The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About19760526 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 76-15 S AW Me Ong 76-15 Vlor MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors A G E N D A May 26 , 1976 7 : 30 P.M. Midpeninsula Regional Park District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos , CA (7 : 30) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 12 , 1976 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (7 :45) 1 . Proposed Addition to Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve - H. Grench (8 :15) 2 . Acceptance of Gift of Land as Addition to Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve - H. Grench (a) Report (b) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpen- insula Regional Park District Accepting Gift of Real Property and Authorizing President to Execute Certif- icate of Acceptance with Respect Thereto (Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve Addition) (8 :30) 3. Acceptance of Gift of Land as Addition to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, Unit No. 2 - H. Grench (a) Report (b) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpen- insula Regional Park District Accepting Gift of Real Property and Authorizing President to Execute Certif- icate of Acceptance with Respect Thereto (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Addition, Unit No. 2) (8 :45) 4 . Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - J. Olson (9 : 45) 5. Policies Regarding Annexation - N. Hanko INFORMATIONAL REPORTS CLAIMS (10 :15) EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations and Personnel Matters ADJOURNMENT � Y � J R-76-14 (Meeting 76-15 Agenda item No. 1) i MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT REPORT May 14 , 1976 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Addition to Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve Introduction: The Midpeninsula Regional Park District has re- cently acquired an option to purchase an approximately 355 acre parcel of land located north of the existing Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. The staff has studied the relationship of this parcel to the existing Preserve and to the adjacent Upper Stevens Creek Park of Santa Clara County. This report describes the site, its potential, and its relationship to adjacent public lands. Site Description: (a) Size, Location and Boundaries. The property shown on the attached map straddles the lower portion of the main canyon which leads out of the existing Preserve. The creek into the canyon is known locally as Wallace Creek. It abuts the existing Preserve on the south and the Upper Stevens Creek County Park on the north and northwest. The Director of Parks and Recreation of Santa Clara County is currently considering recommending County purchase of the 37 acre contiguous parcel to the west as an addition to the Skyline Scenic and Recreation Corridor. The proposed District acqui- sition is within the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County and the Sphere of Influence of the City of Cupertino. (b) Topography, Geology and Soils . The proposed acquisition includes Wallace Creek and the two ridgetops flanking it to the east and west. The elevations of the site range from 2600 feet at the southern end of the site on the ridgetop, to 1600 feet at the lowest portion of the Creek. Geologically, the northeastern corner of the site just touches the San Andreas Fault Rift Zone. Past action of this fault undoubtedly influences the character of the site. Soil parent materials are sandstones and shales . The soil is probably an undifferentiated Hugo stony soil; this is the type cited for nearby Castle Rock Ridge. Hugo soils are probably the most common soil series in the Santa Cruz Mountains ; they R-76-14 Page two develop under woodlands in relatively humid climates. They are low in plant nutrients , especially nitrogen, and are unsuitable for cultivation because of this infertility and because they occur on steep slopes. The soil at the site in question is shallow, at least on the ridgetops , with many rock outcrops , including some very large boulders . (c) Vegetation and Wildlife. The ridgetops and side slopes generally support hardwood species , e.g. , tan oak, several species of live and deciduous oak, madrone, and bay. Near the ridgetops and in disturbed areas are a few chaparral shrubs , such as manzanita, pitcher sage and chamise, but there are no large areas of chaparral vegetation. Some of the oak and madrone trees are very large , but most of the woodland is young trees from eight to ten inches in diameter. The lower portion of the site, and along the creek, has large stumps indicating that the area was logged at one time, most likely for Douglas fir, but possibly including redwood. Douglas fir is re-establishing itself along the creek. Tree seedlings in the woodland showed evidence of browsing by deer. Rodent burrows and runways were numerous in the grassland. Animals seen in the area included sparrow hawk, alligator lizard, western fence lizard and scrub jay. Vertebrates are generally not restricted to a single kind of plant community, so that it is impractical to draw up a list of all the species to be expected, but Williams and Monroe list 22 species of mammals , 11 amphibians , 12 rep- tiles and more than 48 species of birds as typical of moist foothill woodland. (c) Current Use and Development. The major portion of the site is undeveloped, with the exception of the northernmost quarter of the property. On this portion is located Char- coal Ridge Road, which leads from Skyline Boulevard (Route 35) to Stevens Canyon Road. This is a private dirt road, a major portion of which is within Upper Stevens Creek County Park. There is a spur road off Charcoal Ridge Road that leads into a relatively flat plateau area where three small houses and two small barns are located. These houses range from 1200-1500 square feet. They are in generally good condition, as are the attendant water supply and septic systems. There is a wooden-pole power line that comes into the property from the east and serves these residences. Planning Considerations : on June 11 , 1975 an Interim Master Plan map was adopted by the District. It indicates that the proposed acquisition scores extremely high in open space value. The site is located within the unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County and within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Cupertino. The acquisition of this parcel by the District has been found by these agencies to be in conformity with the County Plan and proposed Cupertino Hillside Plan Recommendation. R-76-14 Page three The major potential use impact upon the site is likely to be associated with the plans developed for the Upper Stevens Creek County Park and the Skyline Scenic and Recreation Corridor. Access: Developed access to the site is on the northwestern cor- ner, via Charcoal Ridge Road. There are no developed trails on the property, although there is a roadbed inthe bottom of the canyon parallel to the creek that was likely constructed when the area was logged. Adjacent Land Use: The parcels surrounding this site are cur- rently undeveloped. As mentioned previously, the parcel to the south is the District's Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve, and the parcel to the north is the Upper Stevens Creek County Park. There is a 37 acre parcel on the western side of the property which Santa Clara County is currently considering for acquisition as an addition to the Skyline Corridor. Properties to the east are privately owned. Relationship to Existing Preserve : The existing Preserve con- tains the headwaters of Wallace Creek. This addition will add 3/4 mile of Creek and the associated side ridges to the Preserve. Acquisition of this parcel complements and protects the viewshed from the existing Preserve. The other significant relationship to the existing Preserve is in the greatly increased wildlife habitat protected by this acquisition. Cultural History and Past Use: It is not known if any struc- tures were ever built on the site other than the existing buildings. As mentioned previously, the area was logged at one time, most likely at the turn of the century. This estimate is based on the size of the second growth Douglas fir. The area was ori- ginally homesteaded by the Marks and Weitheiner families in about 1865. Potential Use and Management: (a) Developed Facilities. The area on the northwestern corner, which contains Charcoal Ridge Road, the spur road leading to the residences , and the residences themselves , should be considered for inclusion in the Upper Stevens Creek County Park. This is because of the topographical relationship and the potential use of the structures in relation to the operation of the County Park. (b) Recreational Use and Relationship to Regional Trails Plan. The primary recreational use of this addition would be in a trail link between Stevens Canyon and Saratoga Gap. The two potential alignments are Charcoal Ridge Road or the old logging road which comes up the canyon. R-76-14 Page four (c) Wildlife Habitat. The canyon area and associated side ridges which comprise approximately 70% of the property are essentially undeveloped and serve as outstanding wild- life habitat. Interim Use and Management Recommendations : (a) Coordination of Planning with Adjacent County Park. The option for this acquisition allows for an approximate six month period prior to opening of escrow. During this period staff should coordinate with County Park staff and determine whether the northwestern portion of the property and the developed facilities should more appropriately be acquired by Santa Clara County. If not acquired by the County, the residences should be leased by the District. (b) The remainder of the parcel should be left undeveloped so that it continues to serve its function as a wildlife habitat area. (c) At such time as it seems feasible, staff should be pre- pared to locate a trait link between Stevens Canyon Road and Saratoga Gap. No additional recommendations are being made at this time. These recommendations should be reviewed at the time the existing Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan is reviewed , which is scheduled for review about November 1976. The existing Preserve is open with no permit requirements , and the same status should apply to this additional acquisition. Terms : The total purchase price for the 355-acre property, in- cluding three residences , is $298,500. Initially, $10 ,000 must be paid for a six-month option. When the option is exercised, an additional $18,500 will be paid as part of the down payment. The $10,000 option fee will also be credited as part of the down payment. The remaining $268 ,650 balance is payable in five equal annual installments plus 5 .9% interest on the unpaid balance. The purchase price is based on a fair market value appraisal provided by an independent appraisal expert hired by the District. The purchase price reflects an adjustment in price for elapsed time due to the length of the option. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt a motion_ authorizing the President of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Board to acknowledge receipt of the option to purchase real property dated May 6 , 1976 wherein Harry C. Gunetti and Louis C. Larrus grant to the District an option to purchase approximately 355 acres of land, and authorizing the General Manager to pay the option price provided therein of $10 ,000 to the grantors. R-76-14 Page five It is further recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the interim use and management recommendations contained in this report. HGzacc 'INN V It 1'Y9N (d{{ _ 1 \I (�_"'�{ '� I � �••�`` �_, �\' :_".�'i�`; �� I � \ 11!1 rJ �:'t\ ��, ,- J _ 7/ i �,+., 2--0�'r. `� _: Irlrf�w \\1 ('• iTest � ,k3M ti 36, ` 77� - / ♦�'4 � ja , / .1 ( "�\;,. \`�. •`a. ti:'a\fir ' %- _{1 �t36i}`) ♦�, � .��\��'�� _�` r� � ��('�y F I t�iC�( �ilJ �r/r r?J�f�,�-.�```.j} rF'��:� ��r �/ .``I ��rl }� ',.a, H' + y \ - � �„�4�'\ � ,.�� \`,_ n♦^p ��•",'F ��, 1/ J/ , ��— y�{a'r�/^ \.,.--�/\11`+L`'�>•,\\`�`�� •'i-( P� � `� `�1 7 Proposed Acquisition a ! J (( T !7.r , '.. , �' - .��-,JT )��f�lr 1�1 t -'�1 r +\� _ % vJ�•r 7�%r-- r•%.� v� _ )t y "U�Zl 1• !'�`-�`�'�♦"� � `l.� ,{1 •;,�,_�_.,. \.1.,. .,.�i 'V (1 /�31 t. � r i/��' ✓1 �I fI�l�rl/�-~ �,. L/1 ✓ ✓ -,"/'„/ �/�/ .�^r/`' p t.\ �tip.,' � \ /' f,1 l�Ir �_ \\Y F 1 4 / r••��*�v``�. ! 1 � Cjr 125 \�� fg( � 1\ /�-^'=• _':"��` ��jRi , .� \ ' `�`•' ��'�/;...�-'F-�-� �� .J�` �. ,\,;r- .� %r{��._ N I •Plate �n S. '` ,� �; • �':-� Gap mac, r{ �). ;, .- u 11 ��1 �-.�-��.. �\\\�\ �� `��/ ��`,^�,'1� t j"l\�y 1',� t /i r� � �I.�.yi i��•-\ '011 i ��1,�. \�l;� ;;tlr��,� ✓/ .� ` �� ' ;�F� �"� \p a \ate J 'r; /i'' 7\T1-- \�'{{ U ,\i ,.t_ .\.�\` �•\(�: r [ V" 1 _r: .'�5'—ter 2'00_ ---�+ "� .Q.s �: •.�,. r.,,1c �� •(� � -_ ( dvI /� `� 11 � �� I't -•��.1.�� J'./ �:%/�/�.r,6/ ' If' �i �-�_/ '1_ , / M 9J 1. V r( )/\ / , tr� i �;,'�'�'`.. , �` �_, \`.�• ��,F•� "r ! \r;�,R!' i( •mow 1/ •��tn.(� i�"i L � �� i •^ �: ` r1 l C '� ` yw,ra-lr + 7.3 1.4 26 \�23dI•' ✓ '��♦�� '>t� awn r.\ P�^� ! �.srvYew� ice_-� _ _ ��,�.��f.�1�,�.'/ 1{1 �l ! /' 1 r,*' •-' � �� (, 1%' \'�'� V�`. _'_ `�' -J � '4• �77.�."-�'� i � l 1 - 'iv�}c� r'"ye� 57, •r � s. �,,. `�^` .�� ! .�:�••�� .M�./f�' Q.Z ST31'i.Mi-`R, � �SfcvPwl -. ►rN r ��;:^`•� `4�,d89.\�.1�', �,{OT:-.._�/ (( ,•��'��f(-1',��• �- _ ! sc"o a.wum.�.. cotio �o,u 1.61� (J.�.� {� _ +4� '' l �\•. � �\�/^��/ i' !' 1 r\� t� • /' ��`.._ rr'-- '' \ __ t. t {N - 1o6v..� W � ( 4( "�� •.'\\� �---', ar mw�r :• i 'r �n � ��•'SDI , 1(?57 . .., '. p�� *►1/� �' \ ,\.\(f ; ! 1 .s7o,i! .\.►f.t.tt�\�i.�.'�/��'�_��r'`'•�..��:Y-!(//lifl it G'\{ �'1�L� l/.�t- i/.�:i'_'//!..` - a i'r {....f! LA � s `'rca:+n- i'� GU ETTI PROPERTIES' 77 Proposed Additioi. , Saratoga .Gap Open Space eserve (,fill in title of project The undersigned conclude (s) that subject activity (check a appropriate blanks) : i x 1. Is not covered by CEQA because beyond reasonable doubt it is : x (a) not a "project" within` the definitions set forth in Section 15037 of the State Guidelines and Article IV 5 of these guidelines ; or X (b) categorically exempt pursuant to the Article 8 (Section 15100 through 15114) of the State Guidelines; or (c) an emergency project within the meaning of Section 15071 of the State Guidelines; or (d) a feasibility or planning study within the meaning f o Section 15072 of the h State Guidelines- or (e) a ministerial project within the meaning of Section 15073 of the State Guidelines; or (f) a project which is not required to be approved by j the Board of Directors and which will have no significant effect 4 on the environment, and for which a Negative Declaration should be filed ; or f (g) a project for which an EIR or Negative Declaration has already been prepared by another public agency acting in its role of lead agency (see Sections 15064 et seq. of the' State Guidelines) provided that: (1) substantial changes are not proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, due to the involvement of environmental impacts not considered in the original EIR; and (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to undertaken, such as a change in the proposed location of the project, which will require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not covered in the original EIR; or 2 . It is a project which clearly may have significant impact on the environment so that a draft EIR should be prepared for presenta- tion to the Board of Directors. 3. CEQA is applicable to this project, but only an EIA should be prepared initially so that the Board can decide whether to proceed with a draft EIR or a Negative Declaration. Give principal reasons and facts upon which above determination is based : Exhibit A The Proposed Additi,• . • to Saratoga •Gap Open Spa(__ Preseryje,� Agenda item No 1 of. Meeting, 76-15 , is- not a project ,pursuant to • Sect.ion IV (c) of - the Guidelines and Procedures for Evaluation. of Environ- mental .Impact of Projects and the Preparation of Environmental Impact Reports of the Midpeninsula Regional Park •District .adopted April. 1.0- 1974.:. The Proposed Addition is also categorically .exempt• from preparation of .envif6nmental documents .under Article' 8., Section 1.5113, .Class 1.3 Acquisition of Lands . For Wildlife :Conservation Purposes,.. of the ' Guid iel nes for- Implementation. .o.f the .California Environmental Quality,4dt of 1970 . Incorporating. All. Amendmerits ,Through*Feb,ruary 18 i•, 1975 .0 - Date : May 19 1976 Checklist completed by: si nature) .Date : ? I , 19 Checklist concurred in by : signature Department Head , or Assistant General Nana ger or General Manager. Instructions : Refer to Article V 1 of M-RPD Guidelines . A. copy of this checklist, completed and signed, becomes a part of the file in all matters which "might possibly be a project" as that term is defined in Section 15037 of the State CEQA Guidelines . 2 R-76-12 AL MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT REPORT May 18, 1976 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Introduction: On May 14, 1975 the District acquired 266 acres which comprised portions of the former Seven Springs Ranch and Fremont Older Ranch. On October 8 , 1975, the District moved to acquire an additional approximately 70 acres, comprising five parcels two of which have been acquired and three of which are in the process of being acquired. In addition, an option is held on a 75-acre parcel which is known as Unit No. 2 of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. On October 8, 1975, the Board of Directors adopted an interim use and management plan which included the opening of a trail through the site. The trail was officially opened on February 14, 1976. Since that time, staff has been studying all the factors related to the site and which are addressed in this report. Portions of this report are excerpts from previous staff reports. The recommendations contained within this report are intended to reflect adopted Board policies and other policies which are currently being discussed regarding land use. These recommen- dations are intended to provide a balance among the potential uses of the site, rather than to have any one use, such as agriculture or recreation dominating. Background: (a) Planning. The District has an adopted planning process which generally divides planning activities into several major steps: (1) Pre-acquisition report and interim use and management recommendations (generally completed prior to acqui- sition) . (2) Staff development of draft long-range (with yearly review) use and management plan, which is reviewed in the following sequence: R-76-12 Page two a. Presentation to citizens advisory group. b. Presentation of draft plan to community at neigh- borhood meetings after review and comment by citizens advisory group. C. Presentation to District Board of Directors, possibly incorporating changes or suggestions derived from community presentation. d. Public hearing on plan by District Board of Directors. e. Board approval of use and management plan with any amendements. This version of the draft plan is at (c,d & e) in the planning process; the point where it is being presented to the Board for review, public comment and possible adoption. (b) Regional Setting. The existing preserve is located within the lowest band of the Santa Cruz Mountain foothills be- tween Cupertino and Saratoga. This foothill area provides the immediate scenic backdrop for portions of Monte Vista, Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga. It is the close proximity of the Preserve to these areas that contributes to its uniqueness and value. Description of Site and Potential Use. The site currently comprises a total of 317 acres. The authorized additional acquisitions total another 35 acres. The potential Unit No. 2 is 75 acres. The site contains an unusually wide diversity of land forms within its approximately 350 acres. (1) Topography. There are three major ridges, three can- yons, a significant promontory (Hunters Point) and a gently rolling plateau which links the ridges and canyons. Elevations on the site range from 945 feet at Hunters Point to approximately 600 feet in the lower canyons. (2) Geology and Soils. Soils in this area are developed from sandstone and shales of the Santa Clara Forma- tion, of Plio-Pleistocene Age. On the general soil map for Santa Clara County, they are placed in the Los Gatos-Gaviota Series. These are fine to medium- textured soils generally occurring on 30-70% slopes. Los Gatos soils tend to form on moister north-facing slopes, and Gaviota soils on drier, south-facing slopes. Los Gatos soils have brown, gavelly loam, R-76-12 Page three slightly acid surface soils, and reddish brown, grav- elly clay loam subsoils. Gaviota soils have pale brown loam, slightly alkaline surface soils and light yellow brown, gravelly loam subsoils. These soils have undergone slight to moderate sheet erosion in the past. They are judged most suitable for pasture-rangeland and woodland/hunting use. Where the vegetation is moderately grazed on such soils, the erosion hazard is rated high to very high. Landslides in case of an earthquake of 1906 magnitude are rated "possible" to "probable" for this area. Water infiltration in Los Gatos-Gaviota soils is slow to very slow; there is moderate to high po- tential for runoff. The soils have a great tendency to shrink when dry and swells when wet, which could create problems in locating buildings, roads and sep- tic tank filters. The Monte Bello Ridge study indi- cated that several minor fault lines traverse the area. (3) Plants and Animals. The attached list (Appendix A) of plant and animalspecies observed on the property in a two-day period in August 1974 is by no means exhaustive. Between thirty and sixty plant species are present in similar woodland and chaparral com- munities elsewhere in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and Williams and Monroe list 24 mammals, 13 to 23 reptiles and amphibians, and 38 to 44 bird species which may be expected in woodland and chaparral in.our region. (Appendix Mattached includes a more complete list of birds sighted or believed to be within the Preserve. (4) Vegetation. The main vegetation types on the Preserve are woodland (mostly of live oak and bay) , chaparral (poison oak, coyote bush, and chamise) , grassland (mostly plowed hayfield) and orchards (apricots, wal-. nuts and prunes) . Boundaries between plant communi- ties are indistinct; chaparral shrubs such as toyon form an understory in the woodland, tree and shrub seedlings or orchard trees have sprouted in woodland and chaparral. The approximate distribution of the different vegetation types is shown on the attached map. In general, woodland and chaparral occupy the steeper slopes, with woodland on north-facing slopes and canyon bottoms and chaparral on south and east- facing slopes. The more gentle slopes have been cul- tivated as hayfield or orchard; they were probably originally oak savanna with native grasses. There are small patches of grassland on the hilltops to the southwest and interspersed with chaparral shrubs elsewhere on the Preserve. R-76-12 Page four (5) Roads and Trails. The attached map A shows the major existing roads and trails on the site. Roads are de- fined as those areas suitable for vehicular use and trails are defined as areas suitable for hiking and equestrian use. (6) Structures and Facilities. The attached map A indi- cates the location o-T-several structures within the Preserve with a wide range of existing and potential uses. The existing use and a brief description of the condition of each follows: a. Grey House. Located approximately 1/8 of a mile from the end of the paved portion of Prospect Avenue, this was probably built around 1920 . There is extensive termite damage to the frame of the building which, if the building is to be retained, it should be repaird as soon as possible. The septic system will require extensive repair. This house is currently occupied, but the tenant will be vacating by June of this year. The cost of restoring this house is approximately $15,000; the cost of demolition is approximately $2, 000. Potential Use: caretaker residence; lease to tenant; center for recreational programs operated by city or other group; youth hostel. b. Adobe (pool) House. This house was built by the Olders in 1927 and was used as a changing house and as a studio by Fremont older. It is of rela- tively conventional wood frame construction, but the facade and interior detailing are unusual. The abode exterior facade was removed from the Joseph Davidson adobe built in 1830, which was torn down in about 1920. The flooring and patio area is of tile, some of it English Minton, and the interior ceilings are paneling from the music room of the Convent of of Notre Dame, which was demolished in 1925. This building also has some termite damage and an inade- quate septic system. The cost for upgrading the building is estimated at about $10,000 to $12,000; the estimated demolition cost is $2,000 . Potential Use: caretaker residence; possible restoration because of cultural and historical significance. C. Pool . The pool was constructed in about 1927, has no filteror heating system and was supplied by water derived from a well on the site. The concrete R-76-12 Page five appears to be in reasonably good condition, but ,several cracks have appeared. The drain (which leaks) for this pool may erode against the drive- way to a nearby residence. The estimated cost for upgrading the pool is $20, 000; the estimated cost of filling is $3 ,500. Potential Use: restore for swimming use, maintain as a cistern for water storage or incorporate into rehabilitated garden. d. Fremont Older House. This is the largest building on the Preserve, approximately 3, 000 square feet, built in 1913 by the Olders. The building has suffered from general decay such as termites , carpenter bees, settling of foundations, leaks in the roof, etc. , and has also been subject to vandalism for approximately the last three years. Many of the interior walls have been broken through and the majority of win- dows have been broken. Cost of repair is estimated to be approximately $60,000 • Demolition if removed from site $10 , 000; if buried on site $5, 000. Potential Use: caretaker residence; youth hostel; rent to tenant; restore to original condition due to cultural-historical significance. e. Gardens Adjacent to Fremont Older House and Adobe. These gardens were developed by the Olders. Al- though neglected for the last several years, they still contain a wide variety of exotic plant species. These gardens could be preserved as a reminder of the Olders ' affiliation with the- area and as gar dens of general horticultural interest. Fremont Older was originally buried here in 1935. In 1968 his body was exhumed and interred at a cemetary in Saratoga. f. Apricot Shed Area. There are two sheds which have been used primarily to store crates for apricots and for equipment used during the drying and har- vesting period. They are relatively open, having only two side walls on each four-sided structure, concrete floors and corrugated metal sides and roof. The apricot sheds are no longer viable as part of the fruit harvesting program and were built in such a way so they conform to the topography of the site and cannot readily be moved to another location. They would lend themselves to use as a primitive shelter for programs operated by a local agency. The present condition appears to be sound and no maintenance costs are projected for the next several years. Estimated cost of demolition is $1, 000 . R-76-12 Page six 1. Apricot Sulfuring Bunker. This was used in relation to the other harvesting and drying facilities. 2. Se tic System At one time, toilet facilities were located in this area which were connected to an extensive septic system. This system may still be functional. 3 . Concrete Pad Adjacent to Water Tank Base. This pade could be used for parking of vehicles if necessary. It appears to be in excellent condition. 4 . Asphalt Paved Area. This pavement is badly deteriorated and- does not provide any useful function. Estimated cost of removal is $1, 000 . 5. Water Tank Base. This was used to support a water tank vi-h-17—ch was necessary in relation to the apricot harvesting. The tank has long since been removed and the base serves no purpose. It is constructed of heavy timbers, and the salvage value of the material should outweigh any removal costs. g. Water Systems. 1. Water System No. 1. There are two functional water systems located on the site. One is located in the vicinity of the adobe house and serves the grey house, the adobe, the Fre- mont older house and the Harris residence. This system is relatively old, but still functional. The annual maintenance costs to the District are approximately $2.00 . This system must be maintained if any of the resi- dences and structures it serves are going to be lived in. The volume of water has been adequate for the existing level of use. In- creased use would likely require additional capacity. 2 . Water System No. 2 . The second water system is located in the Seven Springs Canyon and was developed in the late 1930 's to provide water to the Seven Springs Ranch. It is no longer used for that purpose because new wells have been located at the lower portion R-76-12 Page seven of the Ranch. This system can provide water within this canyon, if approved by the Santa Clara County Health Department, depending upon improvements. This is a rather elaborate system consisting of a series of shafts and wells. Portions may have deteriorated to a point where they are no longer functional. h. P.G.& E. Tower. On the northernmost ridge of the Preserve, a P.G.& E. transmission tower is located. It is situated on an easement held by P.G.& E. The tower supports the line which is part of their regional distribution system, and P.G.& E. plans for continued operation of this line with no termination of use. i. Concrete Reservoir. This reservoir was part of one of the earliest water systems in Regnart Can- yon. It no longer serves any purpose. j . Extension of Prospect Avenue and Parking. As Prospect Avenue enters the site,it becomes a gravel, one-lane-wide road which continues up to the Fremont Older house and Harris residence. The road is adequate for the existing amount of traffic and has been maintained the past year through a cooperative understanding between the District and other users. There are four small parking areas adjacent to this extension of Pros- pect Avenue, which are as follows: 1 . Immediately upon entering the Preserve, there is a cleared area on the left capable of park- ing ten to twenty cars. 2 . There is a small parking area at the adobe house which can hold approximately four to six cars. 3. A small parking area is located at the Fremont Older house which will hold six to eight cars. 4 . There is an area located at the entrance to the Harris property capable of parking ten to fifteen cars. This was the site of the garage for the Fremont Older home. k. T.V. Tower. The existing wood frame tower is de- pendent upon a lease which will expire in twelve years. 1. Fencing. There exist two sections of six-foot -chain link fencing on the perimeter of the Pre- serve: one 1, 400' section is located in the north- west corner of the hayfield and the other 900, section is on the eastern boundary of the hayfield,-, R-76-12 Page eight (7) Cultural History. This site has an enormously rich cultural background which is summarized here. What is now the Preserve was originally homesteaded by the Bubb, Regnart, Pfeffer, Farr and Corpstine families. The area was cleared for grazing, orchards and vine- yards. In 1913, Fremont Older purchased portions of the Pfeffer and Farr properties and began to build his ranch. The crusading San Francisco newspaper editor and his wife built the ranch house in 1914 and commuted to San Fran- cisco from a special railroad stop at Prospect and Stelling roads called "Fremont" in his honor. Older played a prominent role in the history of San Francisco in the first thirty years of this century with his exposes of graft in city and state governments. He died in 1935 and was buried at the ranch. Cora Baggerly Older, who lived at the ranch until her death at the age of 93 in 1968, was an author-historian who directed the building of the ranch house. The architecture was innovative for its time with a flat roof and enormous picture window overlooking the valley. The ranch became the meeting place of many notables of the era such as Senator Phelan (Montalvo) , Rudolph Spreckles, Lincoln Stephans, Carl Sandburg, Sinclair Lewis, John Dewey, W.R. Hearst, as well as the ex- convicts and women of ill repute whom the Olders be- friended and attempted to reform. A promontory of the site known as "Hunters Point" was used during the Spanish period as an observation point from which to watch for dust clouds on the Santa Clara Valley floor. These clouds were generated by stam- peding cattle. Usually the cattle were moving away from grizzly bears which abounded in the Valley. Upon seeing these clouds, vacqueros would then ride into the Valley and either kill the bear or capture them for use in the bear versus bull fights which were staged in conjunction with fiestas. (8) Access. a. Roads. Prospect Avenue is a paved public road ea'ng to the Preserve from the east. It is of two lane width to within an eighth of a mile of the Preserve boundary. At that point it narrows to a width suitable for a light volume of two-way traffic. Regnart Road is a paved public road approximately half the distance up Regnart Canyon. Beyond this point is an unpaved combination of public and private entitlements. There is a sixty foot right-of-way leading from Regnart Road into R-76-12 Page nine the northwest corner of the Preserve, and another right-of-way leading from the southern end of Regnart Road directly on to a recently acquired portion of the Preserve and other additions to the Preserve which are under acquisition. (9) Trails. Both Regnart Road and Prospect Avenue are used by local equestrians and hikers for access to the Pre- serve. In addition, a series of trails lead into the Preserve from adjacent private property on the south and west. (10) Other Agency Planning Considerations. The major por- n of the Preserve is located in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. The northern and major portion of the site is within the Sphere of Influence of Cupertino, while the southern panhandle portion is within the Sphere`cifInfluence of Saratoga,. The Acquisition and use of this site as an open Space Preserve has been found to be in conformance or compatible with the general plans of Santa Clara County, the City of Cupertino, and the City of Sara- toga, relative to their appropriate jurisdictions. In addition, this report has been structured to comply with the intent and procedures of the California Invironmental Quality Act, in particular, those factors related to developing an environmental assessment. (d) Potential Use. As reflected in previous staff reports on the site, the Preserve provides the potential to accommo- date several types of use along with preserving and pro- tecting the natural resources on the site. (1) Natural Resources. Detailed species lists of plants and animals found on the site are included in Appendix A of this report. The wide diversity of species is related to the extremely varied range of environments within the site, i.e. , riparian communities in the canyons; large, relatively undisturbed natural vege- tative communities; introduced orchard areas; grass- covered rid getops; and the open hayfield area. The protection of the natural vegetative areas, particu- larly along the creeks, should be the most significant factor considered in planning for the site. The natural areas which are most important and which should be left in relatively undisturbed state are shown on the attached map B entitled "Natural Areas. " R-76-12 Page ten (2) Environmental Education. Because of the site's prox- imity to urban areas, it offers an outstanding poten- tial for environmental education programs. The site is currently being used by the Sierra Club, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the West Valley Col- lege Park Management Program. It is being studied by the Cupertino Union School District, the City of Cupertino Park and Recreation Department ,and the Environmental Volunteers for use for their environ- mental education programs. (3) Recreation. The system of hiking and riding trails, existing and proposed, offers a wide variety of exper- ience and enjoyment for trail users. The City of Cupertino Park and Recreation Department has proposed use of the site by their Department for a day camp and limited overnight program, the general require- ments of which are outlined in a letter from the City which is attached to this report. Representatives of the Saratoga Country Club have re- quested that consideration be given to expanding the existing Club onto the hayfield portion of the Preserve. In addition, the Fremont Older home and gardens might be restored because of the cultural, architectural and botanical interest of the area. (4) Agriculture. The site has supported diverse agri- cultural production, including vineyards, fruit orchards, hayfields, and cattle and horse pasture. Recommendations: Based upon the resources of the site and the basic policies and budgetary capability of the District, the following recommendations are being made in order to maximize public use of the site consistent with protecting the natural resources, maintaining the agricultural viability, preserving certain elements of the cultural history, and minimizing the impact on adjacent residents. (a) Access. Vehicular Access. Regnart Road, due to its physical limi- tations, is not suitable for vehicular access to the Pre- serve, presently or in the future. Prospect Avenue should be. the only vehicular access point to the site. a. Parking. The parking area immediately within the Preserve at the end of Prospect Avenue should be the only authorized parking area within the Pre- serve. From time to time, and generally for R-76-12 Page eleven yl organized groups, parking should be permitted within the Preserve at a point determined by staff and dependent on the nature of the activity. This would be intended for environmental educa- tion groups, or for groups or individuals bringing equipment, materials or supplies onto the site,.- This proposed parking area at the end of Prospect Avenue should be expanded to a maximum size to accommodate approximately twenty cars; should have a gravel surface only if use warrants during the winter months; should have a perimeter barrier of telephone poles laid on the ground to indicate the limits of the parking area. Some brush may have too,.' be removed in developing this parking area. A bicy- cle rack will be incorporated into the parking area. If this parking proves inadequate, the District should be prepared to acquire, by lease or other- wise, sufficient parking so that visitors attracted to the Preserve are not parking on residential streets. Alternatively, signing and publicity for the site could be reduced and the effect studied. If conditions warrant, the District should be pre- pared to participate in funding the installation of "No Parking" signs along Regnart Road and Prospect Roads. The location of these signs should be deter- mined after consulting with area residents and city and County traffic engineers. (2) Trails. Hiking and equestrian trails should be allowed from the end of Prospect Avenue, the existing entrance from Regnart Road, and the end of Regnart Road via the parcels currently being acquired. In addition, access should be allowed from adjacent private property when requested by the property owner and subject to approval by staff. Currently, the Garrod Stables have requested that the District trails lead onto their property. This will be accomplished through the trails plan which is a part of this report. Staff will work with the Castle Rock Horsemen' s Association to develop a volunteer patrol program to supplement District patrol staff. (b) Use. (1) Permits, Individual. No permits should be required for users of the Preserve. This policy should be mon- itored regularly, particularly in light of potential management problems that could be mitigated by a per- mit system such as equestrian users straying off of developed trails. R-76-12 Page twelve (2) Permits, Group. Permits should be required for groups of fifteen people or more due to the limited parking and the value of compiling number of Preserve visitors information and their particular interests. a. Fees. At this time no fees are being recommended for users of the Preserve. If it develops that there is a significant cost differential for trail maintenance due to equestrian use, or if commercial equestrian stables significantly increase costs on the site by introducing large numbers of users, this policy should be reviewed. (3) Recreation. The trails system recommended in this report should be implemented as soon as possible and within three months (specific alignments shall be laid out by staff and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service prior to construction of the recommended addi- tions to the trail system) . This trail system will serve as the circulation system for Preserve users. Equestrians should be required to remain on established trails, while hikers should be allowed off of trails with the exception of the hayfield, which is closed to all users. Hiking access to the natural areas should be discouraged. (4) Environmental Protection. The areas shown on the attached map B entitled "Natural Areas" should remain undisturbed at this time, and any future activity in those areas should be considered very carefully. The purpose of these protection areas is to provide for a viable wildlife habitat within the Preserve. (5) Agriculture. a. Apricot Orchards. The apricot orchards are con- sidered to be no longer economically viable and no cultivation of them is being recommended. b. Hayfield. The hayfield should be continued with the possible reduction of acreage due to steep slopes and resultant sheet erosion in certain areas. Specific recommendations for reduction of acreage will be made after consultation with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service . c. Walnut Orchards. The two orchard areas located in Seven Springs canyon are productive and should be continued. Staff will attempt to negotiate a lease with an interested 4-H or other similar R-76 - 12 Page thirteen group. If this is unsuccessful, the area should be leased through competitive application process to interested individuals. In conjunction with operating the orchard, the District should estab- lish a policy on pesticides which would be used in conjunction with culitivation of the crop. (6) Group and Special Interests. Staff has been contacted BF various groups or use of the Preserve. These types of use include the previously mentioned environ- mental education and City of Cupertino Park and Recrea- tion programs, West Valley College Park Management training projects, rehabilitation of the Fremont Older gardens by the Santa Clara County Rose Society. These types of use are appropriate and should be encouraged by the District. Staff will issue permits for these groups, use to be consistent with parking limitations. (c) Structures and Facilities. (1) Grey House. The District should expend no more than approximately $1,500 at the present time and $500 annually to maintain this building in a decent, safe and sanitary condition. It should then be rented as a revenue-producing building, the tenant having only the most limited caretaker responsibilities. Even- tually, this house should be removed, probably within the next five years. Removal of this house will be dependent on when maintenance costs seriously detract ' from its revenue-producing potential. Final determi- nation as to demolition or repair should be made after the current tenants have vacated the house and further exploration can be made to determine the extent of ter- mite damage. (2) Adobe (pool) House. The District should attempt to involve local historical groups in an attempt to rehabilitate and preserve this structure. Participa- tion by these groups may be limited to advice and labor. The District should be prepared to spend up to $15 ,000 on the house and its attendant water and septic ser- vices. This structure can serve as the District 's resident caretaker' s dwelling. (3) Pool. The cost of rehabilitating the pool and adding the necessary filtering and drainage system, coupled with the limited potential for use, indicates that the pool should be, filled in and the. area revegetated. The pool will be studied to determine whether a ter- raced or sunken garden can be incorporated into it as a part of the garden restoration of the Santa Clara County Rose Society or whether it could serve as an amphi- theatre for discussion and lecture purposes. R-76-12 Page fourteen (4) Fremont Older House. The District should recontact all local historical groups to see if there is any potential for restoration of the house. If no viable scheme for restoration and use of the restored struc- ture has been developed within three months of adoption of this plan, the building should be razed and the area revegetated. American Youth Hostels has indi- cated only a casual interest in the building as a hostel, and then only if the District were willing to bring the building up to local building code require- ments. If demolition is to occur, an investigation will be made into the salvage potential of the mater- ials in the structure, and an amphitheatre will be created on the approximate site of the house, which can be used as a group lecture and discussion area. (5) Apricot Shed Area. The facilities here offer the best potential for a group camp area of the type indicated in the Cupertino Park and Recreation request. This area should be developed as such a site. Such develop- ment would include removal of water tank base and scraping of deteriorated asphalt pavement. Operation of this camp area should be considered a pilot project. The impact on the Preserve and the effectiveness of the program should be studied as part of the yearly review to determine whether or not it should be con- tinued in this location in future years. If, at any time, during the summer of 176, operation of this area is deemed by Staff to have a significant impact either upon the natural resources or adjacent resi- dences, the group camp should be closed. (6) Gardens Adjacent to the Fremont older House and Adobe. The Santa Clara County Rose Society has indicated an interest in attempting to rehabilitate some or all of the Fremont Older gardens. It is recommended that this be encouraged. If feasible, limited water should be provided to the gardens, either from the existing system, or from the currently unused well which ori- ginally served the pool. (7) Water Systems. a. Water System No. 1. The District should continue to participate with the other users of this system by providing a prorated share of the cost for such maintenance. They should not exceed an aver- age of $200 per year. If feasible, surplus water from this system should be made available for use in the garden area, and also diverted for a horse- watering trough. Additionally, this water source should be signed to indicate that it is not pot- able water. R-76-12 Page fifteen b. Water System No. 2. The major safety hazards associated with this system have been mitigated. The existing flow from this system should be returned to the adjacent creek. A return should be constructed so as to include a horse-watering trough. Additionally, this water source should be signed to indicate that it is not potable. (8) P.G.& E. Tower. This tower is owned by P.G.& E., and they FFav_e_rig Fts to allow for such a line and tower, and therefore no recommendation is being made regarding this tower. (9) Concrete Reservoir. This reservoir is no longer func- tional and should either be demolished or covered with fill. Estimated cost: $200 to $800 . (10) Extension of Prospect Avenue and Parking. As previously mentioned under access, a parking area should be developed at the entrance to the site. Approximate cost: $500 to $2,000. No recommendation is being made at this time regarding a maintenance agreement with other users of the extension of Prospect Avenue. Currently, the District has shared maintenance costs with the other users of the road. If the District significantly increases traffic on the road, staff may recommend a joint maintenance agreement with other road users. Cost for annual road maintenance at the current level of use (District share) should not exceed $250 . (11) T.V. Tower. It is recommended that no action be taken towards elimination of the tower until expiration of the lease. At that time, consideration should be given to a redesign of the tower that would have less visual impact, or elimination of the tower completely, and recontouring and revegetation of the area. (d) Trails SXstem Within the Site. The attached map entitled "Proposed Trails System" s ows the recommended plan for the site. The major portion of this system follows existing roads and trails. Where new construction is required, staff will develop the precise route in coordination with U.S. Soil Conservation Service so as to minimize erosion prob- lems. Construction of the trail system will be done pri- marily with volunteer assistance. Estimated cost: $1, 000 . An alternative trail alignment from the Prospect Road entrance to the general vicinity of the Older house should be investi- gated. There is a road bed-that parallels the existing road R-76-12 Page sixteen and that may 'provide such an alternate route. This was the original ranch road. This would minimize potential conflict between trail users and traffic on the extension of Prospect Road. If the current option area Unit II is acquired by the Dis- trict, coordination of the trail links from the existing Preserve to the County Park should be coordinated with the Regnart Canyon community and the Santa Clara County Park and Recreation Department. (e) Signing, Fencing, Gates and Stiles. (1) Signing. At the Prospect Avenue parking area, a sign should be placed identifying the Preserve, the District, and showing the trail system within the Preserve. Within the Preserve, trail direction and notice of adjacent private property signs should be placed where_ , _ ever necessary to clarify trails or boundaries. In addition to the entrance sign at Prospect Avenue, a sign should be installed at the end of the parking area saying "Authorized Vehicles Only Beyond This Point" , or other appropriate language. This would minimize impact on residents and the likelihood of vehicles being driven within the Preserve. If desired by those residents along the extension of Prospect Road, signs stating "Private Residence" should be pro- vided by the District. (2) Fencing. The existing remnants of agricultural fenc- ing sH—ould be allowed to remain as long as they do not interfere with the trail system. These fences will be reviewed next year after it has been determined whether or not they may lend themselves to the agri- cultural use of the area. The chain link fence located on the northwest corner of the hayfield should be removed when the District acquires all of the author- ized parcels. The chain link fence on the east side of the hayfield adjacent to the Rolling Hills residences should have the barbed wire removed from the top and adjacent residents should be allowed to install a gate leading from their property to the Preserve at their expense. An open rail wood fence should be constructed around Hunters Point to protect the area from vehicles and equ4strian traffic. Estimated cost: $1, 500. R-76-12 Page seventeen (3) Gates and Stiles. If the sign at the parking area say- ing "Authorized Vehicles Only Beyond This Point" proves inadequate, then an unlocked gate could be installed at this point. Installation of such a gate will be coordinated with other users of the road. The exist- ing gate located at the intersection of Regnart Road and the access road to the T.V. tower should be relocated parallel to the road so as to eliminate parking. In addition, hiking and equestrian access should be provided at this point. (f) Clean Up, Recontouring, Revegetation and Discing. (1) Clean Up. There are approximately three areas on the "9 e that have been used as dump sites for tree stumps, old fencing, etc. The debris should be re- moved from these areas. Estimated cost: $1,000. (2) Recontouring and Revegetation. The parcels under acquisition above Regnart Canyon Road have been graded in the recent past, so as to disturb the natural contour. It is recommended that these areas and a much smaller area in front of the grey house be graded to a natural contour, and that grasses be re-established on these areas. If residents living adjacent to the Preserve are concerned about privacy, they should be allowed to plant a screen of native vegetation within the Preserve if approved by staff. (3) Discing. It is recommended that vegetative discing be done in conjunction with planting of the hay crop and that the specific discing plan be reviewed by a fire marshal from the Central Fire District. The disced area should be studied to determine the effect of discing, non-discing, or trail use in relation to the impact of these three alternatives on vegetative succession and wildlife. (g) Historical Investigation: A volunteer or docent should be assigned to develop a comprehensive cultural history of the Preserve, beginning with the Indian period through the Spanish/Mexican, homesteading, and particularly Mr. and Mrs. Older' s residency. In conjunction with this study, a plan should be developed for indentification of historically significant areas. (h) Natural Resource Invesitgation: Volunteers and docents should be encouraged to develop background material rela- tive to the natural resources of the Preserve. This infor- mation should be maintained by the District and used in conjunction with the yearly review of the site. In addi- tion, an interpretive nature trail should be developed on the Preserve. R-76-12 Page eighteen W Caretaker: The District will establish a resident caretaker III in the adobe who will be responsible for monitoring use, mitigating problems, and in general representing the Dis- trict on the site. This will not be a full time position, , but rather supplemental to the individual' s other interests. ( j) Patrol Data Collection: District rangers will patrol the site on at least a daily basis, and more frequently if necessary to protect the site and the public enjoyment of it. In addition, rangers will record the number of users encountered, and the type of activity observed. This in- formation will become part of an ongoing monitoring process to be used primarily when the Site Use and Management Plan is reviewed each year. (ki Name: The Preserve has been unofficially known as Fre- mont Older Open Space Preserve. After considering alter- natives, and the relative significance of them, it ap- pears that this unofficial name would be the most appro- priate one for the Preserve. Therefore, the recommenda- tion is that the site be known as the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. Implementation of Plan: Upon adoption of these recommendations by the Board of Directors, staff will implement the recommendations, giving first priority to the parking area, trail system develop- ment and signing. When these aspects have been accomplished (within approximately three months of Board adoption) , the existing permit system should be discontinued and the permit recommendations con- tained in the report implemented. A brochure describing the site, its resources and trail system will be developed upon adoption of this plan. Capital Improvement Costs. a) Renovation of adobe (including septic and water $15,000 system and conversion of storage area to bedroom) b) Demolition of Older House 8, 000 c) Recontouring, revegetation 5, 000 d) Filling of pool, demolition of cistern and 2, 500 clean up e) Repair or demolition of grey house 2, 000 f) Parking area 1, 000 g) Misc. , including gates, signs, trail and fence 2, 500 construction, road and well maintenance, etc. TOTAL $36, 000 R-76-12 Page nineteen The format of this report addresses the issues relative to an environmental assessment as required by the California Environ- mental Quality Act. It is the opinion of Staff, after consul- tation with Ms. Lisa Anderson, Environmental Planning Consultant, that the recommendations contained within this report do not con- stitute a significant impact on the environment, and therefore a negative declaration is recommended in conjunction with the adoption and implementation of this plan. All other recommendations should be accomplished within one year. The timing will be related to other District projects and prior- ities. As with all District site plans, these recommendations should be reviewed one year from adoption. During that time, District staff will have monitored use and the adequacy of parking, which will be the two primary factors that would necessitate major changes in the plan. Acknowledgement: The staff acknowledges, with great appreciation, the volunteer efforts of Mr. Steve MacKerrow and Dr. Judith Unsicker, for their background material on natural resources. In addition, we would like to thank the Citizens ' s Advisory Group who reviewed this plan and contributed much to the final product. They are: Mrs. Jerry Alheim, Mr. Richard Childress, Mrs. Donna Harris, Mr. Gordon Jennings and Dr. Robert Mark. JO: jg 61 5 �._J x 9 Y / J 00 O NW o PROPOSED ROADS , TRAILS AND PARKING Roads Trails (General use) / o o o Feeder Trails 00 i,,,�� 17 -••-••-- Primitive Trails �� - �� _ " ��.� Trail Zone 600 >4 g.UBB zi to 1 - l X 945�� two � � it� l f--�,'• � ` s 1- K.e00 ( • 00 O IJ00 \ � �� /� •, PROPOSED CLEAN-UP , RECONTOURING , AND REVEGETATION 0`—v Clean-up Recontouri ng and . Revegetati on 110 .� , - • • 1 ��, SUBS � o� a .,,�i � �—� J/ � �Y '• :•' • • ) ... . �0-/ O / �+ ) J f � ` / mil►- CID 1033 EXISTING LAND USE QNatural Areas Op Orchards MAP B ® Hay Fields r6o ' 5 xCIL,\ 5 i 033 �\' — R00 ' j, - 00 C �� z $0 EXISTING ROADS ,TRAILS AND STRUCTURES Roads 00 t✓ /i \ ———— Trails 1 a — k Structures MAP A } 100 /�, I 1 /],' .. n• �'�l �—A X Fencing APPENDIX A Plants and Animals Observed on the Seven Springs- Older Ranch Properties in a Two Day Period Trees : Coast Live Oak ( uercus a rifolia) Black Oak (Quercus kel.loggii California Bay jmbellularia californica) Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) i Willow (Salix sp. )-- Blue Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Eucalyptus spp. - introduced Walnut ( Juglans sp. ) -Esca.ped from cultivation Shrubs : Coyote Bush ( Baccharis pilularis) Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia. California lilac Ceanothus sp. ) Scrub oak ( uercus wislizenii) Coffeeberry (Rhamnus. californica) Poison (yak (Rhus diversiloba) Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) Holly-leaved Cherry (Prunus ilicifolla) Pitcher Sage (L Dechinia c_a_lycinn_a Blackberry (Rubus vitifolius) Wild Rose (Rosa sp. j~ Herbs : Wild oats (Avena fatua) - introduced. Wood .fern (Dr o teris a.rF-:uta) Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza chilensis) Periwinkle (Vinca ma.or) - introduced Douglas Iris - —Iris doouuglasiana.) Yerba Buena- (Sat:.lre .ja dougl ii) Soap Plant (Chloro,gaa.um pomeridianum) Honeysuckle (Lonicera hispidula Bee Plant (Scrophulari.a californica) Hedge Nettle (Stach s sp. Bedstraw (Galium sp. English Ivy Hedera helix)- introduced Wildlife : Jackrabbit-(Lepus cal.ifornicus) California quail (Lophortyx Cottontail (Sylvila-us sp. californicus) Woodrat (Neotoma sp".T Oregon junco (Junco oreranus) Pocket gopher-7jhomormys bottae) Mourning dove (7enaidura Ground Squirrel (Citellus sp. ) m_acroura) Gray Squirrel (Sciurus griseus) Wr. entit (Chamaea fasciata) Brown Towhee (Pipilo fuscusT— --- Scrub Jay (A helocoma caerulescens) r. Sparrow Hawk Falco sparveriu"s) APPENDIX B BIRDS OF TUE GENERA STUDY AREA These birds were seen, or are believed to be in the study area. i M-migrant P-permanent resident RA- rare in study area { F- common in study area C- found in chaparral 0- found in orchard 1 . Red-Tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensia) P, C, 0, F 2. Sharp-Shinned Hawk ( Accipiter striatus) M, C, D, F 3. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) P, 0, RA 4. California Quail (Lophortyx californicus) P, C, 0 F 5., Mourni ng Dave (Zenaidura macroura) P, C, 0, F ' 6. Great Horned Owl (bubo virgianis) P, C, G, F 7. Common Flicker. (Colaptes cafer) , P, C, 0, F 8. Downy Woodpecker (Dendroc000s pubescens) P, C, 0, F �9. Nuttail 's Woodpecker (Dendrocopos outallii) P, C, 0, F 10. Hairy 'Woodpecker (Dendrococos villosus) P, C, 0, RA 11 . Sarub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) P, C. 0, F 12. Plain titmouse (Parus inornatus) P, C, O, F 13. Common Bushtit (Fsaltriparus minimus) P, C,, F 14. Wrentit (Chemaea fasc:i.ata) P, C. F 15. Bewick ' s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) P, C. O, F 16. Mockingbird (Minus polyglottos) P, [ RA 17. Rabin (Turdus migratorius) M, O, C, F, P 18. Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) P, FA, 0, Rq , 19. Ruby Crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendute) M, C, O, F 2M. Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) M. Co 0, F 21 . Loggerhead Shrike ( Lanius .ludcvicianus) F', M, G, RA 22. Yellow Rumped Warbler (Dendroica audoboni) M, 0, C , F 23. House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) P, 0, F 24. Brown Towhee (Pipilo fuscus) P, Co O, F 25. Uregon Junco (Junco oreganus) M, e, F ' 26. Goloen-Crowned Soarrow (Zonatrichia atricaoi.11a) Fir C, D, F a i Use d Management Plan-for Fremont er Open Space Preserve (fill in . title of project The undersigned conclude (s) that subject activity (check appropriate blanks) : 1. Is not covered by CEQA because beyond reasonable doubt it is : (a) not a "project" within` the definitions set forth in Section 15037 of the State Guidelines and Article IV 5 of these guidelines; or (b) categorically exempt pursuant to the Article 8 (Section ' 15100 through 15114) of the State Guidelines; or (c) an emergency project within the meaning . of Section 15071 of the State Guidelines; or (d) a feasibility or planning study within the meaning of Section 15072 of the State Guidelines; or (e) - a ministerial project within the meaning of Section 15073 of the State Guidelines; or (f) a project which is not required to be approved by the Board of Directors and which will have no significant effect on the environment, and for which a Negative Declaration should be filed ; or (g) a project for which an EIR or Negative Declaration has already been prepared by another public agency acting in its role of lead agency (see Sections 15064 et seq. of the' State Guidelines) provided that: (1) substantial changes are not proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, due to the involvement of environmental impacts not considered in the original EIR; and (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to undertaken, such as a change in the proposed location of the project, which will require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not covered in the original EIR; or 2. It is a project which clearly may have significant impact on the environment so that a draft EIR. should be prepared for presenta- tion to the Board of Directors. x 3. CEQA is applicable to this project, but only an EIA should be prepared initially so that the Board can decide whether to proceed with a draft EIR or a Negative Declaration. Give principal reasons and facts upon which above determination is based Exhibit A w � Attached is a NeVative Declaration form prepared by staff which ' will be presented to the Board of Directors for 'its• adoption of a Notice of Determination with respect to the Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, Agenda item. No. 4 of 'Meeting 76-15 Date: May 19 , 19 76 . Checklist completed by: ( ignature). ,Date: Y , 19 . - Checklist nc red in by : signature Department Head , or Assistant General Mana- ger or General Manager. Instructions : Refer to Article V 1 of MRPD Guidelines . A. copy of this checklist, completed and signed, becomes a part of the file in all matters which "might possibly be a project as that term i-s defined in Section 15037 of the State CEQA Guidelines . MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Title of Project Use and Management Plan for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Description of Project A long term use and management plan (will be reviewed annually) for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve located at the end of Prospect Road within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Cupertino. The undersigned member of the Midpeninsula Regional Park Dis- trict finds that the above project has no significant impact on the environment . May 19 , 1976 Date Staff Member Reasons for Finding The minor adverse impacts indicated in the staff report can be mitigated by implementation of the recommendations contained in the staff report (R-76-12 , dated May 18 , 1976) . The long term protection of natural resources , the continued agricultural productivity and the recreational potential of this plan far outweigh the minor adverse impacts . Preparation of Study or Environmental Assessment By MRPD Staff, entitled "Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve" dated May 18 , 1976 (R-76-12) A copy of the Study or Environmental Aseessment is available at the offices of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, 745 Distel Drive , Los Altos, California. A copy of this Negative Declaration shall be posted at the District office on the fol- lowing dates : May 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 and 26 . May 20 , 1976 Date Dis rict Clerk i i i i of CV4p!rt1"* 103001ur:c tR-enuc (.UP,.,rtino, Caliiornia 95014 re?ephon- (+03) 252-4505 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPA TMENT April 7, 1976 Jon Olson Hidpeninsula Regional Park District 745 Dis tel Avenue Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Jon: As requested, I have outlined the Recreation Department's usages of the Fremont Older property for this summer. I will be able to provide you with further details as summer draws closer. Dates: June 21 through August 27, 1976. Field Trips: Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays. - organize car,pools to site - morning groups 4 to 6 yrs. (approx. 10-15) - afternoon groups 7 to 12 yrs. (approx. 10-15) - supervision: one adult for every 10 children. Camps: - Thursday overnight and Friday a.m. - 25 participants, 9-12 years old - supervision: one adult to every 6 children - organized car pools to site - one emergency vehicle at camping site. Family Outings: - Occasional Saturdays - 1_0 to 20 participants - organized car pools to site. If you have any questions or require additional information, please let me know. Thank you again for the tour last weel. of the District properties. We're really excited to be able to use these as part of our env _ronmental education program this sumr•ier. Sincerely, Brita Oklevik, Recreation Supervisor BLO/ m.m AA� R-76-15 (Meeting 76-15 Agenda item No. 2 (a) ) Alm= MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT REPORT May 14 , 1976 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance of Gift of Land as Addition to Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve Introduction: The District has recently been offered a gift of a 1.04+ acre parcel of land within the drainage of Wallace Creek. This parcel is located within the same watershed as the existing Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve and the proposed 355-acre addi- tion to the Preserve. This parcel should be considered as Unit No. 2 of the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. Site Description: (a) Size, Location and Boundaries . The property shown on the attached map is located on the south side of Wallace Creek which is a tributary of Stevens Creek. It is approximately 1/8 mile downstream on Wallace Creek from the proposed addi- tion to Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. (b) Topography, Geology and Soils . Directly adjacent to the Creek, the site is level, and then becomes relatively steep as it leaves the flood plain of the Creek. The par- cel is located within the rift zone of the San Andreas Fault. (c) Vegetation and Wildlife. Due to the limited size it is unrealistic to develop a species list for either vegetation or wildlife. But the parcel is part of the Wallace Creek drainage, and generally animal and plant species that are found in that area are expectedly to be found on this site (see adopted Use and Management Plan for Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve, R-75-21 dated November 6 , 1975) . (d) Current Use and Development. There are no structures located on the site. An unimproved road leads across the property parallel to the Creek and serves two residences located upstream along Wallace Creek. Charcoal Ridge Road appears to touch the northeast corner of the parcel. R-76-15 Page two Planning Considerations : On June 11 , 1975 an Interim Master Plan map was adopted by the District. It indicates that the proposed acquisition scores extremely high in open space value. The site is located within the unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County and within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Cupertino. The acquisition of this parcel by the District has been found by these agencies to be in conformity with the County General Plan and proposed Cupertino Hillside Plan Recommendation. The major potential use impact upon the site is likely to be associ- ated with plans to be developed for the Upper Stevens Creek County Park and the Upper and Lower Stevens Creek Parks connecting link. Access : Access to the site is via Charcoal Ridge Road, approx- imately 4001 west of Stevens Canyon Road. Adjacent Land Use : Directly adjacent to this parcel there are three residences. In general, other than these residences , the area is undeveloped. Relationship to Existing Preserve : Although not contiguous to tTTe—existing Preserve , the acquisition of the parcel and the preservation of natural resources contribute to the ecological viability of the existing Preserve. Cultural History and Past Use : A road which leads from Stevens Canyon Road through this parcel and on up parallel to Wallace Creek was built to harvest lumber in this canyon. This road was probably constructed about 1900. Interim Use and Management Recommendations : Due to the limited size and potential of this parcel, no specific recommendations are being made at this time, except that as with the rest of the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve , no permit should be required for access to the site. In addition, as trails are being developed in the area, consideration should be given as to the relationship of this parcel to any eventual trail that would lead up to either Charcoal Ridge Road or parallel to Wallace Creek. Terms : The 1.04 acre site is being donated by Boy Scout Troop 446 of San Jose. As part of the transaction, the District will pay into escrow about $900 in property taxes due, $250 for administrative costs to the donor and the usual closing costs. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District Accepting Gift of Real Property and Authorizing President to Execute Certificate of Acceptance with Respect Thereto (Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve Addition) . It is further recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the interim use and management recommendations contained in this report. � Jj ��!•�ti�� .-�- '`st V; /`%� •1�=?j +\�j"1'I�i+ �Y �� `, •,; \ VLF t e )�r2eoom' vi- (2692 ` � j 1._ '\ 1 \ �� j J• � � �i iJ: `r+��// 1 �._.•a•••._41WC_ i \ i - 1.4 g 1.2 1.3 ,+ .7 s r�wR[ 1 rt.AI Perm�n•n Sm� N°R7 RD x, y ST we.8 /II } y/ _ CREEK .8 i +� PARK b 23 f car 4S P0- j la-M r y s l.b a 1.3 e!'D Swr °r cc ,ems 4 r Sarat A PROPOSED ACQUISITION $3 1.6 •* ��Rl _ '' ,ao B UPPER STEVENS CREEK COUNTY PARK a' a SrATE C POSSIBLE ADDITION TO EXISTING PARKS AND OPEN SPACE LANDS "°`K�. -- � r"°°"" 'a D SARATOGA OPEN SPACE PRESERVE (ru r ..CRC ALE The,- Acceptance of Glftl of Land .as ' Addition to Saratoga 'Gap Open Space Preserve, Agenda item. No. 2 of Meeting 76-15 , is 'not a project pur.suant.' to Section IV(c). of the Guidelines and Proce- dures for 'Evalution of Environmental Impact Reports and the Preparation of Environmental Impact Reports of tho- Midpeninsula Regional :Park. District adopted .Apri1 10 ; 1974 . .The Proposed Gift is a 4lso. categorically- exempt from .prep:aration . of _envirorimental documents under Article .8, Section 1511,3, Class 13 Acquisition of Lands for W. ldlif-- Conservation Pur oses of., the Guidelines n•'ines for ' Implementation of the. Cali oria Environmcntal Quality ,Act of 1930 Incorporatinyg.All. Ameridments Through February 181 1975..•. . Ma 19 7 - 6 b . Date: y , 1� Checklist completed. by: • . ture si na a g .Dater 19 Checklist concurred in by: s gnature Department Head , or Assistant General Mana ger or General Manager. Instructions : Refer to Article V 1 of MRPD Guidelines . A. copy of this checklist, completed and signed, becomes apart of the file in all matters which "might possibly be a project" as that term is defined in Section 15037 of the State CEQA Guidelines . Acceptar of Gift of Land-As Addit4 to Sara- Gap Open -Space Preserve (If i11 in title of project - The undersigned conclude (s) that subject- activit (chec k J (Y appropriate blanks) : X 1. Is not covered by CEQA because beyond reasonable doubt it is : X (a) not a "project" within` the definitions set forth in Section 15037 of the State Guidelines and Article IV 5 of these guidelines; lines- or X (b) categorically exempt pursuant to the Article 8 (Section 15100 through 15114) of the State Guidelines; or (c) an emergency project within the meaning of Section 15071 of the State Guidelines; or (d) a feasibility or planning study within the meaning of Section 15072 of the State Guidelines; or (e) a ministerial project within the meaning of Section 150.73 of the State Guidelines; or (f) a project which is not required to be approved by the Board of Directors and which will have no significant effect on the environment, and for which a Negative Declaration should be filed ; or (g) a project for which an EIR or Negative Declaration has already been prepared by another public agency acting in its role of lead agency (see Sections 150.64 et seq. of the' State Guidelines) provided that: (1) substantial changes are not proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, due to the involvement of environmental impacts not considered in the original EIR; and (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to undertaken, such as a change in the proposed location of the project, which will require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not covered in the original EIR; or 2. It is a project which clearly may have significant impact on the environment so that a draft EIR. should be prepared for presenta- tion to the Board of Directors. 3. CEQA is applicable to this project, but only an EIA should be prepared initially so that the Board can decide whether to proceed with a draft EIR or a Negative Declaration . Give principal reasons and facts upon which above determination is based : _�.- Exhibit A Feting 76-15 ;nda item No. 2 (b) ) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ACCEPTING GIFT OF REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE CERTIF- ICATE OF ACCEPTANCE WITH RESPECT THERETO The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District does resolve as follows : Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District does hereby accept, with gratitude, the gift of real property described on Exhibit A, affixed hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, and conveyed by that certain grant deed from the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 446 , to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, dated May 1976 . The President of the Board -is authorized to execute a certificate of acceptance with respect thereto. EXHIBIT A SJ 436397 That parcel of land situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Be inning at a point in the Southerly line of the Southwest llvi of the Northeast 1/11 of Section 313, Township 7 South, Range 2 West , Mount Diablo Base and Neridian., said point being distant thereon Westerly 1135 feet from the 'Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/11 of said Section 31; thence along said Southerly line Westerly 100 feet ; thence leaving, said line and running Northerly and parallel with the Easterly line of said Southwest 1/14 of the Northeast 1/11 , 396 feet , more or less , to the Northeasterly corner of that certain parcel of land described as Parcel No. Two in the Deed to Creed Jenkins , et ux., recorded July 1, 1960, in Book 4842 Official Records ., page599 , Santa Clara Count:., Records ; thence along the "outherly and Southeasterly lines of that certain parcel of land described in the Deed to Wilbur L. Cleveland, et ux , recorded April 5 , 1957 in Book 3768 Official Records , page 413, Santa Clara County Records , for the two following courses and distances : North 880 151 East 27 .66 feet and North 280 521 East 114 . 88 feet ; thence leaving said last mentioned line and running Easterly and parallel with the Southerly line of the Southwest 1/11 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, M.D.B. & M. .. to the point of intersection thereof with the Northerly prolonfcatiorl of the Easterly line of that certain parcel of land described in the Deed to Yarl R. Malone , et ux, recorded July 26 , 1961 in Book 5243 official Records, page 555 ; thence Southerly along said prolongation and the Easterly line of land so described in the Deed to said Malone 500 feet , more or less, to the point of beginning. Together with a right of way for ingress and egress over all existing roads across the Southwest 1/11 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 7 SouthRanfe 2 k.est ' Mount Diablo base and Deed from Don W. Meridian, as reserved in the Richards and Bessie M. Richards , husband and wife , to Leo i. Ring and Margaret D. Ring, husband and wife , as joint single tenants , an undivided 2/3 interest ) and John J . Ring, a man an undivided 1/3 interest , dated June 13,19146$ recorded Official Records , page 289 . June 26 , 1946 in Book 1372 M-76-84 .4e (Meeting 76-15, Agenda item No. 4) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM May 20 , 1976 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Attached is a report (R-76-12) dated May 18, 1976 from the Land Manager to me regarding a proposed Use and Management Plan for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. It is my recommendation that the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the report with respect to the use and management of this site, to be reviewed in one year. It is further recommended that the Board adopt the name Fremont Older Open Space Preserve as the official name of the site. HG:acc R;17 6(Meeting I ng 76-15 0 Agenda item No. 3 (a) ) 41M MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT REPORT 1,.,Iay 14 , 1976 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Gift of Land as Addition to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, Unit No. 2 Introduction: On April 28, 1976 the Board of Directors of the Mindpeninsula Regional Park District acted to exercise an option to acquire a 75-acre parcel of land as Unit No. 2 of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. The District has recently been offered a gift of a 2.5acre parcel of land adjacent to this Unit. Staff has been studying this parcel to determine its relationship to Unit No. 2 and to prepare concomitant use and management recommen- dations. The analysis below summarizes conclusions reached in connection with the 2. 5 acre parcel (see R-76-11, dated April 21, 1976) . Site Description: (a) Size, Location and Boundaries. The property shown on the attached map is located on the east side of a north-south trending ridge which is parallel to a tributary of Stevens Creek. It is continguous to the existing Unit No. 2 option area, and is located within the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County and the Sphere of Influence of the City of Cupertino. (b) Topography, Geology and Soils. The proposed acquisition is entirely on the side slope of the ridge at a 30%-45% slope. Soils are of the Altamont-Azule association and are characterized by fine to medium texture. These soils are erodable and are protected by maintaining the vegetative cover. (c) Vegetation and Wildlife. The vegetative cover is a dense woodland (primarily oak and bay) . Previous studies of Regnart Canyon and the Fremont Older site indicate a large variety of flora and fauna are present in this region. A species list was previously included in the pre-acquisition report for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (R-74-18, dated September 2, 1974) . R-76-13 Page two (d) Current Use and Development. There is no existing development on the site. This is primarily due to its remoteness and steep slopes. Planning Considerations: On June 11, 1975 an Interim Master Plan map was adopted by the District. It indicates that the proposed acquisition scores high in open space values. The parcel is located within the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Cupertino, and is zoned RHS (residential hillside) . Acquisition of the proposed addition for the District' s program has been found to be in conformity with the General Plan of Santa Clara County. No decision by the City of Cupertino was reached regarding com- patibility on the adjacent 75 acres, and considerations are assumed to be the same. Access: Due to the remote location of the parcel, there is no developed access to the site. Animal trails lead into the parcel, from the ridgetop to the west, but are not considered suitable for use by hikers and equestrians. Adjacent Land Use: All of the parcels contiguous to this parcel are undeveloped at this time. The parcel to the north and east, on which the District is currently excercising an option to purchase, will become permanent open space upon acquisition by the District. Relationship to Existing Preserve: Acquisition of this parcel will further protect the ecological and visual integrity of the parcel currently under acquisition, and further enhance the protection of the wildlife habitat of the entire area. Cultural History and Past Use: This parcel and the adjacent area under option were homesteaded by the L.E. Mann family in the 1860' s. It is not known to what extent they developed the pro- perty. Potential Use and Management: Due to its undeveloped nature, steep slopes, and value as wildlife habitat, the site should not be developed for any purposes. It should serve as an ecological and a visual component of the Unit No. 2 portion of the Preserve. Community Attitudes: On September 15, 1975 the staff of the City of Cupertino submitted to the City Council a survey analysis entitled "City of Cupertino, Parks, and Recreation Needs Assess- ment Survey. " Findings indicate that 73% of the people favor preservation of open space in the hillsides. Interim Use and Management Recommendations: Since the highest value of the parcel is for ecological and visual enhancement of Unit No. 2 of the preserve, no recommendations are being made for physical development of the parcel. This parcel will be patrolled Page three by District rangers during their ordinary patrol of the area. Should any deterioration occur to the parcel, steps such as sign- ing and fencing should be taken to mitigate any damage to the area. The long-range planning for this parcel should be incorporated into the overall planning for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. The long-range plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve is currently being formulated; at this time it appears unlikely that any significant changes will be made in the recommended interim use and management plan for this additional unit. Acquisition Expenses: This gift of land, although small, does exemplify the spirit of the District' s land donations program. Individual citizens and groups are concerned about the loss of open space and are attempting to protect this dwindling resource. The 2.5acre site is being donated by Claitor, Inc. As part of the transaction the District will pay into escrow about $750 in property taxes due, plus the usual closing costs. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Accepting Gift of Real Property and Authorizing President to Execute Certificate of Acceptance with Respect Thereto (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Additi-on) . It is further recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the interim use and management recommendations contained in this report. If the District is not successful in acquiring the 75 acre parcel , which is subject to litigation regarding rights to purchase, the 2. 5 acre site will , for the foreseeable future, be a visual and ecologically significant open space resource inacces- sible to the general public. ��!}.h [rn��tsr vise:&h, •� fl i + j�' "' ;`✓) I r i :°S1 .�.% f ., ....' ' as =- •i 320 • bhp :1 l r} ht. ' �• �I s'� �•+ "r fi_ ... I. 1.: + ,_ 1} �• .m 1 331 Ji MC�CLrE;LLAN�a .II ROAD BM _ ' Al ••••�. 1 «. _ /+ �� it I. •.!1; � L• ) 111.1 �:} (�'� 11 / 1 •'1 \ I—• .., 47 Sch z L 7- ��:• — a ,� if 341 i �11�r(\,. �t �✓ till Ir� J r +�w:.� /{�� :\::;�';=st 0 SA 61 ` CI ' �--��V�` ��-- //////��LLL.,,, ,r- ✓ +d' r �—� �S• �$c�i ; \1 s ;is=1s i c.s�:: � '\-\ �.F% BUBB RD• •fir• - 1 a O \ �b r..l � 1, 1��',\ •�-. � � 'c 90. _ s "'r' r ".r; � i �r,1 �'\�I 1 � .r.�)\(U�l,' ,� � �. � .. - 70 'ice_• ; Proposed Acqu isition �� 324 �Ac uisitions in ro ress 4 P 9 � :- 600 Bu r'1 '� `1 J 1..�'-ti�I/ tiv V I r- > ,1 .I�+S. 5��:.�:.r �,,r'''•'+•� �..�/� �r�(�...}tiv: "�':.:'�:--'Y ' � r �' r a -� ".•• l� r 3: nor i ��f• 2 1+ �� -ti -,! '• ' � � 1 LAN/ �_ ^l Ro�LL� o 153 �,�� \lam` �� \ �' •� �1 Bpp `� � 6' � 1 �• )l ' NA D ID fti�.. ��--J 64 ,.\ a.,s `��\ `�\\�l` � (\ •F ..it'11 l .' ■5,.I� ,! �i 16p0 `"� �, :- \ as a \� tl�� (�� =1 \\ ,� '\\„_\o! ��• a001`,J ff� �✓ (I �^-i� �� as '\ •},4 \ } t� (� �, ( \J' --•1 _ ; aa7 �� \��.�_. • �_:��,,.�� ,��f> �\ \ r V•/e��=_r ep0�I'�. r 1 'RJjp 'Irn':. _ �� '��,%yr��laa �ta J ,� %L/f`��((,,�� 1!.�` � � 1 1 j I tr"_/(T� �� " ;� � •• 16Gr0_`. �1 /.) �� 1� �4 H�^��,��.�'�a ,\ �� J •( \ _� 1 L� r• :lr+• •`,,r• �' r•'� /��1 •�.�SiL hl '� sa+ra�^�1'.1�`1'i�� !,�r~ i��_ ] _�. /`"1 � � The Acceptance of Gift of Land as Addition to, Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, Uktt No. 2 , Agenda .item No. 3 of Meeting 76-15 , is not a project pursuant to Section IV (c) of the Guidelines and Procedures for Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports and the Preparation of Environmental Impact Reports of -the Midpeninsula Regional Park. District adopted April 10 ,, 1974 . The Proposed Gift .is also categorically exempt from preparation of environmen al .. t documents under Article 8 , Section .15,113 , '.Class 13 Ac uisition .of Lands. for '. or Wildlife Conservation Purposes of the_ Guidelines .for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 197,0 Incorporating All Amendments .Through - February 18, 19.75. Date: May 19 , 19 76 . Checklist completed by: (signature). - .Date: rZ.2 , 19 - Checklist concurred in by : signature Department Head , or Assistant General Mana ger or General Manager. Instructions : Refer. to Article V 1 of M-RPD Guidelines . A. copy of this checklist, completed and signed, becomes a part of the file a.n all matters which "might possibly be a project" as that term is defined in Section 15037 of the State CEQA Guidelines . Acceptance of ft of Land as Addition t L , �_KLIS`l' Fremont Older an Space Preserve , Unit No 2 (,fill in , title of project - The undersigned conclude (s) that subject- activity (check appropriate blanks) : X 1. Is not covered by CEQA because beyond reasonable doubt it is : X (a) not a "project" within the definitions set forth in Section 15037 of the State Guidelines and Article IV 5 of these guidelines; or X (b) categorically exempt pursuant to the Article 8 (Section 15100 through 15114) of the State Guidelines ; or (c) an emergency project within the meaning of Section 15071 of the State Guidelines; or (d) a feasibility or planning study within the meaning of Section 15072 of the State Guidelines; or (e) " a ministerial project within the meaning of Section 15073 of the State Guidelines; or (f) a project which is not required to be approved by the Board of Directors and which will have no significant effect on the environment, and for which a Negative Declaration should be filed ; or (g) a project for which an EIR or o.. Negative Declaration has already been prepared by another public agency acting in its role of lead aGuidelines)enc s ee Sect ' � ions 6 150 4 et se g Y ( of the' State provided that: (1) substantial changes are not proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, due to the involvement of environmental impacts not considered in the original EIR; and (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to 'he circumstances under which the project is to undertaken, such as a change in the proposed location of the project, which will require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not covered in the original EIR; or 2. It is a project which clearly may have significant impact on the environment so that a draft EIR. should be prepared for presenta- tion to the Board of Directors . 3 . CEQA is applicable to this project, but only an EIA . should -be prepared initially so that the Board can decide whether to proceed with a draft EIR or a Negative Declaration. Give principal reasons and facts upon which above determination is based : _�_ Exhibit A (Meeting 76-12 ' Agenda item N. 3 (b) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ACCEPTING GIFT OF REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE CERTIF- ICATE OF ACCEPTANCE WITH RESPECT THERETO The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District does resolve as follows: Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Park District does hereby accept, with gratitude , the gift of real property described on Exhibit A, affixed hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, and conveyed by that certain grant deed from Claitor, Inc. , to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, dated May , 1976. The President of the Board is authorized to execute a certificate of acceptance with respect thereto. I M-76-82 (Meeting 76-15 Agenda item No. 5) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM May 17, 1976 TO: Board of Directors FROM: N. Hanko, President SUBJECT: Policies Regarding Annexation Dear Colleagues: In the course of studying the annexation election material and arguments pro and con, there appears to me some questions as to policy the Board may adopt with respect to allocations and timing of allocation of funds for acquisition for the new geographical area. It seems fair to me that the residents of the new area have a clear picture as to the intentions of the existing Board before the election. On the subject of timing, if the annexation succeeds on June 8 , revenue from the new area will not be received by the District until eighteen months later, in December, 1977 . 1 wish, therefore, to propose a Board policy which would imme- diately incorporate the annexed area into the existing planning and negotiation process , so that key parcels threatened by loss could be considered as soon as Directors representing the new area are able to participate in these decisions. Recommended Policy: In the event southern San Mateo County annexation is successful , it will be the Board's policy that the entire District will be considered as a unit and that priorities for acquisitions will apply equally to the newly annexed area. Planning for acquisitions within the annexed area, and associated negotiation, will commence after the seating of Directors representing the new area. NH:acc y ,4 kc ity or SARATOGA INCORPORATED 1956 '��uF` 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 May 13, 1976 Nonette C. Hanko, President Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Park District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Ms. Hanko: Please be advised that the City Council at its regular meeting on May 5, 1976, considered your letter with a copy of Resolution No. 76-10, supporting ballot measures "J" and "K" appearing on the City of Saratoga ballot in the June 8, 1976, election. The Council asked that I express their appreciation to you and members of your Board of Directors for supporting this important measure. We feel your support will be beneficial in the bond campaign which has commenced in support of these two measures. ry trul s , Ro ey City Manager RFB/dm rray 24 . 1976 LETTE7' CONCEPNING PRE ;ERVATION! 07 THE HUTOR17 FRETONT OLDE,� MAN19ION; at the upper end o' Prospect Rd.4 within the proposed regional park near the town of Saratoga. To whom it may concern: As concerned and interested citizens of Santa Clara County we wish to emphatically state our position that the Fremont Older Yansion should be preserved. Because of its age, surroundings , style , and intpgrety of con- struction the building represents a unique and irreplaceable land- -ark. The architechural -, .1 motif and workmanshipor the-Imansionis untypical o' today �6nd ch6racteristicof its 'era. Once its gone its gone forever! In all probibility the lowest cost solution short of refurbish- ing it is to maintain and protect the structure intact until such time as resources become available to restore it. The cost or a secure fence would likely be less than the cost or removal. Fenced it remains preserved until other alternatives arise. Some possable alternatives that could be Found consistant with park management philosophy are : 1 ) Solicit the aid of concerned organization(s ) interested in reconstituting and/or utilizing the structure. Agencies or organ.;. izations under this category might be Found in either the private the public sector . (e. g. the Hearst �orp. , American Youth Hostlps Assoc. , Boy touts of America , etc. ) . 2 )To restorp the mansion by offering for development tD a private concessioi :e (e. g. Esalen type nett or use by an educational organization) . In this day and age non-motor vehicle access should not be c.on- cidered a basic problem. The trend is toward walk-in/bicycle/ shuttle arcess(the distance from the parking area -to the central quad at Stand`ord University probably exceeds the requirements at this parksite ). It is apparent that the policy you should adopt should reflect - the f advantages o preserving the mansion rather then removing it. sincerely, n /s C c . •Sett, 'I c 5c me�acc,Vc° j l,� Co.;it/� Soh F�-4hj.sco �xu�,,"��r e /Ul a 2 f 1576 '20ri41,5 I-C (4� e /V L YIo Le-s / - � C-76-9 REVISED May 26 , 1976 Meeting 76-15 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT C L A I 111 S # Amount Name Description 10. 00 Option Fee Fund 1895 $ option Fee P 1897 98. 00 CBM Type Printing Gift Pamphlet 1898 80. 41 GSA Communications Radio Installation 1899 600. 00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Legal Fees 1900 7.25 The Ed Jones Company Field Equipment 1901 668. 00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Insurance 1902 3. 56 Image Technology, Inc. Printing 1903 16. 95 Western Fire Equipment Field Equipment 1904 93. 36 Young & Associates Office Supplies 1905 31. 32 P.G. & E. Utilities 1906 29.0. 86 Xerox Supplies 1907 10,000 . 00 Harry L. Gunetti and Option to Purchase Property Louis C. Larrus 1908 4 . 51 Eureka Office Products Office Supplies 1909 54 . 80 Aqua-Velop Printing 1910 7 . 87 Pargas Utilities 1911 60 .00 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter 1912 23 .00 City of Palo Alto Planning Commission Minutes 1913 107 .40 Shell Oil Company District Vehicle Expense. 1914 13 . 29 Hubbard & Johnson Field Supplies 1915 63. 02 Mobil Oil Credit District Vehicle Expense 1916 177. 08 Valley Reproduction Brochures Reproduction 1917 95. 00 Western Title Insurance Title Report 1918 56 .46 Carl R. Carlsen, Inc. District Vehicle Maintenance 1919 320 . 00 Gail D. Mincey - . Map work 1920 50. 55 Edward E. Jaynes Private Vehicle Expense 1921 75 .76 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense $17 .85 District Vehicle Expense 6 .00 deal Conferences 14.21 Office Supplies 30 .54 Maps 7 .16 i