Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19770727 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 77-19 ---M6eting 77-19 L AA, sw MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors A G E N D A July 27 , 1977 7 : 30 P .M. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA (7 :30) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 13, 1977 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (7 : 45) 1. Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Ranchhouse Proposal - K. Duffy and D. Wendin (8 : 20) 2. Proposition 2 Allocation from San Mateo County H. Grench (8: 45) 3 . Proposed Revision of Land :Use and Management Process - J. Olson (9: 00) 4 . Scheduling of Master Plan Public Hearings H. Grench (9: 05) RECESS NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (9 : 15) 5. Review of Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - J. Olson (9 : 30) 6. Conflict of Interest Code - S . Norton (a) Report (b) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Poli- tical Reform Act of 1974 7 . Scheduling of Meeting with San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission - H. Grench (9: 50) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS CLAIMS (10: 00) EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations ADJOURNMENT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION (Meet°ing 77-19) July 14, 1977 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, California 94022 Dear ,air; I am writing to protest the planned annihilation of upper Regnart Canyon by Nellis and Childress. This is a lovely area, one which I have enjoyed on horseback and afoot for a period of 22 years. Please take a strong stand in opposition to this development which is unnecessary and unwanted. Is there no way for the Park District to acquire this property? Thank you for your efforts in preserving the land which you have acquired. This is one of the few areas in Cupertino left for us to ride and hike and I enjoy it every week. Sincerely, %Mlr..u,. ; s Marga6it Limberatos 20724 Garden Gate Drive Cupertino, California 95014 M-77-145 (Meeting 77-19 , Agenda item No. 1) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 21, 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: D. Wendin, Director SUBJECT: Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Ranchhouse Proposal I have finally completed the initial draft of a possible lease of the Fremont Older ranchhouse and gardens to Mort Levine and his wife. The draft lease follows the provisions of the out- line in K. Duffy' s and my memorandum of May 5, 1977 (M-77-77) . It has been given to Stan Norton and Mr. Levine for review and will be distributed to you after their suggestions have been incorporated. The Board needs to give the committee (K. Duffy and me) guidance on a few open issues of substance, but I believe we should first formally state our intention to lease the property to the Levines and Suburban Newspaper Publications, Inc. I am personally not concerned with the lack of public access to the property for 25 years since it is a small part of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and since we have no other acceptable proposal which would restore the ranchhouse and gardens to make them worth visiting. This issue would , however, be addressed by the Board. I think we should formally answer the following: 1. Should the District make the long-term commitment to the preservation of a major structure for historical purposes. 2 . Should the District accept an inholding for the next 25 years without the ability to terminate the lease in the event the inholding adversely impacts the District' s programs. We must each wrestle with the first question, but it is one we have not yet answered. To date we have only asked for proposals from the public and have authorized a Board committee to work out the details of the only proposal which could be acceptable. M-77-145 Page two The second question is one which we have not addressed to date, either in the context of the Fremont Older ranchhouse or in general. Inholdings or other properties which directly affect or are affected by District property undoubtedly require staff resources, in some cases a significant expenditure. There is impact by and on the public using the District' s property. There may be an impact on future options for use of the District's property. If an inholding is acceptable to the Board, then any conditions to be attached must be addressed. We could require an absolute right to terminate the lease, perhaps after some minimum number of years, in the event that any adverse impact becomes unaccept- able. We could have this right only if we have acquired the other inholdings, or if the Levines are going to be replaced by other occupants or if some other condition or event occurs. It should be fairly simple to specify a formula based on the investment made on the renovation and the number of years left to go. The following are other issues of substance which the Board should address, if only to give the committee direction for completing the draft lease : a) The area to be leased - K. Duffy will give an oral presentation, hopefully with a map showing the approxi- mate boundaries. b) Road maintenance - State law governs the sharing of costs in the absence of an express agreement. How particular should we get in the lease? c) Water - The Levines must recognize that the water supply may be inadequate. This could be a significant additional cost to them. d) Parking - K. Duffy may cover this under item a) but adequate parking for more than a few visitors could be a problem. Summary. The committee recommends that the Board decide in principle if they wish to pursue the proposed Levine lease, subject to final approval of the lease document. If this decision is positive, the committee asks that the Board consider the issues previously outlined giving specific direction where appropriate: ability to terminate the lease, area to be leased, road maintenance, water and parking, as well as other issues the Board wishes to address. DGW:jg DRAFT 00 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 745 DISTEL DRIVE,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 July 28 , 1977 Mr. John M. Ward, Chairman Members of the Board of Supervisors County of San Mateo County Government Center 590 Hamilton Redwood City, California 94063 Dear Chairman Ward and Members of the Board: I am writing in behalf of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in response to Mr. Mattison' s letter of July 8, 1977 , which requests that the District advise you of its preference regarding allocation of funds received within San Mateo County from the Nejedley-Hart, Urban, and Coastal Bond Act of 1976. Both regional and local park and open space lands are vitally important in providing a variety of recreational services and a livable environment to the residents of the County. Regional park and open space lands not only generally provide for different types of leisure activity than local sites, but they also benefit a much larger area. We believe the allocation which Santa Clara County agencies have adopted for distribution of bond funds (both in 1974 and 1976) , giving 50% to local agencies and 50% to regional agencies, represents an appropriate and fair allo- cation formula, since it assures that a significant proportion of the bond funds will benefit all county residents through regional projects. It can also give regional agencies the flexibility to consider joint agency projects for which they might not otherwise have funds. For the reasons stated above, our District respect- fully requests that the County of San Mateo Board of Super- visors adopt a 50% local - 50% regional allocation formula for distribution of the funds received from the Nejedley-Hart State, Urban, and Coastal Bond Act of 1976. Herbert A Grench.General Manager Board of Voreco rs.Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green.Noriette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop.Edward G.Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G.Wendir Mr. John M. Ward, Chairman Members of the Board of Supervisors County of San Mateo July 28, 1977 Page two Regardless of the outcome of the overall local- regional split, we believe that the regional funds should be divided between the County and the MROSD on the basis of the fractions of population inside and outside the District. The District would expend its funds within the District on a project of regional benefit. We look forward to many years of cooperation with the County in providing the best in public park and open space lands. Sincerely yours, Daniel G. Wendin President Board of Directors DGW:]g M-77-139 (Meeting 77-19 , Agenda item No. 2) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 19, 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Proposition 2 Allocation from San Mateo County At its July 13 , 1977 meeting the Board directed staff to prepare a draft response to a letter from the Director of Parks and Recreation of San Mateo County which requested the District' s recommendation for the distribution of Proposition 2 funds. Attached is a proposed reply, which I recommend be sent to the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County. HG: jg -1-77-140 (Meeting 77-19 , Agenda item No. 3) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 22, 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Land Use and Management Planning Process Attached is a report (R-77-38, dated July 20 , 1977) to me from the Land Manager regarding a Proposed Revision of the Land Use and Management Planning Process. It is recommended that the Board approve the revised Site Planning Process as presented in the report. R-77-38 (Meeting 77-19 , AA, AM Agenda item No. 3) 1% Am 40 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 745 DISTEL DRIVE, LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 REPORT July 20, 1977 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of the Land Use and Management Planning Process. Introduction: In order to provide an efficient and responsible system for making decisions on land being considered for acquisition or that which has been acquired, the Board adopted a site planning process on July 23, 1975. At the time the planning process was adopted, it was understood that it would be reviewed periodically in order to keep the process as- clear, concise and efficient as possible. The large area planning concept, in particular, was to be refined further. On May 10, 1977 a Proposed Revision of the Planning Process (R-77- 16) dated March 24 , 1977 , was presented to the Board of Directors , at which time it was requested that the following points be clarified. (1) An update on the status of use and management recommendations should be prepared as a brief report during the intervening years when a complete review is not presented. (2) Interim use and management recommendations contained in preacquisition reports will generally maintain the "status quo" . (3) Public involvement will be included in preparation of use and management plans at staff' s discretion since possible environmental impacts of management recommendations are not restricted to the site but could affect neighboring properties. The preceding points are discussed more fully in the text that follows. The planning process thus far has been site-specific oriented. Each individual acquisition has had a preacquisition report, use and management plan, and an annual review associated with it. With each addition to the District lands, the present system has become more cumbersome to work with. Even though two sites may be near each other and may become one inclusive planning unit with future acquisitions, their use and management plans are currently reviewed separately. There are several areas in which the current process could be improved and streamlined: (1) as the District' s holdings increase, a shift from site-specific planning to broader area planning is suggested; (2) revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements should be clearly identified in the process; (3) the report-writing phase itself could be simplified; and (4) a system of recording Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko.Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G Wendin Page two cumulative site information for use by staff and researchers is needed. Outlined below are the existing and proposed planning processes: Existing 1) Pre-acquisition report, generally including interim use and management recommendations (site oriented) 2) Use and management plan (site oriented) 3) Use and management plan annual review (site oriented) Proposed 1) Pre-acquisition report, generally including interim use and management recommendations (site oriented) 2) Use and management plans (open space preserve oriented) 3) Use and management plan biennial review for all sites within each open space preserve (ten such preserve areas within the District) . Discussion: The existing planning process format contains factors to be considered when evaluations are being made of proposed acqui- sitions, for site planning and for annual review of existing plans. The proposed changes in the planning process are intended to accomplish several goals, which are primarily as follows: 1) Conformity with CEQA. This relates to specific recommendations in site plans that may constitute a project under CEQA. The basic revision involves preparation of an Initial Study when an action designated a "project" is proposed. While the act of purchasing land for open space and park use is exempt from the requirements, land use changes proposed in the interim use and management section of a report require examination as to whether they constitute a project and, if so, whether the Initial Study indicates that a Negative Declaration of EIR is required. 2) Open Space Preserve Planning Areas. The District should be divided into ecologically coherent open space preserve planning areas. The practice of considering each site in a separate plan which requires the formation of discrete management policies was suitable when the lands being acquired were in physically and environmentally diverse locations, and the number of sites was relatively limited. As District lands increase, sites are often being acquired in geographically and ecologically coherent areas. The planning sphere, therefore, should be broadened to reflect those areas rather than being restricted to individual parcels as they are required. Page three This new approach would divide the District into 10 open space preserve planning areas. As lands are acquired within the preserve planning area, they would adopt the preserve planning area name. Use policies and management guidelines would be formulated for each preserve planning area. The use and management plan for individual acquisitions within the preserve would deal with specific physical improvements required to accommodate the guidelines established for the preserve. All use and management plans for acquisitions within the large open space preserve planning areas would be reviewed at the same time. If the period between acqui- sition and scheduled review is unreasonably lengthy, then a use and management plan for the individual addition would be prepared. However, the site plan would still be incorporated into the next review of the larger open space preserve planning area use and manage- ment plan. The change in outlook from individual acquisitions to the larger preserves would facilitate site naming and land management. A map showing recommended open space preserve planning areas is attached as Appendix B. 3) Use and Management Plans for Open Space Preserve Planning Areas (Individual Sites Where AppropriateT_ a. When use and management plans are developed initially for open space preserve planning areas and individual sites where appropriate, the emphasis should be on overall policy. Basic decisions should be made such as to whether management emphasis will be on environmental protection, recreation, or agriculture, etc. ; what portion of District land management resources will be necessary to accomplish these goals; or whether the land should be held in a land bank or in an extremely limited use category for an extended period of time. Generally, it is likely that some physical improvement will be recommended at this time. As these use and management plans are reviewed, the emphasis will probably shift toward physical changes or capital improvement projects on the preserve which are related to carrying out the basic policies previously established for the preserve. b. The use and management plans should make a clear distinction between long range and immediate projects. Between the pre-acquisition report and the use and management report phases, consideration should be given to the long range plans for the site, particularly where structures are involved. This basic long term philosophy 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, however, so that there is a continuity between short term and long range plans for preserve. Page four 4) Review of Use and Management Plans. a. The review of use and management plans should be based on open space preserve 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 management plans pertaining only to individual sites within a preserve, although individual sites will require separate discussion. b. The review period should be lengthened. Use and manage- ment plans are currently reviewed yearly. One year has proven to be a limited time in which to accomplish recommendations and monitor use. Switching to a two- year review period would reduce the number of reports that are required. It is recommended that the use and management plans be reviewed biennially, at which time there would be an accounting of physical improvements done on the site with an opportunity for the accommodation of any necessary changes in policy. A brief informational report will be presented to the Board on a biennially basis in years alternating with the complete review. 5) Establishment of a Cumulative Site Information Filing System. During the report writing phase as well as in the course of general office operations, the need arises for retrieval of basic site data. There is presently no single source for this information. Staff should, therefore, establish a filing system in which all planning, environmental and land use information pertaining to open space preserve planning areas is kept separately and not interfiled 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 resulting from the cooperative research program with San Jose State University and other research groups. All staff members would have access to any information regarding the activities on any site from a single source. Recommendation: Attached is a revised planning process to be used for evaluation at the pre-acquisition, use and management plan development and review stages. The existing Site Planning Process Checklist, Appendix C attached, will be replaced by the Proposed Planning Process, Appendix A attached. It is recommended that the Board adopt this procedure as the planning process for the District and that it be reviewed relative to District needs after approximately one year. APPENDIX A MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PLANNING PROCESS Purpose: The Midpeninsula Regional open Space District lands are managed for balanced functions of environmental protection, recreation, environmental education and agriculture. In order to provide for responsible land management that will accommodate the above uses while ensuring the continued preservation of natural resources, the following planning process has been established. I. Pre-acquisition Report - In this phase the major issues related to potential acquisition are addressed. In addition, interim use and management recommendations are made to govern use and management of a site until it can become incorporated into the ongoing planning for the open space preserve within which it is located. Interim use and management recommendations will generally maintain the "status quo" unless there are factors which must be addressed because of their deleterious impact on the site or because they represent safety hazards which should be mitigated. Preacquisition reports generally contain information in the following categories: 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 D. Other Agency Planning Considerations E. Relationship to MROSD Master Plan F. Relationship to Draft Regional Trails Plan G. Potential Use and Management H. Interim Use and Management Recommendations I. Initial Budget J. Compliance of Use Recommendations with CEQA Requirements K. Naming (optional) L. Terms M. Press Release Appendix A Page 2 Ii. Use and Management Plan for Individual Sites (Optional) - Generally, use and management plans for new acquisitions will be done coincidentally with the review of all other District lands within that open space preserve planning area. However, the time frame between acquisition of a given site and the review for that open space preserve may be particularly long, or there may be other factors which give the particular site a high priority. In these cases a use and management plan may be prepared for the new addition rather than waiting for the biennial review. It is at this point in the planning process that public meetings will be held at staff' s discretion to help formulate the use and management plan. The number and frequency of these meetings will be determined in relation to public interest and to the issues related to each site. Neighborhood meetings would proceed in the following manner: First, a neighborhood information meeting would be needed to solicit input prior to staff preparation of the use and management plan itself. The date and time of these meetings would be announced on special notices printed on a regular meeting agenda or on a separate agenda or announced at a regular board meeting. Selective mailings would be made to adjacent property owners, and a sign-up sheet would be circulated at the meeting for persons requesting to be informed of future meetings regarding the plan. Second, the draft use and management plan would be presented at a neighborhood meeting. Again, the date and time would be announced on special notices. Third, the draft plan would be presented at a regular Board meeting as an agenda item. A use and management plan for an individual site would generally be a simplified version of the outline in Section III below. III. Initial Use and Management Plan for Open Space Preserves - This step will be the major point at which use and management decisions are initially determined and reviewed. Public involvement in the process will be the same as II above. A use and management plan generally contains information in the following categories : A. Introduction 1) background history (brief) 2) site description (brief) 3) summary of interim use and management recommendations B. Recommendations 1) long term management philosophy Appendix A Page 3 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 10) time Brie for implementation af use and management plans IV. Informational Report - Use and management plans for open space preserves will be reviewed on a biennial basis. In the intervening years staff will provide the Board with a brief Informational update on the status of implementation of the use and management plan adopted the previous year. A. Physical improvements accomplished B. Physical improvements yet to be completed C. Any major issues which warrant discussion D. Information on Visitor Use and Activities V. Biennial Review of Use and Management Plans for Open Space Preserve planning areas - This step will be the ongoing review of the status of policy, use, and physical improvements of District lands. 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. To include public meetings if significant changes are recommended or if warranted for other reasons. E. Recommendations for change in use and management plan IV. Policy Statements - This category will contain Board-adopted policies relating to land management and may include items such as land management budget guidelines, permit system, signing, group use, etc. (see attached policies) APPENDIX C SCHEDULE OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVE USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES AND REVIEWS 1978-79 Updates - 1978 Reviews - 1979 Planning Unit JAN MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV JAN MAR MAY JU Y SEPT NOV 1 X X 2 X X w (Los TrancosY X X (Permanente X X Creek) 5 (Monte Bello) X X 6 (Fremont X X Older 7 (El Sereno) X X 8 (Costanoan X X Wa ) 9 X X 10 X X Names in parenthesis refer to existing Open Space Preserves contained within the designated Planning Units. 1 APPENDIX D - EXISTI ITE PLANNING PROCESS CH IST ADOPTED 7/75 PRE-ACQUISITION PHASE Public Pre- Preliminary Acquisition Procedures Description Site Analysis Report 1. Site Analysis - General (a) Size, Location, X X Boundaries (b) Current Use (c) Geology, Soils (d) Vegetation (e) Wildlife (f) Developed Resources (g) Improvements (h) Utilities 2. Interview with Property (a) Additional Site X Owners and Others Description Familiar with Site (b) Suggested Use (c) Potential Management Problems (d) Public Attitudes 13. Determine Compliancy (a) Zoning X X With Political and (b) Sphere of Influence Planning Jurisdictions (c) General Plans (d) MRPD Plan (e) Williamson Act 4. Review of Title Policy, (a) Easements, Mineral X Tax Assessments, and Rights and Other Other Factors Influenc- Restrictions ing Acquisition, Use (b) Deed of Trust - Recorded and Management or Unrecorded (c) Status of Tax Payments (d) Assessed Value - Total and $/Acre (e) Review of Services Supported by Property Tax 5. Determine Boundaries for (a) Study Access - Regional, X Effective Use and Manage- Community and Neighbor- ment of Site hood (b) Determine Current and Potential Adjacent Land Use (c) Recommend Additional Parcels to Increase Effectiveness of Site 6. Cultural History (a) Review of Cultural X History Associated With the Site (b) Describe Past Use Coin- ciding with Cultural History Public EXISTING PROCESS - ^-ENDIX D eliminary Acquisitio Procedures Description _e Analysis Report 7. Potential Use (a) Natural Resource X X Considerations Protection (b) Agriculture (c) Recreation (d) Education (e) Other 8. Potential Management (a) Natural Resources X X Considerations (b) Agriculture (c) Recreation (d) Tenants (e) Dumping (f) Patrol - Review Existing Fire and Policing (g) Immediate Action - Steps, Cost and Timetable 9. Indicate Relationship X X to Regional Trails Plan and Other Parklands �.O. Terms X X U. Other Factors (a) Land Tour - If Feasible X X Could Include Public, MRPD Board. & .Public Agency Staff (b) Public Meeting During Option Period if Feasi- ble. District-wide Notice 2. Discussion of Factors X X Influencing Acquisition (Public Input from Hearing) 3. Recommendation X 4. Environmental Assessment X or Determination on Acquisition ,5. Negative Declaration or EIR if Required X .6. Staff Recommendation and X Board Concurrence on Time Frame for Development of Interim Use and Management Plan (Step 1 of Site Spe- cific Planning Process) �I APPENDIX D EXISTING PROCESS POST-ACQUISITION PHASE Site Specific Procedures Description 1. Staff Recommendation and Board (a) This Recommendation Will be Concurrence on Interim Plan to Based Primarily on Information be Effective After Acquisition Developed in the Pre-Acquisition and Until Use and Management Phase. In General, Existing Plan (Site Specific) is Developed) Types of Use Will be Continued Unless there is a Negative Effect Associated with a Particular Use. If a Use and Management Plan has . not been Adopted in One Year, the Interim Recommendation will be Reviewed to Determine its Effectiveness. 2. Interviews with Property Owners (a) Insight into Use and Management and others Familiar with Site Problems (b) Public Attitudes 3. Classification and Mapping of (a) Delineate Geographic and Vege- Vegetative Communities tative Units (b) Locate Fragile or Otherwise Significant Areas (c) Indicate Action Necessary for Protection or Restoration I� 4. Investigate Accessibility (a) Community/Neighborhood (b) Regional (c) Regional Trail (d) Internal Circulation of Traiis and Roads 5. Monitor Adjacent Use (a) Status of Adjacent Lands (b) Recommendations for Further Acquisitions (c) Continued Land Use Monitoring 6. Preliminary Public Meeting (a) Consist of Neighborhood and Community - Public Notice Mandatory (b) Compile Information on Potential Use and Management 7. Planning Recommendation (a) Staff Recommendation as to Whether Site Specific Planning Should be Continued or Area Planning Initiated 8. Draft Use and Management Plan (a) Use Preceding Information to Preparation Justify Development and Manage- ment Scheme EXISTING PROCESS - Ar'ENDIX D 8. Draft Use and Manage Plan (b) State B C Policies for Use Preparation (continue") and Management on Specific Areas. Such as : Types of Permits and Conditions, Circulation, Education, Staging, and Agri- culture, as Applicable (c) Environmental Assessment 9. Public Presentation of Plan (a) Public Views Concerning the. Proposed Use and Management (b) Evaluation and Revision of plan 10. Other Factors, Such As: (a) Land Tours .- If Feasible Could Include -Public, MRPD Board and Public Agency Staff 11. Presentation of the Plan to (a) MRPD Board Input Concerning MRPD Board the Proposed Use and Management Plan (b) Refinement of Plan Depending on Action of the Board 12. Prepare Final Draft of Use and Management Plan 13. Negative Declaration or EIR on Plan if Necessary 3 14. Adoption or Motion of Endorsement 15. Yearly Review of Site Plans (or (a) Including Status Reports from Interim Recommendations , if Site Caretakers Where Applicable Plans Have Not Been Completed) (b) Status Reports from MRPD to Determine Effectiveness and Rangers Provide for Information Regarding (c) Public Review Session Changes in Use EXISTING PROCESS APPENDIX D POST-ACQUISITION PHASE Area Planning* Procedures Description 1. Divide District into Geographic (a) Planning Areas Based Upon Planning Areas Ecological Units, Watersheds, and Use Patterns 2. Detailed e Inventory of Resources - Within Planning Area 3. Develop a Use and Management Plan (a) A Long Range Plan for the Planning Area with Emphasis on MRPD Lands *Area Planning Could Be Initiated Parallel to Site Specific Planning or Implemented at a Later Date Depending on Staff Resources and Priorities APPENDIX E �r �.irr wwti MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Land Use and Management Policy Refinements Adopted By Board of Directors April 14 and 22, 1976 Budget: The policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District is that the budget for land management costs will be permitted to grow approximately linearly from next year's budget (1967-1977) to 18% of tax revenue at the end of ten years, such percentages to be reviewed annually. Phasing: Staff shall prepare site-specific plans which allow � for open public access as soon as possible after ap- proval of the site plans. For each site, the plan { shall include the phasing necessary to protect the i environment as the use increases, including protection of both the sit e's s ecology and of the neighborhood and to measure the impact of such use. The plan shall detail how all aspects of public access will be handled, including signing, patrol and -parking. The phasing shall be consistent with the limitations of open space management budget, workloads and priorities. Permits : A permit system may be used as a tool to control access to environmentally sensitive sites and to keep track of group usage. Otherwise, permits for individuals will not be required. On sites where a permit is re- quired, permits will be given out on site unless the individual is having an adverse impact on the site or on others using the site. Signing: The District will provide signs to protect the site, users and neighboring properties and to indicate owner- ship at the entrance or entrances of sites . However, in certain cases where special environmental protection or other special site specific circumstances make it necessary, the District will provide signs only as re- quired to protect the site , users and neighboring properties. This policy will be reviewed yearly as to specific sites . Publicity: For the next year, information about District sites will be made available in the form of informational brochures through the office only. This policy will be reviewed at the end of the year. APPEVIX F 41� M-77-55 W- (Meeting 77-14 , Agenda item No. 7) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM April 12, 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Organizational Use Subcommittee, E. Shelley, K. Duffy, N. Hanko SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations of the Organizational Use Subcommittee Discussion: The District's present stated policy allows for use of the District lands consistent with the financial con- straints imposed by the limited Land Management budget and the protection of the environmental characteristics of the lands. At present we have no specific policies on extended use (as opposed to short-term use) of District properties by organi- zations. One of the potential advantages of encouraging such use is that use by organizations such as the city recreation departments and youth groups will serve a segment of the Dis- trict citizens that would otherwise not be likely to benefit , directly from the District' s preservation of open space. An- other potential advantage is that by requiring organizations to provide their own super.vision, clean-up, liability insurance, etc. a large number of individuals will be able to benefit from the District' s open space at a minimum per-capita cost to the District. It should be noted that there are also some potential disad- vantages of organizational use of District properties. Even though the per-capita cost to the District is expected to be low, there may be significant cost to the District in terms of increased liability insurance and staff time devoted to liaison with and coordinatingof these programs. Due to the potential popularity of such programs, the demand on the Dis- trict may exceed its capabilities within the financial and other constraints. This could lead to difficulties in main- taining equitable opportunity for all segments of the District. In order to fairly distribute the benefits throughout the District, a priority scheme may be required. APPENDIX F (Contini, 1 N MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL USE POLICY Adopted by Board May 25, 1977 I. Policy Statement: The District will encourage utilization of the District lands and structures by organizations consis- tent with: 1) Financial constraints imposed by the Board adopted limits on the Land Management budget; 2) The protection of the physical and environmen- tal characteristics of the District properties; and 3) The protection of the quality of the experience { by those who use the District properties. II. Restrictions on Organizations : 1) Any organization desiring to use the District' s resources should be required to be non-discrim- inatory. Allowance may be made for those limi- tations based on residence, age and sex as might be set forth in city recreation programs. 2) Organizational use should relate to the open space characteristics of the District' s properties. Sig- nificant modifications to District properties will not be permitted unless they are compatible with the long-tern use and management plans for the site involved. 3) Commitment to organizations should be for limited periods so as not to restrict severely the District's options and to minimize the possibility of inequit- able benefit to other organizations as the program develops. The commitments must, however, be of sufficient duration to permit organizations to amortize their investments in possible developments and also to provide sufficient time for organiza- tions to reorganize their programs if District fac- ilities are reduced or withdrawn. III. Priorities for Organizational Use : Due to the constraints dis- cussed in the text, it will not be possible to satisfy the de- sires and requirements of all deserving organizations. The following list of priorities in approximate order of significance should serve to equitably distribute t limited q y he lima facilities and services. APPENDIX F (Continued) Organizational Use Pol--y Page two 1) Financial impact considerations on Land Management budget must receive high priority. A fee structure reflecting the adopted priorities may be desirable in the implementation of an organizational use program. 2) organizations serving constituents within the District should be given priority over organizations serving bit- izens outside the District. 3) Priority should be given to organizations that will utilize the unique open space character of the District properties. 4) Public agencies should be given priority over private organizations. 5) Priority should be given to organizations that serve segments of the District population not otherwise direct- ly served by the District. 6) Educational organizations particularly those oriented toward environmental education should be given preference. L i b APPENDIX B .�' SA! • ••.., • Bair Is. eRABCISC'0� .;. �r BATr,` 'gym San t °+•,a� East ��Redwood City � ��"��°�1• �I t a I o °%1� Menlo Ito .,,, -J Atherton h Park `O0�y Woodside PaloAlto `� pQP STANFORD Is r+ ��• �r Valley =°, Mo ntain low alp 1141 s o It Sunny Is fi 9y � 3 os Altos s� ills �. p CuP• t�j ' 7 i I�Fo� e reno 'F 1_,S —_t PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ` 7 PLANNING UNITS s9 1 � 0 G ^ M-77-144 (Meeting 77-19, Agenda item No. 4) law MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 18, 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Scheduling of Master Plan Public Hearings Following public presentation of the revised draft Master Plan in March (at Woodside) and presentations to agencies within the newly annexed portion of the District, the draft Master Plan is scheduled for public hearing and final consideraiton. Since the most recent part of the Master Plan process has involved the annexed area, the Board may wish to hold another public hearing in that portion of the District as well as at the District office. Hearings on the Santa Clara County portion of the Master Plan were held last summer. Comments made by officials and by members of the public will be compiled for Board consideration, and staff recom- mendations will be made for changes in the draft plan. It is recommended that the Board determine the number and approximate dates (after September 1 suggested) of further Public Hearing (s) on the Master Plan. HG: jg M-77-138 (Meeting 77-19 Agenda item No. 5) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 22 , 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Review of Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Attached is a report (R-77-37) , dtaed July 15, 1977 from the Land Manager to me regarding the Review of Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. It is recommended that the Board approve the Negative Declaration and the recommendations of the Land Manager contained in the report. HG:jg R-77-37 *44 (Meeting 77-19 , . Agenda item No. 5) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT REPORT July 15 , 1977 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Review of Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Introduction: On May 26, 1976 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District adopted a Use and Management Plan for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (R-76-12) . On February 23, 1977 and April 13 , 1977 interim use and management recommendations were adopted for two additions to the Preserve as a part of the preacquisition reports (R-77-8, R-77-21) . In the past, District planning policy has required that the site use and management plans be reviewed at approximately yearly in- tervals in order to assess changes in vegetative and wildlife communities and visitor's needs and to adjust or supplement manage- ment policies to accomodate these changes. This policy is being restudied with an eye toward a full biennial review with a brief update in non-review years. Therefore , the use and management plan for this would next be fully reviewed in 1979 with an update scheduled for 1978. Background: The Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, shown on the attached map, encompasses 622 acres of land in the Cupertino foot- hills adjacent to the Cities of Saratoga and Cupertino. The major portion of the site is an an unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County and adjacent to Lower Stevens Creek County Park and Reser- voir. The Preserve encompasses a variety of natural and agricul- tural plant communities including oak woodland, chaparral, orchards and a cultivated hayfield. Status of 1976 Use and Management Recommendations : Policy recommen- dations and improvement recommendations incor orated in the physical P P use and management plan adopted for 1976 , and the interim use and management recommendations regarding the former Nellis and Mozzetti property sections of the Preserve, are summarized below with a dis- cussion of the status of their accomplishment. A. Policy. The site should be managed for a balanced use of en- vironmental protection, recreation and agriculture. Current agricultural practices pertaining to cultivation of the hayfield should continue until an assessment can be made of its compati- bility with recreation and resource protection. R-77-37 Page two Status. Since the assessment study has not yet been completed this policyshould continue. B. Use and Improvement. 1. Parking. A 20 car parking area with a gravel surface should be constructed at the end of Prospect Road. A bicycle rack will be incorporated into the parking area. "No Parking" signs will be installed along Regnart and Prospect Roads if conditions warrant. Status. Construction has been completed and the bike rack will be installed when the signs are put in which is expec- ted to be by the end of October, 1977. There has not been a need for installation of "No Parking" signs on Regnart or Prospect Roads. 2 . Trails. A trails plan should be implemented with a connec- tion to the Garrod Stables. Staff will work with the Castle Rock Horsemen's Association to develop a volunteer patrol program to supplement District patrol staff and to assist in trail construction. Status . The main route of the trails system has been comple- teT by a trails contractor. The connection to Garrod Stables was postponed while waiting for improved routing through the Nellis property. Now that the Nellis addition to the Preserve has been accomplished, the trail link will hopefully be comple- ted with volunteer assistance by the end of August, 1977. If construction by volunteers proves impractical, then expected completion by a trail contractor would be in the fall of 1977. Discussions were held with the Castle Rock Horsemen' s Asso- ciation regarding establishment of a volunteer patrol program. Such a program requires a highly organized group. Difficul- ties in scheduling, establishing a reporting system and limi- ted time of the volunteers made the program impractical, and, therefore, it was not undertaken. 3. Use. No permits should be required for individual users of the Preserve. Permits should be required for groups of 15 or more people due to limited parking. Status. Patrol data on visitors observed at the Preserve shows horseback riding as the greatest use, followed closely by hiking. Staff is in the process of designing a more effec- tive method of determining visitor use than the present method of recording patrol data. However, it is reasonable to assume at this point that recommendations contained within this re- view such as signing and trail construction forming a link with the County Park will contribute toward increased use of the Preserve. R-77-37 Page three 4. Environmental Protection. Portions of the Preserve des- ignated as "Natural Areas" should remain undisturbed to provide wildlife habitat. Status. The Natural Areas have been kept undisturbed and will remain so since routing of new trails will be done in such a way as to avoid these areas. Natural Areas have been designated for the recent additions as shown on the attached map. 5. Agriculture. (a) Hayfield. After consulting with the U.S. Soil Con- servation Service, the hayfield should be continued but the acreage could possibly be reduced due to steep slopes and resulting erosion. Status The Soil Conservation Service has not delivered a comprehensive soil and range study. A grazing and ag- ricultural plan is expected to be completed by December, 1977. At that time the recommendation may be made to introduce cattle grazing to the hayfield and other por- tions of the Preserve outside the designated Natural Areas, or hayfield cultivation may continue. (b) Orchards. Staff will attempt to negotiate a lease with an interested group (s) for continuance of the walnut or- chards in Seven Springs Canyon. Status. It is a District policy to prohibit the use of inorganic pesticides on District lands. Organized volunteer agricultural groups generally use such pest- icides, and no other suitable groups have expressed an interest in tending the orchards. 6. Structures and Facilities. (a) Grey House. No more than $1,500 initial outlay and 500 annually should be expended on minimal remodeling for use as a rental unit which is to be removed in 5 years. Status. About half of the recommended remodeling of the grey house has been completed with the remainder expected to be completed by December 1977. (b) Adobe House. It should be remodeled at a maximum cost of $15,000 for use as a caretaker residence. Status. Remodeling is expected to be, completed in July 1977 for $22''000 ($7,000 over the estimated cost in the 1976 Plan) . R-77-37 Page four (c) Pool. It should be filled in and the area revegetated. Status . The pool will be filled in at the same time, or shortly after, the adobe remodeling is done. (d) Fremont Older House. Investigate historical potential and if no viable scheme for restoration and use has been developed within 3 months of adoption of this plan, the building should be demolished. Status. The Board of Directors is presently considering leasing the Fremont Older House as a private residence for 25 years to a single leasee who would be responsible for restoring and maintaining the house and keeping both it and the surrounding gardens open for limited public tours . After 25 years the lease would expire and the District would resume responsibility for maintenance of the house and gardens. (e) Apricot Shed Area. It should be temporarily designated as a group camp area to be used by the Cupertino Park and Recreation Department. Status. Group camping, conducted by the City of Cuper- tino, was undertaken during the summer of 1976 in the old picnic grounds behind the adobe. Use was infrequent although considered very successful. This program was not continued in 1977. (f) Gardens. Gardens adjacent to the Fremont Older House and the adobe should be rehabilitated by an interested volunteer group if feasible. Status. The gardens around the adobe will be cleaned up by interns or volunteer groups during 1977 as time permits. (g) Water System. If feasible, surplus water should be available for use in the gardens and for a horse water- ing trough. Status. Due to the drought, no surplus water has been available for either installation of troughs or for garden use. These recommendations should be withdrawn due to the generally limited supply of springfed water on the Preserve. (h) Concrete Reservoir. Since the reservoir is no longer functional it should be demolished or covered with fill. Status. The reservoir will be covered over within the next year. R-77-37 Page five 7. Signs. A Sign should be placed at the parking area identifying the Preserve, the District and showing the trail system. Various other signs should be placed with- in the Preserve where necessary. Status. All recommended signing will be installed by the end of October, 1977. 8. Fencing. The chain link fence located on the northwest corner of the hayfield should be removed when the District acquires all of the authorized parcels. An open wood rail fence should be constructed around Hunter' s Point to pro- tect the area from vehicles and equestrian traffic. Status. The fence has been removed. Fencing around Hunter' s Point has been deferred until a use pattern has become estab- lished, which will aid in assessing the need for an equestrian and patrol vehicle barrier at this location. 9. Gates and Stiles. The existing gate located at the intersec- TI-onof Regnart Road and the access road to the T.V. tower should be relocated parallel to the road with provision made for hiking and equestrian access. Status. The gate has been realigned with the incorporation of an equestrian and hiking stile. 10. Clean-Up. Debris at three dump sites should be removed. Status. Clean-up has been completed. 11. Discing_. Vegetative discing should be done in conjunction with planting of the hay crop. The disced area should be studied to determine the effect of discing, non-discing, or trail use in relation to the impact of these three altern- atives on begetative succession and wildlife. Status. The hayfield has been disced in conjunction with FUTE` nation of the hay crop. Studies assessing the impact of discing will likely be done in connection with future agricultural leases. 12. Historical Investigation. A volunteer should be assigned to develop a comprehensive cultural history of the Preserve. Status. The major historical interest on the site is asso- '&�iated with the Fremont Older period. It was decided, there- fore, to delay historical investigation until plans regarding the Older House have been determined. At that time a docent will likely take on the project. R-77-37 Page six 13. Natural Resource Investigation. Volunteers should be encouraged to develop background material relative to the natural resources of the Preserve. An interpretive nature trail should be developed on the Preserve. Status. A brief study on the birds and mammals of the Preserve was contributed by a neighbor of the site. Nat- ural resource studies will most likely be done by college students working as volunteers through the research pro- gram rather than by the District docents who are more interpretation oriented. Although plans for development of a nature trail were initiated by a volunteer, the pro- ject was not completed. The trail route was later consi- dered unsuitable for interpretive use so the idea was not pursued. Status of Use and Management Recommendations for Additions to the Preserve: The Nel•lis Addition. 14. Construct a woodrail fence to define the border of the private holding to the north, and install boundary signs where needed. Status. Fencing will be installed by the end of October, 1977. 15. Remove one abandoned car. Status. Three abandoned cars on the Preserve will be removed at the same time , by the end of December, 1977. The Mozzetti Addition. 16. The ridge road will eventually require scraping. Status. The road has been scraped and is in good condition. JO:pl FREMONT OLDER OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Use and Management Plan for 1977-78 (1) The road/trail route, shown on the attached map, linking Stevens Creek Park to the hayfield should be established. Estimated time of completion is October, 1977. (2) The Stevens Canyon Road access route using the Villa Maria Area of the County Park should be designated and signed as a hiking and equestrian access point to the Preserve in ad- dition to the existing Prospect Road entrance. (3) Areas should continue to be available to well organized groups for camping use. However, the Picchetti Ranch appears to be a more favorable site and will probably re- ceive more use, especially by the City of Cupertino. (4) The walnut orchards in Seven Springs Canyon should be maintained only so far as discing. (5) The grey house should continue to be maintained in an adequate condition for caretaker use. As stated in the initial plan, the house will probably be removed by 1981. (6) The adobe should be maintained as a rental unit. (7) Staff should contact the Woodside Mounted Patrol to discuss feasibility and proper operations for a volunteer patrol program. (8) A site information brochure containing a map and descrip- tion of the site should be developed. Expected completion date is August, 1977 . (9) Remove three abandoned cars whose locations are shown on the attached map. Costs. Costs associated with the above recommendations are not expected to exceed $250 for any individual item except for the brochure. Within the next year staff will prepare an analysis of structure purchase, maintenance and remodelling costs and making a comparison with rental income. Page two Appendix C (co( PART II Identification of Environmental Impacts : (Explanations of "yes" and "maybe" answers are included on attached sheets) 1. Geology. Will the project: YES MAYBE NO a. result in an increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off site? X b. be located on or adjacent to a known earthquake fault? X C. disrupt the soil causing substantial erosion, silta- tion or land sliding. X _ d. cause destruction or modif- ication of any unique gologic feature? X 2. Water. Will the project: a. be located in a known flood plain? X b. involve alteration(s) of a streamcourse or body of X surface water? C. change the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an acquifer by cuts or excava- tions? d. change- absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? e. involve discharge into; or alteration of , any surface water resulting in reduced water quality, including but not limited to , increased turbidity or dissolved oxygen? 3. Air. Will the project result in: a. substantially increased air emissions or deterioration of X ambient air quality? Appendix C Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study PART I A. Name , location, and brief description of project : Review of the Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve located between the Cities of Saratoga and Cupertino. The review calls for construction of a short section of trail to link existing trails. B. A Description of the environmental setting: The Preserve, located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ad- jacent to the Stevens Creek County Park and Reservoir, encompasses oak- woodland, chaparral , orchards and a cultivated hayfield.- C. The project is/is not compatible with existing zoning and general plans. If not, please explain below: The project is compatible with existing zoning and general plans. D. For identification environmental effects, see attached checklist. (PART II) E. For a discussion of any potential significant effects and ways to mitigate them, if. any, see attached sheets. F. Recommended Action: X Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report G. Persons who prepared this Initial Study: Jon Olson. Land Mana=; Cynthia DiGiovanni , Environmental Analyst —Date.- July 5, 1977 H. Name and Address of proponent: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 745 Distel Dr. , Los Altos, CA 94022 Page four Appendix C (cont.) 8. Circulation/Traffic. Will the project: YES MAYBE NO a. generate substantial additional traffic in the area? A b. generate the use of off-road vehicles of any kind excepting ranger patrol vehicles? X C. require alterations to present circulation patterns? X_ d. have substantial impact on existing road systems? X e. effect existing parking facilities or create a demand for new parking facilities? X f. increase traffic hazards for motor vehicles? bicyclists pedestrians? X 9 . Public Services. Will the project: a. substantially affect a public water supply or sewage disposal system? X b. result in a need for increased fire or police protection? C. cause groundwater pollution as a result of new septic systems? X d. require the expansion or extension of any public utility? X e. require any public service currently operating at or near capacity? X 10. Energy. Will the project: a. cause the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _X 11. Land Use. Will the project : a. result in substantial land use changes that would adversley affect the X population either on or off site? b. serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas , or increase development intensity of already developed areas? X C. vary from adopted an community or county policy. _X ge three Appendix C (cont.) YES MAYBE NO b. the creation of objectionable odors? X C. alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in local or re- gional climate? X d. the creation of dust smoke or fumes or the application of potentially hazardous ma- terials such as herbicides or pesticides? X 4 . Plant and Animal Life. Will the project: a. result in the removal or dis- turbance of any rare or endangered plant or animal? X b. reduce the acreage of any ag- X ricultural crop? C. result in the removal of substantial amounts of vegetation? X d. alter the ecological balance of an environment unit, either on or off site? X e. significantly affect a breeding, feeding, or Nesting area? X f. change the diversity or numbers of any species of plant or animal? X 5. Natural Resources. Will the project : a. involve the removal or depletion of on-site rock, sand, gravel, trees, oil or minerals? X 6. Permit Application. Will the project: a. require the approval of any federal , state, regional or local agency or district? If yes, list below: X 7 . Noise. Will the project: a. increase ambient noise levels, either on or off-site? X Page five Appendix C (cont. ) YES MAYBE NO d. involve lands currently protected under the Williamson Act or an open space easement? X 12. Sociocultural. Will the project: a. result in an alteration of an historic, archeological or paleontological site, structure, object? X b. require the relocation of people or businesses currently on site? X C. obstruct scenic views or create an esthetically offensive site? X Potential Significant Effects* and mitigation Measures 2(d) Trail construction is being done to avoid use of erodible, steeply graded sections of existing unsurfaced roads. Abandonment, then, will improve water absorption rates, drainage patterns and decrease the amount of surface water runoff. 8(e) Parking facilities at the adjacent County Park will be used by a small number of visitors to the Preserve. Since this parking area is located away from heavy use areas and is seldom used now, it should be able to accommodate this slight level of increased traffic of visitors who are using the two areas in conjunction with each other. 11 (d) No actions proposed in this project are contrary to provisions of the Williamson Act. *Mandatory Findings of Significance all listed in Section 15802 and Appendix G of the State Guidelines. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Title of Project Review of the Use and Management Plan for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Description of Project Review of management policies and physical im- provements for 1976 with the following new recommendation for 1977: estab- lishment of an addition to the trail system using existing unsurfaced roads and involving some new trail construction. The undersigned member of the Midpeninsula Regional Park Dis- trict finds that the above project has no significant impact on the environment . I Nate Staff-Member Reasons for Finding Trai 1 construction will be done in order to avoid use of existing erodible, steeply graded portions of existing roads and will result in the removal of an insignificant amount of common chaparral shrub species. Preparation of Study or Environmental Assessment By Cynthia DiGiovanni , Environmental Analyst A copy of the Study or Environmental Aseessment is available at the offices of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District , 745 Distel Drive, Los Altos , California. A copy of this Negative Declaration shall be posted at the District office on the fol- lowing dates : July 22 1977 thru July 27 1977 July 15 , 1977 / Date Di trict ClerX- TO VILLA MARIA l -J /-� ( .� �' •y\ ��� "'r'Bl PARKING AREA rn� U (r"�'y '-may 1 , j STEVENS CREEK\ •. -- - U - - t Contour interval—40 feet.• ■ ' \ _ COUNTY PARK, � t', ..��• � ! . �� `\ / at 36 All 10 1 (���ll , ✓ ■.ter• ��_ �t I_' f NEW FENCE 'LLJ 00 a. 33 . • _,Roo - ��, \• CLLJ 1.4 1.2 f s Fremont Older' Open Space Preserve „ ram+j'4(\ Map of Use and Management Plans ! '' e ape •i+' z i STE •. ....... \ '4 :•o- n..w Hiking Trail a� � /: ,. A E� Hiking/Equestrian Trail (W Trail Connection to Ga rrod o 1 Natural Areas Wr a: o ® Abandoned cars to be removed ) ' F � ® Parking Area � O I l: A Grey House ' B C�QIFJ Adobe ;3 S � 'C'Obff C Fremont Older House � M-77-146 (Meeting 77-19 , Agenda item No. 6) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 22 , 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: S. Norton, Legal Counsel SUBJECT: Conflict of Interest Code Herewith is the Conflict of Interest Code recommended for adoption by the Board of Directors A public hearing is required prior to adoption, and notice has been published in the Palo Alto Times , Redwood City Tribune and the San Jose Mercury. A person in the office of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) advised me the Code could be adopted either by ordinance or resolution, and I have done it by resolution, mainly to avoid the expense of publishing an ordinance. In drafting the Code I had the choice of using the much shorter (and less informative) "model" draft for small districts pro- vided by the FPPC or adhering to the format previously adopted by the Board in Resolution 76-23. 1 chose to do the latter because I thought the Board liked that format, particularly with its Exhibit A. Substantively, there are few changes. The main one is the addition of certain members of staff as "designated positions. " Covered are the General Manager, Land Acquisition Manager, Land Manager, , Legal Counsel, Controller and Land Endowment Specialist (Sec. 1c) . Section 2 has been changed to make clear that an initial filing statement need not include sources of income (e) . The annual filing date is now January (as per FPPC regulations) rather than November (Sec. 2c. ) . There are, I believe, no other substantive changes. Exhibit A, which spells out the rules regarding the three categories of reportable interests, remains unchanged. The new Code will become effective 30 days after by the FPPC. SRN:jg RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974 WHEREAS, the People of the State of California at the statewide primary election of June 4, 1974, approved the Politi- cal Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) which added Title 9 to the Government Code of California and which related, among other things, to regulation of campaign funds, lobbyists, conflicts of interests, and preparation of ballot pamphlets, and WHEREAS, Article 3 (commencing with Section 87300) of Chapter 7 of said Title 9 requires each local agency to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code providing for the disclosure of reportable investments, interests in real property and income: kl� NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve and adopt this Conflict of Interest Code ("Code") , which shall be applicable to all designated positions of the District. This Code has the force and effect of law. Designated positions violating this Code are subject to the sanctions provided in Chapter 11 of the Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 91000, et seq. Section 1. Definitions, As used in this Code, unless the context otherwise clearly implies, the following words and terms shall have the mean- ing set forth herein. a. Business entity. "Business entity" means any organization or enterprise operated for profit, including but not limited to a proprietorship, partnership, firm, business trust, joint venture, syndicate, corporation or association. b. Designated position. "Designated position" means each member of the Board of Directors of the Mid- peninsula Regional Open Space District and each candi- date for election or appointment to such position, including candidates who are incumbents. "Desig- nated position" also means the District General Manager, Land Acquisition Manager , Land Manager, Legal Counsel, Controller and Land Endowment Specialist ("Employees" ) . C. Disclosure statements. "Disclosure statements" means statements disclosing reportable interests re- quired by Section 2 to be filed by designated positions. d. Reportable interests. "Reportable interests" means investments, interests in real property and income required to be disclosed by designated posi- tions as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, where such financial interest may foreseeably be affected materially by any decision made or partici- pated in by the designated position by virtue of his or her position. -2- e. Incorporated definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions contained in the Poli- tical Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000, et seq. , the Regulations of the Fair Poli- tical Practices Commission adopted pursuant thereto, and any amendments to the Act and Regulations are incorporated into this Conflict of Interest Code. Copies of this Code, the Political Reform Act of 1974, and the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission shall be on file with the filing officer (District Clerk) . The filing officer shall supply each designated position with an in- struction manual and statement of economic inter- ests forms. Section 2 . Disclosure a. Disclosure Statements. Each designated posi- tion shall file an initial statement and annual statements thereafter disclosing those reportable interests in the category or categories of real property, investments, and income as set forth in Exhibit "A" , except that an initial statement need not include "Sources of Income" (Category III) . In the event a designated position does not have any such reportable interests, the filing of a statement to that effect shall be sufficient. Such statements shall be filed at the place speci- fied in Section 2 .b and at the times specified in Section 2 . c and shall be in the form specified in -3- Section 2. d. b. Place of Filing. Disclosure statements shall be filed, in the original, with the District Clerk. In the case of Directors, the Clerk shall make and retain a copy of the statement and transmit the original to the code reviewing body (FPPC) within five days of receipt. C. Time of Filing. Initial Statement. Each desig- nated position having reportable interests shall file an initial disclosure statement within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Code. Candidates shall file upon the filing of their nomination papers or their applications to fill a vacancy. All new designated employees shall file statements not less than ten days before assuming office or, if subject to confirmation, ten days before being confirmed, unless an earlier assumption of office is required by emergency circumstances. Annual Statements. Thereafter, each desig- nated position shall file an annual statement during the month of January, disclosing reportable invest- ments in business entities, interests in real property, and income held or received in the period since the closing date of the position' s previously filed state- ment and December 31st, whether or not such report- able interest was disposed of during the reporting -4- IF period and whether or not the designated position filed an initial statement. Leaving Office. Each designated position shall file a disclosure statement within thirty (30) days after leaving a designated position dis- closing his or her reportable interests in real property, investments and income during the period since the previous statement was filed or if none during the previous year. d. Form of Disclosure Statements. Disclosure statements required to be filed hereunder for any category of reportable interests shall be substan- tially in the form approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission and by this Board. Section 3 . Disqualification a. General Rule. A designated position must dis- qualify himself or herself from making or partici- pating in the making of any decisions which will foreseeably have a material financial effect, dis- tinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on any reportable economic interest (except gifts of less than $250) or upon any business entity in which the designated position holds a position of management or is a director, officer, partner, sole owner, trustee, or employee. No designated position shall be prevented from making or participating in -5- the making of any decision to the extent his or her participation is legally required for the decision to be made. b. Financial Interest. As used in this Section, a financial interest means : 1. A direct or indirect interest in real property as described in Exhibit "A" if such interest is worth more than One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000) ; 2. A direct or indirect investment as described in Exhibit "A" if such investment is worth more than One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000) ; 3 . A source of income as described in Exhibit "A" , other than a loan by a commercial lending insti- tution in the regular course of business, if such income aggregates Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) or more in value received by or promised to the designated position within twelve (12) months prior to the time when the decision referred to in Subsection a. is made; or 4. A business entity if the designated position is a director, officer, partner, trustee or employee or holds any position of management therein. For the purpose of this Subsection, indirect investment or interest means any investment or interest owned by the spouse or dependent child -6- of a designated position, by a business entity controlled by the designated position or by a trust in which he or she has a substan- tial interest. A business entity is controlled by a designated position if the designated posi- tion, his or her agent, spouse, and dependent children hold more than fifty persent (50%) of the ownership interest in the entity. A designated position has a substantial interest in a trust when the designated position, his or her spouse and dependent children have a present or future interest worth more than One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000) . Section 4. Effective Date This Code shall take effect following its approval by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and thirty days after approval by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. -7- EXHIBIT A Reportable interests are as follows: CATEGORY I INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY A. Interests in real property are reportable interests if: 1. The real property to which the interest pertains is located in part or in whole (a) within the boundaries of the local agency, (b) within two miles of the boundaries of the local agency, or (c) within two miles of any land located outside of the boundaries of the local agency which is owned or used by the local agency; and 2. The fair market value of the interest of the desig- nated position or his or her spouse is greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000) ; and 3. The interest is either (a) a leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest held by the designated position or his or her spouse, (b) an option held by the desig- nated position or his or her spouse to acquire such an interest, or (c) an interest or option held by a business entity or trust in which the designated position or his or her spouse owns directly, in- directly or beneficially, a ten percent (10%) interest or greater; provided, however, that in the event that the ownership interest of the designated 1 I position or his or her spouse in such business entity or trust is less than fifty percent (50%) , the value, for the purpose of paragraph 2,nof the real property interest or option relates to the value of the pro rata .share of the designated position or his or her spouse in the real property interest or option held by the business entity or trust; and provided further, that in the event that the ownership interest of the desig- nated position or his or her spouse in such business entity or trust is fifty percent (50%) or more, the value, for the purpose of Paragraph 2, of the real property interest or option relates to the entire value of the real property interest or option held by the business entity or trust. w. 4 . An interest in real property which is used principally as the residence of the designated position making the filing shall be disclosed, but the value need not be stated. B. Disclosure statements required to be filed for report- able interests in real property shall contain the following information: 1. The address or other precise location of the real property; 2. A statement of the nature of the interest in the real property; 3 . A statement of whether the fair market value of the interest exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ($10 ,000) and whether it exceeds One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100 ,000) ; and 2 4. in the case of an interest in real property wholly or partially acquired during the period covered by an annual disclosure statement, the date of acqui- sition and, if such interest in such property was disposed of during such period, the date of dis- position. CATEGORY II INVESTMENTS A. Investments in business entities are reportable if: 1. The business entity, including parent corporations, subsidiary corporations or otherwise related business entities (a) has an interest in real property located in part or in whole within the boundaries of the local agency, within two miles thereof or within two miles of land owned or used by the local agency, (b) does business or plans to do business within the local agency, or (c) has done business within the local agency at any time during the two years prior to the time that the disclosure statement of the designated position is filed; and 2. The fair market value of the investment of the designated position or his or her spouse is greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) ; and 3. The investment either (a) is held by the designated position or his or her spouse and constitutes a financial interest in, or security issued by, the business entity, including but not limited to common 3 stock, preferred stock, rights, warrants , options, debt instruments and any partnership or other owner- ship interest; or (b) is held by any business entity i or trust in which the designated position or his or her spouse owns directly, indirectly or beneficially, a ten percent (10%) interest or greater, and consti- tutes a financial interest in, or security issued by, a business entity qualifying under Paragraph 2, above, provided, however, that in the event that the ownership interest of the designated position or his or her spouse in such business entity or trust is less than fifty percent (50%) , the value, for the purpose of Paragraph 2 of the investment relates to the value of the prorata share of the desig- nated position or his or her spouse in the invest- ment held by the business entity or trust; and provided further, that in the event that the ownership interest of the designated position or his or her spouse in such business entity or trust is fifty percent (50%) or more, the value, for the purpose of Paragraph 2 of the investment relates to the entire value of the investment held by the business entity or trust. An investment is not reportable if it constitutes a time or demand deposit in a financial institu- tion, a share in a credit union, an insurance policy, or a bond or other debt instrument issued by any government or government agency. 4 B. Disclosure statements required to be filed for report- able investments in business entities shall contain the following information: 1. The name and address of the business entity in which each investment is held; 2. A general description of the business activity in which the business entity is engaged; 3. A statement of the nature of the investment; 4 . A statement of whether the fair market value of the investment exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and whether it exceeds One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) ; and 5. In the case of investments wholly or partially acquired during the period covered by an annual dis- closure statement, the date of acquisition and, if such interest in such property was disposed of during such period, the date of disposition. CATEGORY III SOURCES OF INCOME A. Sources of income are reportable if: 1. The source of income was either (a) a business entity located or doing business as described in Category II , A, 1; (b) an individual residing within the local agency; or (c) a nonprofit association or nonprofit corporation having its principal place i of business within the local agency; and 2. Either (a) the aggregate amount of income received 5 by the designated position or his or her spouse from the source during the period covered by the disclosure statement was Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) or more in value, or (b) if the income was a gift received by the designated position or his or her spouse from the source during the period covered by the disclosure statement, the value of the gift was Twenty-five Dollars ($25) or more; and 3: The income was either received by (a) the designated position or his or her spouse, or (b) received by any business entity or trust in which the designated position or his or her spouse owns, directly, indirectly, or beneficially, a ten percent (10%) interest or greater, provided, however, that in the event that the income is received by a business entity described in this Paragraph (b) , the value, for the purpose of Paragraph 2, of the income relates to the prorata share of the desig- nated position or his or her spouse in the income of the business entity or trust. Income includes, except to the extent excluded by this subsection, income of any nature from any source, including but not limited to any salary, wage, advance, payment, dividend, interest, rent, capital gain, return of capital, gift (including any gift of food or beverage) , loan, forgiveness or payment of indebtedness, discount in the price of anything of value unless the discount is available to members 6 of the public without regard to official status, rebate, reimbursement of expenses, per diem, or contribution to an insurance or pension program paid by any person other than an employer. Income does not include: (1) campaign contri.bu- tions required to be reported under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 84100) of Title 9 of the Government Code; (2) salary and reimbursement for expenses or per diem received from a state or local government agency and reimbursement for travel expenses and per diem received from a bona fide educational, academic or charitable organization; (3) gifts of informational material, such as books, pamphlets, reports, calendars, or periodicals; (4) gifts which are not used and which, within thirty days after receipt, are returned to the donor or delivered to a charitable organization without being claimed as a charitable contribution for tax purposes; (5) gifts from an individual's spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, or first cousin or the spouse of any such person; provided that a gift from any such person shall, be considered income if the donor is acting as agent or inter- mediary for any person not covered by this para- graph (5) ; (6) any devise or inheritance; (7) interest, dividends or premiums on a time or 7 demand deposit in a financial institution, shares in a credit union or any insurance policy, payments received under any insurance policy, or any bond or other debt instrument issued by any government or, government agency; and (8) dividends, interest oar, any return on a security which is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States Government. B. Disclosure statements required to be filed for reportable sources of income shall contain the following information: for all reportable income since the previous statement was filed or, if none, during the previous year. 1. The name and address of each source of income; 2. A general description of the business activity, if any, of each source; 3. A statement whether the aggregate value of income from each source was greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) , and whether it was greater than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) ; 4. A description of the consideraiton, if any, for which the income was reciived; 5. In the case of income constituting a gift, the amount and the date on which the gift was received; 6. In the case of income of a business entity, in which the designated position or his or her spouse owns a ten percent (10%) interest 8 I or more: (1) Name and address and a general description of the business activity of the business { entity; (2) If such business entity provides legal or brokerage services, the name of every natural person, nonprofit association or corporation and business entity who paid fees to such business entity if the prorates share of the designated position or his or her spouse of such fees was One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) or more; and (3) If such business entity does not provide legal or brokerage services, the name of every natural person nonprofit association or corporation, and business entity from whom such business entity received payments if the prorata share of the designated position or his or her spouse of gross receipts from such person, nonprofit association or corporation, or business entity was Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) or more during any calendar year partially or wholly covered by the disclosure statement being filed. M-77-141 (Meeting 77-19, AA Agenda item No. 7) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 18, 1977 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Scheduling of Meeting with San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission On June 22, 1977 the possibility was discussed for an informal, get-acquainted meeting with the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission with members of their Board of Super- visors invited. Since the Commission normally meets the third Thursday of each month for a field trip, it is suggested that Thursday, September 15 be set for the get-together. The plan would be to meet from noon to approximately 2: 00 P .M. with individuals bringing picnic lunches to a site such as the Filoli estate. HG:jg Revised C-77-15 July 27, 1977 Meeting 77-19 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT C L A I M S # Amount Name Description 3404 $ 60.00 Taxwise Giving Subscription 3405 28 .81 Diversified Transportation Parcel Service 3406 32.80 Palo Alto Printing Printing-Business Cards 3407 2,080.00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services 3408 18.00 Kelly Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help 3409 12,278 .00 J. J. Taylor & Associates, Inc. Contract-Permanente Creek 3410 480.00 Phoebe Skidmore Maps-Master Plan 3411 12.00 Walther's Tile & Floor .Co. Carpet Service-Permanente Creek �3412 85.00 Sam Skropanich Discing-Picchetti Ranch I13413 272.28 County of Santa Clara District Vehicle Expense 3414 205.13 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense 3415 101.23 Mobil Oil Corporation District Vehicle Expense 3416 83.06 Ford International Publications Advertising 3426 26. 95 Herbert Grench Meal Conferences 3419 13.40 Jon Webster Field Supplies-Ranger Uniforms 3420 49 .94 Pacific Telephone Co. Telephone Service 3421 10.35 Palo Alto Times Advertising 3422 22.40 P. G. & E. Utilities-Permanente Creek 3423 385.49 I. B. M. Maintenance Agreement-Typewrite 3424 22.50 Redwood City Tribune Advertising 3425 29 .88 San Jose Mercury-News Advertising .3427 709.18 State Compensation Insurance Additional Premium-W/C Insuranc 3428 22.10 Uno Graphics Printing 3429 830 .00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Insurance-Permanente Creek 3430 932.14 J. J. Taylor & Associates, Inc. Contract- Permanente Creek 3431 635. 21 Xerox Corporation Duplicating Expense 3432 3 . 41 Peninsula Blueprint Service Maps & Mapping 3433 6 . 68 Diversified Transportation Parcel Service 3434 50 .00 Ellis L. Jacobs Inspection-Corporation Yard 3444 131.79 Petty .Cash Meal Conferences, Maps/Mapping, Private Vehicle Expense, Library Office Supplies & Field Supplies