BOARD AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Title
Claim of Roy Woolsey.
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
Deny the Claim of Roy Woolsey.
Body
SUMMARY:
In June 2016, Mr. Roy Woolsey filed a claim (Attachment 1), requesting a refund of groundwater production charges paid for Well No. 06S03W25B001 in Los Altos Hills. He states the metes and bounds description of Zone W-2 adopted by the District Board of Directors (Board) as a Board resolution in December 1971 does not match the proposed map modifying Zone W-2 presented to the Board in October 1971.
Background
On October 19, 1971, the Board held a public hearing on proposed Zone W-2 amendments, including the addition of portions of Los Altos Hills. The meeting minutes state: “The proposed boundary changes and areas to be included in Zone W-2, as indicated on the attached map…” (Attachment 2). Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to prepare necessary legal descriptions and maps to implement the Board’s action. On December 28, 1971, the Board adopted Resolution No. 71-79 to amend the Zone W-2 boundaries. The resolution states that “the boundaries of said Zone W-2 as so amended are as described upon “Exhibit A”…” This exhibit, attached to the resolution, is the 17-page legal description (metes and bounds) establishing the amended Zone W-2.
Mr. Woolsey claims his property is outside Zone W-2 based on the proposed map presented to the Board in October 1971. District survey staff confirmed Mr. Woolsey’s property is within Zone W-2 per the metes and bounds description contained in Resolution No. 71-79 adopted by the Board in December 1971. However, it does not appear that Mr. Woolsey’s property is within the proposed Zone W-2 as generally depicted on the proposed map presented to the Board two months earlier in October 1971. Staff has been unable to locate documentation to explain this difference. Nonetheless, Resolution No. 71-79, not the proposed map, was formally adopted by the Board as the official metes and bounds description of Zone W-2. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any defect in the Board’s adoption of that resolution, which is the official description of Zone W-2.
Mr. Woolsey seeks a refund of all groundwater production charges paid over the last 25 years, or $2,496.24 for fiscal years 1989-2015.
Recommendation
Based on staff’s investigation of this matter, it recommends denying Mr. Woolsey’s claim. Although his property appears outside Zone W-2 as generally depicted in the proposed map, the official description of Zone W-2 is the metes and bounds description contained in Board Resolution No. 71-79. Section 3 of the District Act states that the “board … by resolutions thereof adopted from time to time, may establish zones within said district … setting forth in such resolutions descriptions thereof of metes and bounds…
There is no evidence that the adoption of Resolution No. 71-79 was defective. The proposed resolution (i.e. Resolution No. 71-79) was part of the December 1971 Board agenda package made available to the public prior to its adoption.
Just as the metes and bounds description contained in Resolution No. 71-79 controls which parcels are in Zone W-2, it also controls which parcels are not. For instance, if a parcel was depicted as within the zone based on the proposed map, but not the metes and bounds description contained in the resolution, the staff would find that parcel not in Zone W-2. Again, the metes and bounds description contained in the resolution is the formal description of Zone W-2.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with this item.
CEQA:
The recommended action does not constitute a project under CEQA because it does not have a potential for resulting in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Claim
Attachment 2: Zone W2 Map
UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER:
Manager
Stan Yamamoto, 408-630-2755