COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00009 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002						The Sequoias
C00005 00003				  The ad-hoc Pool Committee
C00013 00004		Comments on Herb Dougall's list of courses of action.
C00022 00005	The Honorable Thomas M. Jenkins, Chairman of the Board
C00028 00006	DRAFT of PROPOSED LETTER (To be hand delivered to Mr. Dillon for tranmission
C00031 00007	Report of the ad-hoc pool committee Aug. 13, 1979
C00039 00008	The ad-hoc committee has reviewed the document dated July 26, 1979 submitted by
C00043 00009	Possible wording for a referendum, if one is to be conducted.
C00046 ENDMK
C⊗;
					The Sequoias
					July 14, 1979

To
Mrs. Elsie Jones      	17-P
Mrs. Caroline Johnson  	17-N
Mrs. Evelyn Cuthberson	22-A
Mrs. Amy Fowler        	22-B
Mr. and Mrs. James Borst	23-A
Mr. amd Mrs. Clinton Croke	23-B
Capt. and Mrs. Charles Ross	24-A
Prof. and Mrs. Dan Smith	24-B

The ad-hoc Pool Committee has been critized for not again asking those of
you whose homes are contiguous to the possible pool site near building 17
for your wishes in the matter (there was such a question on the original
questionnaire).  We thought (perhaps erroneously) that you would like to
have all of the facts that the committee had collected and that you might
like to see how the proposed site would look before finally making up your
mind as to how the choice of this location would affect your own privacy.

May we now suggest that you write a brief note to the Resident's Council
outlining your reasons for favoring or opposing the use of this site so
that your views may be properly considered at the special meeting of the
Resident's Council on July 26 th.

As you know the ad-hoc Pool Committee is now recommending an alternate site,
but this matter is sure to come up for discussion and it would help if the
Resident's Council had your considered opinion as to what would be best for
The Sequoias as a whole with due consideration for your own interests.

						Very truely yours,




						Arthur Samuel, chairman,
						The ad-hoc Pool Committee.
			  The ad-hoc Pool Committee
			       July 20, 1979

A critique of the petition that has been presented to the Resident's
Council opposing the construction of a pool and jacuzzi at The Sequoias.

We would like, firstly, to make a formal protest regarding two aspects of
this petition.

1.  We object to the conditions under which the petition was circulated
both because this was in clear violation of the policy of not allowing
solicitations except as provided for by the constitution and by-laws of
the Resident's Council, and because residents were not given all of the
facts available at the time the signatures were requested.

2.  We further object to the wording of the petition, which was written in
such a fashion as to induce residents to sign if they objected to any one
of three conditions that are enumerated and yet the wording is such as to
actually mean that the signers were objecting for ALL three reasons.

The petition is reproduced below with specific comments interposed.

(We, the undersigned par.)

Who is to give this guarantee?  The Resident's Council can not do so.
It has neither the legal authority nor the funds to guarantee anything.

What the petition is trying to say is that the signors would like the NCPH
Inc.  to take all reasonable steps to see that their enumerated conditions
are met.

The proponents of the petition have stated that their demands are not
negotiable, as if the ad-hoc Committee or the Resident's Council had any
power to negotiate.  All the Council can do is to make a recomendation to
the Board of Directors, and we can only hope that its recommendation and
the Board's final action will be in the best interests of the present and
future residents and of The Sequoias as an on-going institution .

(Their paragraph # 1)

The ad-hoc Committee's present site recommendation, i.e. the area near
the croquet court, satisfies this condition.

(Their paragraph # 2 first sentence )

To object to having the users pay for their use of the pool and at the
same time to insist that "all residents, now and hereafter, shall be held
free from monetary assessment" is highly unrealistic.  Who, after all, is
to pay for it?

Should the individuals who contribute to the construction costs be
required to underwrite the maintenance costs in perpetuity?  No endowment
fund, in today's dollars, can be deemed adequate in view of continuing
inflation.  Retirement Communities that guaranteed lifetime care for a
fixed sum have nearly all gone into bankruptcy and the court-appointed
administrators have levied charges against the residents regardless of any
guarantees to the contrary.  The only reasonable way to meet future costs
is by future assessments against future users.

If there are some residents who should use the pool for health reasons but
who cannot meet their share of the maintenance costs, it seems to the
ad-hoc Committee that it would be preferable to assist these individuals
privately rather than to have their plight revealed to other residents
through the remission of the pool usage fee.  Either situation would involve
charity and charity should be a private matter.

The contributors to the capital cost will not, and can not, be given any
special priveleges in return for their contributions.  Contributions will
irrevokable gifts and can be so reported for income tax purposes.

( their paragraph # 3 )

This requirement is self contradictory.  How can any individual, group of
individuals or even the NCPH Inc. guarantee protection against
catastrophic expenses except through insurance and a guarantee is
requested for expenses 'beyond' insurance coverage!  Do they mean beyond
existing insurance coverage?  Obviously, the existing coverage would be
extended to include the pool and the cost of doing this (quoted at $420
per year) would be considered a part of the operating expense.

The liability because of a pool is small as compared with the liability
now incurred by the NCPH because of the food service, continuing health
care and the Sequoian Coach. If the signers feel that the NCPH's present
coverage of $4,500,000 is inadequate then they should ask the NCPH to
increase the coverage and they should be prepared to pay their share of
the increased premium.

						The ad-hoc Pool Committee
						Paula Burr
						Betty Hone
						Ray Kelly
						Jack Mansfield
						Ray Pierce
						Charles Ross
 						Arthur Samuel, Chairman.
	Comments on Herb Dougall's list of courses of action.

This list of alternate courses of action makes no mention of at least three
courses of action that seem more reasonable than the courses of action that
are listed, to wit:

A. Confirm the authorization, given to the ad-hoc Pool Committee by the
executive committee of the Resident's Council, for the Pool Committee to proceed
with the appeal for funds and delay any further action until the results of
this appeal are known.

B. Supply the administration with a resume of the situation as it now exists and
ask them to decide what should be done.  This resume should be a carefully
prepared statement of facts, without the emotional appeal of charges and counter
charges that has characterized the discussion of this issue before the
Resident's Council and in the documents prepared by the groug of 6.

C. Rescind the action of the Executive Committee of the Resident's Council in
authorizing the ad-hoc Pool Committee to proceed with an appeal for funds and
table any further action until the polarization caused by the actions of the
group of 6 has had time to subside.

I might also fault the list of proposed actions because of the evidence of bias
that is contained in the wording of the various statements.  Some of these could
be reworded as listed below while others do not warrent any consideration and 
only muddy the waters.  Who would want the NCPH to build a pool and to not
accept contributions?  Residents frequently making contributions of one sort or
another and they are usually gratefully received?  Items 5 and 6 should not be
considered.

A detailed review of the suggested courses of action, items 1 through 4 incl.
follows:

1. This statement assumes that the ad-hoc committee has a single monolithic
proposal that must either be accepted or abandoned.  The committee has tried
to present the Resident's Council with information and with suggestions as to
how a pool might be financed and it does not have a proposal that must be
accepted or rejected, in toto.


2. The wording suggested for a popular vote is biased against having a pool. If
a vote is to be obtained, the questions should be worded somewhat as follows:

STRONGLY FOR
I am in favor of having a pool and jacuzzi at The Sequoias, Portola Valley  _____
if the construction is supplied by contributions even if at some future     |   |
time it may be decided to levy an assessment against all residents to pay   |   |
for on-going maintenance costs.   Residents who are unable to meet their    -----
proportional share would, of course, be relieved of this responsibility
just as they are now relieved of having to pay their full share of other
expenses.

CONDITIONALLY FOR
I am in favor of letting a few public-spirited residents contribute the	    _____
cost of building a pool and jacuzzi at The Sequoias, Portola Valley, but    |   |
only if I can be given assurances that neither I nor other unwilling        |   |
residents will be forced to pay any of the on-going maintenance costs.      -----
I would not oppose having a monthly charge for the use of the pool if
residents who are not financially able to pay these charges would be
privately relieved of this expense.

STRONGLY OPPOSED
I oppose having a pool and jacuzzi at The Sequoias even if the entire       _____
construction costs are contributed by a few public-spirited residents and   |   |
even if the subsequent maintenance costs are provided in such a way that I  |   |
and other wnwilling residents will never have to pay any part of the costs. -----
I just do not like pools and do not want one on the premises.


3. Asking the ad-hoc committee to continue its investigation and to report all
sorts of additional estimates is simply devising make-work for the ad-hoc
committee.  The capital costs estimates that have already been made are quite
adequate. In any event, the costs will be subject to expansion or contraction
depending upon the response to an appeal for funds.  The contributions that
certain individuals will make will depend upon the need.  To attempt to get more
detailed information without actually proceeding with an appeal for funds is
quite needless.

4. Ray Pierce's draft is a good first step toward trying to resolve differences
of opinion and to come up with a concrete proposal.  The draft is, however,
written as a request rather than as a recommendation, and it does contain some
restrictions that are better left entirely to the discression of the NCPH.

Item b. might better be replaced with a statement:  That the NCPH specifically
authorize the Resident's Council to make an appeal for funds and that the
NPCH delay any further action until it is evident that sufficient funds can be
raised in this manner.

Item c. might better be changed to read:  That the pool be available to all
residents of The Sequoias and that a monthly charge be levied against all
regular users of an amount to be determined by the actual operating costs.
There should also be a provision for a per useage charge for those residents
that might not prefer to become regular users.   It should also be recognized
that some residents might not be in a position to pay their full share of the
operating costs and these residents should be privately relieved of these
charges.


The Honorable Thomas M. Jenkins, Chairman of the Board
The Northern California Presbyterian Homes Inc.
San Francisco, California

Dear Mr. Jenkins:

As you know, an ad-hoc committee, appointed by the (Portola Valley) Resident's
Council, has been looking into the desirability of constructing of a swimming
pool and jacuzzi at The Sequoias, Portola Valley.  This letter is a brief report
of the results of this study and a request for advice from the Board as to what
further action the Resident's Council should take.

The opinion of the residents as to the desirability of having a pool at The
Sequoias is divided.  The proponents believe thst the advantages of having a
pool greatly outweigh the disadvantages, both in terms of the health benefits
to the present residents and in terms of the long range attractiveness of The
Sequoias to future residents.  The opposition is largely concerned with a fear
that the cost of maintaining the facility will eventually fall on unwilling
residents.  This fear must be allayed by proper financing provisions.  The
ad-hoc committee believes that the interest in using the pool will grow with
time and with the admission of new residents and that financing the on-going
expenses will, therefor, not be a problem.  This view is fortified by the
experiences reported at other retirement communities in this vicinity.

The Resident's Council believes that the present polarization of the residents
at The Sequoias, Portola Valley , will subside once the residents have learned
1) that the Board favors the addition of a pool to our facilities and 2) that
the Board intends to finance the project so that unwilling residents will not be
saddled with additional expenses.

From a survey of pool costs in the neighborhood and from estimates that have
been received from pool builders, the ad-hoc committee believes that a
satisfactory pool and jacuzzi with solar heating, with decking, fencing,
dressing rooms, auxillary gas heater etc., can be built for something in the
order of $40,00 or $50,000.  The actual cost will, of course, depend upon the
size of pool and upon the elaborateness of the installation.  We are well aware
of the fact that a pool at The Sequoias will have to meet commercial pool
specifications and that it would cost somewhat more than a private pool of the
same size.

The ad-hoc committee believes that the initial cost of the pool should be, and
can be, met by voluntary contributions,  contributions from the residents
(approximately $15,000 has been informally promised without any prompting by the
committee), from people on the waiting list (several have already indicated
their willingness to contribute) and from friends.  Whether or not this will
indeed be possible can only be determined by asking for pledges, something that
the ad-hoc committee does not feel it should do without the formal approval of
the administration or the Board of Directors.

The ad-hoc committee has proposed that the operating cost be met by charging a
monthly fee.  There should, of course, be the usual provision for the private
remission of charges for residents who are unable to meet them.  A monthly
charge of $10 should be sufficient to meet all ongoing expenses and to provide a
contingency fund against unanticipated costs.

The Resident's Council and the ad-hoc committee will undertake what ever action
the Board deems desirable at the present time, either in providing additional
information, meeting with representatives of the administration , or in
circulating an appeal for funds.  We await your pleasure.


					Very truly yours,
DRAFT of PROPOSED LETTER (To be hand delivered to Mr. Dillon for tranmission
to the Board through channels).


The Honorable Thomas M. Jenkins, Chairman of the Board 
The Northern California Presbyterian Homes Inc.  
San Francisco, California

Dear Mr. Jenkins:

As you know, an ad-hoc committee, appointed by the Residents' Council, at The
Sequoias, Portola Valley, has been looking into the desirability of constructing
a swimming pool and jacuzzi, financed by contributions.  The latest report of
this ad-hoc committee is attached for your information.

The ad-hoc committee believes that enough information has been accumulated to
justify asking the Board of Directors to review the situation and to advise the
Residents' Council as to what the next step should be.

The Residents' Council and the ad-hoc committee will undertake whatever action
the Board deems desirable.  Possible actions might be:

  1) For the Board to ask the ad-hoc pool committee to meet with members of the
  administrative staff to supply information and to answer questions.

  2) For the board to authorize its staff (or an outside organization) to make
  an objective survey of the wisdom of building a pool and of the costs
  involved.

  3) For the Board to authorize its administrative staff, the Residents' Council
  or the ad-hoc committee to circulate an appeal for contributions to pay for
  the construction of the pool.

We await your recommendations.

						Very truly yours,



Attachment: Ad-hoc committee report dated August 13, 1978.

c.c. Mr. J. A. Keith, Chairman, Continuing Care Section


Report of the ad-hoc pool committee Aug. 13, 1979

This is a summary report prepared for possible transmission to the NCPH.  For
greater detail see the previous ad-hoc committee reports.  This summary is
restricted to 5 major aspects.

1. The wishes of the residents regarding a pool

The opinion of the residents is divided as to the desirability of having a pool
at The Sequoias.  The proponents believe that the advantages of having a pool
greatly outweigh the disadvantages, both in terms of the health benefits to the
residents and in terms of the long range attractiveness of The Sequoias to
future residents.  The opposition is largely concerned with a fear that the
cost of maintaining the facility will eventually fall on unwilling residents.
This fear must be allayed by proper financing provisions.

The ad-hoc committee believes that it would be unwise to ask the residents
to vote on this matter, for the following reasons:

  1) Taking a vote, at least at this time, will further polarize the residents
  and lead to more hard feelings.

  2) The real question is not, do a majority of the present residents at The
  Sequoias want or need a pool, but rather, will constructing a pool be in the
  best interest of The Sequoias as an ongoing institution and can the desires
  and needs of a substantial number of the present residents be met without
  impinging upon the interests of other residents.  One of the good features
  about The Sequoias is the diversity of interests and activities of the
  residents and The Sequoias should cater to this diversity.

We believe that the present polarization of the residents at The Sequoias will
subside once the residents have learned:

  1) That the NCPH favors the addition of a pool to our facilities.

  2) That the pool will be financed in such a way as to insure that unwilling
  residents will not be charged with part of the expenses.

  3) That residents who are unable to meet their share of the costs will be
  allowed to use the pool and will be privately relieved of having to pay the
  monthly fee.

  4) That the NCPH will make sure that the liability insurance carried by the
  corporation is adequate and that it is extended to cover the pool.

2. Location

The ad-hoc committee is now recommending a site near the croquet courts, a
site that seems to be generally prefered.  One way in which a pool and
jacuzzi might be fitted into this area is shown in the attached sketch.

3. Initial costs

From a survey of pool costs in the neighborhood and from estimates that have
been received from pool builders, the ad-hoc committee believes that a
satisfactory pool and jacuzzi with solar heating, with decking, fencing,
dressing rooms, auxillary gas heater etc., can be built for $40,000 or $50,000.
The actual cost will, of course, depend upon the size of pool and upon the
elaborateness of the installation.  The figures quoted reflect the fact that a
pool at The Sequoias will have to meet commercial pool specifications and will
cost somewhat more than do private pools of the same size.

4. Financing the construction

The ad-hoc committee believes that the initial cost of the pool should, and can
be met by voluntary contributions from the residents (approximately $15,000 has
been promised without solicitation), from people on the waiting list (several
have indicated their willingness to contribute) and from friends.  Whether this
will indeed be possible can only be determined by asking for pledges, something
that the ad-hoc committee does not feel it should do without the formal approval
of the administration or of the Board of Directors.

5. Financing maintenance costs

The ad-hoc committee suggests that the operating cost be met by charging a
monthly fee.  There should, of course, be the usual provision for the private
remission of charges for residents who are unable to meet them.  A monthly
charge of $10 should be sufficient to meet all ongoing expenses and to provide
a contingency fund.  The NCPH would determine the actual costs, prescribe the
method of charging, and perhaps collect the fees, although this latter might be
left to a pool committee under the Residents' Council.

We believe that interest in using the pool will grow with time and with the
admission of new residents so that financing the on-going expenses will not be
a problem.  This view is fortified by the experiences at other retirement
communities.

For the ad-hoc pool committee


						Arthur Samuel,  chairman.


Attachment:  Pencil sketch showing proposed location.
The ad-hoc committee has reviewed the document dated July 26, 1979 submitted by
a sub-group of four of the original group of six who have been actively opposing
the pool by circulating a petition against it.  This new document repeats many
of the concerns voiced in the July 6th document, this time as a series of
questions.  All of the questions on this new list have either been already been
answered or have satisfactory answers that are known to the signers of the
document.  Some members of the ad-hoc committee view this document as an attempt
to influence opinion by innuendo.

Some of the questions imply that the ad-hoc committee has not done enough since
it had not done a number of things that are premature and that are clearly
outside the committee's jurisdiction, such as, getting approval from the Portola
Town Council, and verifying that having a pool on the grounds will not endanger
our tax free status.  Another question blames the ad-hoc committee for the
polarization that was clearly the result of the circulation by the group of six
of a petition which we believe to be misleading.  In this question it is stated
that 124 people do not want a pool when the petition was worded that they did
not want a pool if certain conditions were not met.  Of these three conditions,
the first, has been met by the newly suggested location, the second, accords
with the recommendations of the ad-hoc committee and can be easily met, and the
third is a condition that can never be met, requiring, as it does, that there be
a guarentee BEYOND insurance coverage.  What is undoubtedly meant is that there
be some assurance that the liability insurance is adequate, a matter that can
certainly be left to the judgement of the Board of Directors of the NCPH.

The members of the ad-hoc committee are also disturbed by the inuendo that they
have not acted in good faith and have not honestly tried to learn what would be
in the present and future best interests of The Sequoias.  One question even
implies that the members of the Resident's Council who also served on the ad-hoc
committee should be barred from voting on any action that the Council might take
with respect to the pool proposal.

Possible wording for a referendum, if one is to be conducted.


   A PROPOSAL TO HAVE A POOL AND ASSOCIATED JACUZZI AT THE SEQUOIAS
		
I am in favor of allowing an outdoor, heated pool and jacuzzi (which
could be enclosed if sufficient funds can be raised) to be built at The
Sequoias for the benefit of present and future residents, if the following
conditions are met:

1. That the initial cost of the pool and jacuzzi be completely met by gifts
from a few public-spirited residents, future residents and friends of The
Sequoias.

2. That provisions be made to pay for the maintenance expenses in such a way
that neither I nor any other resident will be required to pay any part of the
maintenance expenses unless the resident desires to make use of the pool and 
jacuzzi on a regular basis and has expressly agreed to pay his or her share of
the costs.

3. That private arrangements be made to allow residents who can not meet
their proportionate share of the maintenance expenses to be relieved of this
responsibility so that they can still get the health benefits of swimming.

4. That the residents be assured by the Board of Directors that the NCPH
is adequately protected and will continue to be adequately protected by
insurance against any liability that might arise because of the pool.

5. That the poll and jacuzzi be built in the general area of the croquet
court and bowling green where it will not impinge upon the privacy of any
residents.


I have read the above carefully and I vote YES on the proposal  _____

I have read the above carefully and I vote NO on the proposal   _____