HomeMy Public PortalAbout19770330 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 77-09 Meeting 77-9
AA,
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRIC!"
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
A G E N D A
March 30, 1977 7: 30 P.M.
Music Room, Woodside Elementary School
3192 Woodside Road, Woodside, California
(7 :30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 9, 1977
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(7 : 40) SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Recognition of Service by George .Seager to the MRPD,
Community and Associates - D. Wendin
(7:50) 2. Election of Board Member Secretary - -D. Wendin
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(7 : 55) 3 . Presentation of Draft Master Plan and Summary of Purpose
and Progress of District - H. Grench
(8 : 40) 4 . Proposed Change of Name of District - H. Grench
(a) Report
(b) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpen-
insula Regional Park District Changing Name of Agency
from Midpeninsula Regional Park District to Midpenin-
sula Regional Open Space District
OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
(8 : 55) 5 . Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
(a) Slide Presentation of History - Donna Harris
(b) Implementation of Use and Management Plan - J. Olson
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(9: 20) 6. Urban Open Space and Recreation Program Grant for a
Proposed Permanente Creek Park Addition Acquisition - H. Grench
(a) Report
(b) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Park District Approving the Application
for Grant Funds Under the Roberti-Z 'Berg Urban Open-
Space and Recreation Program
(9: 30) 7. Proposition 2 Fund Allocation in San Mateo County - D. Wendin
(9 : 35) 8. Review of Planning Process - J. Olson
(over)
Meeting 77-9 Page two
(9 : 55) 9 . Authorization of CETA Positions - J. ,_son
(10 : 10) 10. Directors ' Expense Reimbursement Policies - N. Hanko and B. Green
NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
(10 : 30) 11. Status of Intergovernmental Parks Project - H. Grench
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
(10 : 50) EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations and Personnel Matters
ADJOURNMENT
Directions
1 a 80
1
M�rQ►hoh� CP
s�
r Music Roomn
l
OCA54e ElemeyOal,�
3115 1 OO&S4e. ROCL&
Wood
�N
vdritten Co=, .unication
(Meeting 77-9)
Kr*iffianien
(;raph*icf
yo�� ess0 0�,
7&
&///0/ m4q;p , 4;e-e—
e / JvAeM T) o•e
400 7V
BE �rnirVG A
warm us V.�e . vie.
109 .440 :!P oA
04e&O's *VD ..9
/,4u S� cow sco .
vSAfv]6-
3 G�E_'2
S4'A C c.o s 4?Vd 7 o
S-g2 - 7VF(o
s
####
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
745 DISTEL DRIVE,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717
March 18 , 1977
Ms. Jane Kristiansen
136 Rogers Avenue
San Carlos, California 94070
Dear Ms. Kristiansen:
Thank you for your letter of March 11, 1977 , regarding
your concern for the future of the Hassler property.
I am enclosing a report which was presented to our
Board of Directors on February 24 , 1977, on this property.
The Board unanimously voted to approve the recommendations
set forth on pages ten and eleven of the report.
If you have any
y questions , please give Carroll Harrington
of our office a call.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:pl
i
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duty,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,George F.Seager,Edward G.Shelley.Harry A Turner,Dan;et G.Wendin
4ritten Communication
(meeting 77-9)
t�7
V7
z2
'54
» .
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
745 DISTEL DRIVE,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717
March 18, 1977
Mrs. Connie Maltin
3141 La Mesa Drive
San Carlos, CA
Dear Ms. Maltin:
Thank you for your letter of March 9 , 1977, regarding
your concern for the future of the Hassler property.
I am enclosing a report which was presented to our
Board of Directors on February 24 , 1977, on this property.
The Board unanimously voted to approve the recommendations
set forth on pages ten and eleven of this report.
If you have any questions, please give Carroll Harrington
of our office a call.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:pl
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,George F.Seager,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
I
Written Communication
(Meeting 77-9)
American Association of University Women
Los Altos, California, Branch
March 9, 1977
Mid Peninsula Regional Park District
745 Distel Drive
Los Altos, Ca. 94022
Members of the Board:
The Los Altos-Mountain View Branch of the American Association of
University Women wish to commend the Mid-Peninsula Regional Park District
for their purchases of Open Space as a legacy for the future.
However, the recent dispute between the District and the Cities that
petitioned to withdraw from the District has shown that there is confusion
by the general public as to the purpose of the district and its goals. To
clarify some of the concepts held by much of the public, we urge the District
to change its name as suggested by the Santa Clara County Local Agency
Formation at its February meeting, to Mid-Peninsula Open Space District.
We urge that the District continue a strong program of public education
as to the availability of use of the acquired properties such as the article
in the March issue of Sunset Magazine. We believe that a strong public
relations program will greatly reduce the probability of future petitions
for withdrawal from the District.
As one of the original proponents of the formation of the Mid-Peninsula
Regional Park District, we continue to support its goals and offer this letter
as a step to further realize those goals and to assist the District in main-
taining public support.
Sincerely yours,
r�~c
Elizabeth Strand, President
J
M-77-43
(Mew
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 29, 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Schedule for Appointment of Director
Shown below is a proposed outline of a schedule for appointing
a Director to fill the vacancy created by George Seager's
death. The text of the newspaper ads is attached for your
information.
Appointment Schedule
Day Date Event
Friday April 1 First newspaper ad announcing vacancy
Monday April 11 Application deadline (5: 00 P.M. )
Monday April 11 Distribution of completed applications
to Board
Wednesday April 13 Board meeting - possible interviews,
possible appointment
Wednesday April 20 Possible special Board meeting for
appointment
Friday April 22 Deadline for appointment
M-77-41
(Meeting 77-9
Agenda Item No. 2)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 24 , 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Election of Board Member Secretary
It will be necessary to elect a new Board member Secretary
on March 30 so that signing of resolutions and other acts
designated to the Secretary can be continued.
A process will have to be adopted to fill the Board vacancy
within the thirty day required period (Public Resources Code
Sec. 5536) . The most recent Board policies for advertisement
of vacancies were established by resolution on July 28, 1976
and will be followed by staff. The Board will also have to
set specific procedures and a timetable for the selection.
HG:jg
NOTICE OF VACANCY
Director for Ward 7
Midpeninsula Regional Park District
Due to the death of George F. Seager, Director for Ward 7, the Board
of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, announces a
vacancy on the Board to be filled by Board appointment pursuant to
Public Resources Code, Secton 5536. The person appointed to fill the
vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term of the
late George F. Seaqer (january, 1981) .
Any person qualified to be appointed shall be a resident and elector
of Ward 7. Ward 7 is comprised of an area which includes San Carlos,
Redwood City, EmeraldLake Hills, portions of Woodside and unincorporated
lands west of Woodside and Skyline.
The Board will receive applications for the vacancy at the District
office until Monday, April 11, 1977 at 5 :00 p.m.
For further information and required application forms, contact the
District Clerk at the office of the District, 745 Distel Drive, Los
Altos, California, or call (415) 965-4717.
M-77-37
(Meeting 77-9 ,
Agenda item No. 3 )
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 23 , 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation of Draft Master Plan
Attached are the Addenda to the Technical Appendices of the
MRPD Master Plan. They were prepared by the District' s
planning consultants in accordance with the contract for
services.
The new draft Master Plan document is scheduled for delivery
to the District on March 30 and will be distributed then.
The District' s interim Master Plan consists of the original
printed draft Master Plan and the Open Space Element of the
San Mateo County General Plan for the Santa Clara County
and San Mateo County portions of the District, respectively.
This is somewhat cumbersome and confusing.
It is recommended that the new draft Master Plan be adopted
as the District' s interim Master Plan and supersede the above
documents. This would give the District a single interim
document for public information and grant application purposes.
HG:jg
ADDENDA TO THE TECHNICAL APPENDICES TO THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MASTER PLAN
The Midpeninsula Regional Park District, in March, 1976, published a Master Plan for
lands within the District. In late 1976 the District was enlarged to include additional
lands in southeastern San Mateo County. The firm of William Spangle & Associates
was engaged to revise the Master Plan to include the additional territory. The revised
Master Plan, dated January 1977, was published in the spring of 1977.
In March of 1976 the Midpeninsula Regional Park District (MRPD) published TECHNICAL
APPENDICES TO THE MASTER PLAN which described the procedures used to prepare
the March 1976 Master Plan. The following text summarizes changes in these procedures
made in preparing the revised Master Plan. More specific details of differences between
the 1976 and 1977 procedures will be found in an annotated copy of TECHNICAL
APPENDICES TO THE MASTER PLAN which is on file in the offices of MRPD, at 745
Distel Drive, Los Altos, California.
The notes that follow are keyed to page numbers of the Technical Appendices.
Page 1-2 Data were NOT collected, nor were scores computed for the following
uses of open space in the San Mateo County portion of the District:
4. Production of Minerals
5. Water Production
11 . Protection from Flooding
12. Protection from Geologic Hazards
13. Protection of Water Quality
Page II-2 Paragraph 1: Was amended to indicate that lands which lie outside of
urbanized areas (rather than outside of the "Urban Service Areas of the
various cities") were to be analyzed. Other changes made on this page
to reflect reduction in number of categories noted above.
Page II-3 The list of categories to be reviewed was amended to reflect the changes
noted on Page 1-2 (see above).
Page 11-4 Paragraph 3: Definition of LAND UNIT was enlarged to indicate that the
minimum size of a land unit was generally about 1,000' x 1,000' (about
25 acres) and measured about 1/2" x V2" on a 1:24,000 scale map.
Paragraph 6: Definition of STUDY AREA was modified to reflect the change
to Page 11-2 noted above.
E
A definition of EXISTING URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
DEVELOPED AREAS was added as follows:
Minimum area: 500' x 500' = 6 acres
= 1/4" x 1/4" at map scale 1" = 2,000'
Minimum density of development: 2 structures per 6 acres
Exceptions: Remote rural development, where there is, for example,
a farmhouse and three out-buildings clustered together,
is not considered "developed"
Isolated country estates, such as the Roth
mansion , are not considered "developed"
Areas that presently have no structures on them, but are
known to be in an active stcge of subdivision develop-
ment, are considered "developed". Examples: Brittain
Heights Area in San Carlos, and Portola Valley Ranch.
Page II-6 Paragraphs 4. and 5. were not used.
Page II-9 Paragraph 10: Source of data for San Mateo County was "SCENIC ROADS
SYSTEM: a Portion of the Scenic Roads Element of the San Mateo County
General Plan", adopted by the Planning Commission August 27, 1975,
and by the Board of Supervisors October 9, 1975.
Paragraph 11 was not used.
Page II-10 Paragraphs 12 and 13 were not used.
d
Page II-18 The following paragraphs were added; they apply to the procedures used to
prepare both the March 1976 and the January 1977 editions of the Master
Plan.
The computer program to calculate the scores of land units was written so
that if a land unit scored less than 3.0 points in any INTRINSIC value,
the score of EXTRINSIC values of the land unit would automatically be
0. This was done to avoid having completely unsuitable land units rank
in the low or low-middle range on the basis of extrinsic scores.
Scores for land units that lie completely within publicly owned parks or
open space preserves were calculated, but were NOT ranked; they were
crossed out by hand on the computer print-outs.
1
2
_l
Page 11-21 Table 3: The following items referring to data that were not collected for
lands in San Mateo County were deleted:
I I- Identified as mineral source
13- Site tributary to water supply
19- Area is subject to flooding
20- Relative seismic stability
Page 11-24 The attached page was substituted; it identifies the USGS quadrangle maps
used in the 1976 and 1977 studies.
Page 11-27 Table 4: The following lines were deleted:
18- Urban subdivisions
19- Rural subdivisions
21- Harbors
22- Large institutions
24- Solid waste disposal sites
25- Sewage disposal facilities
26- Airports
Data on the types of land units listed above were not gathered for Son Mateo
County; they were gathered in 1976 for lands in Santa Clara County, but
were deleted from the 1977 computer runs.
Line 15 was amended to indicate that freshwater marshes are included in the
same group as "sloughs and salt marshes".
A footnote to Table 4 was added which indicates that "riparian areas" vary
in size according to the terrain. In steep-sided canyons riparian areas are
narrow; in gentle terrain they may be 500 feet wide. Riparian areas were
marked on maps only in those areas adjacent to perennial streams.
Page 11-29 The last line of the lost paragraph was changed to read as follows: The
hillside areas are reached via portals from Highway 280 at:
Page M i I I Road
Foothill Boulevard
Highway 9 in Santa Clara County
Highway 17
Alpine Road
Sand Hi I I Road
Woodside Road in San Mateo County
Edgewood Road
Half Moon Bay Road
3
I
Page 11-31 A note was added to this page which indicates that the source of data for
lands in San Mateo County was:
A. for lands within the Sphere of Influence of any city (as
defined by the Local Agency Formation Commission), the
general plan of that city was used
B. for lands outside of any city Sphere of Influence the San
Mateo County "Parks and Open Space Plan", as published
in the San Mateo County Conservation and Open Space
element of the General Plan was used (as adopted by the
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors December 20, 1973)
The attached table was substituted for the earlier table on Page II-31.
Page II-36 Information on the existence of rare and endangered species in San Mateo
County was drawn from maps on file in the offices of the San Mateo County
Planning Department. All areas in which either plants or animals on the
I ists of rare and endangered species were found in San Mateo County were
assigned a score of 10 points.
Page II-38 The source of information on soils in San Mateo County was:
Report and General Soil Map, San Mateo County
by Wesley C. Lindsey, Soil Scientist
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Half Moon Bay, California
(report dated March 1970)
It should be noted that the soil data for both San Mateo and Santa Clara
counties are very generalized, and are not entirely adequate for evaluating
the characteristics of areas the size of the "land units" used in this study.
Page II-40 The source of information on rainfall in San Mateo County was:
San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study,
Basic Data Contribution 025: "Precipitation Depth-Duration-
Frequency Relations for the San Francisco Bay Region, California",
by S.E. Rantz, 1971
Page II-42 The table on this page was amended to indicate that lands in salt ponds
receive a score of 0 points for flatness in both Santa Clara and San Mateo
counties.
Page II-45 Visibility of lands in San Mateo County was evaluated using the same system
as described on this page, except that two "viewing locations" were used--
El Camino Real at Cordilleras Creek, and El Camino Real at Valparaiso
Avenue. Lands visible from either of these points were assigned a score
of 10 points.
4
Page 11-46 When scoring "Visibility from Scenic Highways" a bonus of 2 points was
given to lands within the "Skyline Scenic Corridor" (but in no case did
the score exceed 10 points).
Page 11-47 Roads in San Mateo County with many potential viewers are: U.S. 280.
Roads in San Mateo County with moderate number of viewers are: Sand
Hill Road, Portolo Road, Woodside Road, Alpine Road, Alameda de las
Pulgas, Canada Road.
Appendix III - POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF VARIOUS PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE AGENCIES FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
This section of the Technical Appendices should be updated to include a
discussion of the powers and responsibilities of:
A. Son Mateo County, cities in San Mateo County, and the East Palo
Alto Municipal Council.
B. The South Boyside System Authority (an agency which provides
sewerage service to many of the cities in southern San Mateo County
within MRPD).
C. California Coastal Commission, which has permit-review authority
over some lands within MRPD in Son Mateo County to the west of
Skyline Boulevard.
Appendix IV - TABULATION SHEETS OF DATA, BASIS FOR SCORING, AND SCORES
The some computer program was used for tabulating the data in both studies.
Computer print-outs from both the 1976 and 1977 studies are on file in the
offices of MRPD in Los Altos, California.
In 1977 three separate computer tabulations were made:
A. MRPD lands in Son Mateo County only.
B. MRPD lands in Santa Clara County (with minor corrections
mode since the 1976 tabulation).
C. Merged data for both San Mateo County and Santa Clara
County MRPD lands.
In 1977 the scores for land units in Son Mateo County were reviewed and
divided into sextiles. The numerical values of the sextile division points
were then compared with the sextile division points in the 1976 study and
5
found to be about the same. The data for the two counties were then
merged, and the resulting scores were divided into sextiles. The "Open
Space Lands Composite Evaluation Map", published as a part of the Master
Plan, shows these merged scores.
The following land units in Santa Clara County were shifted from one sextile
to another when merged data for two counties were divided into sextiles:
Change from 2nd to 1st sextile 4-22
Change from 2nd to 3rd sextile 7-33
7-36 (entirely in a park)
7-41
1-24
8-34
Change from 3rd to 4th sextile 5-74
4-6
7-37
7-48
Change from 4th to 5th sextile 4-8
Change from 5th to 6th sextile 7-55
8-84
7-10
When the scores of land units in San Mateo County were merged with those
of Santa Clara County, and then divided into sextiles, the following land
units in Son Mateo County were shifted:
Change from Ist to 2nd sextile 16-1
Change from 3rd to 2nd sextile 12-76
16-26
16-19
Change from 4th to 3rd sextile 15-2
13-28
16-44
13-51
Change from 5th to 4th sextile 13-54
Change from 6th to 5th sextile 16-53
6
1976 scores were reviewed and modified to alleviate inconsistencies that
showed up at the boundaries of the USGS quadrangle maps. Scores for
the following land units were changed:
4-2 now in 2nd sextile
4-3 now in 3rd sextile
4-4 now in 5th sextile
4-28 remains in 2nd sextile
5-9 now in 2nd sextile
5-18 now in 2nd sextile
8-2 remains in 1st sextile
8-7 now in 3rd sextile
8-94 a new land unit; previously part of 8-2
8-95 a new land unit; previously part of 8-11
The land unit scores (both "composite scores" and scores of individual open
space functions) were carefully reviewed. Any apparent discrepancies were
checked, and corrections entered in the data when appropriate. In a few
instances the data appeared to be correct, but due to unique locational
characteristics the "composite score" failed to accurately reflect the land
unit's qualities. Therefore, the following land units were shifted from one
sextile to another when the "Open Space Lands Composite Evaluation Map"
was prepared.
12-133 shifted from 5th sextile to 4th sextile
16-42 shifted from 6th sextile to 5th sextile
11-19 shifted from 6th sextile to 5th sextile
13-1 shifted from 6th sextile to 5th sextile
Bodies of water within MRPD were scored, as well as land areas. Some in-
consistencies were found in the scoring and mapping techniques used in the
1976 study. In the 1977 study the following rules were used and applied to
lands in both San Mateo and Santa Clara counties:
A. Bodies of water that are now publicly owned, such as
Lexington Reservoir and Stevens Creek Reservoir, were
deleted from the scoring sheets; they were treated as if
they were "public parks and open spaces".
B. Privately owned lakes and reservoirs, and the San Francisco
Bay, were treated like privately owned lands in the scoring
process, but they were shown only as "water areas" on the
Composite Evaluation Map (that is, they were shown in a
grey tone, without the green overprint used for the land
areas).
7
As noted above, scores of lands and bodies of water that are entirely within
publicly owned parks and open spaces were deleted before the ranking by
sextiles. The following land units in San Mateo County were deleted from
the score sheets for this reason:
11-5 12-111 12-118 12-125
-6 -112 -119 -126
-9 -113 -120 -127
-10 -114 -121 -128
-11 -115 -122 -129
12-109 -116 -123 -130
-110 -117 -124 -131
13-18
The following land units in Santa Clara County were deleted from the score
sheets because they are already publicly owned:
2-2 4-12 4-59
-4 -13 -63
-5 -17 -66
-6 -18 5-59
-7 -53 7-24
-8 -54 -25
-9 -57 8-6
-15 -58 -45
This addenda was prepared by Larz Anderson of William Spangle and Associates, Inc.
March 8, 1977
8
1 . QUAD SHEET NUMBER
The Midpeninsula Regional Park District territory appears on thirteen of the 7-112' series
of USGS quadrangle maps. These maps are given arbitrary numbers, as indicated below.
Two quad sheets have two numbers each; one number for each County. This was done to
facilitate segregation of data, if desired. While there are small portions of three land
units in San Mateo County on the Mountain View Quad, they were tabulated as a part
of the Palo Alto Quad to simplify the data recording process.
SAN MATEO REDWOOD
POINT
.00 01 1 1
4VOOD IDE PALO ALTO MTN\ VIEW MILPITAS
I �
I �
l 12
! O O
LA H�NDA MIND€GO CUPERTINO SAN JOSE
HIL WEST
r 0
15 01- -
L
STLE ROCK LOS G` TI&
R GE
� o o �
iLAURN
v
I 0
11-24 (rev. 3/8/77)
Revised table for page II-31 concerning:
RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING AND PLANNED OPEN SPACES
CATEGORY POINTS
General
Existing urban development 0
Vacant lands in rural areas 0
Vacant lands in urban area (other than
planned open space) 0
Existing parks 8
Existing private recreation areas 6
Waters of the San Francisco Bay 10
Shown as proposed parks or open space
in local city plans 10
In Santa Clara County UDOS Plan
Lands in foothills or mountains to be
retained 6
Salt ponds to be retained 6
10-year park proposals 10
Long-range park proposals 8
In San Mateo County Park and Open Space Plan
General open space 6
Watershed lands $
Institutional lands 8
Vacant lands under study 6
Redwood City Plan and Menlo Park Plan
"Urban Preserve" 8
Portola Valley General Plan
"Open Space Preserve" 10
"Wooded Conservation Area" 10
"Open Residential" 6
II-31 rev.3 8 7
(Meeting 77-9 ,
Agenda item No. 4 (b) )
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
CHANGING NAME OF AGENCY FROM MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT TO MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Park Di
strict was
created in November, 1972 for the primary purpose of acquiring
and preserving open space lands on the midpeninsula; and
WHEREAS, open space lands are being acquired and
preserved for scenic enjoyment, guiding urban form, protec-
tion of natural-vegetation and wildlife, protection of
agriculture and low-intensity outdoor recreation and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors desires to eliminate
confusion which has existed regarding the goals and activities
of the District as an open space agency as distinguished from
a traditional parks and recreation agency; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes that the inclu-
sion of the word "park" in the District's name has been a primary
cause of such confusion; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes changing the
word "park" to "open space" in the District' s name would sub-
stantially aid in clarifying to the public the goals and activ-
ities of the District; and
WHEREAS, the use of the words "open space" would also
assist in generally educating the public about the concept and
importance of open space preservation; and
I
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has held two noticed
public hearings on the proposed name change and heard and con-
sidered public comments with respect to said proposal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District does
hereby change the name of the Midpeninsula Regional Park
District to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
R-77-17
(Meeting 77-9,
Agenda item No. (b) )
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
REPORT
March 24 , 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Implementation of Use and Management Plan for
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
Background: At the March 9, 1977 meeting of the Board of
Directors, a report was presented on the Status of Struc-
tures on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (R-77-11,
dated March 3 , 1977) . The report stated staff' s intention
to proceed with the removal of the Fremont Older ranchhouse
as a public safety hazard. This action had been included
previously as part of the Use and Management Plan for the
site adopted by the Board on May 18 , 1976 , assuming no
viable alternative use could be found for the structure.
The Board decided that it would view slides belonging to
Mrs. Donna Harris of the Fremont Older ranchhouse at its
next meeting prior to making a determination on whether or
not to proceed with removal of the structure. Staff was also
asked about the effects of having the house listed on the
National Register of Histroic Places.
National Register: Staff has contacted the State Historical
Resources Commission, wich acts as the State representative
for the National Register, for information regarding policies
and procedures involved in placing a structure on the National
Register and in applying for grants. The Commission pro-
cesses and makes recommendations on applications for the
National Register. Presently this procedure takes about
four months, unless the application is submitted in poor
shape or there is a controversy over the application, in
which case the process takes longer.
If a structure is placed on the National Register, the owner
may generally make alterations and additions to the struc-
ture or surrounding area without interference from the Com-
mission, unless an objection has been filed with them. How-
ever, if the owner contemplates demolition of the structure,
the Commission will normally investigate the matter. If the
R-77-1 7 Page two
owner has to apply for a demolition permit from a local
jurisdiction, the jurisdiction can require that an Environ-
mental Impact Statement be prepared for a structure on the
National Register.
If the owner of a structure on the National Register applies
for matching grant funds for restoration or repair, there
are procedures and requirements which must be met by the
applicant. Materials describing the guidelines for such appli-
cations are being sent from the Commission office.
Discussion: If the Board decides that the ranchhouse should
not be moved at this time, the District will have to install
fencing to mitigate the safety hazard presented by the struc-
ture. The estimated cost for the labor involved with the in-
stallation is up to $1, 500, with materials costing approxi-
mately $1, 000. Additionally, the building would be boarded
up further at a cost of about $500.
The District has committed funds toward the repair and restor-
ation of the adobe house, which staff believes is of suffi-
cient historical significance and vistor interest to justify
a reasonable expenditure. However, it is staff' s opinion
that the Fremont Older ranchhouse does not have the histor-
ical or architectural significance to warrant its repair and
restoration, and the structure presents a liability problem
for the District. The District currently pays an exception-
ally low premium as a public agency due to its commitment to
provide "open space" uses of its lands rather than traditional
parks and recreation uses and facilities.
Recommendation: Unless the Board decides otherwise, staff
will proceed with removal of the Fremont Older ranchhouse
after completion of a photo essay of the structure for his-
torical and architectural records. It has been found that
the cost of removal will be well within the previous esti-
mate of $8 , 000, but since it will probably exceed $3,500,
it is further recommended that Board authorize staff to ex-
pend the funds on the basis of bids received.
HG: jg
RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1971
El Camino Trust for Historic Preservation
Dedicated to Preserving Santa Clara County's Heritage
P. O. Box 657
Cupertino, California 95014
March 22, 1977
Mr. Herbert Grench, Gen. Mgr.
MRPD
745 Distel Drive
Los Altos , CA 94022
I
Dear Mr. Grench:
I
I am forwarding to you herewith some background infor-
mation and pertinent data which Mrs. Ginzton of the
E1 Camino Trust Board of Directors has developed
relating to the Fremont Older property. I think you will
find this helpful in your reaching a decision on the plans
for this property.
I
The El Camino Trust urges the Mid Peninsula Regional
Park District to take advantage of the extensive volunteer !
investigations and recommendations prepared under the '
chairmanship of Mrs. Ginzton before a non-reversible i
accident takes place at the Older Ranch.
i
We appreciate this opportunity to collaborate with you
in fulfilling the Mid Peninsula Regional Park Charter.
Let us know how we can be most helpful.
Sincerely,
� I
R. Maurice Trip
President
rp
I
t
Mrs.
EDWARD L. GINZTON
28014 NATOMA ROAD
Los A1.Tos HmLs.CA.94022
March 17, 1977
Mr. Maurice Tripp, President
El Camino Trust for Historic Preservation w
15231 Quito Road
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Maurice:
Here is the first page of the Minority Report for the Older Ranch Buildings for
El Camino Trust after we were contacted for an evaluation and/or recommendation by
Mr. Jon Olson, MRPD Land Manager.
It became clear to me at the Older Ranch Agenda Item - MRPD Board meeting,
March 1977, that this recommendation never reached them nor the Land Manager. I am,
.therefore, sending a copy directly to Mr. Herbert Grench, General Manager, MRPD, at
this'time.
It was Item 4, the proposal for partial restoration, and partial removal of the
main structure that we consulted the architect, Mr. Victor Thompson. At the time of his
inspection he not only concurred with our recommendation for the potential of this type of
restoration and recycling of its usefulness with a feel for the warmth and beauty it once
had but he also pointed out several features which led him to believe that it had been
designed by an architect of consequence. These included the size and placement of the
windows, the use of the beams and the roofline relationships. He felt that there was a
Julia Morgan or a Frank Lloyd Wright influence evidenced here.
For this reason, he urged us to contact Dr. Paul Turner, architectural historian
at Stanford University for an evaluation. Dr. Turner, when consulted recommended that
architectural photographs of the building should be made immediately - not only for the
purposes of his evaluation and study but also simply as an historical record of a building
of quality and historical interest which has already suffered considerable vandalism and
damage and is very vulnerable to further destruction.
As you know, there is a sense of urgency at this time. For instance, the only
recommended action for the building from the El Camino Trust is for restoration of the adobe
and the gardens so that neither the MRPD Board nor the management staff know of the
Trust's interest in Older Home itself.
Furthermore, the building is so unprotected that it is suffering all sorts of interior
as well as exterior damage from rains and leaking roofs and widows, thus destroying
salvageable, useful materials - oak floors - glass doors, etc. I hope that you will communi-
cate our sense of concern and obligation to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Park District as soon
as possible.
- 2 -
Mr. Maurice Tripp March 17, 1977
I have some further encouraging information concerning the CCC program
that is getting under way which will be useful in projects such as this which I will
cover later in a separate report. They have hired skilled artisans to supervise the pro-
jects and would like the projects such as this that would require skilled work from the
young men. They are funded 80%by the State and 20% locally which can be in kind.
Sincerely,
Artemas A. Ginzton
1
i
i
Mrs.
EDWARD L. GINZTDN
26014 NATOMA ROAD
Los ALT02 MILLS.CA.94022
March 17, 1977
Mr. Maurice Tripp, President
El Camino Trust for Historic Preservation
15231 Quito Road
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Maurice:
I have been in touch with Mr. William Ziegler, architectural photographer,
who has worked for Mr. Thompson and was highly recommended for this historical
record of the Older Home. He has spent two or three hours visiting the site and
seeing Mr. Harris' photographs and has presented two plans for doing the work.
Plan A involves two days of photography with a choice of
about ten photographs from 13 to 16 proof and dupli-
cates. He would try to get a 4 x 5 still camera shot
from every point considered significant. His charge
for this would be $476.00, including tax.
Plan B involves one day of photography with a selection of
about six photographs from 7 or 8 proofs. The charge
for this would be $246.00, including tax.
He can go to work bnmediately when the weather clears and the choice of
Plans is made.
II! To me it seems important for the Mid-Peninsula Regional Park District
to make as complete a record of the building as possible. It will help them make a
decision about the final disposition of the Older house and will be invaluable either
for restoration, partial restoration or as a museum exhibit on the property.
It would seem to me that with growing interest in Julia Morgan Houses in
this area that the Mid-Peninsula Regional Park District would want to protect itself
as much as possible in case there is ever any questioning of the handling of historical
buildings on acquired properties.
After seeing the Harris pictures of the original house and gardens, I would
strongly support a recommendation for Plan A, which would try to get one shot from
every place that seemed significant as being an appropriate expenditure of public funds.
Sincerely,
/ ctj:i wckl 6
Artemas A. Ginaton
Mrs.
EDWARD L. 13INZTON
2BO14 NATOMA RUAD
Los ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Robert Swanson, President December 14, 1-076
El C mino Trust for Historic Preservation
19616 Farwell kvenne
darz.toga, California 95070
Danny zind Members of the Board :
Mrs. Hanko, chairman of the Mid-Peninsula Regional. Park District
will need c, speciric recommendation from the El Camino Trust relF.tive
to the Older Ranch buildin(js .
I see from the Minutes of the November 15 meeting that this
mattter was taken up Z.nd a recommendation has probably already been
sent. It not, I am submitting the following for consideration :
1 . The adobe Pool House.
Restored, used as a museum.
Pool retained as shallow pool with water storage underneath.
Pool might be covered and used as outdoor auditorium or meeting
place for small groups, conferences , concerts or public receoLions.
The Rose Gardens .
Res tored/ma int'-i i tied 1Iy local garden club(s) or college landscape
cl,,ss work c.%"perience.
3 . Other Gavdent/kWlls/P1z:,nts/Water System.
Repair and m�iinLz;in.
book--Study project or landscape &Iasses from Foothill. or De Anza.
or, CCa or CET.', project providing skilled help and training.
4. The older House/Home.
Remove the living room, kitchen & dining rooms .
Rcstore & Recycle the Redrooia wing into a caretaker and public
service facility.
Rcstore the Pergodas on the retained rooms.
Design complimentary Pergodas for the living and dini" �Coom
areas, restoringtthe pergoda destroyed from the frontI the
house; and, use the Wisteria that is still there.
Use Harris family pictures for details;
architectural sensitivity needed.
College Credit could be worked out for Work/Study project;
and/or training in Hist--. .-ul Preservation and Renovation .
Main room could he Older family museum; room for meetings ;
or living quarters for the caretaker.
A
R-77-18
(Meeting 77-9
*464 Agenda Item No. 6 (a) )
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
REPORT
March 23 , 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Urban Open Space and Recreation Program Grant for
a Proposed Permanente Creek Park Addition Acquisition
Introduction: In May, 1976 Governor Brown signed Senate Bill
174, known as the Roberti-Z 'berg Urban Open Space and Recre-
ation Program. The bill is expected to provide $75 million
over the next three years to cities, counties, regional park
and open space districts, and local recreation and park dis-
tricts for the acquisition and development of recreational
facilities. For the current fiscal year, $25 million will be
distributed, and applications are now being accepted. The
block grant allocation for the MRPD under this program for the
current fiscal year is $137 , 820. Because the Act was signed
before the annexation took place, the District will not receive
a San Mateo County entitlement, and a grant cannot be spent in
that part of the District.
A copy of a proposed District application is attached for your
reference. The total estimated cost of the project is $200, 000,
with the District providing partial matching funds in the
amount of $62,180 (the applicant must provide at least 25%
of the total allocation) .
The proposed project is entitled Permanente Creek Park Addition
Acquisition and would involve the acquisition of about 125 acres
of hillside land owned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco lo-
cated near Los Altos, Mountain View, Cupertino and Los Altos
Hills. The property would provide a link between the District' s
Permanente Creek Park and the park which has been proposed for
acquisition by Santa Clara County. An intergovernmental pro-
ject has been proposed for the MRPD, Santa Clara County and the
City of Sunnyvale to provide open space and recreational areas
appropriate to each jurisdiction. As part of this proposal,
the District would contribute toward the acquisition of the
Church property referred to above. In fact, the District' s
contribution would probably correspond more nearly to 200 acres
R-77-18 Page two
of land, but since the grant funds are limited, the grant pro-
ject portion is smaller. If for any reason the intergovern-
mental parks project does not go forward, the District may
withdraw its application and submit another in its place.
The State is looking for an application from each jurisdiction
which represents the agency's project that best fulfills the
intent of the Act, namely, to provide urban recreational oppor-
tunities. The location of this site and the relationship to
the proposed developed County park should fit the criteria very
well.
Site Considerations:
A. Description of the Site.
1. Size and Boundaries. An approximately 125 acre por-
tion of the 200 acre area shown on the attached map
represents the proposed acquisition. The actual
boundaries if each area would be designated during
final negotiations with the County and the Catholic
Church and after a boundary survey. The property is
bordered by the District' s Permanente Creek Park to
the north, private property to the south and west and
the St. Joseph' s Seminary to the east.
2. Topography and Vegetation. The property furnishes
scenic backdrop for Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and
Permanente Creek Park since the major portion of it
is located on a moderately steep hillside.
The chaparral community predominates with scattered
oak-bay woodland in several narrow creek drainage
canyons.
B. Current Use and Development.
A PG&E powerline and an associated unpaved service
road cross the property in an east-west direction.
The road is frequently used by hikers and equestrians
and affords access to the southern border of Perman-
ente Creek Park.
C. Planning Considerations.
The MRPD draft Master Plan evaluation, which rates
lands according to various open space values, shows
the property as scoring highest in the following
categories : view from scenic roads and highways,
wilderness experience, scenic backdrop and composite
score in the highest sextile; with low intensity
recreation, protection of natural vegetation and
agriculture in the second highest sextile.
- - - - ------
D. Relationship to Regional Trails Plan. The MRPD Trails
Task Force map shows a trail connecting Los Altos
with the main Santa Cruz Mountains trails routed
through Permanente Creek Park. It could be located on
the proposed acquisition.
E. Potential Use and Management. The proposed acquisition
represents the important link connecting Permanente
Creek Park and the proposed County park. Since the County
plans a more traditional park offering forms of more
intensive recreation, both areas would supplement each
other. For example, after hiking in the MRPD park,
visitors could use the Santa Clara County park's
picnic facilities, or vice versa.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the
attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Park District Approving the Application for
Grant Funds Under the Roberti-Z 'Berg Urban Open-Space and
Recreation Program. It should be emphasized that this action
does not constitute a decision to acquire the property, but
only to apply for a grant which would be then available if
the property were acquired.
HG:jg
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Name of Project Permanente Creek p„ark Addiction Acqui B it-i on
Project Location (enclose city or county map indicating project location)
Near the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Interstate 280 in_unincor-
poration territory near .Los Altos, Mountain View, Cupert1no and Los Altos Hills.
Project Description &Mlisition of gpMNjmatg1v 12 d s
ed with
the mi.dpeninsula Regional Park District's Pezmanente Creek Park. The
acquisition itself would provide hiking and equestrian trails, nature study
sites
represent a joint project proposal of the agencies, with picnic areas,
play fields, etc. operated by the County, and trails, natural areas, day
camps,. etc. operated by the District. additional
Attach ditnal pages it necessary
Estimated Total Project Cost $200,000
Amount of Grant Request $137, 2{ 0 Amount of Matching Funds %62.180
Source of Matching Funds act valnr= i-awgc��c-
i
2. Name of Project
Project Location (enclose city or county map indicating project location)
Project Description
Attach additional pages if necessary
Estimated Total Project Cost
Amount of Grant Request Amount of Matching Funds
Source of Matching Funds
B_2
State of California—The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Urban Open Space and Recreation Program
BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION
Applicant(Agency)
Name t
Address: 745 Distel Drive, Los Altos, California 94022
Person with day-to-day responsibility for the project:
Name
State Senate District No. 12
State Assembly District No. 22
Attach a copy of the Resolution authorizing application for grant funds from the applicant`s governing body (A
sample resolution may be found in Appendix B of the Procedural Guide.)
i
Certification
1 hereby certify that the applicant has met, or will meet, all federal, state or local environmental, public health,
relocation, affirmative action, and clearinghouse requirements and all other appropriate codes, laws, and regulations
prior to the expenditure of the grant funds. (Public Resources Code 5626(c) (See Appendix G, State Regulations, of
the Procedural Guide.)
1 further certify that the applicant fully understands that the State Department of Parks and Recreation will not
assume any responsibility to ensure compliance with any applicable federal, state or local codes, laws or regulations,
but that the Department may conduct an audit to ensure compliance_
(Signed)
Legal Counsel for Midpeninsula Regional Park District
Name of Applicant
B-1
DPR 454 (1/77)
u
BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT
Urban Open-Space and Recreation.Program
Applicant Midpe21111Su1a Regional Park District Agreement Number
� (Name of Applying Jurisdiction) (Leave Blank
This agreement is hereby made and agreed upon by the State of California, acting through the Director of the
Department of Parks and Recreation and the Applicant pursuant to the RobertiZ'Berg Urban Open-Space and
Recreation Program Act, Chapter 32, Division 5 of the Public Resources Code.
Project Name(indicate adquisition or development)
Permanente Creek Park Addition Acquisition
Special Provisions -
Total Estimated Project(s) Cost:$200. 000
f Total State Grant(not to exceed the grant entitlement nor to exceed 75 percent of Project(s) cost)
$137 ,.$2 0
The General Provisions listed in Appendix A of the Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program Procedural Guide are
made a part of and incorporated into the Agreement.
Midpeninsula Regional Park District
Applicant (name of applying jurisdiction)
By 1 _.
(signature of authorized representative)Herbert Grench
Title -Gel era.l--Manager _
Date __ .. _: _. .. -.. .. STATE OF CALIFORNIA _. :..
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
By DEPARTMENT OF
Title By
Date Date .
Budget Act of - Budget Item Number -
Leave Bank Leave Blank
B-4
1.
�T
I
APPENDIX F I
State of California—The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BILLING STATEMENT
Roberti-Z'Berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program
Applicant MidpQninsula Regional Park District
® Initial ❑ Third
Agreement number Billing Statement ❑ Second ❑ Final
Budget Act of
DPR contract number i Budget item number
Project Expenditures to Date or (Allowable Costs to Date)
1. Acquisition
a. Real Property $ 2.00F.Ono
b. Relocation $
C. Other $
d. Subtotal $ 200 ,000
2. Development
a. Consultant Services $
b. Contracts $
C. Labor $
d. Material and supplies $
e. Equipment $
f. Other $ 0
g Subtotal $
i
3. Total project expenditures to date $
Payment Request
1. Total Project Cost $ 200,OQO
2a. Total grant amount $ 137 , R 2n
2b. Grant funds received to date $ 0
2c. Grant funds available $ 1 -37, A 9 n
3. Request for Payment $ 1 37,R?tl_
Make Warrant payable to:
Herbert Grench General Manager
(Name) Title)
Address: Midpeninsula Regional Park District
741; ni at-A] nt-i yA , T.n-q Ali-nc , C`n1J fnrni a 94022
Certification
certify that the above information is correct and that all funds received have or will be expended
in accordance with the approved agreement for state grant moneys.
Applicant's Authorized Representative
(Signed)
Approved for Payment: General Manager (Date)
(Signed)
I Chief, Lice of Grants and Local Assistance (Date)
State Department of Parks and Recreation
35
DPR 460 (1/77)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District hereby:
1. Approves the filing of an application for Block
Grant funding under the Roberti-Z 'Berg Urban Open Space and
Recreation Program; and
2. Certifies that said agency understands the
general provisions of the agreement, and
3. Certifies that said agency has or will have suf-
i
i
ficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s) funded
under this program; and
4. Certifies that said agency has or will have
available prior to commencement of any work on the project(s)
included in this application matching money from a nonstate
source; and
5. Certifies that the project(s) included in this
application conform to the recreation element of the applica-
ble city or county general plan; and
6. Appoints the. General Manager as agent of the
Midpeninsula Regional Park District to conduct all negotia-
tions, execute and submit all documents including but not
limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment re-
quests, and so on which may be necessary for the completion
of the aforementioned project(s) ; and
7. Appoints Stanley R. Norton as legal counsel for
said agency with authorization to sign the certification on
page 1 of this application.
M
m
(Meeting 77-9 ,
Agenda item No. 6 (b) )
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF -DIRECTORS OF
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT
FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California
has enacted the Roberti-Z 'Berg Urban Open Space and Recreation
Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions
of the State of California for acquiring lands and for develop-
ing facilities to meet urban recreation needs; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion has been. delegated the responsibility for the administra-
tion of the program, setting up necessary procedures governing
application by local agencies under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State
Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to
certify by resolution the approval of applications prior to
submission of said applications to the state; and
VMEREAS, said applications contain a certification
that the applicant will comply with all federal, state, and
local environmental, public health, relocation, affirmative
action, and clearinghouse requirements and all other appro-
priate codes, laws, and regulations prior to the expenditure .
of the grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the project(s) applied for under this
program must be of a high priority and satisfy the most urgent
park and recreation needs with emphasis on unmet needs in the
most heavily populated areas;
(Meeting 77-9 ,
Aqpnda item No- 7
Board Supervisors BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EDWARD J. BACCIOCCO, JR.
JAMES V. FITZGERALD
FRED LYON
WILLIAM H. ROYER
JOHN M. WARD
Eileen enyon
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO EXECUTIVKE OFFICERWhite
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER , REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94063 (415)364-5600 EXT. 4566
March 16, 1977
Mr. Dan Wendin, President
Board of Directors
Mid-Peninsula Regional Park District
745 Distel Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Mr. Wendin:
The Board of Supervisors is very interested in meeting with repre-
sentatives of the cities and special districts to discuss a plan for
allocation of the $2, 086, 065 Proposition 2 funds authorized in Novem-
ber 1976 (State Urban and Coast Park Bond Act).
It would be appreciated if a person could be appointed to represent
the District Board at a lunch meeting with the Board of Supervisors
to pursue this matter. I would like to schedule this meeting for
Tuesday, April 19.
The Board will host the representatives of the special districts along
with members of the Council of Mayors.
Please contact my office to confirm the date and give us the name of
the person who will attend so--that we can follow up and make any other
arrangements that may be necessary.
Sincerely,
,7
JOHN M. WARD
Chairman
JMW:vwS
M-77-42
(Meeting 77-9
Agenda Item No. 8)
Nble
0(WW
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 24 , 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Review of Planning Process
Attached is a report (R-77-16) from the Land Manager to
me regarding a Review of the Planning Process which was
adopted by the Board on July 23 , 1976. Several revisions
to the process are proposed in the report, and it is my
recommendation that the Board adopt the revised planning
process description.
HG:jg
R-77-16
(meeting 77-9
Agenda Item No. 8)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
REPORT
March 24 , 1977
TO: H. Grench, General Manager
FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of the Land Management
Planning Process
Introduction: The District' s site planning process was adopted
in July of 1975 with the understanding that the procedures would
be reviewed and revised periodically in order to keep the process
as clear, consise and efficient as possible. The area planning
concept, in particular, was to be refined further.
Review of Current Process : The current planning procedure is
attached to this report for reference. The process thus far
has been site-specific oriented. Each individual acquisition
has had a preacquisition report, use and management plan and
annual review associated with it.
With each addition to the District lands, the pesent system
has become more cumbersome to work with. Even though two hold-
ings may be near each other and will become one inclusive plan-
ning unit with future acquisitions, their Use and Management
Plans are reviewed separately.
Where Revision is Needed: There are several areas in which
the current process could be improved: (1) as the District' s
holdings increase, a shift from site specific planning to broad-
er area planning is suggested; (2) revised California Environ-
mental Quality Act requirements should be clearly identified in
the process; (3) the report-writing phase itself needs stream-
lining; and (4) a system of recording cumulative site infor-
mation for use by land management staff is needed.
Recommendations for Revision:
1. Relationship to California Environmental Quality Act
Requirements. Application of compliance with revised CEQA
requirements should be inserted into the planningprocess.
The basic revision applying to the District involves prep-
aration of an Initial Study when an action designated a
"project" is proposed. While the act of purchasing land
for open space use is exempt from the requirements , things
proposed in the interim use and management section of a pre-
acquisition report require examination as to whether they
Page two
they require constitute a project and, if so, whether an
Initial Study indicates that a Negative Declaration or
EIR is required.
2 . Open Space Preserve Planning Units. The District should
be divided into ecologically coherent open space units.
The practice of considering each site as a separate unit
requiring the formulation of discrete management policies
was suitable when the lands being acquired were in physi-
cally and environmentally diverse locations. Now that the
possibility of planning for the preservation of entire ec-
ological units, such as watersheds, is becoming more of a
reality, the planning sphere should be broadened to reflect
those units rather than being restricted to parcels as they
are acquired.
This new approach would divide the District into about 10
areas that would be called open space preserves. As lands
are acquired within the areas, they would adopt the preserve
name. Further, use policies and management guidelines would
be formulated for each area. The use and management plan
for individual acquisitions within the area would deal with
specific physical improvements required to accommodate the
guidelines established by the area plan. All use and manage-
ment plans for acquisitions within the large open space pre-
serves would be reviewed at the same time. If the period
between acquisition and review is unreasonably lengthly,
then a Use and Management Plan for the individual site would
be prepared. However, the site plan would still be reviewed
at the same time as the Open Space Preserve Use and Manage-
ment Plan.
The change in outlook form individual acquisitions to the
larger areas would facilitate site naming and land manage-
ment. A map showing the recommended Open Space Preserve
Planning Units is attached in Appendix A.
3. Use and Management Plans.
(a) The emphasis of the use and management plans should
be on physical improvements rather than policy. As
mentioned under the area planning section, when plans
are formulated for the broad management units, policies
for use within the units would be established. Then,
the realm of the individual use and management plans
would only be the specific physical improvements re-
quired to meet those policies or unusual departures
from overall policies. Project categories would be
scheduled according to a generalized time frame.
(b) The use and management plans should make a clear dis-
tinction between long range and immediate projects.
Between the acquisition report and use and management
Page three
report phases, consideration should be given to the
long range plans for the site, particularly where
structures are involved. This basic long term philos-
ophy should be discussed in the use and management
plan and made clear that it is not the intent that it
be totally carried out by the time of the plan review.
It should be included only so that there is a continu-
ity between the short term and long range plans for the
site.
(c) Only physical improvement projects costing over $3500
should be itemized in use and management plans. This
would allow the land management staff flexibility in
establishing priorities and apportioning funds for mi-
nor projects as appropriate when the need arises.
Budget policy requires that any single item costing
more than $3500 be approved by the Board of Directors.
It has been the practice to include projects under that
figure in the reports, but this has proven to be cumber-
some. If the estimated budget for a site totals more
than $3500 , even though no single item does , then gen-
eral categories with related costs would be included.
4. Review of Use and Management Plans.
(a) The review of use and management plans should be based
on open space planning areas. All holdings within an
open space planning area should be reviewed at one time,
and in one report, rather than reviewing use and manage-
ment plans pertaining to each acquisition separately.
Recommendations pertaining only to individual areas
within a perserve will sometimes be required necessi-
tating separate discussion.
(b) The review period should be lengthened. Use and manage-
ment plans are currently reveiwed yearly. one year has
proven to be a limited time period in which to make sig-
nificant accomplishments on a site. Switching to a two-
year reveiw period would also cut down on the number of
reports that are required. It is recommended that the
Use and Management Plans be reviewed bi-annually, at
which time there would be an accounting of physical im-
provements done on the site with an opportunity for the
accommodation of changes in policy needed.
5. Recording of Site Information.
The Land Management staff should establish a cumulative
'site information filing system. During the report-writing
process, as well as in terse of general office opera-
tions, the need arises for retrieval of basic site data
Page four
and there is presently no single source for this informa-
tion. The land management staff should, therefore, estab-
lish a filing system in which all information pertaining
to open space preserves is kept by itself and not inter-
filed with other subjects. This would be a repository for
what has happened, what is happening and what is planned
for each site and would include assimilation of data re-
sulting from the cooperative research program with San
Jose State University. With such a file, all staff mem-
bers would have access to any information regarding the
activities on a site in a single self-guided step.
6. Physical Improvement Projects List and Schedule. After
adoption of the Use and Management Plan a list of pro-
jects contained in the plan with the addition of other
minor projects should be prepared. The projects would
be scheduled in a projected time frame according to the
expected commencement date, with a follow-up of the date
of completion. This list could be supplemented continu-
ously.
Recommended Steps to be Incorporated into the Site Planning
Process :
The following site planning steps are recommended as an amended
version of the current planning process. The two basic changes
involve extending the annual review of use and management plans
to a bi-annual review, and following an area planning process
rather than a site specific process. Under area planning, in-
dividual acquisitions would be incorporated into large open
space preserve planning areas and their use and management plans
would be included in a single bi-annual review.
The procedure outlined in the plan adopted in 1975 will remain
as a general guideline, supplemented by the following clarifi-
cations and additions. A revised planning process list is
attached.
1. Press Release - a description of the proposed acquisitions,
suitable for release to the press.
2. Preacquisition Report - for single parcels under individual
ownership or contiguous groups of parcels under separate
ownership. Reports would contain the following sections :
(a) Introduction - a brief evaluation as to suitability of
the property for acquisition, including an analysis
of the open space value rating given in the Master Plan.
(b) Description of the site.
(c) Planning considerations.
Page five
(d) Potential use and management.
(e) Cultural history (if there is any significant histor-
ical interest associated with the property) .
M Interim use and management recommendations.
(g) Initial budget - funds required to accommodate in-
terim projects.
(h) Compliance of use recommendations with CEQA require-
ments.
3. Use and Management Plan for Individual Sites (Optional) -
to be prepared only if the period between acquisition and
review of the entire open space preserve is exceptionally
long or if there are unusual circumstances.
4. Use and Management Plan for Open Space Preserves -
(a) Introduction - a short summary of history, background
and site description with a summary of interim use and
management.
(b) Recommendations -
(1) Discussion of long term philosophy.
(2) Enumeration of steps that will be taken in
order to ensure the protection of natural re-
sources on-site.
(3) Enumeration of physical improvement projects for
short term accomplishment.
(4) Delineation of natural areas as those parts of
of a site to be kept in a natural state, and
managed areas that will receive more active use.
5. Bi-annual Review of Use and Management Plan - for open
space preserve planning units. An accounting of projects
accomplished on-site, summary of patrol and visitor data,
and possible recommended changes in policy.
6. Open Space Preserve Management and Environmental Data File
to be established for each site immediately following acqui-
sition and kept as a cumulative, up-to-date data source.
7. Physical Improvement Projects List and Schedule - a list
at could be supplemented continuously as the need arises.
JO:pl
APPENDIX A
<,�' • Bair Ia. PRAMCrsh
HAY''.
San C 1
\Redwood City ;• z
alo
1�
Ito
y}S
t.
� b Menlo
�—� Atherton Park
011
Woodside QP PaloAlto ,
% STANFORD
IrI y� = JJ r
is w I µ
w< Valley . MO ntain
L ' r<
►ew
Sunny a le
o Alto Y
os Altos
il
a a 1
F
r �
�G
yl• �
nrcu».,t /`— Cup rtif<
.z
t
�M
<,< S
,a IOtgr ereno'•+
Los C3et
.:o0 ♦ ���
1 PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 7
PLANNING UNITS sgyT
9
G (�
a /VS
.MG: Umurhum
P.M
Proposed Revised
MRPD Site Planning Process
I. Preacquisition Report
A. Description of the Site
1. Size, Location and Boundaries
2. Topography, Geology and Soils
3. Vegetation and Wildlife
B. Current Use and Development
C. Cultural History and Past Use (Optional)
D. Planning Considerations
E. Relationship to Regional Trails Plan
F. Potential Use and Management
G. Interim Use and Management Recommendations
H. Initial Budget
I. Compliance of Use Recommendations with CEQA Requirements
J. Naming (Optional)
K. Terms
II. Use and Management Plan for Individual Sites (Optional)
Essentially the same as category III below.
III. Use and Management Plan for Open Space Preserves
A. Introduction
1. Background History (Brief)
2. Site Description (Brief)
3. Summary of Interim Use and Management
B. Recommendations
1. Long Term Philosophy
2. Use
3. Access
4 . Roads and Trails Within the Site
5. Physical Improvements
6. Protection of Natural Resources
7 . Costs
8. Compliance with CEQA Requirements
9. Naming
IV. Bi-annual Review
A. Reprint or Summation of Use and Management Recommendations
for Past Review Period
B. Status of Physical Improvements Projects
C. Data on Visitor Use and Activities
D. Recommendations for Change in Use and Management Plan
M-77-40
(Meeting 77-9 ,
0 Agenda item No.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 24 , 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization of CETA Positions
Attached is a memorandum (M-77-39 , dated March 22 , 1977) to
me from the Land Manager recommending that the District apply
for funding of two one-year Park Construction Aide positions
positions under Title VI of the Comprehensive Employment Train-
ing Act for work to be performed on District lands within Santa
Clara County, and that the District apply for funding for two
additional positions at a future date for work to be performed
on District lands within San Mateo County.
The application requires approval by the Board of Directors.
Since the March 23 Regular Meeting was cancelled and there was
a March 24 deadline for submitting the application, the appli-
cation has already been submitted pending Board approval.
Should the Board decide not to approve the application, it will
be withdrawn.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors
approve the attached application of the District for funding
of two Park Construction Aide positions under Title VI of the
Comprehensive Employment Training Act and also approve submit-
tal of a similar application for San Mateo County projects. It
is intended that the latter application will be completed by the
March 30 meeting for Board review.
HG:pl
AA, M-77-39
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 22, 1977
TO: H. Grench, General Manager
FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization of CETA Positions
Funding for public service projects has recently been made
available under Title VI of the Comprehensive Employment
Training Act. The Act provides funding for a number of
different programs, but the Title VI program is project or-
iented and available to governmental agencies , schools and
non-profit organizations. Types of proposals which the MRPD
might be involved in for funding include fire prevention, rec-
reational area renovation, and public places cleanup.
It appears the District would benefit by applying for funds
for Park Construction Aide personnel to assist staff and con-
tractors in a number of short-term projects designed to pre-
pare District lands for public use. As described in the at-
tached application, such projects would include removal of
trash, old fencing, safety hazards and hazardous structures;
and construction of trails, parking area and a water delivery
system.
I anticipate applying for funding of two positions at this
time for work on District lands in Santa Clara County, and
applying for two similar positions at a later date for pro-
jects of this type on District lands located in San Mateo
County.
The attached application anticipates that the Santa Clara
County project would be accomplished on lands within the
District' s Montebello Open Space Preserve. The expected
starting date would be June, 1977 , and the expected comple-
tion date would be May, 1978.
As part of the funding formula under Title VI , CETA will
provide (in addition to salary and benefit funds) an amount
equivalent to 8. 1% of the money allocated to the position
salaries for materials and supervision.
Page two
A difficulty the District may have is locating two people
with the skills and motivation needed to implement the
projects set forth in the application, considering the par-
ameters associated with the CETA Funding Program. However,
the District is not obligated to proceed with the program,
and may withdraw from the program at any time.
Since the application deadline for a project within Santa
Clara County is March 24 , 1 recommend that staff prepare
and submit the application as quickly as possible and seek
Board approval for the application at the first possible
Board meeting. We have received application materials
from San Mateo County, whose deadline for submission is
April 8 . Assuming the Board approves filing for the San
Mateo County positions we will proceed with filing by the
deadline.
JO:pl
.' Proposal Vumiber
SCVETB Received
SCVETB Initials
PROPOSAL. FORT IA T
Fnp
TITLE VI PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECT APPLICATIONS
Submitted by:
Municipalities
Public Agencies
School Districts
Colleges
Project flame Development of Montebello Open Space Preserve
Organizational Fame Midpeninsula Regional Park District
Organizational Address745 Dkstel Drive , Los Altos , California 94022
Telephone No. (415) 965-4717
Director's flame Herbert Grench, General Manager
Person(s) to Contact Jon Olson, Land Manager, Eric Mart, Supervising Ranger
Proposed Project Dates:6/77 - 6/78
Authorized Signature: -
-1-
Midpeninsula Regional
Organization Ntame Park District Address: 745- Distel Drive T.n_q Altos
Development of Montebello
Project Name:_QpDn _Space
Project
1 . Tv�,e of Orcianization
XJ Local Goverrimient
Comr-,-,unity Based t1on-Profit Organization
YIC mmunity Action Agency
o
Educational Institution
Prime Sponsor
Other: (Cannot be private-for-profit)
State:
2. Project Descript
ion (Positions must be in the Public Service Employment Node)
a. Total amount of funds requested: $ 21 ,749. 92
b. Total number of positions requested: 2
C. 'What is the task to be performed? Development an improVe
-,__MQnt of the
-Montebello Open Space Preserve for Public recreational se .
d. What are the expected results of this project? Im roved safety and
public access to the recreation area.
e. What is the Public Service provide,,, by this project? Provides an outstanding
area for low intensity recreation use.
f. Why is this a critical Public Service? There is a high need, documented
herein, for public recreational areas of this type in Santa Clara
County.
3. D2scribe concisely the Project (Task) and the activit-�es necessary to accomplish
i (If more space is needed, attach an additional sileat. )
This project will remove safety hazards from this recreational area,
provide for public access, and construct the necessary physical im-
provements to develop this area for "low-intensity" recreation use.
The bulk of this work will be in construction-related tasks and
some clean-up. Specific tasks will be outlined, in detail, in
question 7.
-2-
Give Zvel-age cost per position requested (total Lued, -t divided by number of
PO S i ti C:!"S
b. Jot) titles and riw..,-,ber or positions requested for each- (Attach Job 0-,scrip-
tion Sheet for each job title 1ist-s0l)
No. of
Job Title Positions Level*
-Park,
*State whether: Unskilled, Semi-Skilled, Skilled, Clerical , Semi-Professional ,
or Professional
5. Geographic area to be served by the ProjOct : Santa Clara County; particularly
the northwest section of the county and greater San Jose.
6. Certification
a. Is your Project a defined task, designed to provide a public service?
Y fe s flo
b. Does Your Project expand existing public services? Yes 1,
"o
C. Does your Project provide a ne,,,,, kind of activity which Would cease when the
end product, representing the accom.plishment of this group of persons v;ork-
ing independently, is complete? Y e s 11 xx NO FA
d. Will all persons enrolled to t%-ork on your Project he hired as Public Service
Employees? Yes F-x-1 rif 0
e Wfill your Project be completed within 12 ronths? Yes No F-J
f. Has a maximum of $10,000 per annum salary been acknowledged as payable by
CETA for each Public Service Employee you plan to hire? (This salary may
be supplemented by your organization. ) YesFx_1 Vo F-]
g. Is the task performed in your Project above and beyond those services cus-
tomarily provided by State or local jurisdictions? Yes x M10 E]
h. Has the work to be performed in your Project been compared with similar
work performed by regular employees to assure that prevailing %-.,ages are
paid? Yes No
Authorized Signature
-3-
ail .det he project in
a . Describe t L
b. Describe the tirle for cop,-,plelll-ing each phase of the project.
C. Describe who will have the responsibility of supervision over the proposed
Public Service FniployfiEnt positions. Supervisor(s) should already be a
part Of YOLII' organization. List the current job title(s) of those v;ho
%.pill be assigned as supervisor(s).
PROJECT: Develop and improve the Montebello Open Space Preserve
for public use in "low-intensity" recreation activities.
This project is composed of eight distinct, yet interrelated sub-
projects. Each sub-project has been incorporated as a phase of
the total project and has been placed within a time frame for
completion.
The overall goal of this project is to make this preserve a safe
and suitable place for the public to visit and enjoy. Use of the
area will be primarily for hiking and various "unstructured"
recreational activities.
The two PSE employees requested will be involved in all phases of
the project. They will be under the direct supervision of both
the Supervising Ranger and the Planner or their designated staff
. representative on the site. The entire project will be under the
general supervision of the Land Manager.
A brief outline of the eight phases of this project follows :
PHASE 1: Correction of Safety Hazards
Based on a general survey of the existing safety hazards in the
area by MRPD staff, action will be taken to remove major hazards .
Examples include: The filling of old wells, removal of barbed
wire and other man-made hazards and the correction of natural haz-
ards such as downed trees, etc.
Time: 1 month (6/77)
PHASE 2 : Removal of Hazardous Structures
This is essentially a continuation of rhase 1. There are several
substandard old structures, many related to ranching, scattered
throughout the site. They are of no use to the District, nor to
the public. They do present a serious hazard. PSE employees will
be involved in the demolition and removal of these structures.
Time: 3 months (7/77 - 9/77)
PHASE 3 : Construction of New Fences
New fencing is required, both for closing certain areas to off-
road vehicles and for range management purposes. Approximately
3 miles of fences will be constructed.
Time: 1 month (10/77)
-4-
PHASE 4 : Removal of Trash
This effort will actually be carried on throughout the entire
project. The major effort, however, will be made during this
month. Principal dumping grounds will be cleaned up and debris
removed from throughout the area.
Time : 1 month (11/77)
PHASE 5 : Removal of Old and Unnecessary Fencing
Many existing fences on the property are now unnecessary for
either resource protection or range management purposes. These
will be removed. Approximately 131 miles of fencing is involved.
Time: 1 month (12/77)
PHASE 6 : Trail Construction
A system of hiking and riding trails will be constructed in the
preserve. Approximately 3 miles of trails will be built. PSE
employees will assist MRPD staff in lay-out and perform all of
the finishing work on the trails.
Time: 2 months (1/78 - 2/78)
PHASE 7 : Construction of Parking Area
Parking areas, to accomodate approximately 150 cars , will be
constructed to provide improved access to the preserve. Work
will involve lay out and actual construction.
Time: 2 months (3/78 - 4/78)
PHASE 8 : Public Drinking Water
A source of drinking water is to be provided in the parking lot.
PSE employees will be involved in laying pipe and constructing the
actual water delivery system.
Time: 1 month (5/78)
SUMMARY:
Our target date for completion of this project is May 1978 . When
complete, the Montebello Open Space Preserve will be available
for public use in the manner proscribed by the MRPD Master Plan.
All work performed by PSE employees will fall into the areas of
construction and general maintainance.
Certain activities, designed to supplement this project, will be
contracted out and will be paid for by non-CETA funds. This work
will not be done if the PSE positions do not become available.
The PSE Employees will be involved in a project which we could not
undertake without funding for these positions.
2. State it) detail ;"hat M-,MUnity need this project ful fills.
b Doscribe hov/ this need %�.,as deter-i-niro_70 (i .e. , cite studies, research, public
hearings, etc. )
C. What evidence can you state that the coy-.,-.urtity vrould place a high priority
ori this project.
(Supplerrental pages ray be attached for coinpl.-te description. )
This project fulfills a community need for open space and for
low intensity recreational activities Ue. hiking) .
This need exists and has been identified and documented through a
series of surveys conducted in Santa Clara County. Please refer
to the following County reports:
"An Inventory of Parks and Recreation, Santa Clara County" 1970
"A Preliminary Plan of Regional Parks for Santa Clara County" 1971
"Planning for Parks and Recreation, Santa Clara County" 1971
Hiking and "unstructured" recreational activities , as provided by
areas such as the Montebello Open Space Preserve, were ranked among
the most popular forms of recreation in the County. The last study,
in particular, shows the results of a population survey in which the
importance of these types of activities was proven. This report also
indicated that the need for these activities, and for areas in which
they can take place, will be even greater in the future.
These reports also provide evidence that the community places a high
priority on these activities. Further evidence is found in the ac-
tual creation of the MRPD. This special district was created by a 2-1
vote of the populace to accomplish the types of goals proposed in
this project. Please see the enclosed MRPD Master Plan.
Additional documents are on file in the District office that offer
further documentation of this priority. They include: records of
public hearings, use and management plans and minutes of the District
Board of Directors' meetings. Please advise us if you desire addition-
al documentation.
-5-
71
Describe
- the facilities vliere the Project vtill be located and hovi these vere
,be L
eteterrn,ined. My (10 You feel these accc-ir-&ations �,;ould be the best for your
The Montebello Open Space Preserve consists of approximately 700
acres of ridgelands , ravines and streams in the foothills of the
Santa Cruz Mountains. The acquisition of the site was based on
needs and priorities established in two county studies, "A Pre-
liminary Plan of Regional Parks for Santa Clara County" and
"Planning for Parks and Recreation, Santa Clara County" and the
MRPD Master Plan.
The proposed project will develop this site for low-intensity rec-
reational use. The need for this type of development was documented
in Item 8.
The specific phases outlined for our project were developed within
the guidelines set forth in the MRPD Master Plan and the Use and
Management Plan for the Preserve.
Both the Master Plan and the Use and Management Plan were developed
through a series of public hearings. A copy of the Master Plan is
attached.
-6-
0 Describe the organizational planning that has been done for the Project to
insu-Ce its ol,,erational success.
The Master Plan and Use and Management Plan referred to above
represent the end result of extensive planning and provides
the base upon which this project is planned. The specific oper-
ational details of implementing this project are well thought
out. The supervision is set. Materials have been identified
and can be purchased quickly if manpower becomes available.
The District has spent a tremendous amount of time in the planning
process and is ready to implement this project successfully.
Yi
-7-
�����y
Adrjnistratjon and Ope t,tioral Costs
If your project plans to experd funds in Adrinistrative and/or operational
areas as listed explain %-;hat thesc categories %.1ll co-.,1prise.
e I Acqul5llioo anI rental or lea,in, of su,,112s and' e,ul,rnnent
L) Miaterial and real property
(c) SUr)e1'ViSOt-y Wages
(d) Training and supporting services
(e) Traditional administrative costs
We plan to spend fufids in three of the above areas :
1) Acquisition and Rental of Equipment:
The rental of a tractor-mounted auger for
5 days at $100 per day during the fence
construction in Phase 3 (10/77)
2) Material and Supplies :
We will spend $650 on fencing materials,
primarily lumber. MRPD will supplement
this if necessary.
3) Supervisory Wages :
$50 a month has been allocated towards
the salary of the Supervising Ranger who
will have the main responsibility for
overseeing the performance of the PSE
employees
T
�ubgrantee
roject Name: Contract No. CETA--TITLZ; BUDGET, rY 77 A `t' '' `
Rev. 1/17/77
PROGRAM; ACTIVI'rZ __ CODE Pg. 1 of 2
�ddress
ral. No. CONTRACT NO. - Date Approved:
(Project No.-Fiscal Yr.- Mod.No. )
Approved Signature:
_ MONTH MONTH
'AT:GOF,x Ca', T)e- � 1 77 2 77 1 1 78 2 78 3 78 4 78 5 78 xo As,s
Code tail
RWITNISTR.nTION
Porsonnel-Salarics 0.1 0 50 . 00 50. 00 50. 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 .00 50. 00 50. 00 600. 00
F rings Benefits 60
lira 30 650. 00 650. 00
unications 32 _
�_ tinr/r,dv. 34
U t i f3-t-i eS 36
R-^nt-Buil6in 38 }
Re nt-Ecxuipm.ent 40 500.00
Travel-Local y 42 }
Travel-tail eacre 46
Contract Services 52
insurance 62
";i.scellancous 64
Equipment 82
TIOTXL ADPnZP1ISTrATIO , 1 50 . 00 50. 00 50. 00 50 . 00 1200 . 00 50. 00 50 . 00 50 .00 50. 00 50. 00 50. 00 50. 00 1750 . 00
ADMINISTFJ.TICN, TOTAL 50. 001 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00 1400 .00 1450 .00 500 . 00 1550. 001600. 00 1650 . 00 700. 00 1750. 00 1750. 00
2 j of !1666. 66 1666. 66 1666 . 66 666. 66 1666 . 66] 1666. 66 666 . 66 1666. 661666. 66 1666. 66 666. 66 1666. 6611 999-92.
fi 1 ULATltiM VIACSFS TCr�',Lm 1666. 66 13333. 32 4999. 98 666. 64 8333. 30 9999 . 96 1666,62 ! 3333.28 14999.94 ' 16666.60 8333.26 19999.92 19999.92
V
v
Pro-'ect NaMe: Contract No. CETA--TITLE EUDGET, rY 77 REVISION A CETA FIS-01
Rev. 1/17/77
Pg. 2 of 2
Subgrantee
IMONTH MONTH
CtT? Gt�et:' Cat De- 7 TOTr1LS
Cock tail
`132�Ti;11'ytJ
Personnel-Salaries j 01
k ringc Benefits 60
Training Supplies 30
1
Tra1111I:cr Ut'L 1 a 36 t'• r � ------
itent-F3uiIninc 38
TO f
Travc2--Lora 1 42
Contract Scrviceu 5,
Tra_i;37nr; ui ment S% 11
TOTAL TPOUNING J j
CU:.,- '-AT:I%rl-. TFRING TOTAL
AI,LOWANCr 5
Ct3:7Jl,ATl%rl- ALLO,,T.TOTLAL ;
SERVICES
Personnel-Salaries 01
vringe Dcnefi Ls 60 �.
Sc-Yvir..e Supplies 30
SerV ice Ut.1 36 `
Rent-12vl .:wing j38
Rent-Equipment 10 ( _.
Tr.7.=,'(5l,-Lccal 22
Contract Services 52
TOTAL SERVICES G �
Ct i.ttY„a'I iVE SERV.TOTALT
r4-,.'TTTT'S TO T. 11716.66 1 116.66 1716.66 6 28 11716.66 1716.6 217A9 g2
11716.66 13433.32 { 5149.98 6866.64 9733.30 i449.96 113166.62 14883.28 16599.94 18316.60 ,20033.26 21749.92 21749.92
In ordar for your Project to be funded by the SCVETB, tl-,ese docu.-rents (which-
E'Ver are aj3plicable to Your organization) must be on file in our office.
Your Articles of Incorporation or Charter
Your By-Laws
Your Internal Revenue Service Tax Exei--pt Status Letter
Your State of California Franchise Tax. Board Extension
Even though you may have previously given copies of those dncui-�:.tmts to the SCVETB,
it is mandatory that another set of appropriate documents accompany this proposal .
I hereby certify that this application for CETA funding has been approved by this
0 -gariization's Governing Body, and that the information giver, is true and
correct
7-1
Authorized, Signature
Date
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Job Description
i
PARK CONSTRUCTION AIDE
Summary of Duties
Under supervision, performs a variety of unskilled and
semi-skilled tasks in connection with the development
and maintenance of District open space preserves and
facilities.
Work Performed
1. Constructs trails on District sites as directed
2. Performs cleanup and refuse hauling.
3. Repairs and installs fences.
4. Performs repairs to buildings and other structures.
5. Operates trucks and other heavy and light equipment
as needed.
r
6. Moves furniture and equipment as required.
7. Performs routine maintenance and construction tasks
and other related work as required.
Education, Experience and Personal Requirements
Training and experience equivalent to completion of high
school and two years' experience in park, ranch, farm or
related work involving construction, general repairs , in-
stallation of fences, trail construction and other opera-
tional activities. Must possess valid California Driver' s
Licence and be able to operate heavy and light equipment.
Should have the ability to work well with others , follow
directions and work responsibly without continued super-
vision. Should be willing to work odd and irregular hours
including weekends and holidays.
I
R-77-15
'ALF (Meeting 77-9,
'14 Agenda item No. 10)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
REPORT
March 14, 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: N. Hanko, G. Seager and B. Green (Subcommittee on
Reimbursement of Directors' Expenses)
SUBJECT: Reimbursement of Directors' Expenses
The Subcommittee met with the General Manager on February 3
and February 10 to review the existing policy on reimburse-
ment. It was noted that the Public Resources Code (Section
5536. 5) under which the District is governed provides for
reimbursement of Directors ' expense as follows :
5536. 5 Traveling and Incidental Expenses of
board members : Members of the board may be
allowed actual necessary traveling and inci-
dental expenses incurred in the performance
of official business of the District as ap-
proved by the District Board.
The same language is included in Section 2. 30 of the District' s
Rules of Procedure.
It was the sense of the Subcommittee that both traveling and
incidental expenses be reimbursed only under the following cir-
cumstances:
1. Travel:
Mileage at the same rate allowed staff for private
vehicle use shall be reimbursed for attendance at
Regular and Special Board meetings, participation
on subcommittees , and outside meetings as an appoin-
ted representative.
2. Incidental Expenses :
a. Telephone toll charges for District related calls ,
including to the District office, other Board members
homes and staff members homes
b. Postage
C. Childcare for Subcommittee work and outside meetings
as an appointed representative
d. Other expenses such as meals will be subject to
prior Board approval. In the event of an extra-
ordinary circumstance the Board may approve expen-
ses after the fact.
R-77-15 Page two
3. Conferences:
Incurrence of reimbursable conference expenses will be
subject to prior approval of a majority of Board mem-
bers. The applicable parts of the District' s admini-
strative policies will be followed for allowable
expenditures (see attachments) . Additional expenses
for spouses are not reimbursable.
4. Filing Cabinet:
The District will furnish each Director with one legal-
size or one letter-size four-drawer filing cabinet upon
request. These cabinets are to remain the property of
the District and are to be surrendered by Directors at
the end of their tenures.
Board members shall submit conference claims immediately after the
event and all miscellaneous claims quarterly. The Controller will
report quarterly on expenditures under this policy so that expen-
ditures will be kept within adopted budget. Vouchers or receipts
satisfactorily supporting requests for reimbursement shall be fur-
nished to the Treasurer for all items of expense for which such re-
ciepts are normally furnished. It will be the responsibility of
the Board elected Treasurer to review all claims submitted under
this policy, except that any claim submitted by the Treasurer will
be reviewed by the Board Secretary.
M-76-4 - Page two
4 . No other Directors' expenses should be reimbursed unless
specifically approved by a majority of the Board.
5. All reimbursements for Directors' expenses should be
specifically identified and approved on a claims list.
Discussion: A separate but related item discussed in -memo
randum M-75-174 was the question of District-furnished file
cabinets for Directors. To effectively and efficiently carry
out the responsibilities of Director, one requires relatively
extensive District-related files- which are readily accessible.
This generally requires a Director to maintain such files
at his/her home. These files are sufficiently extensive to
severely tax one's normal home filing system. It is also
extremely helpful to a new Director to receive relatively
complete and' up--to-date District files from his/her predecessor.
Recommendation. It is recommended that, the District furnish
each Director with one legal-skze or one letter-size four-
drawer filing cabinet upon request. These cabinets are to
remain the property of the District and are to. be surrendered
by. Directors at the end of their tenure.
It is further recommended that Directors be encouraged to
transfer their files to their successors to aid them in their
new duties.
BG- S acc
a.
M M-76-4 i
3 �„ 'eeting 76-1,
,l (venda item No. 4)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
January 7, 1976
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Budget Subcommittee (B. Green and E. Shelley)
SUBJECT: Reimbursement of Directors' Expenses
Background: At 'its December 10, 1976 meeting the Budget
Subcommittee presented a memorandum (M-75-174) on the subject
of Reimbursement of Directors' Expenses. After Board dis-
cussion of the recommendations 'contained therein, the Sub-
committee was directed to restudy the recommendations, taking
into consideration Board members' comments, and to return
with more specific recommendations.
. Discussion: It was the sense of the Board that there be no
reimbursement for Board members' expenses incurred in the
performance of their normal duties. Such duties include
attendance at regular and special Board meetings, partici-
pation on 'some committees and subcommittees and general
governmental liaison. It was generally agreed that reim-
bursement for Board members' expenses should be limited to
those cases where certain Board members incur excessive
expenses as a result of carrying out activities at the
directive of the Board as a whole.
Recommendations:
1. Reimbursement should be limited to direct out-of-pocket .
expenses (i.e. , mileage, meals, child care, postage,
telephone, etc. ) .
2. Expenses may be eligible for reimbursement if they are
incurred as a result of activities associated with
projects , committees or subcommittees designated by a
majority of the Board to be "eligible for Directors'
expense reimbursement. "
3. Telephone toll charges for District-related calls to
the District office, other Board members ' homes or
offices and staff members ' homes should be reimbursed.
MIDPENIESULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
T,Iiscellaneous Expense Claim
I
Name of Claimant Page, of
Amount
D`cte of Claim Purpose
1
i
Total $ Signature of Claimant Date
FOR OFFICE USE
Clair; No_ .Approved by_ __ Date-
Check No_ Board .Approval. Date
MRPD -- 5 5/74/IIG
P-75-2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Politer
June 18 , 1975
ISSUED BY: J.P. Melton, Controller
APPROVED: H. Grench, General Manager .
SUBJECT: Employee Travel Expenses
The following practices apply to Midpeninsula Regional Park.
District employees traveling on District business:
A. The Travel Expense Report
The Travel Claim form of the MRPD shall be used in ac-
cordance with the instructions included therein.
B. Receipts
Receipts must be supplied by traveler for all expenses
for which they are normally given. Any meal conference
or travel expenditure of $10. 00 or more must be sup-
ported by a receipt or other evidence of payment. The
receipt should include sufficient information to estab-
lish the amount, date, place and essential character of
the expenditure_ These must be attached to the completed
Travel Claim form when submitted for reimbursement.
C. Transportation Expenses
1. Economy or tourist class air, rail or bus transportation
shall be provided by the District for its employees trav-
eling on District business. If unavailable, approval
for other arrangements can be obtained from the General
Manager.
2. District policy does not allow the use of a private
aircraft for travel by employees in connection with
District business. The District will not assume any
liability should this policy not be followed, since
the employee would be acting for his/her own benefit
and not within the scope of his/her employment.
Expense associated with air travel, when a District
employee pilots or rents, leases, borrows an air.-
craft in his/her or the District' s name, will not be
reimbursed or honored by the .District.
P-75-2 Page two
3 . Use of an employee' s personal automobile for Dis-
trict travel will be reimbursed at 15 cents Per
mile traveled, plus tolls for bridges, turnpikes,
parking, etc. , except that the District will not
pay such costs in excess of the amount of air fare
that the Company would have paid had the traveler
gone by commercial air carrier. All mileage reim-
bursement requests must indicate the starting point
and destination for each trio.
>4. Travel between an employee' s residence and his/her
normal place of work is not reimbursable.
D. Living Expenses
1. The District will reimburse travelers for reasonable
living expenses as actually incurred, but not to
exceed the following limits (including any -taxes)
Lodging: $25. 00 per da v (except in exceptional
circumstances such as travel - to cities known
to have greater than usual . lodging - fees, in
which- case the General Manager may authorize
a higher lodging allowance) .
Breakfast: $2. 50 per day.
Lunch: $4. 00 per day.
Dinner: $7. 50 per day.
Miscellaneous : $1. 00 per day.
Travelers may not claim a meal expense if that
expense is included in a conference expense for
which he/she is being reimbursed.
2. The traveler is -personally responsible for all the .
expenses pertaining to his/her trip, including
guaranteed hotel or motel rooms not used. Such room'
guarantee charges must be included in the traveler' s
living expense allowance referred to in paragraph
D-1 above.
E. Meal Conference Exoenses
Conference expenses incurred during travel will be
handled in accordance with the procedures for Employee
Meal Conference Expenses, P-75-1.
P-75-2 Page three
F. Insurance
1. Inasmuch as the District provides adequate insures-ce
coverage, it is not the District ' s policy to reim -
burse employees for:
(a) Optional surcharges by automobile rental agen-
cies for insurance to cover the first $100. 00
of collision damages for automobile rentals in.
the United States.
(b) Air traveler' s life insurance premiums.
2. Employees renting automobiles outside the United
States should purchase and will be reimbursed for,
full collision damage insurance and medical insur-
ance for the driver and passenger.
G. Travel Advance
1. A travel advance may be given a traveler, when re-
quested.
(a) Authority for issuance of a travel advance check
shall be an approved travel schedule.
1
'p (b) Travel advance checks will not be issued for
amounts less than $50. 00, due to the costs of
processing, accounting and reconciling.
2. The amount of the travel advance may include the fol-
lowing:
(a) Estimate of $40. 00 per day for living expenses,
based on nights away from home.
(b) Specific cash needs, when known, such as travel
ticket to be purchased while traveling, and con-
ference expenses.
(c) In no case shall travel advances be issued in
amounts in excess of $500. 00 for domestic travel
and $1, 500. 00 for foreign travel without specific
approval of the General Manager.
3. Settlement of the travel advance will be made by the
traveler when he/she submits his/her Travel Claim form.
4. In no case will a travel advance remain unsettled for
a period longer than one week after the traveler re-
turns.
P-75-2 Page four
H. Submission of Travel Expense Reports
1. Travelers must submit Travel Claim forms within five
working days of return from a trip.
2. For travel on District business longer than one week
in duration, but not exceeding one month, travelers
may submit Travel Claim forms upon return to' the
office.
3. For travel of longer than one month' s duration, the
traveler is required to submit his/her Travel Claim
forms at least monthly, by' mail.
I. Approvals Required
i
In order to authorize reimbursement of expenses, Travel
Claim forms shall be approved and signed by the traveler
himself/herself, and his/her supervisors through the
level of the supervisor reporting directly to the General
Manager. Travel expenses of employees reporting directly
to the General Manager require approval of the General
Manager. :'Travel expenses of the General Manager and
other employees reporting to the Board of Directors re-
quire the approval of the Treasurer of the Board.
JPM:acc
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Travel Claim
Date:
Name of Claimant: Page of
Destination:
Purpose:
Departure:
Return:
EXPENSES:*
Item Date Amount
' r
Signature of Claimant and Date: TOTAL:
'Include transportation, accoxmodations, registration fees, meals,
and other rel.ated .expenses.
FOR OFFICE USE
Claim no.
Approved by Date
Check no. Board Approval Date
i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Mileage-, Claim -- Personal Automobile
of Claimant Page of �..
Origin* Destination* Odometer Miles Purpose Person, Visitcu
= End start Claimed
I
Total Miles Signature of Claimant and
%o.:nd trip unless noted. `
x 15�/mile = $ Date
0 'T."ICE USE
Approved by Datc
_ no. -
r:jcct, no. board Approval Date
M-77-31
(Meeting 77-9 ,
• %*0 Agenda item No. 10)
awk
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 15, 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: B. Green, N. Hanko and G. Seager (Subcommittee on
Reimbursement of Directors ' Expenses)
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Reimbursement of Board Attendance
for Joint Regional Park District Conference
The following are the recommendations of the Subcommittee on
Reimbursement of Directors ' Expenses regarding attendance
of Directors at the joint regional park district conference
to be held April 30-May 1, 1977.
1. All Board members are encouraged to attend.
2. Reimbursable expenses will include:
(a) Lodging. Not to exceed two nights.
(b) Meals. Not to exceed two dinners, two breakfasts and
one lunch.
(c) Mileage. Round trip from home.
n-77-38
(Meeting 77-9 ,
Agenda item No. 11)
(low
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 23, 1977
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Status of Intergovernmental Parks Projects
On March 30, 1977 a status report will be given on the pro-
posed intergovernmental parks project involving the MRPD,
Santa Clara County and the City of Sunnyvale. Director
Barbara Green and I have been involved in recent discussions
with other officials.
The District can move forward on its part of the project by
committing the funds budgeted for this purpose and entering
into necessary agreements with one or both agencies.
HG: jg
C-77-7
March 30 , 1977
Meeting 77-9
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
C L A I M S
# Amount Name Description
I2851 $ 10. 00 Option Fee Fund Replenishment
2852 108 . 50 P. G. & E. Utilities-Permanente Creek
2853 10. 08 Pargas of San Jose Utilities-Fremont Older
2854 746. 04 Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. Improvements-Permanente Creek,
Fremont Older, Black Mtn,
Saratoga Gap & Los Trancos
2855 342. 50 Cynthia M. DiGiovanni Professional Services
2856 32.00 Lisa Anderson Environmental Guidelines
2857 67.25 Young & Associates Office Equipment
2858 24.00 Santa Clara County District Vehicle Exp/Equip Repay
2859 35. 15 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Rental
2860 164.71 University Art Center Office Supplies & Maps/Mapping
2861 10. 74 Los Altos Delicatessen Meal Conference
�2862 1,026. 50 Langley Hill Quarry Improvements-Los Trancos
I!2863 2 ,268. 88 JBS Services Field Equip-Drill Breaker Machin
2864 18 .93 Park Morse Photo supply purchase/processing
12865 12 .00 John Melton Private Vehicle Expense
.2866 890.47 International Business Machines Office Equip-Typewriter
Office Supplies-Ribbon & Tape
2867 188 . 00 Marilyn Dana Tahl Services Rendered-Display Maps
2868 12. 25 Palo Alto Printing Office Supplies-Business Cards
2869 374 . 50 Four Point Rents Truck Rental-Permanente Creek,
Saratoga Gap & Los Trancos
2870 76.78 Ellie Huggins Library & Maps/Mapping
222871 31.95 A-1 Sanitation Co. Rental Chem. Toilet-Orienteerin
2872 1,740.00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Professional Services
2873 2.00 Assoc. of Bay Area Governments Library
2874 117 . 10 Kelly Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help
2875 23. 16 Techni-Graphics, Inc. Printing-Business Cards
2876 12. 11 Schwaab Office Supplies-Derma Stamp
2877 3 ,200. 00 William Spangle & Assoc. , Inc. Professional Services
Master Plan
2878 26.97 California Water Service Utilities-Permanente Creek
# Amount Name Description
2879 $ 57. 24 Image Technology, Inc. Maps-Filmwork
2880 117 . 58 Birnie Lumber & Fence Co. Improvements-Los Trancos
2881 18 .72 Diversified Transportation, Inc. Parcel Service
2882 6. 36 Western California Telephone Co. Directory Advertising
2883 92.80 Suburban Newspaper Publications Advertising-Public Hearing
2884 50 .05 Avis Auto Rental-Out of Town Meeting )
2885 239.27 Crown Tool & Supply, Inc. Field Equipment-Sawzall/Drill
2886 7. 50 Suburban Newspaper Publications Subscription
2887 167.61 Mobil Oil Corp. District Vehicle Expense
2889 95.00 Western Title Insurance Co. Litigation Guarantee
2890 503.21 Almaden East Inc. Field Equipment
2891 57 .78 S & W Equipment Co. Repair Chain Saw
892 39.85 Alvord & Ferguson Ranger Uniforms
2893 14 .35 Schwaab Office Supplies-Perma Stamp
2894 15. 81 Los Altos Delicatessen Meal Conferences
2895 27 . 34 Pasadena Map Co. Library
.,2896 2,510 . 89 Sam Smidt Associates, Inc. Brochures-Consultation, Artwor!� ,
Copywriting, Illustrations,
Printing,etc.
2897 21. 00 Carolyn Caddes Photographs-Orienteering
Revised
C-77-7
March 30 , 1977
Meeting 77-9
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
C L A I M S
# Amount Name Description
2851 $ 10.00 Option Fee Fund Replenishment
2852 108 . 50 P. G. & E. Utilities-Permanente Creek
2853 10. 08 Pargas of San Jose Utilities-Fremont Older
2854 746.04 Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. Improvements-Permanente Creek,
Fremont Older, Black Mtn,
Saratoga Gap & Los Trancos
2855 342. 50 Cynthia M. DiGiovanni Professional Services
2856 32.00 Lisa Anderson Environmental Guidelines
2857 67 . 25 Young & Associates Office Equipment
2858 24.00 Santa Clara County District Vehicle Exp/Equip Repa�
2859 35.15 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Rental
2860 164.71 University Art Center Office Supplies & Maps/Mapping
2861 10.74 Los Altos Delicatessen Meal Conference
2862 1,026.50 Langley Hill Quarry Improvements-Los Trancos
2926 2,227. 34 JBS Services Field Equip-Drill Breaker Machir
2864 18.93 Park Morse .- Photo supply purchase/processing
2865 12.00 John Melton Private Vehicle Expense
2866 890.47 International Business Machines Office Equip-Typewriter
Office Supplies-Ribbon & Tape
2867 188.00 Marilyn Dana Tahl Services Rendered-Display Maps
2868 12.25 Palo Alto Printing Office Supplies-Business Cards
22869 374.50 Four Point Rents Truck Rental-Permanente Creek,
Saratoga Gap & Los Trancos
2870 76.78 Ellie Huggins Library & Maps/Mapping
2871 31.95 A-1 Sanitation Co. Rental Chem. Toilet-Orienteering
2872 1,740.00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Professional Services
2873 2.00 Assoc. of Bay Area Governments Library
2874 117 .10 Kelly Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help
2875 23. 16 Techni-Graphics, Inc. Printing-Business Cards
2876 12.11 Schwaab Office Supplies-Perma Stamp
2877 3,200. 00 William Spangle & Assoc. , Inc. Professional Services
Master Plan
2878 26.97 California Water Service Utilities-Permanente Creek
l
# Amount Name Description
2879 57. 24 Image Technology, Inc. Maps-Filmwork
2880 117.58 Birnie Lumber & Fence Co. Improvements-Los Trancos
2881 18.72 Diversified Transportation, Inc. Parcel Service
2882 6. 36 Western California Telephone Co. Directory Advertising
2883 92.80 Suburban Newspaper Publications Advertising-Public Hearing
2884 50 .05 Avis Auto Rental-Out of Town Meeting
2885 239.27 Crown Tool & Supply, Inc. Field Equipment-Sawzall/Drill
2886 7. 50 Suburban Newspaper Publications Subscription
167.61 Mobil Oil Corp.
District Vehicle Expense
2889 95.00 Western Title Insurance Co. Litigation Guarantee
2890 503. 21 Almaden East Inc. Field Equipment
2891 57 .78 S & W Equipment Co. Repair Chain Saw
2892 39.85 Alvord & Ferguson Ranger Uniforms
2893 14.35 Schwaab Office Supplies-Perma Stamp
�2894 15. 81 Los Altos Delicatessen Meal Conferences
2895 27 .34 Pasadena Map Co. Library
2896 2,510.89 Sam Smidt Associates, Inc. Brochures-Consultation, Artwork
Copywriting, Illustrations,
Printing,etc.
2897 21. 00 Carolyn Caddes Photographs-Orienteering
2898 500-00 U. S. Postmaster Postage Meter
2899 1 ,405.00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Insurance
2900 29. 05 Kelly Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help
2901 15.18 Young & Associates Office Supplies
2902 55.20 San Jose Mercury Advertising
2903 3,500. 00 Haley-Leslie Appraisal Co. Appraisal Services
2904 64 .12 California Safety & Supply Co. Field Supplies-Ja6kets & Overal'
2905 183.95 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2906 13.31 Graphicstate, Inc. Maps & Mapping
2907 557.22 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
2908 48 . 24 The Peninsula Bulletin Advertising
2909 702.84 Sam Smidt Associates, Inc, Brochures-Design, Artwork,
Photostats & Printing
2910 608. 00 Gail D. Mincey maps/mapping & Orienteering
2911 36.96 Peninsula Newspapers Inc. Advertising
2912 15.23 DFM Associates California Election Code
12913 4 . 24 B & H Equipment Office Equipment Rental
2914 107.61 Bradley Clifford Meal Conferences
Priy4te Vehicle Expense
# Amount Name Description
2915 $ 61.78 Edward E. Jaynes Meal Conferences
Parking & Document Copying
2916 249. 81 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense
Meal Conferences
Telephone Expenses
Field Supplies
Office Supplies
Library
i