HomeMy Public PortalAbout19751126 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 75-25 c
.► AA. Meeting 75-25
I
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Regular Meeting y
Board of Directors
A_ G_ E_ N_ D A_ 1
November 26 , 1975 _ 7 :30 P.M. !
Midpeninsula Regional Park District
745 Distel Drive
Los Altos, CA
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 12 , 1975
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION
(7 :45) 1. Letter from I. Sewell Regarding Sequoia Union High School
District Farm Hill Site - D. Wendin
(8 :00) 2 . Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District -
H. Grench
(8 :15) 3. Cupertino Hillside General Plan/Draft EIR - K. Duffy and
N. Hanko
OLD BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION
(9 :15) 4 . Proposed "Friends of the MRPD" Foundation - H. Grench
NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION
(9 :30) 5 . Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Park District Confirming Exercise of Option to
Purchase Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute
Certificate of Acceptance of Conveyance to District, and
Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other
Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the
Transaction (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Addition)
- E. Jaynes
(9 :35) 6. Proposed Use and Management Plan for Congress Springs Open
Space Preserve - J. Olson
NEW BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION
(10 :05) 7 . Projected Office Space Requirements
CLAIMS
(10 :15) EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations
ADJOURNMENT
i
1), 1575
,2o the
r J 7�e 7 C Z 0, 7 a
-t+ c r v', sL ,,.,vc hid with
r L ia C 0 f ID -11.C1--J`oCrS oil the
c a E:cu E s- ions related
C-n S U I
tr,311
-ov -, 5 or. south -clopc of
a n n previously: and borderinE
on C ,:nd
U11
11-.c- horsc-owncrE I- T'E. Z-
,jen' n- of 3 -3rCViOUSl', L C; ..or se
,;.n1s trail has nevcr c; t you to
Dennl who is c e:
Lydon bulldozed this h-* L for
the purpose, of
out. Any users of tics 4yra.il art
Thu location of c x i-m e I o'-- L C 1, -;lc
and it creates -. numbex, of orobiL-'i.Z -LC
adjoininE rcsidentz . 1`17c: nceived
and constructed at ex-pe-nsc o--' 2h�, _act.,-
I C of c 0 n's i d C r Z� C.,n r e
ment of the trail
adjacent property owners .
Tiie probleins ccu-s b Ed , thiz ,-rc,
1) The trail Is, on tkic 8nd
intrusion on our ,>v-lv� c�,,, . n C; u O'Ll
homes as they riac rast- . Anc. !'I - oc, to
sce the horses �,o by , .,fter y &-s of )r c c r-t y
ds,,-.,aaFc and trespassin,, cu
2) This section of t.,I.c trail a cl-osicn.
pvoblcm of both -park land an land. 1 n i 11 1 s
at IeLvst twice that of tEe V� llcy . The
will be, rcc oons."ble fr*1--- c rc,,f on of
by the trail. A r(-t a I r)'I w a 11 would v x, s I V,,':
fox` tE!Xpayer and 11 oe -,Voidcd by c-: li-il, thL.
of the tr,,il. v wl-,: t .1',
Ii, the r6 1, a-L, be vn
sc the trail f ol'lio,,%;-,, all line,, .
ni-- u n pr I v L it�; ,Dr:-opt-i-, iL t-n c o L
Jan the -)roperty Inc %,aIll -ot 'LOIL'
Si-cc the :,�z:,rk distrieL nas h C
pbliDlic, t.,t, district Is also fo. of
those who use it, 4 nd liable for the luck of sGch control.
Yoviniz- the trail down tuh-u hiii iJO feet will cz,sc the
prob1cm, but not climinate It . A chain iin'A- fcncc Is
rcquired on the property boundery.
11 ) Horse trails are dusty end -sm(.1-1y. The prevaiiinF-, ;rinds
are northerly; this elves us the full Impact of dust and
smell. aome ,,:ill sad horse trails don 't smell; but smell
is not absolute, it is relative.
The existinE trail is (]an-crous -,r.d invites accident and
lawsuit . During the rainy s�-ason it v,iil be -1r.ost danCcrous.
I believe extreme efforts should 'be t4.,.en to avoid law-
suits, even though the perl is insured. hepair of the
present trail at taxpayers expense would be wc,steful
because it will not solve ail the problems associated with
this trail. The present trail should not have been opened.
of course, each of the above problems could be tolerated
if there were no reasonable alternatives--it is not a life oY
death matter. But there is no reason to tolerate the situation
because reasonable alternatives do exist that in no way
compromise the usefulness of this park to the general public.
Therefore, I ask the following:
1) The portion of trail that parallels the back boundaries
of Kuehn 's and Bradley ' s property be closed immiediately.
2 ) ' Consideration be C.iven to no trail on the south slope of
this canyon, since there 17alroady a trail at the bottom
of the canyon. I suEZfest a survey be m&de of residents
most affected by this trail to determine its desirability.
Those residents would be Edi;ards , Kuchns, Bradley-,, and
all of arrowhead since horses miist cross their land to
gct to the trail. A trail on the south slope of the
canyon does not serve the residents of arrourhcad ;as the
district has been :fade to believe . In fz�:ct, these
rcs,ldents iiave all sltY,ned a edition opposlnL i,.orseoack
rluln�- on their properties . The horse trail In discussion
will encoura6c trespa--slniL on arrowhead propert;, In order
to E.:ct to said trail (a copy of this [)etition has been
sent to Kay Duffy ) .
If it Is decided by the board thot., a trail along; the south
slope of the canyon Is absolutely necessary , I suE�rest
that & different trail location be chosen. This trail
shoiild follow contour lines z-,nd bcEin on the west side of
a knoll located about 11")0 feet vrest of my property, and
continue, at this elevation to a point where it will
intersect an existing jeep trail northeast of Bradleys.
Technically, a well dsslEned trail will follow contour
(3)
lines inhere possible instead of following the fall line
as does the present trail.
The most re_ason,- 1)!e arCurnrnt I have heard opposing a
trail down the Y:ill is ti.,e disturbing influence it would'
have; on wildlife. Wildlife deserves consideration; but
on the other hand I deserve at lcz st equal consideration--
r.:_:; be even a little more than because I am a tax-
payer and a voter. This is a hue:-e canyon and displaced
wildlife could cv,sil;; ta1,e up a new residence. however,
the best protection of wildlife in the canyon is no trail
at all, other tlian the existing, road at the bottom.
4} A chain link fence be installed teat will sePara.te pink
land from Kuehn' s and Bradley ' s land.
I thank ail of you for -,our vrillinE..ness to listen to all
of my problems in our personal conversations . I encourage, you,
-in whLetever action is taken concerning all parK land, to
consider the interests of the average taxpayer even though he
does not attend your meetinCs , and to resist tre pressures
of small, special-interest `roues. Please note that the
average taxpayer is not a horse owner.
copies to
Jon 01son
Katherine Luffy Sincerely,
Nonette I.anko �''
;^&-ard Shelley
Barbara Green
Daniel ,lendin �dA -'e,
i
November 19, 1975
To the Midpeninsula Regional Park District
This letter will summarize discussions I have had with
the land manager and several of the board members of the
Midpeninsula Regional Park District. These discussions related
to a horse trail constructed November 15 on the south slope of
a canyon previously owned by Seven Springs Ranch and bordering
on Kuehn'b and Bradley's residential property .
The horseowners, group has been stating that this is a
reopening of a previously established public horse trail.
This trail has never been open to the public (I refer you to
Mr. Denny who Is foreman of the Seven Springs Ranch) . Jack
Lydon bulldozed this trail for his own personal use and for
the purpose of installing a chain link fence to keep horses
out. Any users of this trail were trespassers.
The location of this trail Is extremely objectionable
and it creates a number of problems and annoyances for the
adjoining residents. The trail was obviously hastily conceived
and constructed at the expense of good planning. The place-
ment of the trail shows a total lack of consideration for the
adjacent property owners.
The problems caused by this trail are as follows:
1) The trail is on the property, line and is, therefore, an
intrusion on our privacy. The riders can look into our
homes as they ride past. And it is annoying for us to
see the horses go by, especially after years of property
damage and trespassing by horseback riders.
2 ) This section of the trail presents a serious erosion
problem of both park land and my land. Our rainfall is
at least twice that of the valley. The park district
will be responsible for e,rosion of my property caused
by the trail. A retaining wall would be very expensive
for the taxpayer and can be avoided by changing,'the
location of the trail. No matter what is done to the
present trail, there will always be an erosion problem
because the trail follows the fall line.
Trespassing on private property is encouraged with a trail
an the property line. I will not tolerate trespassing.
Since the park district has provided the trail for the
public, the district Is also responsible for control of
(2)
those who use it, and liable for the lack of such control.
Moving the trail down the hill 100 feet will ease the
problem, but not eliminate it. A chain link fence is
required on the property boundary.
I
} Horse trails are dusty and smelly. The prevailing, winds
are northerly; this gives us the full impact of dust and
smell. Some will say horse trails don't smell; but smell
is not absolute, it is relative.
I
) The existing: trail is dangerous and invites accident and
lawsuit . During the rainy season it will be .:rest dangerous.
I believe extreme efforts should be taken to avoid law-
suits, even though the park is insured. Repair of the
present trail at taxpayers expense would be wasteful
because it will not solve all the problems associated with
this trail. The present trail should not have been opened.
Of course, each of the above problems could be tolerated
if there were no reasonable alternatives--it is not a life oY
death smatter. But there is no reason to tolerate the situation
because reasonable alternatives do exist that in no way
compromise the usefulness of this pare to the general public.
Therefore, I ask the following:
l) The portion of trail that parallels the back boundaries
of Suehn 's and Bradley 's property be closed immediately.
2) Consideration be given to no trail on the south slope of
this canyon, since there is already a trail at the bottom
of the canyon. I suest a survey be made of residents
most affected by this trail to determine its desirability.
These residents would. be Edwards, Kuehns, Bradleys and
all of arrowhead since horses must cross their land to
get to the trail. A trail on the south slope of the
canyon does not serve the residents of arrowhead as the
park district has been made to believe. In fact, these
residents raave all signed a petition opposing horsecack
ridinY on their properties. The horse trail in discussion
will encourage trespassing, on arrowhead property in order
to get to said trail (a copy of this petition has been
sent to KayDuffy ) .
3) If it is decided by the board that a trail along; the south
slope of the canyon is absolutely necessary, I suggest
that a different trail location be chosen. This trail
should follow contour lines and begin on the west side of
a knoll located about 150 feet west of my property, and
continue at this elevation to a point where it will
intersect an existing jeep trail northeast of Bradleys.
Technically, a. well designed trail will follow contour
lines where possible instead of followinE, the fall line
as does the present trail.
The most reasonable ar .ument I have heard ouposing a
trail down the hill is the disturbing, influence it would
have on wildlife. Wildlife deserves consideration; but
on the other hand I deserve at least Equal consideration--
i a;,Tbe even a little more than equal because I am a tax-
payer and a: voter. This is a huge canyon and displaced
wildlife could Easily take up a new residence. Fiov.ever,
the best protection of wildlife in the canyon is no trail
at all, other than the existing, road at the bottom.
4) A chain link fence be installed th«t will seoar•a.te park
d n uehn' s and Bradley ' s land.
land from K y
I thank sill of you for our willinE.;ness to listen to Ei.11
of my problems in our personal conversations . I encourage you,
In i,rhptever action is taken concerning all parK land, to
consider t!7ie interests of the average taxpayer even though he
does not attend your meetings , and to resist trie pressures
of small, special-interest groups . Please note that the
averaEe taxpayer is not a horse owner.
copies to
Jon Olson
Katherine Duffy Sincerely,
Nonette Hanko
Edward Shelley
Barbara Green
Daniel Wendin � �
f
2000 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO
CALIFORNIA
AA p b
Oka
— Ao t
°'o,
A
a
Pl-75-167
AA. (Meeting
Agenda item No. 2)
'V10f
0 4"M
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 18 , 1975
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Master Plan Subcommittee (K. Duffy and D. Wendin)
SUBJECT: Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park
District
Background: At its November 12 , 1975 meeting, the Board
of Directors considered a revised format and text of the
draft Master Plan of the District which would be distributed
to the public for review and comment. (See memorandum
M-75-151 dated October 16 , 1975 . ) The draft Master Plan
had been adopted on October 22 , 1975 . The Master Plan Sub-
committee was directed to study the proposed format and
text and return to the Board with a recommendation. A
meeting of the Master Plan Subcommittee was held on November
18 for this purpose.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the evaluation section
in the new text replace the previously adopted version. It
is further recommended that no other changes in the text be
made and that the draft Master Plan for the Midpeninsula
Regional Park District be printed as originally decided with
a multi-page, map-insert format.
KD/DW:acc
M-75-169
(Meeting 75-25,
F Agenda item No. 2)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 20 , 1975
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District
I
i
Following the meeting of November 18 , 1975 , of the Master Plan
Subcommittee, Dan Weden drew up the attached memorandum. The
Subcommittee has agreed that the memorandum should be submitted
to the Board along with the Subcommittee recommendation.
HG;acc
i
i
Planning Department
314 County Administration Building
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
County of Santa Clara 299-2521 Area Code 408
California
November 19 , 1975
TO: Herbert Grench , General Manager
FROM: Don Weden, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: FORMAT FOR PRINTING THE DRAFT MRPD MASTER PLAN
At the Board ' s Master Plan Subcommittee meeting of November 18 , 1975 ,
the discussion focused on the advantages and disadvantages of printing
the text of the Master Plan on the reverse side of the 22"x34" Open
Space Lands Composite Evaluation Map versus printing the report as a
30-page report with the map folded in a pocket inside the back cover.
Before the Board makes its final decision on this matter , I would
like to outline for their consideration some of the advantages (and
difficulties ) of printing an edited version of the Master Plan text
on the reverse side of the map.
Enclosed for possible review by the Board are "dummies " indicating
the size and general layout of the draft Master Plan if the text
were typeset in accordance with the edited version given to Board
members at their November 12th meeting . As you can see, the entire
Master Plan text , including the background information regarding the
District, would be presented on just seven pages with two columns
of text per page. The layout is such that when the readers open
the report to pages 1 and 2 they see not only the Introduction but
also the three basic sections of the Master Plan--the Open Space Acqui -
sition Policies , the Open Space Lands Evaluation , and the Implementa-
tion section . (The text of the Acquisition Policies and Implementa-
tion sections would be continued onto pages 3-6 . ) Please also note
that in order to get to the map, the reader cannot avoid being exposed
to the entire text of the Master Plan . Thus , the prospects for any-
one viewing the map out of its proper context are greatly reduced .
If the Board wants to encourage people to read the draft Master Plan ,
I believe the advantages of giving them seven pages to read rather
then thirty pages are quite obvious . After showing both versions
to various members of the District ' s staff and the County Planning
Department staff, the response in favor of the shorter version is
virtually unanimous .
The major difficulty involved in printing the Master Plan text on the
reverse side of the map is that it will require the Board to adopt
a shortened version of the previously adopted text . The unedited ver-
sion simply won ' t fit legibly within the space available . The edited
version you were given on November 12th will fit but just barely. In
fact, if another paragraph is added to it , it won ' t fit--it ' s that
Memorandum
To: Herbert Grench, General Manager
November 19 , 1975
Page 2
close. Thus if the Board wants to print the text and the map on
one sheet of paper as indicated by the enclosed "dummy" , it is
faced with the difficult choice of either adopting the edited text
essentially "as is" or of having to find an equal amount of text to
delete for each portion of text you add to the edited version . Quite
frankly, this will call for a level of discipline and self-restraint
not ordinarily demonstrated by elected bodies such as yours .
One of the main reasons the Subcommittee is recommending against
printing the shorter version is that they don ' t feel that the Board
would be willing to exercise such restraint and reach agreement on
a shortened text without going through a lengthy, time-consuming
debate. If they are correct, then I agree with their recommendation
that the 30-page version be published so that this project can be
completed as expeditiously as possible .
Before making that decision , however , I would hope that each Board
member will take the time to read the edited version and ask them-
selves "Does this text effectively convey the basic information the
Master Plan is intended to convey?" If they compare the edited text
with the unedited version and find words or phrases they would like
to see re-inserted into the text , I believe they should ask themselves
"Are these words or phrases so absolutely essential that their inser-
tion justifies publishing the Master Plan as a 30-page report (which
virtually no one will read ) rather than as a 7-page report?"
Considering the amount of time and effort which went into the pre-
paration of this Master Plan , I believe it would be extremely unfor-
tunate if it were published in a format which virtually guarantees
that very few people will take the time to read it . Sending out such
a document for review and comment could be a rather hollow exercise .
I sincerely hope that the Board will give serious consideration to
the possibility of publishing the shortened version on the reverse
side of the map .
DW: ep
Enclosure
i
M-75-168
(Meeting 75-25,
Agenda item No
3)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 19, 1975
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: K. Duffy and N. Hanko
SUBJECT: Cupertino Hillside General Plan/Draft EIR
Background: At the September 24 , 1975 Board meeting, ►dr.
James Sisk, Director of the City of Cupertino Planning
Department presented the proposed Cupertino Hillside Gen-
eral Plan/Draft EIR to the Board. A subcommittee consist-
ing of Directors Kay Duffy and Nonette Hanko was established
to review the Cupertino plan and return to the Board with
suggested comments and recommendations.
Discussion: We wish to compliment the citizens, City
officials and staff for the comprehensive planning done in
developing Cupertino 's General Plan proposal. We appreciate
the opportunity to add our comments to the discussion.
Urban Service Area Boundary: The Subcommittee questions the
use of this line to designate the division between "upper"
and "lower" foothills for the following reasons:
(a) This line appears to be an arbitrary boundary based
on political and property lines, and bears little
relationship to the terrain of upper and lower foot-
hills.
(b) Since this line is moveable and could be changed
annually by action of the Local Agency Formation
Commission, the use of this line tends to create
either a moveable General Plan or one requiring
continuous amendment. We think it would be a mis-
take to tie a General Plan designation to such a
potentially mobile line when such gross differences
in densities exist depending on which side of the
line property is located.
(c) The Urban Service Area, as defined by LAFCO, should
include only those areas intended to be serviced
with urban utilities within the next five years.
According to Cupertino ' s own report to LAFCO, the
present Urban Service Area exceeds LAFCO guidelines
M-75-168 Page two
by 1,000 acres. We suggest withdrawal of the Cup-
ertino Urban Service Area boundary to approach the
appropriate size as established by LAFCO and as
defined in the County ordinance enacting the C-S
zone.
Rural Residential : The Subcommittee recommends endorsement
of the City's proposed Rural Residential Zone which would be
applied to the unincorporated hillsides within the City's
Sphere of Influence. We further support implementation of
the proposed zoning by the County.
Foothill Residential : The Subcommittee questions the pro-
posed density of the Foothill Residential Zone, especially
since it seems to increase the proposed density by more than
three times over that of the Monte Bello Ridge study for the
same area. With such densities , the opportunity is lost to
provide a transition from the existing valley floor develop-
ment to the less dense areas of the foothills. Beginning the
slope formula with a 4 . 4 du/A density and then applying
clustering credits for the more rugged terrain may lead to
excessive density concentrations on the more buildable areas
of both the 7 Springs, Church, and perhaps other properties.
We would like to suggest adoption of a slope density formula
considerably less dense than the City's plan and more in
keeping with that of the Monte Bello Ridge Study recommenda-
tion.
Semi-Rural : The Subcommittee has some severe reservations
concerning the "Semi-Rural" designation. If urban services
for these areas are indeed "impractical or not desired, "
should this land be in the Urban Service Area (or Foothill
Residential) in the first place? If this designation is
intended to be a transition between "foothill" and "rural"
then perhaps this zone should be more accurately described
on the maps and labeled as a transition zone. The densities
of these areas should reflect the limitations of services
and be appropriately restrictive to provide the desired
transition. we would suggest starting at 2. 5 A/du as sug-
gested in the Monte Bello Ridge Study. 1. 5 A/du does not
seem adequately restrictive for areas without sewers . In
any case, it is important that once this zone is chosen by
the City, it should become a permanent designation. Other-
wise future sewer construction would be accompanied by lot
splits which could become a planning nightmare.
Open Space in Foothills: The Subcommittee is concerned that
Open Space be aft- acceptable use in the "foothill" zone as
well as in the "rural" zone. Open Space acquisition should
not require amendment to the General Plan. We are pleased
with the recent Planning Commission's recommendations on this
subject.
M-75-168 Page three
Protective Planning; We are pleased with the Specific Hillside
Policies #4 and #5 , which call for proper site location for
homes and fences in order to enhance open space and preserve
wildlife. It is particularly important that as much as possible
be done early in the planning stage to mitigate the effects
of nearby development and to protect the scenic qualities of
the District' s existing open space preserves. In addition,
future access and the character of the approaches to both the
Fremont Older Preserve and the District' s Perham Ranch Acqui-
sition will be of great concern to the District. We recommend
that a review procedure be established which would provide
for District comment on building and subdivision activity on
lands adjacent to District preserves.
County Parks: It should be noted that the County' s long range
parks plan indicates a County facility roughly on the northern
portion of the Church property and the lower portion of the
District 's Perham Ranch Acquisition. This proposed site is not
noted on this version of Cupertino ' s General Plan map. Because
of the differences in the goals of the Midpeninsula Regional Park
District and the County's parks program, the presence of the Dis-
trict' s Perham Ranch Acquisition should not preclude consideration
of this area, in conjunction with a larger open space area to the
south, as a site for a County park. In fact, a County recreation
facility adjacent to a large open space area should create some
particularly valuable recreational opportunities.
Primary Road System for Re2nart-Lindy Canyons: Because of the
nature of the District' s open space preserves , we believe it
would be contrary to our stated purposes to endorse or encour-
age any new road system which would bisect District lands . The
proposed road on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve would
ruin the open space qualities which make this site special.
A solution might be to keep densities low enough so that new
roads are not required.
Grading Ordinance: We strongly support a proposed upgrading
of Cupertinol7sgrading ordinances and wish to stress the great
importance of strict enforcement as a deterrent to illegal
grading.
Williamson Act Lands: In planning for development, the General
Plan has not singled out lands which have 10-year contracts
restricting their use to open space purposes (and- significantly
reducing their taxes) . Lands under the "Land Conservation Act"
were not intended to be speculative holding zones for develop-
ment. We wish to suggest that there is ample time upon can-
cellation (up to 10 years) of the contract to review and re-
vise the General Plan for these areas. In the meantime, "long
term open space" would be a more proper designation.
KD/NH:acc
M-75-165
(Meeting 75-25,
Agenda item No. 4)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 17, 1975
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Friends of the MRPD Foundation
At the Board of Directors' November 26, 1975 meeting I will
give an oral report on a subject of particular interest to the
District which was discussed in a seminar held at the 1975
Congress for Recreation and Parks. The seminar addressed the
establishment of private foundations, such as the proposed
"Friends of the MRPD Foundation, " to help with funding of parks
and open space programs.
HG:acc
} Ah AA. M-75-171
(Meeting 75-25 ,
#' Agenda item No. 6)
i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 21, 1975
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Use and Management Plan for Congress Springs
Open Space Preserve
Background : On August 13 , 1975 , the Board of Directors adopted
an interim use and management plan for the Congress Springs
Open Space Preserve. Staff was directed to return by December,
1975 with a comprehensive plan for the site. Attached is the
Land Manager' s report (R-75-21 , dated November 21, 1975) recom-
mending a Proposed Use and Management Plan for Congress Springs
Open Space Preserve.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the
attached Use and Management Plan for Congress Springs Open
Space Preserve.
It is further recommended that the Board adopt the name Con-
gress Springs Open Space Preserve for this site, which has been
unofficial up to this point.
HG:acc
R-75-21
AA, (Meeting 75-25,,
Agenda item No. 6)
iVwavqft 0 4&MM
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 21 , 1975
TO: H. Grench, General Manager
FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Use and Management Plan for Congress Springs
Open Space Preserve
Introduction: On May 14 , 1975 the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Park District accepted a gift of 2 .1
acres of property belonging to the Saratoga Union High School
District. Immediately following acquisition of the site,
planning procedures were initiated and on August 13 , 1975
an interim use and management recommendation was adopted
(M-75-116) . Staff was directed to return with a comprehen-
sive plan for the site by December, 1975.
The second phase of the District' s planning procedures (Site
Specific Planning) was then exercised, resulting in the fol-
lowing report. It consists of a description of the site,
its resources , facilities and specific recommendations for
capital improvements, and overall policy recommendations
for the use and management of the site. Portions of this
report are excerpted from the original acquisition report
of May 8 , 1975 (Proposed Congress Springs Open Space Preserve ,
R-75-10) .
Consistent with the adopted planning procedures , the effec-
tiveness of this plan will be reviewed annually, and the
plan is subject to revision when necessary.
Background:
(a) Regional Setting. The Congress Springs Open Space
Preserve (unofficial name) is located adjacent to
Congress Springs Road (Highway 9) , two miles west
of Saratoga. This region represents part of a
potentially valuable scenic and recreational cor-
ridor which links the urbanized area with the
Skyline corridor. Presently, all of Route 9 is
included in the Scenic Highway Element of the
R-75-21 Page two
State of California Master Plan, and the portion
adjacent to the Preserve has received County
recognition as a scenic road. The future use
and management of this site will employ the ob-
jective of preserving the scenic value of this
corridor.
(b) Site Description. The property is located on the
lower portion of the northfacing slopes which are
a part of the Saratoga Creek watershed. The north
end of the site is nearly level but the slope in-
creases markedly towards the south. The majority
of the parcel has slopes of 30% to 60% . The steep
topography and dense vegetation make the property
a valuable portion of the watershed.
Soils appear to be derived from sandstone and pro-
bably belong to the Los Gatos-Maymem series. They
are sandy but high in organic matter because of
a thick layer of leaf litter. The dense vegetation
indicates the soil has a high moisture content.
They are also easily eroded once the vegetative
cover is removed.
The upper portion of the site is characterized by
a dense woodland community. Within this community
there is a moderately thick understory of shrubs
and herbaceous plants. The small portion of the
lower slope is comprised of a shrub community with
distinct boundaries between it and the woodland.
In general, a large variety of trees, shrubs and
herbs are found throughout the entire site.
The viewshed from the site is limited on most of
the location because of the woodland community.
A view of the north slopes beyond Saratoga Creek
can be obtained from a few places on the upper
slopes.
For the most part, the site affords a sense of
seclusion from the urbanized area, except for road
noises.
(c) Cultural History. In 1885 , this property was pur-
chased for a school site by the Booker School Dis-
trict. There was a small schoolhouse located on
the north end of the site but in 1923 it was
destroyed by fire. Shortly afterwards , the school
district and the site were combined with the Sara-
toga Union School District, but the property is
still commonly referred to as the Booker School site.
R-75-21 Page three
The entire area, including this property, is histor-
ically significant. At the turn of the century,
Route 9 was used for logging and was one of the first
roads which crossed to the west of the Santa Cruz
Mountains. At this time , it was a tollroad and
was widely used by the public to reach the resorts
which were being developed around the mineral springs
in the canyon. There was obviously an early recog-
nition of the recreational value of the area.
(d) Access and Parking. Access to the property is ob-
tained by Congress Springs Road, bounding the site
on the north, and an unpaved road, straddling the
site on the west boundary. Both roads have no park-
ing facilities and the rugged terrain will prevent
any future development. The nearest parking facility
is located a few hundred feet to the west of the site
and across from the Saratoga Springs Inn. Its use
is restricted to patrons of the resort.
(e) Existing Development. Development has been restricted
by the site 's small size , dense vegetation, and
steep slopes. There are signs of an old roadbed
crossing the site in the east-west direction, but
plant intrusion has made it obscure. It is likely
this road was used by the adjacent resort or is a
remnant of the old tollroad. No other development
exists on the site.
(f) Other Agency Planning Considerations. The property
is within the unincorporated portion of Santa Clara
County and also within the Sphere of Influence of
the City of Saratoga. Since both the County and
Saratoga have indicated a strong interest in pre-
serving the scenic quality of the Route 9 corridor,
use and management schemes for the site will com-
plement adjacent land use policies.
There are two County trails currently proposed in
the area; one is located along Congress Springs
Road, and the other originates at the intersection
of Route 9 and Sanborn Road and runs adjacent to
the southern boundary of the site.
(g) Other Planning Considerations . The Saratoga Union
School District granted the property to the Mid-
peninsula Regional Park District with the condition
that the property be used for park, recreation and
open space purposes. A license agreement also
exists between both parties granting the School
District the irrevocable right to use the property
R-75-21 Page four
for purposes of conducting outdoor science educa-
tion programs and classes for a period of twenty
years.
Other planning considerations normally would include
comments and opinions solicited from neighborhood
meetings. Since this site has relatively few neigh-
bors, and no significant land use changes are being
proposed, a meeting was not held. Copies of this
report will be sent to the San Jose Water Works Com-
pany and the Saratoga Springs Inn, and any comments
will be welcome during public discussion of this
agenda item.
Policy Recommendations:
(a) Preserve and protect the natural amenities of the
area, thereby prohibiting any development of the site.
(b) Cooperate with city and County efforts to establish
a scenic corridor along Route 9 so long as changes
in the use and management of the site are within the
scope of the District' s goals.
(c) Exempt the site from entry permit requirements and
encourage only occasional use of the site. Hiking,
photography and environmental education are acceptable
uses.
Improvement and Management Recommendations:
(a) Remove major debris from the north end of the site
and bury the partially decomposed refuse also located
at the north end of the site. This will cost about
$250.
(b) Continue scheduling periodic volunteer cleanups as
trash accumulates on the site.
(c) maintain regular patrol.
Summary: The physical characteristics of this site are limit-
ing factors in the potential recreational use of the Preserve.
Access and parking are critically restricted by the steep
terrain on which the highway (Route 9) is constructed. The
small size of the site and the dense vegetation make the
development of interior trails impractical.
Although the uses of the site are limited, it has a great
potential as an integral part of a regional recreational
scenic corridor. If the concept progresses , implementation
of a regional plan may include trail development within the
site.
R-75-21 Page five
Over the past few months, regular patrols have indicated no
problems associated with current use of the site. In August,
1975, the interim use and management recommendation exempted
the site from entry permits, and since that time there has
not been an increase in use.
The large debris located on the north end of the site should
be removed to enhance the environmental quality of the area.
Mechanical removal would require disturbing vegetation which
has reestablished itself on the old roadbed. It is therefore
recommended that this debris be removed manually. The smaller
debris located in the same area is partially decomposed and
can easily be disposed of.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors
adopt the Policy Recommendations and Improvement and Manage-
ment Recommendations set forth in this report.
JO:acc
\ s,
• O \ _ // a%N\,� 1411 1.`� � • i R '4�af N ...•.
AIR
J 1 1Ai i-� -oil
jtie �( �. �.. I 1—.r. �;A� �'i •8�' ��� ��i � iB H
l r
�D W a a
� s
g Acquisition �-
Q Wa,tereWA
—11 s
I� • � Borrow Pit BP�Y" 6 •_ _� -eqg�--� � _ /`��'�c � I
i 839 �i M1T 5r .
\6� U •,,f 9 ? �PF ��,_ �, \ "�� _ �BpO Gravels_
Pit
l000 I,
x
I
0 0
120
1 •U
I
20p0 ate.
f ti L "AT IOW, NI AP
-
n.
Ax�E.
'�
Hilhl
(. g gg �S IuniOdror
Vale 5 $811t2
Fl 1. WEE CAMINO RE a t<
n xPEMOxr¢ RV. y
-
, .- �xoMrsrux er`O 4
x, '
r �GMEOA'r+
AAAA
� 4 e6 5 FSiVEN$ �� 3 CREEK BIVD. SAN GR Os �-
Permanente Cllpertln0 -
�
pp
dFl
a,, crP(en,(r. G2 •..xl 4"�
Jose
TTT s 0 tr•s 7 vEosrtcr2 rMnro
G Campbell
STEVENS
.VrENS Co
CREEK
Rb� � 2 Or)0i OP fy yRR(l'l ` C4
a
o y e p
SA carocA 2 a °T�rE a3o a vaiExo'y g�i�yW� � NlVsoµE
Saratoga I.
CONGRESS SPRINGS :rE"��F ,A
FORES]FF 3 LA Monte ;x
SARSOR ArreL. 1. Sereno
cAsn sxruN NaNORE1N 4 a amssoM uxu((x GIB Ro� s
P E o R5. 2 2 �� �
OPEN AC 6 y/STALE I 7 y� MT PLEASANT dos Gatos
PARK Z'TA V\ ' 'SU//Nv�LF S�
PRESERVE � � �P � F�" III
s NA R R
r.,
� M-75-166
(Meeting 75-25,
&*- Agenda item No. 5)
_N I
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 18, 1975
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpen-
insula Regional Park District Confirming Exercise
of Option to Purchase Real Property, Authorizing
Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of
Conveyance to District, and Authorizing General
Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents
Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Trans-
action (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Addition)
Discussion : On November 18 , 1975 , court approval was obtained
by the Estate of Duncan B. MacDonald to proceed with the sale
to the District of the Estate 's interest in the approximately
36 acres of land covered by the option the Board exercised on
October 23 , 1975 . The 36 acres comprises over 500 of the 68
acres which the Board designated for acquisition on October
8 , 1975 as an addition to the Fremont Older Open Space Pre-
serve. The map on the reverse side shows the location of this
parcel relative to the existing Preserve. Acquisition of the
36 acre site protects the viewshed and provides for a rounding
out of the northwestern portion of the existing Preserve , in
particular the main ridge extending northward from Hunter's
Point.
The $90 ,000 purchase price, or $2500 per acre value, is the
same price paid per acre for the original 266 acre Fremont
Older Preserve which closed escrow a few months ago.
Recommendation : It is recommended that you adopt the attached
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Park District Confirming Exercise of Option to Purchase Real
Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Accept-
ance of Conveyance to District, and Authorizing General Manager
to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate
to Closing of the Transaction (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
Addition) . This will make it possible to close escrow within
the next few days.
HG:acc
` �I � i� ) ��i- •li. �;. / • I� � i Leh 1 � °I r
IN
'J i• IRS"2 I Z.`.` �J'�J ! 1 +' r,,:',�L. I I - nC-------- �', .l :• i�:�
� ' ��`sop�`4 ���,//�� \ ,. Ir rIryl j i I --
-J<1`� �, _.' '� tl � Jn 'r.%r � S f afar -.-'f/ `h.__ 1 I mr— '• '�VA�+• arr= -
N �� _ � �. __� I;��✓/' y.�� (iravekr; o —t�i� � "moo I �•;'
Sch�r� � r
? •t
Buse
17—
e�, ! I �SP,t WAY / 's i 1' ! 4 • _ '.�
��%Watfc1 Q /., _ •'�: -:� -
4A)
RCO,C�1p
WE
~�� `J OPO_SEp-•'AGQUlS IT ION eMs
_ PD./
MR
�1��� � �^� ''�� 50p.��>l�l�i ✓�� )�� 1��'` _ti a�wate( �•.O,r� •\ ` ,,\ �'
iBpo ,�J �. lci
I
i "SEEP �� � G✓ ram., �" \\ + , I J .
dr r`
Al
`�\' —J• \h ✓ sue# e( `_' G:
l
-/i: .. � l\ •�� ` Ater
2 /
\�6 • ice'' // i •��, --+�
zes _ J sc
' 1>oothi
� r
r < j o I / '.�. 3•�
water
L -R�UC
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT CONFIRMING
EXERCISE OF OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY,
AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE
OF ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE TO DISTRICT, AND
AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY
AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (FREMONT OLDER
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ADDITION)
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park
District does resolve as follows :
Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Park District does hereby confirm acceptance of
the offer contained in that certain option agreement
between H. Marcus Radin and the Estate of Duncan B. Mac-
Donald and the Midpeninsula Regional Park District dated
October 23 , 1975.
Section Two. The President of the Board or other appro-
priate officer is authorized to execute a certificate of
acceptance of any deed or other conveyance of title to
said property to the District.
Section Three. The General Manager of the District or his
duly authorized representative is authorized to execute
any and all other documents in escrow necessary or appro-
priate to the closing of the transaction.
M-75-170
A, (Meeting 75-25,
Agenda item No. 7)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 21 , 1975
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Projected Office Space Requirements
At its November 12 , 1975 meeting, the Board of Directors
considered a memorandum (M-75-160 , dated November 5 , 1975)
from me regarding a Proposed Office Lease Amendment, which
provided for the rental of additional office space from
April 1, 1975. The memorandum also discussed projected
office space requirements to accommodate staff and volun-
teers who began to work for the District after this office
space addition.
Due to the lateness of the hour when the memorandum was
considered, it was suggested that a discussion of pro-
jected office space requirements be scheduled for a future
Board meeting, and it is this which would be discussed on
November 26 .
HG:acc
T�EV:�SEn
C-75-22
November 26 , 1975
Meeting 75-24
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Des cri t'
1428 $90,000.00 Western Title Insurance Co. Land acquisition
Fremont Older Addition
1429 32.46 Mobil Oil Corporation District vehicle expense
1430 3 .68 NWB Specialties, Inc. Office supplies
1431 22.79 Smith--McKay Printing Co. Books
1432 20.25 Leisure Sights & Sounds Tapes
1433 14 .25 National Recreation and Books
Park Association
1434 55. 00 Carolyn Caddes Photographs
1435 19 .65 The Eck.. Jones Company Name bars '
1436 424 .00 Xerox Corporation Duplicating
' 1437 791.82 Curtis Lindsay Inc. Office equipment
1438 120.00 West Valley College Park Management Workshop
1439 9 .53 Foster Bros. Security Field supplies
Systems
1440 17 . 65 Young & Associates Office supplies
1441 5.09 Peninsula Blueprint Service Maps
144� 29. 55 C. Harrington Mileage
1443 66 .98 E. Jaynes Meal. conferences . $20.30 .
Postage 2 .13
Mileage 44 .55
1444 650 . 00 Richard G. Ehrhardt Relocation services
1.445 37.95 Wailele Association Out-of-town meeting exp.
1446 4 .22 Pacific Hardware & Field supplies
Steel Co. , Inc.
1447 41.76 San Jose Steel Company Field supplies
1448 102.93 Shell Oil Company District vehicle expense
1449 15.00 Stanley R. Norton October_ expenses
1450 49- 01 Techni,Graphics, Inc Office supplies
1451 943 .40 General Electric Company Field equipment
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
1452 $124 .88 Petty Cash Pleal conferences fi46 .17
Books 3 . 18
• Field supplies 37.70
Mileage 9 .84
Office supplies 22 .99'
Postage 5 .00
14,53 10 . 00 Urban Wildlife Membership dues
Research Center
i
I