 There are polar extremes on this issue. On September 14, 1999 1 asked every member of the committee to express their opinion on this issue. In this "straw poll"there were five abstentions, four members said they would never support any form of eminent domain,and three said they felt that the District should keep some element of eminent domain. [It should be noted that Half Moon Bay was not represented at this meeting.] At the extremes,those opposed to eminent domain have clustered around a proposal that would eliminate eminent domain in exchange for support of annexation and taxation. Those in favor of eminent domain feel that it should be available for limited purposes. They also feel that you cannot discuss eminent domain in the abstract and they urge the Coastal Advisory Committee to complete a report on all three policy areas. I conclude that the work of the committee cannot move forward without additional direction from your Board. I had hoped to bring you a report based on consensus (a number greater than a simple majority),but no such consensus exists. Without it, I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I look forward to direction from you. Sincerely, Richard Gordon cc: Members, Coastal Advisory Committee MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY October 26, 1999 Coastal Advisory Committee Members Present: Geoff Allen Rich Gordon Bill Cook Nonette Hanko Betsy Crowder Mary Hobbs Neil Curry Toni Danzig Naomi Patridge Stan Pastorino Mary Davey Chris Thollaug(arrived late) Rich Gordon called the meeting to order and welcomed Naomi Patridge to the meeting. She will be a regular member representing the City of Half Moon Bay. The Meeting Summaries for September 14 and September 28 were accepted with a request to revise the 3rd paragraph on page 2 of the text in the September 28 summary. The text is revised to read: Chair Gordon offered his opinion as to how to proceed. His feeling is that if MROSD wefe to the ttse of efnifiefit defRain aft the eaftstside, the result Would flat be t�rnOSD pr-esenee an the ea the maintenance of a policy that includes eminent domain would make it difficult for the District Board to acheive the goal of annexation. Procedure and Background Rich Gordon noted that the MROSD Board members who are not CAC members were in attendance. It was explained that their presence was to listen to the CAC discussion and should not be construed as a Board Meeting, as the governing regulations require that they cannot hold a meeting outside of their jurisdiction. Though each individual may speak as a member of the public, he/she cannot take any action as an MROSD Board member. The goal for the evening is for the CAC to make comments on the process to date as a way of informing the MROSD Board and then invite public comment. Eminent domain policies are to be discussed and then referred to the District Board for its agenda of November 10, 1999 at its regularly-scheduled meeting conducted in Los Altos. Individual District Board and CAC members then introduced themselves to the audience. Rich Gordon started off discussions by stating that this has been the most difficult assignment of his public life. Fourteen CAC meetings and two field trips have been conducted since February. At each meeting an opportunity for public comment was provided and extensive public comment had been made. While the District Board requested recommendations about land acquisition, agricultural use practices, and eminent domain, and while most individuals seem interested in retaining the rural character of the coast, the CAC has bogged down on issue of eminent domain. They have not been able to move on to other issues due to polarized opinions about eminent domain. On the one end is a -1 - ............_......._. MidprninsulaRegwnalO�enSpxceDistrict Meeting Summary: October 26, 1999 Coastal Advisory Committee belief that eminent domain should never be used no matter what. On other end there are those who believe eminent domain is a valid tool when its use is restricted to particular circumstances. The CAC has not been able to agree. At the last CAC meeting a "straw poll" was taken about eminent domain with 5 members abstaining, 4 feeling it should be never used, and 3 expressing an opinion that it should be available in some form. (The City of Half Moon Bay was not represented that evening). Rich Gordon stated that he felt from the beginning of this process that a report to the District Board should represent a consensus on the issues. He defined a consensus as more than a simple majority. However, it is clear that no consensus exists on the CAC about the issue of eminent domain. As the Committee is therefore unable to move forward to look at other issues, he feels that some direction is needed from the District Board as to how it wants the CAC to proceed. Oral Reports and Discussion Each member of the CAC was invited to make statements about eminent domain. During this discussion all members made a statement with the exception of Mary Davey,and Rich Gordon. Comments included: Nonette Hanko, • As a practical point, when the Measure F vote occurred with about 55% in favor and 45% opposed, it does not mean anything without a tax which would require a 2/3 in favor vote. The question is how to get a 2/3 vote? They only way to accomplish that is to not use eminent domain. The seriousness of the issue is reflected in the petition being circulated. Individuals are willing to pay money to have MROSD annex the coastside if the District will remove this one thing • Beyond the subject of eminent domain, many local property owners have serious questions about how MROSD will operate in the annexation area. • Some people have a basic philosophical opposition to the use of eminent domain. • The Mid-Coast Community Council had not taken a vote on the District's use of eminent domain but will be doing so on October 27. The Mid-Coast area is somewhat urban and surrounded by open space that is very important to end up in public hands and not be developed. Eminent domain does have value when used in limited manner. • Even though Sonoma County has done an admirable job without using eminent domain, the program has not resulted in creating public access. • The District Board should listen and take input but hold off on any decision until the CAC and the District Board have considered all the pieces. There may be a willingness to relax on the issue of needing eminent domain - but the CAC should look at whole picture first. • The petition was brought up at the last meeting as a way to bring the discussion about eminent domain to an amicable conclusion. Though conceived as something where everybody could get the best of both worlds and while a lot of individuals have signed the petition, there has also been considerable backlash, with some saying that they may not want MROSD at all. • There is a need to have open space for everyone - however farm land should not be taken from farmers...for whatever reason. While a majority voted for Measure F in the north, the majority of property that would be acquired is south where the Measure F did not receive majority support. Other problems exist such as how is the District going to tax? Who will set the rate? Will a tax be levied on just people on the coast or throughout the entire District? It needs to be fair, with the coastside paying its share - but it shouldn't be an exorbitant amount. Look at the whole picture before deciding individual policies. How will lands be acquired? Is eminent domain really necessary down south? -2- MidjeninsulaRegionalO�rnSwceDistrict Meeting Summary: October26, 1999 Coastal Advisory Committee • Measure F was won by only 700 votes. This would not happen today. The Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council has reversed its position on eminent domain. • The Cascade Ranch is held up as something to fear, even though 4,000 acres of open space were dedicated. The question should be asked: who actually creates the demand for places like Cascade? • The issue is that people don't trust MROSD's intentions and do not think the District will do the right thing particularly if it has the power of eminent domain. • The use of eminent domain is an all or nothing decision. • The CAC started in a logical way to address its task. However, there is still lacking an intelligent discussion on the subjects the CAC has been charged with evaluating; the promised public workshops have not taken place. A minority on the CAC has held the process hostage. Eminent domain should be a minor part of the CAC's deliberations. There has been no meaningful discussion on how eminent domain could be used as a tool for retaining traditional agriculture and open space. Despite what has been said about the south coast, it is clear that there will eventaully be development. • The MROSD Board should ask the CAC to continue its work as originally proposed and the Board should only entertain a report that addresses all the issues. It might then be logically concluded that the idea of eminent domain is not necessarily a good one for the coastside. • The District Board should just move on, deferring any decision about eminent domain for now and focus efforts on stewardship. The Board should leave controversial land use issues to the political process. The CAC was good idea, but failed. • MROSD is simply another developer - just with a different product. • It has not yet been demonstrated why there could not be an Open Space District without eminent domain. • How we get what we get is important - still keeping eminent domain on the table makes no sense. The animosity generated isn't worth it. If land is needed for public use, let it be purchased. Oral Communications A total of 21 individuals made statements. Of these, 18 specifically spoke about eminent domain. Twelve are opposed to the use of eminent domain, one stated the it should retained, and five stated that it should only be considered after land acquisition and agricultural use policies are also discussed as a part of an entire package. Other comments included the following: • One item on which there seems to be consensus is that, with eminent domain on the table, MROSD cannot possibly get 67% of vote. There is no point in continuing if the District can't win. If the District insists on retaining eminent domain then fold the tent and leave now. • Neighbors and friends do not trust MROSD and would rather support local County Parks. Many deeply resent the idea that the coastside wouldn't have an MROSD representative. • Would like state legislation to remove eminent domain powers from all special districts. • The California Resources Code exempts any parcel from assessment that is used for agriculture or in the Williamson Act (note: staff was asked to research this topic). • Individuals should consider the effects of urban sprawl which is a problem throughout the United States. It destroys farms and open space. In 100 years we'll all be gone and what we're fighting -3- MkdeninsulaRegwnalO�enSpceDistrict Meeting )untmary: October 26, 1999 Coastal Advisory Committee about will be gone. We should consider what we want to leave next generations so that they will be grateful for what we've left them. • The coastside has taken care of urban sprawl issues because protections against sprawl are in place. • One solution to urban sprawl would be if the people in Woodside and Atherton would just subdivide in smaller lots. That would take pressure off the coast. • It should be understood that on the coast 400 acres of land produces 80% of the farm values within an area of 60,000 acres. Agriculture takes place in this county on small parcels. POST and others think large parcels are what's good for agriculture - and that's not correct. • A differentiation should be made in agriculture between "land" that is an asset, and "business" - which is what is done with the land. Process Summary The next CAC meeting will likely be December 14 with a location to be announced. The agenda would be based on direction provided by the MROSD Board at their November 10th meeting. A question was raised about the CAC's willingness to meet if the District Board requested that it to the Board's making evaluate all policies prior g a decision on eminent domain. Sentiments were mixed. Statements included: that it could not be answered until the Board took up the subject; that if the Board comes back with such a suggestion the process would be fought every step of way; that the CAC process had been flawed and should be discontinued; that the CAC should continue on the other subjects it was charged with; and that some were there for the duration but wanted direction from the MROSD Board. A motion was made and seconded that asked the question: "Would you actively support coastal annexation by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, including reasonable taxation, if the District permanently gave up the power of eminent domain for the coast?" After discussion the vote was made as follows: • In favor: 5 • Opposed: 1 • Abstentions: 6 A second vote was taken asking the question: "Would you actively support coastal annexation by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, including reasonable taxation, if the District retained any use of the power of eminent domain whatsoever?" After discussion the vote was made as follows: • In favor: 0 • Opposed: 4 • Abstentions: 8 A third vote was taken asking the question: "Would you actively support coastal annexation by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, including reasonable taxation, if the District maintained its current eminent domain policy?" • In favor: 0 • Opposed: 8 • Abstentions: 4 Chair Gordon thanked all in attendance for being here tonight, and adjourned the meeting. -4- Resolution of the Midcoast Community Council(MCC)to the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) regarding the use of eminent domain The MidCoast Community Council urges the MROSD Board to hold the Coastal Advisory Committee to completion of its original mission by requiring that the CAC bring the requested package of recommendations to your Board before you vote on their recommendations. The MidCoast Community Council acknowledges that there may be a benefit to the MidCoast for the MROSD to retain limited powers of eminent domain: There are significant properties in the hills and along the coast that are privately owned, that are a de facto open space on the Midcoast. Public ownership with public access on these properties is a high priority for the residents of the MidCoast for the MROSD upon its expansion to the coast. The fact remains that eminent domain and the possibility with eminent domain of friendly condemnation, may be an important tool in achieving this goal. The MidCoast Community Council acknowledges that there may be a benefit to the MidCoast for the MROSD to agree to remove eminent domain from the powers of the District: A significant number of landowners and residents on the coast oppose the retention of the power of eminent domain and have pledged to support the expansion of the District to the coast and to support the passage of a funding tax on the coast if eminent domain is permanently removed. This would be a very important base of support for the expansion of the District to the Coast. The MidCoast Community Council requests that the Coastal Advisory Committee complete the work that was delegated to it by the MROSD Board: 1. )land acquisition, focusing on alternative methods of preservation such as purchase of conservation easements; > (2)the policy of eminent domain, > (3)the policy of agricultural use, focusing on ways and means of preserving agricultural use on the coast, such as purchase of development rights or agricultural conservation easements; > (4)other policies as identified in the future. Only when those recommendations have been made will the MCC be able to weigh the pros and cons of retaining eminent domain powers. We will consider this issue again when the CAC has completed its package of recommendations. Regional Open *ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-99-146 Meeting 99-27 November 10, 1999 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Cancellation of November 24, 1999, Regular Meeting, Scheduling of a Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of tirectors f• r November 17, 1999 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATI NS - 1. Cancel your November 24, 1999, Regular Meeting. 2. Schedule a Special Board Meeting for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 17, 1999, for the purpose of attending to District business not able to be included on the agenda of the Regular Meeting of November 10, 1999, and to replace the cancelled meeting of November 24, 1999. DISCUSSION At your meeting of October 27, 1999, it was suggested that, in order to allow adequate time for public comment and deliberation on the agenda item regarding eminent domain policy for the potential annexation area on the San Mateo coast, all other Board business which could be postponed could be discussed at a later meeting, possibly on November 17. In addition, we ordinarily cancel the November 24, 1999 Regular Meeting because of the anticipated absence of many key staff members due to the proximity of this meeting to the Thanksgiving holiday. It is therefore recommended that you schedule a Special Meeting for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 17, 1999, to discuss Board business postponed from the November 10 meeting, as well as to consider items that can be moved up from the regular meeting of November 24 which is proposed for cancellation. Prepared by: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Contact person: Same as above. 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 . Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org . Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional Open *ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-99-144 Meeting 99-27 November 10, 1999 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract for Drainage and Surfacing Improvements to Parking Lots Located at Los Trancos, Russian Ridge,and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Andreini Bros., Inc. of Half Moon Bay in the amount of$53,850, for the drainage and surfacing improvements to three parking lots located at Los Trancos, Russian Ridge, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves. 2. Authorize the General Manager to approve incremental change orders or unit price additions in excess of the bid, in an amount not to exceed$15,000 for items not identified in the base bid but anticipated as part of the overall project. DISCUSSION At your regular meeting on September 8, 1999, you authorized staff to solicit bids for improvements to three parking lots located at Los Trancos, Russian Ridge, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves. At that time, you also determined that the project was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(see report R-99-119). Staff determined that the most efficient way to complete these improvements to three separate parking lots was to contract for them as one combined project. A notice to bidders was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News on October 26, 1999. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on-site on October 29, 1999. Three contractors attended. Sealed bids were due on Monday, November 1, 1999. Of the three potential bidders, only one, Andreini Bros., Inc., of Half Moon Bay, submitted a bid. The total amount of the base bid and alternate was $53,850. This amount and the additional unit prices submitted in the bid were consistent with the projected cost estimates generated by staff for this project. Staff recommends award of the contract to Andreini Bros., Inc. Staff feels that the contractor is qualified, and that the bid represents a fair and reasonable price for the materials and services requested. The contracting approach taken to complete this work includes a combination of anticipated equipment, time, and materials which have been included in the base bid and alternates. In addition, unit price bids for various equipment, materials, and labor were requested to address small tasks, details, and supplemental work expected to be incorporated into the project. This accounts for the $15,000 budget requested for potential incremental change orders. 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 . E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder, Kenneth C. Nitz -General Manager:L.Craig Britton R-99-87 Page 2 The 1999/2000 fiscal year budget included$57,000 for the work at Los Trancos($25,000)and Russian Ridge($32,000). Since that time, it was determined that it would be cost effective to include the work needed at Windy Hill's upper parking lot on Skyline Boulevard in the overall project. The size of this lot, and the work needed, is very similar to the proposed project at Los Trancos, and would likely cost an additional $25,000. Partial funding for the additional work to include Windy Hill is available in the Capital Improvements budget due to other underspent projects such as Purisima Creek Road repairs. Therefore, budget funds are available for the total potential amount of this project of$68,850($53,850 base bid plus$15,000 unit price addition). The Windy Hill parking lot improvements were approved at your May 27, 1999 meeting(see report R-98-32). Construction would commence on November 15, and be completed by early December. For safety reasons, each parking lot will be closed while it is actively under construction, except on weekends and throughout the Thanksgiving Holiday. Field staff will assist in the closures, and will help to coordinate alternative parking arrangements for scheduled hikes and events at Russian Ridge during this construction period. Prepared by: John Cahill, Planner II Contact person: same as above Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT To Board of Directors From: C.Britton,General Manager Date: November 10, 1999 Re: FYIs 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org Page 1 of 2 Malcolm Smith From: Ken Nitz<nitz@erg.sri.com> To: <cbritton@openspace.org>; <jisaacs@openspace.org>; <msmith@openspace.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 12:25 PM Subject: Wild boar invade Polish city terrorise tourists Thought this was appropriate today: WIRE:10/26/1999 11:17:00 ET Wild boar invade Polish city, terrorize tourists WARSAW, Oct 26 (Reuters)-A herd of wild boar has invaded a city on the Polish-German border in search of food, digging up parks and terrorising tourists, officials said on Tuesday. Local authorities have set up a task force this week to clear the city of more than 60 boar. Officials in Swinoujscie, in the far north-western corner of Poland near the Baltic coast said they hoped to round up the animals and may have to shoot them. "The boar roam sand dunes and public parks. They have dug up all the grass on the historic promenade and some have even shown up in front of city hall," Bozena Pawlowska, head of the municipal nature preservation department, said on Tuesday. One tourist was bitten by a boar earlier this year while walking along the promenade, authorities said. German foresters across the border appear to have stopped feeding the animals last winter, forcing them to migrate, said Pawlowska. Visitors fed the piglets in the spring, but the adult boar have now become a threat to safety, she said. Wild boar can grow up to 100 kg (220 lbs) in weight and are a prize hunting trophy in the forests of Poland. Authorities have found boar skins in Swinoujscie city parks and suspect some local inhabitants may already have begun to round-up their unwelcome guests. 10/28/99 Regional Open face ------------ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: C. Briifto�General Manager FROM: V—Cliams, Real Property Representative DATE: October 28, 1999 SUBJECT: Gagliasso Property Addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Escrow closed for the subject transaction on May 3, 1999 and title to and possession of this 2 acre parcel passed to the District. I am not aware of any use and management concerns that were not addressed in the staff report to the Board. In accordance with the public notification policy, and since there were no public and/or adjoining owner comments which might require amendment to the use and management recommendations, close of escrow marks the final adoption of the preliminary use and management plan recommendation as tentatively approved by the Board of Directors at their meeting of April 28, 1999. DEDICATION CHART INFORMATION Dedication Board Status Approval Closing Dedication (Intended or Preserve Area Grantor Date Date Date Acres Withheld?) Notes Sierra Azul Cathedral Gagliasso 4-29-99 5-3-99 2 W Oaks cc: Board of Directors D. Dolan Operations Accounting Planning H:\SIERRA\Gagliasso Closing Mem.wpd 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 o Phone: 650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 a E-mail: n-trosd@openspwe.org Web site:www.openspace.org Mmrd ol Oiw(tor,:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette I lx)ko,Betsy Croyvdef, Kenneth C. Nitz -General Almw,.,,er:L.Craig Britton SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District PST JOSEPH'S°HILL ` ;.•''o. , r �I • Oh EN�SPAGETRESERVE C V 4.1 t = _ s'. N 0.2 0�'�.� 0. )ose��h's Hill 170.2 0.1 ... 0.9 0.2 l ,-A22) �x 2000 �s`A21) LEXINGTON �Pr%P 2200 ~COUNTY isA2�) 1.0 sae — 2400 PARK k T'W1 ,x Srail 2400 2600 2200 1 i 2800 rat (sA2a) N.� Trail-� _ ^ § vs�f SOdas 3.0 Or b< p \ f , 9 r/, tan �'-v PROPOSED ACQUISITION "00 x f 1400 GAGLIASSO, 2.0 +/-ACRES (5A19) � _ 1200 "'�•�. 2200 000 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 One Mile to 1 600 i EXHIBIT A: rROPERTY LOCATION MAP ai99 SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District �n ••° j% ST JOSEPHIS=HILL : SPACE, ESERVE ' Ft 0.2 }'dr 11.2 U.l r.:4i AS r� -., F �+ T /^• .K � .S� � i-- � . y C rT f"J �J ,\`. ,'1������� r u. .�at,�,v� ��g <�;1 nj k�+�t`t'�� �.w • ���-.1\) r,;.i -i. c t � •1. '� ) ^.f v��`��J� � in '1000 ts�Iu LEXINGTONpr%N K • NC UN 1.0 s�kO 2200 PARK csAls> c�Tsai a 2aa1 % o�ktrll 2400 1.6 280( 1.0 i a Ft 0 \ L PROPOSED ACQUISITION 1400 ` GAGLIASSO, 2.0 +/-ACRES 7000a�r 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 �1.0w � One Mile 1 G00• EXHIBIT A( rROPFRTY TIO P I nCA R MAP a.•l+1 Regional Open )ace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 1, 1999 Mike Garcia Athletic Director Canada College 4200 Farm Hill Blvd. Redwood City, CA 94061 Subject: Competitive Running/Training at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Dear Mr. Garcia: Over the last few years, there has been an increasing number of schools using the trails at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve as a training area for cross-country running. Many of these organized groups appear to be running in a competitive, timed environment, often in large groups that block the trail and disrupt others' enjoyment of the preserve. We have had numerous complaints from other visitors to the preserve of"near-misses" involving these groups of runners. These large groups of runners have also been observed organizing and stretching within the traffic flow of the parking areas, impeding other visitors' vehicles. I am writing to you and all high schools and colleges in the area with the purpose of reaching a solution to this growing problem. Our objectives are to ensure that all visitors to these public open space lands can have a safe, enjoyable visit, and to minimize or eliminate the kinds of impacts that are now resulting from these organized groups of runners. If it's determined that these efforts have failed and the problem is continuing then the District will be compelled to implement a more restrictive permit and scheduling process for this activity. Through a permit process, the District seeks to minimize disruption or unreasonable interference with other visitors, and overcrowding on the trail or in the parking area. In addition, it is important to ensure that our ranger staff is informed of the presence of such groups in the event an emergency arises requiring locating or contacting the group or individuals within the group. I'm sure you'll agree that these are important and reasonable needs to address the overall enjoyment of the preserve as well as the general public safety. We ask all visitors to the open space preserves to observe some basic rules of etiquette, and these certainly apply to anyone from your school, as a group or individually, who chooses to run on District trails. I have enclosed our trail etiquette brochure that provides some basic information in that regard, which I ask you to share with your students (contact the District office for multiple copies). I'd like to further point out the importance of educating your students about basic courtesy and consideration of other visitors. I would hope your students are taught that showing such courtesy and respecting others' right to enjoy the trails is more important than improving their times on training runs. 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 * Phone: 650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 o E-mail: mrosd Oa openspace.org 9 Web site:www.opetispace.org Hoard of Dirac tors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey, led Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Flanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz •Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britlwl November 1, 1999 Mike Garcia Page -2- While we recognize the concept of a timed training, this activity cannot take place at the expense of the comfort and well-being of other visitors. Unfortunately, this has frequently been the case, and I am asking you and other such groups to take it upon yourselves to make these necessary changes in behavior: staggered start times, not running in groups, showing courtesy and yielding to other visitors, not blocking the flow of traffic in the parking lot while stretching and preparing to run, and contacting the District in advance if the group is 20 or more people for consideration of a permit. It is only through your recognition of this problem and your cooperation in its resolution that the type of use you have enjoyed can continue. I must point out that because this is our busiest preserve, the District does not issue permits for large-scale running events at Rancho San Antonio. Our rangers will halt any such un- permitted activity in progress and issue citations. Simple jogging and training are acceptable uses, as long as they do not interfere with other visitors or harm the natural resources. I hope that you and your staff understand the District's concerns with these activities, and agree to our proposed solution. If you need any additional information please feel free to contact Gordon Baillie here at the District office at (650) 691-1200. We would also appreciate it if you would call Gordon and let him know if we are writing to the appropriate person at your school— we will maintain a database and keep you informed of any issues as they relate to Rancho San Antonio. Sincerely, L. Craig Britton General Manager LCB/mcs cc: Dr. Marie Rosenwasser, President, Canada College Dr. Lois Callahan, Chancellor-Superintendent, San Mateo County Community College District Tom Lausten, Supervising Patrol Ranger MROSD Board of Directors Please note that this letter was also sent to all high schools and colleges within the District's boundaries. Regional Open , , ace 2 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 2, 1999 Honorable Members, Monte Sereno City Council 18401 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Subject: Genn project on November 2 Council agenda Dear Members of the Monte Sereno City Council: Tonight you will be considering an item on your agenda regarding the 25-acre Genn project between Overlook Road and the Callisch property on Withey Road. A portion of the subject property abuts the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's El Sereno Open Space Preserve. The District has not had the opportunity to review this project. We were recently contacted by the prospective buyer, who expressed an interest in the possibility of the District participating in the preservation of up to 20 acres of the subject property. The District's real property representative indicated to the owner that he would need the location and/or parcel number of the property in order to assess whether or not the District would be interested in the preservation of the property. The owner did not provide any further information as to the property's location. The District may be interested in working with the City and the property owner to ensure preservation of the 20 acres mentioned by the owner. However, having learned only yesterday that the item is before the council tonight, we have not had the opportunity to look into this possibility. I respectfully request that the council continue this item until its next meeting, thus providing District staff the time to visit the property, research potential options for preservation of up to 20 acres, and discuss these possibilities with the owner and City staff. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, r-- L. Craig ritton General Manager LCB/mcs Cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 . Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton RegionalOperT lace s 1 MiDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT October 29, 1999 Tina Wallace, Assistant Manager The Lodge at Skylonda 16350 Skyline Blvd. Woodside, CA 94062 Dear Ms. Wallace: It was nice meeting with you briefly last week at the Lodge. Thank you for providing Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District information to guests of The Lodge at Skylonda. From our conversation, it is my understanding that materials, such as the District's Visitor Map and South Skyline Region Map, will be made available to guests of the Lodge upon request, and during Lodge sponsored hikes and walks on District land. If deemed appropriate, the District may, in the future, pursue putting a District display and materials concerning District land and programs in space made reasonably available in the Lodge, in accordance with Section 10 of the Commercial License Agreement between COSIMO, LLC (owner of the Lodge at Skylonda) and the District. I have enclosed a quantity of the District's Visitor Map, South Skyline Region Map, and a variety of preserve trail maps for Lodge use and distribution. Please feel free to contact me at (650) 691-1200 when you need additional map quantities, or if you have any questions or concerns. Again, thank you for assisting the District in making this information available to your guests. Sincerely, Kristi Webb Public Affairs Assistant cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 x FAX: 050-691-0485 • E-mail: mroscl@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org 154wi/of(directors:Pete Sienien,—%Iiry C. Davev, led Cvr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Betw Crowder, Kenneth C.Nit/ •General I.Crmg Hrittnn Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 November 9, 1999 Dear MROSD Board Members, We are members of the Coastal Advisory Committee and were two of the members who voted in the"straw poll"to maintain the power of eminent domain on the coastside. We have been asked to present a justification of our defense of maintaining the power of eminent domain as it pertains to the potentially annexed lands of the coastside. It is important to state initially that the subject of eminent domain has been discussed by the CAC out of the prescribed order of review recommended by your Consultants, 3M, Inc. As such,the subject has been considered only in the abstract and devoid of any context regarding the goals of the District the priorities of land acquisition, means of acquisition, costs of acquisition,and recommended management policies of coastal lands. Had these subjects been discussed, as planned, it is possible that we could have come to a definitive conclusion regarding eminent domain policies. Eminent domain is a power granted to most public agencies that enables public interest to take priority when necessary. Its use should only be initiated under special circumstances, and only when a property is in danger of being developed or when its purchase is critical to the public interest. Following are reasons we feel that the use of eminent domain should be retained under limited circumstances by the MROSD on the Coastside: 2. The District requires access to lands owned or managed for the purpose of maintenance, monitoring and fire protection. As a last option resulting from an inability to negotiate,eminent domain may be the only possibility for obtaining this access. 3. The District would lose the possibility of"friendly condemnation"proceedings, which carries with it a substantial tax advantage for the seller and possible cost- savings to the District. Thus those property owners who may be interested in selling under friendly condemnation conditions would be far less likely to sell. In addition,the fact that eminent domain is a possibility is probably an incentive to sell for some landowners. 4. Just the fact that eminent domain exists causes many landowners to consider selling to the Open Space District instead of a private buyer. 5. On the Coast there are some crucial parcels of land that may not be obtainable without the possibility of eminent domain. The Midcoast, which strongly supported Measure F, has remained supportive of eminent domain. Its voice has been lost in the outcry from the south coast. 6. Many of the lands owned by the District on the Peninsula have trails and public access. Most Measure F supporters anticipated that this would be the case on the Coast,that there would be areas where the public can walk and enjoy the coastside beauty. However, without eminent domain powers the Sonoma Open Space District has not created any parkland,only conservation open space easements. Without eminent domain, linkages of open space areas, wildlife corridors, and sensitive habitats may not happen. While trails through agricultural parcels should not be allowed due to the large amount of agricultural land that would be used, there is a strong need for trails on the Coast on non-agricultural lands. Obtaining particular trail easements may be possible only through eminent domain. 7. Riparian corridors, special habitats such as those that support endangered species, and areas that need restoration should receive special protection. Without eminent domain the job of setting aside those areas becomes far more difficult if not impossible. 8. The priorities for land acquisition by the District have yet to be discussed. Nor has a discussion taken place regarding the priorities for use of funds -especially use of funding for maintenance vs. land purchase. It would be unwise to make a final decision about the tool of eminent domain without knowing what the priorities are on the Coast. A compromise position was placed on the table by CAC member Chris Thollaug. This proposal included strict limits on the use of ED that would still allow the above benefits to be accrued under very limited circumstances(see attached). His proposal was dismissed out-of-hand by the anti-eminent domain members of the committee. We encourage the MROSD Board to carefully review this proposal. The fact is that at this point the goals for MROSD on the Coastside have not yet been determined by the CAC. We still need to answer the following questions: ❑ Will assuming title to lands currently held by land trusts,and maintenance of those lands, be the priority? ❑ If acquisition is a high priority then how will decisions be made on which parcels to acquire? The CAC had been specifically requested to determine priorities on this question. ❑ Will purchase of conservation easements take precedence over purchase of fee titles? ❑ Will habitat and riparian corridor protection be a priority? ❑ Is the priority to create areas for public access, or open space with no public access? • Is agricultural preservation a high priority? If so, what policies will guide the agricultural use? Despite all of the above reasons for retaining eminent domain,we are willing to discuss abandonment of eminent domain powers if it can be proven that the goals established by the CAC for the coast would be best met without eminent domain. This remains a definite possibility. Thank you for your consideration of the above matters. Yours Sincerely, Mary Hobbs,Toni Danzig