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