Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19780222 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 78-05 Meeting 78-5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors A G E N D A February 22 , 1978 7 : 30 P.M. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA (7 : 3 0) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 25 and February 8, 1978 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (7 : 45) 1. Proposed Addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Stanford Property) - H. Grench (a) Report (b) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Agreement to Pur- chase Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Neces- sary or Appropriate to Closing of the Trans- action (Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Addition - Stanford Property) (8: 05) 2. Progress Report on Use and Management of the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve - J. Olson (8 : 20) 3. Progress Report on Use and Management of the Costanoan Way Open Space Preserve - J. Olson (8: 25) 4. Addition to Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands - J. Olson (8 : 40) 5. ABAG Draft Environmental Management Plan - A. Crosley (over) Meeting 78-5 Page two INFORMATIONAL REPORTS (9: 0 0) CLAIMS EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations ADJOURNMENT WRITTEN-11COM-MUNICATION -----TMeef1ryg - Department of Environmental Management BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Parks and Recreation Division EDWARD J. BACCIOCCO, JR. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOSEPH J. HIGGINS DAMES V. FITZGERALD SYLVIA LEUTZ FRED LYON JOEL W.SCHRECK WILLIAM H. ROYER ROBERT C.WHITMORE JOHN M. WARD HENRY YEE COUNTYOF SAN MATEO DIRECTORDUANE "DOC" MATTISON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER - REDWOOD CITY - CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 364-5600 EXT. 2486 February 14, 1978 Directors and Staff Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Suite D-1 Los Altos, Ca 94022 Gentlemen: The members of the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission wish to thank you for inviting them to your offices in Los Altos and for your gracious reception. Enclosed is a copy of the memo dated February 3, 1978, that was sent to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. We were very pleased to be able to inform the Board of our meeting and of our desire to work cooperatively with the district. We look forward to meeting with you again soon. Cor ially, Joel W. Schreck, Chairman Parks and Recreation Commission JWS:bl Enclosure cc: Parks and Recreation Commission A. H. Colman, Director, Environmental Management D. Mattison, Director, Parks and Recreation f COUNTY OF SAN MATEO INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE February 3, 1978 TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Joel W. Schreck, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission P/J), SUBJECT: MEETING WITH MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT On January 18, 1978, Directors and staff of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Commissioners and the Director of Parks and Recreation met in Los Altos to discuss effective cooperation, coordi- nation and mutual interests. _ t 9 y 9 I was agreed that the Count and the District should work together on acquisitions, operations and planning in their area of mutual jurisdiction. JS:bi Enclosure - Minutes of Meeting cc: Parks and Recreation Commission A. H. Colman, Director, Environmental Management j D. Mattison, Director, Parks and Recreation WRITTE14 CO UIL;NICATION (Meeting 78--5) Office of City Clerk Redwood P.0. Middlefield Road P.O. Box 468 o�yUB�I�OP0�8 Redwood City, California 94064 Telephone (415) 369-6251 Foamed 1810 February 13, 1978 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , California Gentlemen: Our City Council has requested that we inquire as to whether it might be possible for you to send us your agenda a few days before the regular meetings of the Board of Directors. As a member City, we are very interested in many of the items to be considered, but the earliest your agenda ever reaches us is the day before your meeting which does not allow sufficient time for us to notify each of our busy Council members. Knowing the date of your regular meetings is of no particular help, since it is the items to be considered which may be of concern to us. Also, we might mention that on several occasions your notices of special meetings have reached us after the meetings. A packet is hand delivered to each of our Council members on Friday afternoons , and we would very much appreciate it, if you would get your agendas to us so that they could be included in the packet. I am sure you will agree that our City Councilmen are entitled to reasonable notice of your regular meetings , and, perhaps , when you have a special meeting you could notify us by telephone rather than send us a notice which arrives after the meeting has occurred. If there is any assistance we might be able to give you in this regard, please do not hesitate to call . Very truly yours, 4 - P, 4z&�� ueline C. Hildebrand jy CLERK cc: City Council City Manager City Attorney DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT V. All fteme MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 February 23, 1978 Ms. Jacqueline C. Hildebrand City Clerk City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 96064 Dear Ms. Hildebrand: Thank you for your letter of February 13, 1978 , which expresses a problem which is common for most public agencies - receiving timely notice of the meetings of other jurisdictions. I understand from our staff that the Dis- trict office often does not receive agendas from other agencies, including Redwood City, until the day of the meet- ing or the day after. Unfortunately, it appears that the responsibility usually belongs to the U.S. Postal Service, an entity over which we have no control. Because our agenda is not prepared until the Friday prior to our regular Wednesday Board meetings, we would not be able to get the agenda to you in time for your packet mailing. However, our Board has an adopted policy whereby any interested elected official from another public agency may request that he or she be placed on our agenda mailing list, free of charge. Our staff could mail the agenda directly to the official 's home address, where it would probably be received on the Saturday or the Monday prior to a Board meet- ing. The offer is effective for as long as an individual is an elected public official. I would appreciate your forwarding this information to your Councilmembers. Please let our office know if any of them would like to receive individual mailings, and we would be happy to accommodate the requests. Sincerely yours, Harry A. Turner President, Board of Directors HAT:jg 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 Weridin WRITTEN COMMUNICATION (Meeting 78�-5) February 14 , 1978 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Los Altos , California 94022 TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE STAFF: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1978, from Stanley R. Norton, your legal advisor, in answer to my earlier letter raising questions about fire protection and the District's actions in the eviction and bulldozing at The Land on Page Mill Road. I want to begin a rather long reply on a rather positive note. My neighbor, Ms. Winter Sojourner, tells me that her meeting with Jon Olsen about cooperation between the District and the neighbors of District land in the Page Mill area was cordial and productive. We all hope that this atmosphere will continue and produce some results. Most of all, we hope that it is a sign that we can cooperate with our biggest, most powerful neighbor. This is especially important to us because many of us feel that we must press the District hard about the way in which it has acted in the past in its dealings with residents and neighbors of the land it has acquired. We feel that the District must realize that the area involved may indeed by "open space", but that it is occupied by fairly large numbers of people who have rights to be zealously guarded. The issue of the arson investigation seems dead. It apparently didn't amount to much. Let me turn to the serious matters surrounding the acquisition of The Land. The Board assured me in an open meeting that it had instructed the staff to act as it did in acquiring The Land from the Burns family. I believe that some staff members, probably acting through realator David Jannsen, told the Burns' that the Residents would have to be evicted from The Land before the sale could close. I have reluctantly come to the feeling that there existed among the District's Directors and staff, or at least some members thereof, a conspiracy joined in by the Burns family, their attorneys Frank Lee(Skip) Crist, Jr. and Chilton H. Lee, and realtor David Jannsen to have the residents of the Land evicted from the property during the time the Burns' ostensibly held title to the property. As you know, her title was based on a lower court ruling since reversed by the First District Court of Appeals. I further suspect that all the parties realized that the issue of ownership of The Land, and thus the status of the Residents, was in grave doubt and that the parties I named above fought a costly legal battle to force the eviction before the appellate court could rule that the Residents' host, Donald Eldridge, did indeed have a substantial interest in The Land. It is certain that this path led to the eviction of some fifty adults and ten children at the beginning of the harshest winter rainy season in years, and finally to the shameful bulldozing of some twenty- seven homes painstakingly built by The Land community and of valuable buildings February 14, 1978 MROSD page two in which Donald Eldridge is now ruled to have had a substantial interest. Mr. Norton, I concede that the appeals court ruling is long and often confusingly phrased, but I find its intent quite clear. I quote from page two: ".. .the trial court erred in not recognizing that the buyer was entitled to some equitable relief to prevent a forfeiture and undue enrichment of seller, and in failing to enjoin a sale of the whole property without so providing. The judgment is reversed." And I see it clearly implied that the District does not indeed even now hold valid title to The Land in this quote, among others, from page 62: "As an alternative, the court. . .may order the sale under the deed of trust to be set aside and order a resale of the property." In any case, it is clear that the foreclosure and auction sale through which the Burns family acquired its dubious title was invalid because Burns owned at most 359 acres, or about 60% of the area, and Eldridge the remaining 241 or about 40%, with the question of who owned which acres totally unclear. Anyone who, as I did, followed the legal battles about the stauts of The Land Residents, who claimed they were guests of Eldridge, saw that the basic affirmative argument of the Residents, i.e. the clouded ownership, was disallowed by Judge John Kennedy in the eviction trial and ignored by Judge David Leahy in the relocation rights trial. The only real question decided in each case was whether Burns had legally served the residents with a three-day notice to leave. These narrow decisions are made farcical by the appellate court ruling that Burns did not have title. I have shown the Deed of Trust, in which Burns in 1968 sold the entire property to Eldridge, to several lawyers. They agree with me that the language of the final release clause is unambiguous. It provides that for each $3000 paid by Eldridge, he was to receive on demand one acre contiguous to the 150 acres he had been given for his down payment. Every attorney I talked to before the reversal told me that Judge Marshall Hall's lower court ruling was inexplicable and almost certain to be overturned. Could it be that so eminent a counsel as Mr. Norton did not read that language and conclude, as did my advisors, that 40% of The Land belonged to the man who allowed the Residents to live as caretakers of The Land? Or did some members of the staff and/or Board see a chance to buy The Land before an appeal could be heard and have the Burns family deal with the unfortunate Residents? It seems likely that at some level of the District a secret decision was taken to encourage Burns to evict the Residents, then to buy the Land at a price that left Burns with a profit of over one and a half million dollars. This method of dealinghad the effect of seeming to free the District of the responsibilty of obeying the California laws that call for substantial relocation benifits for the Residents. These laws, in fact, call for you to build replacement housing, if necessary, in a comparable nearby area. February 14, 1978 MROSD page three Did the District not fear that the law would force it to negotiate an arraingment with the Residents that would allow them to build their own replacment housing either on some small part of the Land itself or on nearby comparable land? The decision to allow the Burns family to do the District's dirty work meant that the wants, the needs, the rights, the simple humanity of my closest friends were bulldozed into rubble. A remarkable, long lasting, loving, creative community of highly gifted and very stubborn poor people was driven out into the road by armed police and were left without a single raised hand of help. No offer of housing, money, or help of any kind came from anyone connected with the District, with the police or with the authorities of any sort. None of you spoke to ask what had become of these young people and their children after they had been driven out in old cars and trucks filled with their small possesions. Perhaps at some level of your minds you did not want to know that they had to go to their friends, to crowd into tiny houses, were forced to sleep, as some still do, in trucks or in tents in the rain. These people were driven out of the area, away from their community, itself almost destroyed. Ironically, the group was left owing thousands of dollars in its losing fight to prove that they were bona-fide residents at the very moment they were upheld in their basic contentions by the appellate court. "You're right," said the high judges. "Sorry, we can't help you," said the District. And the result of your policy of encouraging the eviction without a single serious meeting with the Residents? The District had to pay Burns some $800, 000 more for the property than the price negotiated about a year earlier. If the District had dealt honestly with theResidents in the first place, a modest investment would have actually saved the taxpayers of the District some three- quarters of a million dollars that is going to line the Burns' already fat pockets. Everyone on the hill knew what was happening to property values in the area during the period the Burns family was attempting to evict the legal Residents. If your staff did not, then I find it guilty of gross negligence. I believe there is a clear pattern in which the District staff identifies highly attractive parcels of land and offers the owner a sale with the proviso that any occupants be gotten rid of before the sale. Certainly Ina Dahl, a nearby landowner, was told precisely this and did, under pressure from your staff, evict Starr and Connie McCamant, thus unknowingly allowing you to cheat them of their right,to live in comparable nearby housing at reasonable cost. Now the staff has put shameless, blatant pressure on Mrs. Lori McNeil to cut off water and easy access to the remaining Residents of the 150 acres of the "Eldridge" property. Thank God for the rain. Would you have done this during the fire season? As closely as I can peice together from people who spoke to Mrs. McNeil before she realized the matter might reach the press, the following happened on a Mondaylate in January. Mrs. McNeil received three phone calls from members of the District staff, Mr. Olsen, Craig Britton and apparently the head Ranger. The gist of these calls seems to have been this; though all remaining resdients had agreed to sign waivers of damages resulting from the long standing practice of allowing customers of Lori's Stables to ride on the "Eldridge" acreage and on the rest of I February 14, 1978 MROSD page four The Land, the District's insurance required that she not use the area untill all remaining residents were driven off. It was apparently openly suggested that she could speed this moments arrival by cutting off all support for the Residents, including denying them use of her driveway access to their homes during the rainy season and by cutting of their water supply. Mrs. McNeil, apparently already in some financial difficulty after the loss of half her new riding arena in a wind storm, and obviously wanting to use the Land for her business, promptly complied with this District blackmail. Aside from have grave doubts about the use of District Land for a commercial business, I feel this incident illustrates your whole approach. The District connives to evict poor people, constantly uses others to do its dirty work, and then plans to allow those wealthy enough to use The Land on horseback, even while it is still closed to those of us who go on foot. In any case, it is illegal in California to cut off utilities to force an eviction, and I do not feel it more admirable that you pressed a financially troubled business woman to do this sort of garbage for you. To you Board members especially I want to say that if you believe any substantial part of what I say is true, then you have been involved to some extent in perpretrating a grave injustice. I trust you now will surely, as honorable servants of the people, move at once and vigorously to right this wrong. If you simply agree with me that the Appeals Court ruling indicates the Residents very likely had legal status as tenants, or even that the title was clouded, then you must order your staff to meet at once with the Residents to negotiate a settlement to restore them to the rightful state they enjoyed before you helped to destroy their houses and their community. Some of us have formed an ad hoc group, "Friends of the Land", to continue this fight. We to are poor, but less poor than our sisters and brothers of the Land, and like them we are stubborn. Our resolve is simple. We will simply ask that you all talk together and provide us with a full and honest answer to the questions I have appended in a separate document. It will be evident that they echo the "conspiracy theory" outlined here. If there was no such collusion, then your honest answers will convince me and all people of good will, and I will publicly apologize to all of you in great sincerity. But we believe you have a legal and moral obligation to answer any and all questions with total candor and we will insist that you do so. Should we remain convinced that an injustice was done, and you do nothing to right it, we will commit ourselves to a continuing,all-out-effort campaign to fight it. We will use publicity, demonstrations, litigation, persuasion, the whole range of "Satyagraha" , Gandhi ' s "Truth-Seeking", and will be persistent to the level of seeking to replace members of the board if neccesary. February 14, 1978 MROSD page five I am nearly through with this letter. I am sorry it is long, but the matter must be stated somewhere clearly and the issues are complicated if essentially simple. I do want to comment on the paragraphs numbered one,two and three on the second page of your letter. The claims of the Land residents for relocation are being processed under the District's adopted guidlines On the previous page, you say that the Residents have no rights whatever, and that reversal or no, you will give them nothing. It was about here in reading your reply that I began to get angry. 112. To the best of our knowledge neither the District nor its personnel participated in the filing of charges against the six people whom you say were arrested for trespassing." This is a carefully hedged half truth that has the effect of a lie. This is what I can prove happened. On December 1, 1977, the Burns family, their lawyer, Chilton Lee, with Mr. Olsen and other members of the District staff and board, along with bulldozers (hired by the District without public bidding or public notice of any kind, and operating under a press blackout), were present at the bulldozing, protected by eight Palo Alto policemen. The armed group was ordered by someone unknown to us. Was it the Burns family or District staff? When the.destruction of a house in a disputed area was ordered, while it was still occupied by a man, woman and child, five residents, including the child's father, sat on the roof to try to save the house. Chilton Lee ordered the police to arrest the Residents and drag them off to jail. The police say they were instructed (by whom?) to do so only after the assurance of Mr. Olsen that the house was indeed on what Burns claimed was his property. Mr. Lee used a erroneous, perhaps falsified,map prepared by District staff as "proof", though the line has never been surveyed. Police then asked the bulldozer operator to help them in moving the residents off the roof. His boss, hired by you, and apparently instructed by Mr. Olsen, told the driver to cooperate. Mr. Olsen offered the use of a District four-wheel drive vehicle to carry two of the Residents up the hill, and indeed drove the vehicle himself. All this was done in total secrecy, to the surprize of the Residents and the anger of local reporters who had earlier covered the story. This was clearly a newsworthy event and it was hushed up by your staff, for obvious reasons - No one in the District wanted to see newspaper and television coverage of your bulldozers in their naked brutality. You yourselves, I suspect, wanted to ignore the ugly reality of it. February 14, 1978 MI1OSD page six Everyone involved at the time knew that the District had already bought the 150 "Eldridge" acres and that in a very short time, a simple three-day notice would have driven off Daniel, Phyliss and their little son Simon in a less dramatic fashion. The 600 acres is still not open to the public months later. Why this unholy haste to trample people? I think someone wanted it to be impossible for the residents to move back during the rainy season once the appellate court had ruled them to have been legal residents. 113. Relocation claims have been filed on behalf ofthe residents of the 150 acre parcel ("Eldridge property") and are currently being processed in accordance with the District's Guidlines.11 This is surpassing hypocrisy. Those few Residents still hanging on at the 150 "Eldridge" acres have been harrassed constantly and have no confidence whatever that they will be treated fairly. You haven't treated the Land people or Mrs. Dahl's tenants fairly so why should they believe you now? A few days after I received your letter, I learned of the phone calls to Mrs. McNeil andof her cutting off the water supply to a legally parked bus on the "Eldridge" 150 acres. Guess who was living in and caretaking the bus at the time? Daniel, Phyliss and their baby. You have not followed the due process of law in trying to evict these remaining Residents ". . .being duly processed," etc. Instead you have resorted to illegal, repugnant and disgusting tactics and have ended by persecuting an innocent family beyond bearing. These people must be made whole before this scandal will go away. I hope you now understand the revulsion that so many of us feel about the things that have been done. I trust you will answer me fully and openly. I'm sure you will be sorry to learn I now must work onWednesday nights and will usually be unable to come to your meetings to continue our discussion of this issue. But on February 22, 1978, 1 can and I and other "Friends of the Land" formally ask that an agenda item be scheduled early in the evening to discuss whether or not you will instruct your staff to answer fully my appended list of questions. It is still possible to solve this without further strife or litigation. Long live the Land, 7) Ptrusha Obluda 31570 Page Mill Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 February 14, 1978 MROSD page seven P.S. Jon Olsen, I couldn't help commenting on the Palo Alto Times story of February 9, 1978, quoting you about your proposal to graze cattle on District property. You say that waste products would not produce offensive odors. Well, I spent two years in a tipi in the little back meadow when Mr. Archibald ran too many cows on the Land. They kept the grass short, alright, very short indeed. They caused massive erosion, fouled the springs, and when the herd moved into my meadow, I had a full day's work driving them out and shoveling up the cow dung. Believe me, Jon, they really stank bad and millions of flies bred in them. And Nonette Hanko couldn't even get a second for "maybe". The cattle are another bad idea. APPENDED LIST OF QUESTIONS I . DEFINITION OF TERMS In this series of questions references to local places, persons, and events shall be understood as follows: The Land is both the actual 750 acres at 32100 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, onced owned in its entirity by Donald Eldridge, as well as the community that existed with Eldridge's acceptance on the acreage from about September of 1971 to the eviciton of the Land Residents in October of 1977, and the bulldozing of its buildings on December 1, 1977. The exact meaning will be evident by context. The "Eldridge" acreage will refer to the 150 acres on Sadahna Ridge, retained by Eldridge throughout the litigation over title as recompense for his down payment on the Land. The so-called "Burns" property will refer to the 600 acres of the Land acquired by the Burns family in the name of Alyce Lee Burns at an auction sale June 11, 1976, held at the order of Judge Marshall Hall of the Santa Clara Superior Court, reversed by the District Court of Appeals in January of 1978. This ruling that the ruling of the lower court was error invalidates the foreclosure auction and returns the case to lower court to insure that Eldridge is fully compensated for the payments he made on the Land, payments that entitle him to about a 40% interest in the 600 acres. Exactly who holds title to what part of this 600 acres is left to be decided by the lower court. This appellate court ruling will be called the reversal. The Burns family refers to Alyce Lee and Emmett R. Burns Sr., her husband, and their sons, Brian, Owen (Skeet) and Emmett Jr., though the papers involved are all in the name of Mrs. Burns. The District means the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. The Board means its board of directors, and the staff means the obvious. Eldridge is Donald F. Eldridge. II. THE NEGOTIATIONS ABOUT ACQUIRING THE LAND At any time prior to the purchase agreement of March 21, 1977, in which the Board agreed to buy the Land from Burns, conditional upon the Burns clearing the Land of the Residents, was the acquisition of the Land and the status of its Residents discussed in any secret meetings? at any time? Were these two matters discussed in any non open meetings of the staff? Were they discussed in any open or non open meeting of the staff and some or all members of the Board? In any non-open or open meeting of the staff and/or Board members and any of the following: The Burns family, any of their attorneys, especially Mr. Frank Lee (Skip) Crist jr. , Mr. Chilton Lee, or any of their partners or associates? With real estate salesman David Jannsen or any of his partners or associates? List of Questions page two Did not some members of the Burns family meet with members of the Staff and/or Board in the Spring of 1974 to discuss the District's buying the Land? Who was present? What was discussed? What agreements, if any, were made? On July 2, 1976 did not some member of the Burns family call Herbert Grench of the Staff to see if the District was interested in buying the Land which the family had just "reacquired? Mr. Grench testified in the relocation hearing before the Hon. David Leahy of the Santa Clara Superior Court that he had told the Burns' that the District was not particularly interested in the Land, that it was merely one of several pieces of property the District was interested in. He produced a memorandum to back up this interpretation. Was not this memo actually written as a "cover" of his position by Grench much later? Edward Jaynes, then Land Acquisition Mamager and assistant General Manager, has testified that the Land was indeed the key property in the District's acquisition plans and had long been coveted by members of Board and Staff alike. Didn't Daniel Wendin, then President of theBoard, say in a public meeting in 1977 that the acquisition of the Land would be looked on in the future as "indeed, the key acquisition of the District"? Which of these stories is true? At the time the Burns' first opened discusions with the staff, whatever date that might have been, were not the staff and Board aware of the existence of the Land Community? Were there any discussions of the Residents' status or their relocation rights? Was the District counsel Y Stanle Norton or John Tallett, asked for a legal opinion on the matter? If so, when? And what was his opinion? If he was not asked, why not? Was the Staff aware at any time after that phone call that the Burns family had given an exclusive listing of the Land to the East Bay real estate firm of Cartwright & Snyder? Or that the firm had advertised the Land for sale to private buyers in the East and Southwest in largenewspaper ads? Did the Staff contact the firm about buying the property? Was the matter discussed by Staff and/or Board at this time, roughly July through December 1976? What was happening to property values�in the area at this time? Was the Staff studying this rapid increase in land values and trying to protect the taxpayers of tie District against having to pay inflated prices for the Land later? If Mr. Grench and his staff were truly not particularly interested in the Land at that time and did indeed not contact the real estate firm or the Burns family during this time of unprecedented increases in property values, is this not evidence of gross negligence on their part? Did not in January of 1977, immediately after the Cartwright & Snyder exclusive listing had expired, real estate salesman David Jannsen approach the Curns family, and did he not say that he represented the District which now wished to acquire the property? Did he not tell the Burns' that they would have to rid the Land of the approximately 60 Residents before the sale could close? J List of Questions page three Did there not then follow a meeting between some members of the Burns family and the District and Jannsen in January of 1977? A meeting at which the acquisition of the Land and the disposal of its Residents were discussed? Who attended this meeting? What were the basic details of the discussion? Did not David Jannsen serve as real estate agent for the sale of several peices of property to the District during the period of some two years prior to this meeting? Who did he represent in these sales, the District or the sellers? Were the meetings in these earlier sales between the sellers and the District in- itiated by the District or the sellers? What was Jannsen's relationship with the District? Did he not describe himself in one meeting between the Staff and Mrs. Dahl as representing the District? If so, was he telling the truth? What commissions were paid Jannsen in the sales in which he took part? In the sale of the so-called "Burns property"? Why were his services needed in any of these sales? Could not the District have merely advertised that it was interested in buying certain property and have invited the owners to deal directly with the District, thus saving the taxpayers Jannsen's commission? Is this not especially true in the Burns case where the family had already expressed interest in selling the Land to the District? Why was it necessary to have Jannsen intervene and secure a large commission? What did Jannsen do to deserve a commission in this sale? Did he pass along a message to the Burns' that the Land must be rid of its Residents before the District would buy the property? Did not every sale that Jannsen took part in contain a condition that sellers were required to have their property vacant of possible claimants to relocation benifits under California law? Was this a settled Board policy and if so, when was it iscussed and voted on? In public or in secret? If not, how do you explain Jannsen's testimony that the District had told him there were to be no occupants? Who set up the meeting between the Burns and tTannsen? What was discussed? Was the matter of the Residents talked about? Who set up the meeting of February of 1977, between the Burns family and the Staff and Jannsen? Who was present? What was discussed? Was the matter of the Residents not settled at this meeting? If not, how did the agreement of March 21, 1977, between the Burns family and the District, come to include the clause requiring the Burns family to get rid of the Residents before selling the property? All the foregoing aside, did not the presence of this clause clearly constitute a conspiracy to evade the California relocation statutes? Do not these laws require entities like the District, which have the right of eminent domain, to help relocate residents of acquired property? In fact, to find them comparable replacement housing in the area, and even to help them build housing as a matter of last resort if such comparable housing is not available? Is it not fair to say that the Board and Staff were aware that the Residents, if their claim to have legal status as tenants were upheld, would be entitled to extensive relocation rights and benifits? And that the Board and Staff arrainged with the Burns family, their lawyers and with real estate salesman David Jannsen to complete the sale only after the Burns family had evisted the Residents? List of Questions page four Did not Emmett Burns, Sr. , at one meeting with the Staff and Jannsen, object vehemently to having to stand the expense and trouble of pursuing the eviction? Did the Staff tell Burns, in effect, that he must consider this as part of his expenses of sale? At any time did the staff of Board discuss the effect on the District's public image if it were to be directly involved in a messy eviction of 60 poor people? Would not such involvment, in fact, have been very harmful to public confidence in the Board and Staff? Could consideration of this matter have been ignored if the District had any conscionable concern for the area and its constituents? If such matters were not considered by the Staff and/or Board, would not this constitute a failure by the Staff and Board to do their proper job? Isn't it absurd to believe this factor could conceivably not habe been discussed? HL ACQUISITION OF THE DAHL PROPERTY In buying the former Dahl property, across Page Mill Road from the Land, did not the District staff inform Mrs. Dahl verbally and include a clause in the agreement to purchase her property to the effect that she must first clear the property of her tenants? Did she not then ask the tenants, Starr and Connie McCamant, to leave? Did the Staff at any time inform Mrs. Dahl, or her tenants, that the tenants would be entitled to relocation benifits if they were to remain on the property until the sale was complete? Did not this device of forcing the seller to remove the tenants effectively deprive them of their relocation rights under CaliforniR law? IV. PLIGHT OF THE LAND RESIDENTS Did the Staff or Board ever meet with any members of the Land community at any time to discuss their status on the Land? Or to tell them that they might possibly have relocation rights if the Land were bought by the Distric tunder certain circumstances? In fact, did the Staff or Board ever meet with the Residents to discuss the proposed sale or their status at any time? Did not the Residents repeatedly ask for such a meeting and did not the District evade or refuse their pleas to know their fate? V. DEALINGS WITH ELDRIDGE In discussions between the Staff and Eldridge in 1974, held for the purpose of negotiating a sale of the Land to the District, did not the staff insist that Eldridge evict the Residents or pay for their relocation himself? Did he not refuse? Did this not cause the collapse of negotiations? What was the price being negotiated? In attempting to acquire the 150 acres of the "Eldridge" property, did not the Staff insist that Eldridge evict the Residents on that part of the Land, and did not he refuse? In light of the statements made to me by the Board Chairman Daniel Wendin in an open meeting in December of 1977 and seconded by other Board members, that the Staff had acted throughout this affair under direct in- structions from the Board, when and where did the Board discuss the Eldirdge tenant removal? When was the staff instructed to press Eldridge to evict his tenants? List of Questions page five The same questions apply to the clauses in the Burns and Dahl contracts as well. Please explain this to me in light of your assurances to me in the December meeting that the Staff had not simply acted on its own, but under direct instructions from the Board. VI. THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSAL During the period of negotiations over the so-called "Burns" property, were any members of the Board or Staff aware that the lower court decision on the issue of ownership of the Land was under appeal? That many independent lawyers felt that reversal was likely? (This indeed occured as predicted and pleaded by the Residents and their attorneys publicly and in court.) Did anyone ask the staff counsel's opinion of the likelyhood of Burns' title to the property being overturned? If none of these things happened, why not? Was any Staff or Board member aware of the basic affirmative defense offered by the Residents in their evicton trial before the Hon. John Kennedy, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge? (a claim that the title was, to say the least, clouded, and that a ruling on the appeal was due by the end of 1977) this defense was not allowed by Judge Kennedy or in the later relocation hearing before Judge David Leahy, but did not its advocacy by the Residents' lawyers serve notice to the District that there was at least a good chance that there would be a reversal by the end of the year? That such a reversal would, and in fact has strongly implied, that the Residents were indeed accurate in hteir claim to status as tenants and caretakers for Eldridge, who is now ruled to have a "substantial interest" in the 600 acres of the Land? Did any one, at any time, on the Staff or Board ver discuss in spoken words or writing what such a reversal would mean to the District in terms of its obligation to obey the relocation law? Did not simple prudence dictate that this possiblity be discussed? Did not simple humanity dictate that since the lives of sixty people and the future of their entire community might well depend on this reversal and the District's attitude toward their claims for relocation benifits, the matter must be discussed? Did anyone on the Staffor Board ever decide that it was all much simpler to let Burns handle the evictions by inserting the famous "Residents must go" clause in the agreement to buy the 600 acres? Was the Staff so instructed by the Board? The Board says the staff acted under its direct instructions. When was the Staff instructed to insist on this clauge in the Burns and Eldridge negotiations despite their strong objections? Or was this all simply standard District policy as evidenced in the Dahl and other sales? If so, when and by whom was this policy effected and how was the staff instructed? List of Questions page six VII. THE DECEMBER 1, 1977 BULLDOZING At any time did anyone on the Board or Staff discuss the possibility that the Residents might decide to move back into their vacant homes and buildings after the reversal? If not, why was this possibility not forseen and discussed as a.matter of prudence? Did someone on the Staffs or Board decide that an early bulldozing of the Land buildings before the onset of the rainy season would prevent this? Did anyone suggest to the Burns family that the should cooperate in the destruction of the buildings to prevent any reoccupation and to speed the sale? Did not the sale, in fact, close on the very day after the bulldozing? Did anyone from the Staff or Board meet with the Burns family, the i r attorneys, the Palo Alto City Attorney or his staff, the Palo Alto Police, or any other Palo Alto officials, especially those concerned with building code enforcement in the period prior to the bulldozing in December of 1977? If so, please give details. Did anyone on the Board or Staff discuss with the Burns family or their representatives the desireability of hurrying the destruction of the dwellings before the Appellate Court could rule on the reversal? Was anyone on the Board or Staff aware that the ruling mustbe made by operation of law less than a month after the bulldozing, and that the reversal could materially affect the whole issue of clear title to the property and thus the Residents rights to relocation benifits? Was it not the duty of the Staff counsel to be aware of such possibilities and advise the Board and Staff of them? Was this in fact done? VVho from the District engaged the Ferrari Company to bulldoze the buildings on the Land? Was this not done at a time when the District did not yet hold title to the property, in fact just one day before escrow was closed? If the District did not own the Land but did engage the bulldozers and pay them, was this done by the Dit;trict alone or in collusion with the Burns family? If the latter, who met and when to discuss the matter? Who was responsible for asking the City of Palo Alto that at least eight of its policemen be present at the time of the bulldozing? Had any members of the Board or Staff met with the Palo Alto officials and/or the Burns family or their attorneys to discuss what was to be done on bulldozer day? Were any members of the Staff or Board actually present during the bulldozing? Who? If so, in what capacity did they act and what actions did they take? What discussions did they have with the police and the Burns family and representatives? Who gave instructions to the bulldozer operators? Who instructed the Palo Alto Police to make arrests at the site of what shall be called "Murph's house? Did not members of the Staff and Board at the Land on bulldozer day arrive within 10 minutes of the Burns family, their attorney Chilton Lee, the Palo Alto policemen, and the bulldozer operators? Do you say this was coincidence? Or was it the result of meetings or phone calls among the parties named? List of Questions page seven Did Board and Staff members not discuss which, if any, of the Residents hand- built houses should be spared and which preserved as a sort of "Miwok Indian Village" kind of exhibit to show how the Land community had once lived, how it had built its own inexpensive houses before the District and the Burns family drove them out into the streets and destroyed their community? Does this last question strike you as excessively emotional? By what right did the Board and/or Staff decide which houses the District's hired bulldozers should save or destroy on property still not legally owned by the District? Did the District counsel ever warn the Board that any of their actions taken at a time when they did not actually have title to the Land might open them to suits for damages? Did he ever explain that they did not have title on the day they hired the bulldozers? Or that the title they hold to the Land is now invalid? That their every action is now equally liable to damages should the court finally rule that they have no valid title to the Land? Does the counsel agree that the four previous questions are based on true assumptions? Were any of the details I have asked about known to only some of the Board and Staff members and others kept in the dark? (for example, the women board members?) VIII. THE INCIDENT AT "MURPH'S HOUSE" On page five of my letter, I outline some of the crucial events on December 1, 1977, concerning a house in a disputed area at which five Residents were arrested. (The charges were later dropped by Municipal Court Judge Scoyen) Do you agree that my account is a true and fair statement of the events of that day? If not, please comment in detail. Who prepared the maps? Why was "Murph's house" located in the wrong spot? Was there any deliberate falsification of the location? What part did Jon Olsen p lay in ordering the arrests? What was Mr. Olsen doing using a District vehicle to transport arrested Residents? Why the unseemly haste to bulldoze the occupied cabin? At the time of the decision to bulldoze "Murph's house" at once, despite the fact that it was occupied and its location in serious dispute, was it not true that the District had already signed an agreement with Eldridge to purchase the 150 acre property? Had it not begun legal process to evict the few remaining Residents of the 150 acres itself? Is it not true the District could have waited a short time and legally evicted the three Residents of the cabin in a less dramatic and violent manner? Is the District not now still seeking to evict the other Residents of the "Eldridge" property? Why was this more humane course not chosen? Was it done in this harsh way, driving people out of their homes at the last moment, arresting them and their friends for resisting injustice, in order to avoid giving them their legal relocation rights? Was it done to prevent anyone from having a house close to the 600 so-called "Burns" acres, perhaps on it, perhaps not, at the time the Reversal would give the Land community good reason to believe it could move back? Was this possibility discussed? If not, why did not the Staff foresee this possibility-- the Land people had been remarkably stubborn about being driven off-- and warn the Board? I I List of Questions page eight IX. THE REMAINING RESIDENTS Is it not true that the District has engaged in a systematic harrasment of the remaining Residents on the 150 acre "Eldridge" property, for the purpose of driving them out of their homes without affording them due process? If not, how do you explain the telephone calls to MrsMcNeil? Is it not true that the District has harrassed guests and visitors of the Residents by ticketing vehicles and persons, not allowing the use of the District parking lot to those who come and visit and by placing closed signs at the driveway access? Did the District staff purposefully cut a three foot deep rut in the driveway to prevent use of vehicles by the Residents in going to and from their homes? Isn't it true that District patrols of the area have been consiously increased in order to further harrass the Residents and their guests? If any of the above are true, how do you explain this in light of your counsel's statements that the relocation claims of the Residents are being processed under the District's guidlines? Are not these actions intended to diplace the Residents? Do not the District guidlines call for the cessation of any displacing activity until after the claims are processed? Who called Mrs. Lori McNeil? What was the purpose of these calls? What was discussed? Why does the District not allow Mrs. McNeil the right to use the Land for riding purposes when the Residents have extended that courtesy for years? Isn't it in order to gain leverage with a local landowner in order to force the eviction of the remaining Residents? Was the decision made to call Mrs. McNeil before or after you learned that the family caretaking the bus was the same family that had been bulldozed out of "Murph's house"? X. COST OF THIS WHOLE MATTER TO THE TAXPAYER Leaving the cost to the Residents and Land community aside, what did it cost the District to conduct this bulldozer operation?Did not the great haste with which the operation was conducted without warning to the Residents, who were still seeking to salvage materials with which they had built their homes, result in the destruction of large numbers of highly valuable objects? Did not some Board and Staff members, without informing any of the Residents, take "mementos" of the Land Community for themselves? Did not the bulldozers destroy large numbers of hundred year old, huge, prime redwood Dams and great amounts of other lumber in the Land barn at the very moment that the Residents were pleading for even another hour to try and salvage them? Did not some Board members protest to the Staff about this sensless destruction and the way in which the bulldozers carelessly damaged the earth of the Land? Was this unseemly haste perhaps prompted bythe fear of the impending Appellate Court Reversal which came within a month? What price was being negotiated with Eldridge in 1976? What price was agreed upon with Burns in March of 1977? What did the District finally pay, including bulldozer costs and legal fees, for the property? Might not the District have agreed to buy the Land and have dealt honestly with the Residents, affording them their Relocation benifits at a price substantially less than the actual cost? If this had been done in 1976 with Eldridge, how much would the taxpayers have saved over their eventual purchase price? If this had been done when the Burns family first I List of Questions page nine showed interest in selling what they and the lower court claimed was Mrs. Burns land, how much would the taxpayers have saved? Did not the Board and Staff know that Land prices in this area were skyrocketing at this time? Did not the Staff and Board know that the primary cause of the inflated land prices was its own policy of buying up everything in the area? If not, was this not sheer incompetence? XI. FINAL QUESTIONS Did the District offer aid of any sort to the evicted Residents? To the couple and baby whose still occupied home was ruthlessly destroyed? Did the District ask the Santa Clara County Welfare Department, the City of Palo Alto, or even the Red Cross to help the people who were evicted and whose homes were destroyed? Did the Staff and Board members consider the welfare of the human beings involved at all? Or did they lose sight of their duties to their offices and jobs and above all to their responsibilities to their fellow beings and simply ignore the human values involved? Have any members of the Board or Staff discussed this whole matter in terms of trying to minimize public knowledge of their part in the affair? Have they tried in any sense to coverup the truth? Why was no notice given of the bulldozing? Do not guidlines adopted by the Board shortly after the incident call for prior notice in such cases? Why was this not given? Why was the press which had covered the whole Land story at length not notified of the impending, highly dramatic events of bulldozer day? Why was the bulldozer company hired without public notice or bidding? Was this done to prevent the press, the Residents and their lawyers from learning of the pending destruction? Were not members of the staff earlier reluctant to give Land Residents copies of contracts involved in the matter? And finally, does the Board now plan to instruct the Staff to answer fully and openly, in accord with California and U.S. law, this lengthy list of questions and any others the people or press may have? Or does it plan to stonewall its way through another "Foothills Watergate"? This is a summary of a letter written by Purusha Obluda of 31570 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills, California, to the Staff and Board members of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, on February 14, 1978, for discussion at the regular Board meeting of February 22, 1978. The letter is a request and demand that the Board instruct its Staff to answer a lengthy list of questions appended to the letter about the circumstances surrounding the District's acquisition of some 750 acres of property off Page Mill Road in Palo Alto's %loothills. This is a site known to the community that occupied it as caretakers for Donald Eldridge for more than six years as "The Land." - Obluda charges that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to require the Board to answer his questions and make a full disclosure of its actions. He believes that there was an illegal, secret, conspiracy, among members of the District Board and Staff, the alleged owner, Alyce Lee Burns, her family and attorneys, and David Jansson, a local real estate salesman. The evidence shows, claims Obluda, that these parties planned to transfer the title to 600 acres of the Land from Burns to the District in such a way that some 50 longtime residents and caretakers of the property would be denied the relocation benefits due them under California law. Obluda claims that this was done because the District feared a court reversal which would re-invest Donald Eldridge of his interest in the property and the residents of their relocation rights. The court reversal did indeed come, a month after the parties collusion resulted in the residents being forcibly evicted and their homes and outbuildings destroyed in a carefully planned and unannounced bulldozer raid. He charges that the raid caused the brutal, forcible eviction of a couple and their baby in a cabin on a disputed and unsurveWd borderline between properties.and the arrest of five persons who tried to prevent this harsh act. (These charges were later dismissed by the court with the right to sue for false arrest reserved.) Obluda further charges that the method by which the District dealt with the matter cost the taxpayers upward of eight hundred thousand dollars because of the increase in property values during the fight to evi6t the residents. The letter concludes by asking the Board to answer the appended questions fully and honestly and to appoint a committee to meet with the Land residents to seek a just solution to the matter. It announced the formation of an adhoc group called "Friends of the Land", to pursue the matter should the Board fail in its rightful duty to make its actions public. .00 HISTORY In March of 1968, Donald Eldridge agreed to purchase 750 acres of land from Alyce Lee Burns. He gave her $600,000 down for which he received 150 acres free and clear. The remaining 600 acres were to be bought by Eldridge in installments over the next ten years. In 1974, after having paid one half of the remaining 1.45 million dollars, or $725,000, Eldridge chose to utilize a clear release clause in the contract which gave him the right to demand one acre, released to him free and clear, for every $3,000 paid to Mrs. Burns, providing the release was contiguous to acreage previously released. fie asked for 241 acres, or about 40% of the Land. On the grounds that he had asked for the best part, Judge Marshall Hall of the Snata Clara Superior Court, ruled that Eldridge had forfeited all rights to the property and lost his $725,000 outright. Many lawyers predicted that this odd ruling would be overturned, and indeed it was reversed by the First District Court of Appeals on January 3, 1978. In the meantime, however, on the basis of this lower court ruling, the Burns family moved to forclose, and in an auction sale at which they were the only bidders, gained a clouded title to the Land. The Bums' then-moved to evict some 50 residents of the Land who had lived there for years as guests of the man they believed to be the legal owner. After lengthy court battles, in which the question of the clouded title was not permitted to be raised, the residents were declared to have been properly served with notice to quit the premises and were entitled to no relocation rights under California laws which govern property acquired by such a public entity as the District. These decisions are currently under appeal. On October 20, 1977, the residents were evicted by a large group of armed Sheriff deputies, without offers of help from the District, which had earlier agreed to buy the property from Burns once the residents had been driven off. On December 1, 1977, though the property was still in Burns name, (the sale closed the following day!� the District hired bulldozers and destroyed the residents homes and other buildings on the Land, just a month before the appeals court remanded the question of title to the lower court and said, in effect, that Eldridge was entitled to 40%of the property. Thus the current status of the Land is, .0 to say the least, unclear. The residents were scattered to the winds and though they were told that their relocation claims were being processed according to law, a letter asking for action on the matter from Obluda to the Board, was answered saying that the residents nevertheless had no rights whatever. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS I. ETAIL ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS RECE!VEpFEB 2 2 1978 Is it not true that the 1976 negotiations to buy the Land from Donald Eldridge fell through because the District insisted that Mr. Eldridge assume responsibilty for relocation of the residents ? Is it not true that, in the course of the title dispute , the District saw the opportunity to purchase The Land, sans residents , by supporting the Burns' clouded and dubious title ? Is it not true that the District insisted that Mrs . Ina Dahl evict her two tenants before they would purchase her property? Is it not true that the Board or staff never met with the residents to discuss an equitable solution to the relocation problems despite repeated requests to do so? Is it not true that the District applied pressure to speed the eviction and bulldozing because they were afraid of the impending Appellate Court reversal ? a Is it not true that the District Board and/or Staff gave the orders and/or assurances that resulted in the arrest of five persons and the bulldozing of three occupied houses ? Is it not true that escrow closed the day after the bulldozing as a reward to the Burns ' for fronting for the District in the evictions and bulldozing? Was the District not afraid that if it allowed "Murph' s house " to stand that the residents would re -occupy once the appellate court re -affirmed Mr . E ldridge 's interest in the property? Is it not true that the District has engaged in systematic harrassment of the few remaining residents even while it claims they are being dealt with according to law ? Is it not true that the District Staff made phone calls which resulted in the water being turned off and access denied for the remaining residents ? Is it not true that the District taxpayers paid three quarters of a million dollars more than necessary for the Land because of a District decision to deny the residents their relocation rights "out of principal" ? Did the District offer any aid whatsoever to the residents who were evicted ? Is it not true that the marring of the letter of February 14, 1978 , as confidential is another indication of the cover-up of the truth used throughout as Board and Staff policy? b � • ERRATA RECEIVEOFES 22 1978 The following is a list of errata contained in the letter of February 14, 1978, from Purusha Obluda to the Mid- Peninsula Regional Open Space District. page 1 - instead of Ire alator David Jannsen" read "real estate salesman David Jansson'". Read "Jansson" for "Jannsen" throughout. page 2 - next to last full line, read "benefits" for "benifits". Use correct spelling throughout+ page 3 first line, read "arrangement" for "arraignment". line eight, read "was" for "were". page 4 - line five, read "off" for "bf". line eight, substitute "pressure" for "blackmail". line twelve, after "allow" insert "access". line fifteen, read "morally" for "more". line twenty-seven, read "too" for "to". page 6 - four lines from end, "I can and will with other. . ."" is correct reading. signature, substitute "Purusha'" for "Perusha". page 7 - line eight, for "cow dung," read "'cowplops". List of Questions page 2 - seven lines from bottom should read, "At ant time were those. . ." page 3 - three lines from bottom, read "arranged" for "arraigned." page 5 - third line from end, make it read,. "despite the strong objections of these two parties?" 00 January 23, 1978 4 Page Toro- 1- The claims of the Land residents for relocation are being processed under the District's adopted Guide- lines. 2. To the best of our- knowledge neither the District nor its personnel participated in the filing of charges against the six people whom you say were arrested for trespassing_ 3. Relocation claims have been filed on behalf of the residents of the 150 acre parcel ("Eldridge property") and are currently being processed in accordance with the District's Guidelines. We too hope for a quack resolution-of the matter and appreciate your concern for those .involved. Sincerely yours, Stanley _ Norton Legal Counsel SRN:reh . MIUPENINSULA REGIONAL OPENS SPACE DISTRICT 745 OIfiTEL ORIVEc LOS ALTOS.CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 January 23, 1978 Mr- Purusha Obluda 31570 Page Mill Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Dear Mr_ Obluda. Thank you for your letter of January 11, 1978 regarding recent events on the "Land"- Following is a response to each point raised in your letter. The structure fire investigation is under the jurisdic* - tion of the Santa Clara County Fire Marshall' s office_ In- dividual cities such as Palo Alto do not investigate arson fires; they are all, handled through the County office. At this time the only information released by the County is that the fire is definitely of arson origin and that the . investigation is continuing- It is being handled by Fire Marshall Remily- Jon Olson, District Land Manager, has recently met with Ms- Sojourner to discuss the District's role in fire preven- tion and fire fighting- Apparently this discussion has been fruitful and has led to a better understanding by Ms. Sojourner as to the role the District can play in fire prevention and fire fighting- A course of action has been decided upon to coordinate the efforts of people along upper Page Mill Road, the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and the District- it is anticipated that additional meetings will be held as nec- essary. Your apparent interpretation of the appellate court decision in Eldridge vs. Burns - that Eldridge really had title to the land throughout - is not, in my opinion, sup- portable by an informed reading of the decision- So far as we know, not even Eldridge' s attorneys have made such a claim. Additionally, there is nothing in the decision trhich would change the findings of at least two judges of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, namely that the residents were not lawful occupants of the property (and therefore r-7ere not entitled to relocation benefits) _ In answer to your. specific requests we submit the following: R-78-7 ti (Meeting 78-5 Agenda item No. 1) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT February 14 , 1978 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Stanford Property) Introduction: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has been offered the opportunity to purchase 694 acres of land in the Palo Alto foothills from the Board of Trustees of Stanford University at a price of $475 ,000. The property was donated to Stanford by George F. Morell in a series of gifts from 1961 to 1972 for academic purposes. Mr. Morell is a Trustee Emeritus of Stanford. He was formerly publisher of the Palo Alto Times and President and Chairman' of the Hoard of Peninsula New.spapers .Incorporated. Proceeds from the sale of the; the property to the District will be used in accordance with Mr. Morell' s wishes. This acquisition would become an addition to the existing Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, bringing the total acreage of the Preserve to over 2 ,400 acres. The property represents the only missing piece in a recreational corridor extending from Saratoga Gap to Palo Alto Foothills Park and Page Mill Road, a distance of 8 .0 air miles. When considered with nearby County, City and other MROSD lands, this addition would complete a contiguous park and open space greenbelt of more than 6 ,000 acres. From a ridgetop overview, the dominant impression of the property is of wide open grassland, dropping off steeply into the 1,000 foot deep Stevens Creek canyon. A hike along the canyon slopes affords a spectacular panorama of natural landscape extending from Mt. Umunhum in the south to Windy Hill in San Mateo County. Reaching the canyon bottom, the hiker is rewarded with the high mountain country sounds of rushing water and wind in the conifer forest. Description of the Site: (a) Size, Location and Boundaries. The 694 acre property (see attached map) is bordered to the east, west and south by the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and by private land to the north and northeast. The Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area of Rancho de San Antonio Open Space Preserve lies � mile to the north, with the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve 14 miles to the northwest. All of the property is within the City of Palo Alto. Page two (b) Topography, Geology and Soils. The site varies in elevation from 1,600 feet at Stevens Creek to 2 ,675 feet near the summit of Black Mountain. Rock out- croppings are common on the 30%to 75% slopes. Unstable soils with a very high erosion hazard predominate. Four intermittent creeks, Indian, Bay, Gold mine and Indian Cabin, descend from Monte Bello Ridge into Stevens Creek, which lies along the San Andreas Rift Zone. (c) Vegetation and Wildlife. Three vegetative communities are represented on the property: grassland, chaparral, and oak-bay-Douglas fir forest, with a lush riparian corridor along Stevens Creek. The moist and protected east-facing canyon slope is shaded by tall bays and firs while the more severe exposure and shallow soils of the steep western slope restrict the vegetation to the drought tolerant chaparral and grassland. The mixture of diverse environments and the remoteness of the property makes it ideal wildlife habitat, probably supporting large populations of mule deer and some coyote and bobcat. In addition, the endangered California mountain lion has been sighted in the area. Current Use and Development: Sunnyvale' s Peterson High School has used the property and the adjacent MROSD Black Mountain Area in connection with an environmental education/awareness program. The Palo Alto Fire Department has granted a use permit for the High School to use a camp area in the Stevens Creek Canyon portion of the site, with use not to exceed four weeks in summer and one weekend a month the rest of the year. A limited number of cattle currently graze the property near the structures. (a) Inventory of Structures. Three wood structures are concealed from general view by a pocket of trees on the otherwise open ridgetop. The location of the following is shown on the attached map: (a) A large barn in fair condition. (b) A house in fair condition presently occupied by a caretaker. (c) A garage/barn with attached living quarters, (no one living in it) in poor condition. (b) Roads and Trails on Site. An unsurfaced road descends to the canyon from Monte Bello Ridge. It parallels Stevens Creek to a corner of the existing Monte Bello Open Space Preserve where the road ends and a trail continues down stream to Stevens Creek County Park and the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. Another -2- Page three unsurfaced road enters the site from the Page Mill Road Area to the northwest. These roads provide two access routes to the site, making patrol possible in conjunction with existing District lands. Planning Considerations : The property is contained within the City of Palo Alto, zoned Open Space, 10 acre minimum lot size. It has been determined that the acquisition of this land for open space purposes would be in conformity with the General Plan of Palo Alto. The MROSD Master Plan evaluation, which rates lands according to various open space values, shows the property as scoring highest in the following resource categories : protection of wildlife and natural vegetation, the wilderness experience, and low intensity recreation. It has a middle ranking for scenic backdrop, view from scenic roads and highways , and the composite score. Relationship to Existing Trails and Regional Trails Plans ; Located as it is between existing MROSD lands, this property is an essential part of an extensive trail route from Saratoga Gap to Page Mill Road with a connection from Castle Rock State Park further south. The Preliminary California Recreational Trails and Hostel Plan shows a schematic representation of a Santa Cruz Mountain Trail corridor extending from San Francisco to the Santa Cruz coast, which could possibly cross the property along Skyline Boulevard. Potential Use and Management: The remote location of the canyon portion of the property makes it a valuable wildlife preserve while affording a wilderness experience within a half hour' s drive from the urban area. The site represents an essential supplement to surrounding park and open space lands in that it creates a contiguous 6,000 acre management unit and the major trails links as discussed above. This acquisition would further the protection of the Stevens Creek watershed while protecting the natural features of Monte Bello Ridge as seen from Skyline Boulevard and Highway 9. Interim Use and Management Recommendations : The following recommendations are being made until a long term use and management plan is prepared simultaneously with one for the Page Mill Road Area that is scheduled for completion by May 1978. See the attached map for location of the items discussed below: (a) The site should remain open to hikers and equestrians who gain access via the Black Mountain Area and the Monte Bello Ridge portion of the Page Mill Road Area of the existing Monte Bello Open Space preserve. (b) A trail connecting with the existing Black Mountain Area and Page Mill Road Area should be temporarily designated using existing roads and trails. Page four (c) only existing unsurfaced roads should be maintained for patrol use. (d) The docent program presently offering naturalist-led tours on the existing Monte Bello Open Space Preserve should be expanded to include this site. (e) Overnight camping should be restricted to the designated area on the adjacent Preserve for the present time. Because of the large demand for hiking and equestrian overnight camping in this area, location of a camp should be coordinated with the City of Palo Alto and other potential operating agencies. (f) The grazing potential of the site should be studied in conjunction with the adjoining Black Mountain and Page Mill Road Areas of the Preserve. Grazing should continue at the present level. (g) The present caretaker should continue in residence on a temporary status until completion of the use and management plan, at which time a long term recommendation will be made. Naming: It is recommended that the property become an addition to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, Black Mountain Area and be officially known by the same name. Terms : This proposed purchase, at the favorable price of $475,000 , or approximately $684. 00 per acre, is partly conditioned upon the payment of all cash at the close of escrow (within 30 days hereof) . Also included in the purchase price are several old wagons and farm implements originally owned by the Morell family. Additions to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve constituted the District's 1976 State Park Bond Fund application, and it is anticipated that the full purchase price will be reimbursed by the State after we have completed all of their requirements. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution of theBoard of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving Agreement to Purchase Real Property, Authorizing officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Addition - Stanford Property) . It is further recommended that the Board adopt the interim use and management recommendations contained within this report, and adopt the name "Monte Bello open Space Preserve , Black Mountain Area" for the site. M-78-38 AW MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM February 17, 1978 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Proposal Submitted by John Rakich for Use of the Picchetti Ranch Winery Attached is a memorandum (M-78-39 , dated February 16, 1978) to me from the Land Manager regarding a Proposal Submitted by John Rakich for Use of the Picchetti Ranch Winery. With your concurrence the draft letter attached to J. Olson' s memorandum will be sent. M-78-39 • MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM February 16 , 1978 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM : J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Proposal Submitted by John Rakich for Use of the Picchetti Ranch Winery Attached is a suggested draft letter from Harry Turner to Mr. Rakich. In addition to the points raised in the draft letter, please consider the following: 1) 1 have some reservations about the costs of build- ing restoration incurred by the partnership as op- posed to their use of the buildings and the adja- cent area for a ten year period. 2) The use of the winery building for such a purpose could dominate the entire ranch building area and detract from the farmyard atmosphere. 3) The renovation of the building does not include the roof, water supply or toilet facilites. It appears that this would be the responsibility of the District. The above are just some of the points that should be considered in much greater detail. I feel it is inappropriate to begin serious discussion on this proposal until the historic resour- ces survey has been completed. This is an example of the kind of issue that could generate a substantial amount of work for staff. Possibly this is a project that could be deferred, rather than increase the staff workload with the attendant possibility of increasing staff. JO:pl RESOLUTION No. �7 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND III ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ADDITION - STANFORD PROPERTY) The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows : Section one. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula, Regional Open Space District does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain purchase agreement between The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District dated February , 1978 , a copy of which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President and appropriate officers to execute the Agreement on behalf of the District. Section Two. The President of the Board of other appropriate officer is authorized to execute a certificate of acceptance to any deed granting title to said property. Section Three. The General Manager of the Distract shall cause to be given appropriate notice of accepLa ice to the seller. The General Manager further is authorized to execute any and all other documents in escrow necessary or appropriate to the closing of the transaction. Section Four. The General Manager of the District is authorized to expend up to $5,000 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, and other miscellaneous costs related to this transaction. / VN If 10 f �11 _ 12 rtp _a� y4 7 Vag L .. Rancho San^Antonio O.S.P./`w 1 Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area =sa • •' ,', :-�--'-=�� � �1v, �, � I,, ; `� _ , ;, � � � "; � lam, ;-- lb IF Los Trancos Open Space Preserve -- „ � .�.%/'� �r, -' ,,� ,�/ •. ��,/�� �� ,aoo .5prin� a Monte Bello Open Space Preserve/ -- c .Structures[ ''�._�___. -, ' .f Page Mill Road Area P �` _ t ��tadar RefleLCte�.,� Beacon ^ l � Black.—Mo tai ,. ' �,.1. m�� <"�✓ _�\ c'' -- ; f o ,line,Irk \� ' t' / +��1'va(•,,? Proposed Acquisition ` •,.�ti p cog u '�aa�-• / 115 J ��l f .\ \. A� D / \/ 24 ,\ `�\ \ ii'. - ( N' .,-��,, '` ��� �il B'` l �11���-� r a(', I � '� spry C• ,A.� /', 1� �-� �� .�� �. -,� ;',�l Monte Bello t� ��Z - - Z Open Space Preserve/! -ti`` ao, �"�� �"r Black Mountain Area -7 - � 1, / Pete -y ,y Stevens Creek County Park f ';,`i f 1 0 Table Mountain kk 2000 ' I ' �!1))'r=�! �?.,� r,',�/�` . 1, , 1•` C -- ,, - - , PROPOSED ADDITION TO _ 23 ..BM-2329) MONTE BELLO O,S, P, BLACK MOUNTAIN AREA � � , �,.t; .�� JL DRAFT Nor k MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 February 23, 1978 Mr. John V. Rakich 21822 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Rakich: Thank you for your proposal for use of the Picchetti Winery. I am referring the proposal to Jon Olson, District Land Manager for consideration. Land Management staff is currently involved in several projects which will influence whatever decision is made re- garding the use of buildings at the Picchetti Ranch. These projects include consultation with the State Office of His— toric Preservation for an historic resources inventory of the foothill and baylands areas. After this survey has been completed, the District will make a determination as to which District historic resources would be eligible for 1976 State Bond Act funds which are available for historic preservation. Also, a determination could then be made as to what the Dis- trict' s funding capability is for such a project. Another major issue currently concerning the District is the "Jarvis-Gann" constitutional amendment which is on the June ballot. If passed, this measure would drastically limit the District' s funding capabilities and would result in a reconsideraton of District commitments, present and future. Again, thank you for your proposal. I suggest that you maintain contact with District staff to determine the progress of the above mentioned projects, which are underway and which could effect your proposal. Sincerely yours, Harry A. Turner President Board of Directors HAT:pl Herbert A.Grench,Genera/Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy.Barbara Green.Nanette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G.Wendin k EB I 4197p February 3, 1978 Mr. Jon Olson, Land Manager Midpeninsula Regional Park District 745 Distel Drive Los Altos , California 94022 Dear Mr. Olson: As you know from our previous correspondence and conver- sations , our small group of winemaking enthusiasts has been investigating the possibility of reestablishing the winery on the Picchetti ranch. We understand that plans for the devel- opment of the property will be formulated within the current year, and that proposals for that purpose will be considered by the board of directors of MRPD. We feel that the park district 's charter to preserve the open spaces is consistent with our group's desire to produce fine wines from the Santa Clara Valley. In particular, we submit that a rejuvenated winery operation could form the nucleus of a unique park facility that would be of great value to the citizens of the local community. The arguments for such a facility and the details of our winery plans are described in the enclosed proposal, which we ask the board to study. We wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your cooperation in arranging for our inspection of the winery. Your comments on our proposal will be appreciated. We would be pleased to make a presentation to the board if that is deemed appropriate. Sincerely, y n V. Rakich for The Partnership PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN OPERATING WINERY ON THE OLD PICCHETTI RANCH, NOW OWNED BY THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT. This proposal was prepared by a partnership consisting of George S. Deiwert William P. Gilbreath John V. Rakich Charles K. Lombard hereinafter referred to as The Partnership, and submitted to the board of directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District (MRPD) . This proposal is deemed to contain proprietary information and no part of this document shall be made available in any manner to any individual or group associated through any means with any winery or similar operation that may wish to make use of the property. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The history of the Montebello-Cupertino area is rich in viticultural and winemaking traditions. During the period starting from about 1860 with Elisha Stephens, and extending until prohibition, there were no less than 8 wineries estab- lished in the immediate vicinity. The Picchetti winery is the most prominent of the very few remaining structures from that era. The purchase of the Picchetti ranch in 1976 by the Midpeninsula Regional Park District (MRPD) brought to an end 100 years of that family's reign over the lower reaches of Montebello Ridge. During most of that time wine was pro- duced commercially and sold under the Montebello label. The winery building was constructed circa 1896 by brothers Vincensio and Secondo Picchetti. In 1904, the operation of the winery and vineyards were taken over by Vincensio's sons , John and Antone, and they expanded the vineyards to about 500 acres. Except for the prohibition years, the winery was operated continuously until 1963, one year after John's death. Evidently, stricter laws controlling the pro- duction of wine came into effect, contributing to the deci- sion to stop commercial operations. However, the family continued to produce wines for their own consumption until 1971. The winery equipment would not today meet the require- ments for commercial winery operation without extensive improvements. In his report of July 9, 1976 recommending purchase of the property, Mr. H. Grench the General Manager of MRPD stated "The historic nature of the improvements, particularly the 'new' house, small barn and winery, could provide a pub- lic educational resource if rehabilitated and maintained in conjunction with an historic working farm operation ------ The feasibility of reestablishing the winery, including tours and tasting, could be investigated. " The present proposal provides a way to achieve this goal. The proposal was 1 prepared by four local residents, who are winemakers, and who have formed a partnership (hereinafter called The Partnership) for the explicit purpose of establishing a winery. In the following sections of this proposal we outline why we are con- sidering the old Picchetti ranch for this endeavor, and give reasons why we feel the MRPD will find it a worthwhile pro- posal to support. The primary purpose and intent behind this proposal is to give scope to our interest in fine winemaking both as individuals and as members of the larger group of home enol- ogists and wine fanciers of the Santa Clara valley. In the latter regard, the convenient location and picturesque his- toric setting make the old Picchetti property a natural meeting place for groups interested in wine and winemaking. It is our intent to foster public interest and involvement with the winery on a number of levels from informative tours and tastings for the casual visitor, to meetings and classes concerning winemaking and wine appreciation for the serious. Finally, since this is a proposal for the use of public lands , we wish to emphasize our understanding and committment to the principle that the public interest is preeminent. In this regard, we believe it is highly relevant that the part- ners are all practicing engineers and scientists with estab- lished careers, who are interested in their work, and with adequate incomes. Thus the potential profit aspect of the winery operation is not our primary focus. On the other hand, our committment to a substantial investment in both time and resources denotes our serious intent to pursue a successful venture serving the interest of all parties involved. 2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS REASONS FOR AN OPERATING WINERY 4 OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED ENDEAVOR 5 TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT 6 UTILITIES 7 VINEYARD 7 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 8 APPENDIX A. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 'S REPORT 11 APPENDIX B. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 14 APPENDIX C. PARTIAL INVENTORY 16 APPENDIX D. PERSONAL PROFILES OF THE PARTNERS 17 3 REASONS FOR AN OPERATING WINERY The Partnership believes that an active winery facility that reflects the historical tradition of the old Picchetti ranch will be a benefit to the Park District , and to the local community. It is suggested that an operating facility has more public value than a historic ruin, and that such a facil- ity will tend to enhance the value and use of the adjoining lands and eventual improvements. If left in its present state, the building will likely become a problem for the district. It will tend to draw the curious explorer and vagrant. Security will be necessary. It will continue to deteriorate, becoming a greater problem. And the eventual loss of the buildings through decay will be assured. On the other hand restorative use and maintenance of the facilities would alleviate much of the problem. The use- able winemaking equipment will be repaired and maintained, and historic equipment will be preserved for future enjoyment. Our presence in an operating facility would serve to augment the park staff in providing both security to the property and information to the public. Furthermore, development in the manner we conceive it would foster community interest and involvement with the winery on a number of levels from infor- mative tours and tastings for the casual visitor, to meetings and classes concerning winemaking and appreciation for the serious. Thus an operating winery at the Picchetti ranch site could be the nucleus of a unique park facility, plausibly encompassing other facets of the turn-of-the-century life style in the Cupertino area. Such a park could be patterned after places like Williamsburg, Va. , where old arts and trades are continued to this day. In any event the presence of a private winery, as well as other possible future concessions (that we have no intent to be a part of) , is justified on the same basis as the private public service operations in Yosemite and other parks. 4 Finally, this proposal offers a means for initiating the restoration of the winery building, and the preservation of the historic traditions of the land. In this connection, we would offer the public not only information about wine and winemaking, past and present, but information about the site and historical setting as well. OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED ENDEAVOR a) Major repairs to the structure will be immediately initiated, and will include installation of a concrete floor on the working areas of the ground level, repair and addition of post and beam supports beneath decayed floor joists*, and installation of necessary electrical and drainage lines. All work will be carried out in accordance with sound engineering practice, and will be overseen by a California licensed structural engi- neer. (The report of a licensed engineer experienced in the renovation of old structures has been prepared on the condition of the existing winery structure. The report is presented in Appendix A. ) b) The costs of these improvements will be borne by The Partnership in return for a cost-free lease, for a period of ten years, of the existing winery building and such equipment that is deemed useable. See Appen- dix B for an analysis of the tradeoff between rent and improvements and labor. c ) It is the intent of the partnership to operate, for ten years from the date of approval of this proposal, a bonded winery, with sales to be made on the premises and through normal outlets. # The concrete floor is necessary for proper sanitation. Exist- ing floor joists supporting the upper areas show some decay at the support points on the sidewalls. These joists will be sup- ported by a new post and beam structure. (See report of Struc- tal Engineer in Appendix A. ) 5 I d) Consistent with good winemaking practice , every effort will be made to preserve the equipment and historical winery methods, and to preserve the historical flavor of the site. e ) The winery operations will be carried on primarily in the ground floor areas , with the upper floor used primarily for storage of old equipment of historic value and other winery apparatus, supplies and test equipment TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT a) At the end of the ten year period either party may terminate , for cause, this agreement provided that one year notice has been given. If mutually accept- able to both parties, this agreement may be extended, modified, or a new agreement drafted at any time. b ) If this agreement is terminated under section a) , The Partership will retain possession of their equip- ment, supplies , products, and such cooperage that they may have restored, not to exceed 50% of the cooperage leased with the premises. c ) Either party may terminate this agreement prior to the ten years date provided : 1. One year notice is given. 2. If The Partnership should terminate this agreement all improvements to the premises revert to the district and The Partnership will be allowed to remove those winery equipment, supplies and prod- ucts which they have provided or produced. 3. If the MRPD wishes to terminate this agreement prior to the ten year date, the partnership again retains all of their provided equipment, supplies and products, and restored cooperage not to exceed 50I of the cooperage leased with the premises, and shall be reimbursed for all improvements made to the premises on a prorata ten year basis as detailed in the appendix. 6 UTILITIES WATER: It is intended to use the existing spring and distribution system for winery cleanup, washing and non-drink- ing functions. Appropriate taps and drains will be installed in the winery. Bottled water will be used for drinking purposes in the tasting area until such time as the MRPD may develop an acceptable alternate source of water. ELECTRICITY : The Partnership will upgrade, _replace , or install (as necessary ) wiring and lighting in the winery inte- rior. Existing power supply lines will be used with a sepa- rate meter installed for winery use, if necessary. WASTE DISPOSAL : Solid, particulate , and vegatative waste will be removed from the premises or worked into the soil, as appropriate. Drain water from washing operations will be channeled into the existing sewage disposal system. The Partnership will cooperate with MRPD in providing portable toilet facilities until such time that the MRPD may open facil- ities in the house , or develop alternate toilet facilities for park use. VINEYARD The Partnership will attempt to rejuvinate and utilize the vineyards located on the ranch. Further, we will investi- gate with MRPD the feasibility of initiating new plantings. As an example, The Partnership will investigate the possibility of having the University of California Agricultural Extension Service install and direct the management of a grape test and demonstration facility. 7 r MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS a) Size of the Winery : It is intended that this shall be a small quality operation, with on-premises prod- uction not to exceed the capacity of the present facility. b) Hours of Operation: None specified and variable throughout the year depending on the phase of oper- ation. It is anticipated that as soon as facilities are prepared and product available, the winery will be open for tastings , tours, and sales on weekends, and other times by arrangement. c ) Access to Premises : MRPD shall allow access and egress to and from facilities for The Partners and their employees during the term of this agreement, and for repairs and construction by their designees, and appropriate visitors. Additionally, MRPD shall designate a suitable parking area for visitors to the winery for tours, tastings , classes, etc. d) Security: Entry to the winery is to be secured by appropriate devices and keys, which will be provided to a designee of MRPD. Mutual security of all imme- diate facilities are to be provided by employees of MRPD and The Partners while on premises. However, The Partners will not be liable for the security of other facilities and property than that associated with the winery. e ) Site Status : MRPD will continue to retain ownership of the site during the term of this agreement or, in case of sale , to insure that this agreement is binding on the new owners, and to allow The Partnership first right of refusal for purchase of the winery and access and services at a cost not higher than the best legiti- mate offer less installed improvements less 10A. 8 f) Maintenance : MRPD will continue to maintain the grounds and adjacent facilities. The Partnership agrees to maintain the winery facilities in a manner required by good winemaking practices. g) Wine Tastings : The Partnership will set-up an area for the purpose of providing for wine tasting and visits for the general public , and will also market wine at this locale. h) Classes : After the winery is established, The Part- nership will sponsor classes for interested people in the local area in winemaking and appreciation. Additionally, it is anticipated that local residents 1 would be interested in participating in various phases of the winemaking experience. i ) Permits and Licenses : This agreement is contingent upon The Partnership receiving the necessary approvals, permits, and licenses from local and federal govern- ments. While there is no evident reason why these permits cannot be obtained, The Partnership cannot guarantee events outside it 's control. If some such necessary permits should be unavailable , then the partnership shall be released from this agreement without penalty. j ) Damage to the Premises : The Partnership will cause no damage to the premises. The Partnership shall not be held liable for damage due to any outside agency or natural event. k) Cooperage : Inspection of the existing cooperage shows that the vast majority has not been used for many years and may be totally useless. If such be the case, it may be necessary to remove some of the cooperage from the working area in order to install new equipment. If any copperage is repairable , it 9 is most likely that the cost of repairs, due to their labor intensive nature, will exceed the cost of new cooperage. Therefore, in order to provide an incentive to restore the historic wooden cooperage, it is proposed that a percentage of the restored cooperage be retained by The Partnership, as detailed in the section on TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT. In any event, cooperage with a unique historic value will remain the property of the MRPD. The Partner- ship retains the right to move the cooperage within the ranch as dictated by the needs of the winemaking operation, and to temporarily remove cooperage from the site for repairs. However, in no event will unrestored cooperage be sold or destroyed without the consent of MRPD. A partial inventory of the cooperage and equipment now in the winery is listed in Appendix C . 10 APPENDIX A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 'S REPORT 11 i DAVIO J . HAMI,., ONO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 1 BOO EMBARCAOERO ROAD • RALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA 94303 326- 71 03 December 14, 1977 Jahn V. Rakich 21822 Lindy Lane Cupertino, Ca 95014 Subject: Reactivation of Pichetti Winery Santa Clara County, CA Dear Sir: Based on my site visit, 25 November 1977, to this old building the following comments and recommendations are made: Comments: 1. The structure is an old two story building with a dirt first floor, 2 ft thick mortared rock first story walls supporting part height soil load, wood second floor, 1 ft thick brick second story walls, and light wood roof. 2. The mortar used in the rock and brick walls is currently in poor condition. It was probably made with only lime cement and is now quite weak and soft. 3. The wood second floor joist that extend through the rock wall show evidence of extensive dry rot near their exterior ends. The second floor sheathing is in poor condition. The remainder of the second floor wood structure appears to be in good condition and could safely support a 125 lbs. per square ft loading. 4. The wood roof is a bare minimum structure and should not be considered adequate to support additional loading. 5. The building, because of its potentially weak masonry walls and i minimum roof structure must be considered-as a greater than average earthquake risk. i I I I r Recommendations 1. Heavy storage tank loading should not be considered for the second floor since it will add to the earthquake risk and the existing floor structure cannot safely support that type of load. 2. The dry rot conditions in the second floor joist should be carefully explored and arrested through the use of a wood preservative. Wood preservative may have to be applied periodically to continually arrest the problem. 3. Since a concrete floor slab is anticipated to be added at the first floor, footings, post and beams cold be added adjacent to the exterior rock walls to support the decayed floor joist. I would suggest the use of a 4x10 beam spaced 1 ft± from the wall supported by 4x6 posts spaced 8 ft apart. Metal post to beam connectors (Simpson PC 44) should be used and all wood should be Douglas Fir No. 1. All- 611x 31- 01' footing that is 19- 011 thick should be used to support the post and a Simpson P046 post connector should be used. Very truly yours, - J David J. Hammond DJH/ks 1 APPENDIX B EQUIVALENCY STATEMENT The intent of this appendix is to establish the equiva- lency of benefits accruing to The Partnership on the one hand, and to the MRPD and local community on the other. The benefits and costs of the project, as described in the body of this proposal are summarized below: BENEFITS : MRPD and Community : Restoration of the ranch to active historic use. Unique facility fostering public involvement with park lands. Repair and improvement of winery building resulting in a useable structure. Restora- tion of winemaking equipment to historic use. Partnership: Facility for commercial production of fine wines. Historic winery atmosphere close to residential area. Opportunity for active participation in bringing recognition to area wines and vineyards. COSTS : MRPD and Community : No direct costs, nor indirect costs, since the present building has no commercial or rental value. Partnership: The exact dollar cost of the improvements cannot be accurately estimated without obtaining contract bids. The structual repairs proposed are as followss Concrete floor. Install water drainage system. Upgrade plumbing and electrical service in the building. Install required structural supports under upper level floor. 14 In summary, we submit that the proposed improvements are the preliminary steps to full restoration of the building, and, therefore, gives the MRPD a start on such a venture, should that decision be made at a later time. Nothing is lost even if full restoration is never initiated. It is the judge- ment of The Partnership that rent free use of the building for a period of 10 years is a reasonable return for their investment and time. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PREMATURE LEASE TERMINATION In the case of early (prior to ten years) termination of this agreement and lease by the MRPD under paragraph C part 3 the partnership shall be reimbursed for all expenses, on a de- preciated basis, they incur in the improvement and repair of the on-site facility. These expenses to include direct outlays for materials and contracted work plus labor of the partners, at ap- plicable trade-union rates, related to improvement of the facil- ities . As the majority of the improvements will be implemented during the first year and termination of the agreement will cause the greatest hardship to the partnership during the first years the value of said improvement is depreciated in an accelerating manner. This depreciation is accomplished by an inverse sum of the digits method as detailed in the following table . Time of Termination Fractional Reimburspmant less than 1 year full reimbursement 1 year 54/55 2 years 52/55 3 years 49/55 4 years 45/55 5 years 40/55 6 years 34/55 7 years 27/55 8 years 19/55 9 years 10155 10 years 0 Thus, after ten years, (with the aforementioned notice) the MRPD can terminate the agreement and claim full benefit of all im- provements and repairs without cost to them. 15 APPENDIX C • PARTIAL INVENTORY OF COOPERAGE AND EQUIPMENT (Only the major items related to winemaking are noted. A more complete list will be make on conclusion of the agreement. ) No. Items Description 3 Tanks 6600 g redwood 3 Tanks 2200 g redwood 3 Tanks 1000 g redwood 3 Barrels 770 g oak oval 4 Barrels 1000 g oak oval 1 Tank 500 g redwood 1 Barrel 500 g oak oval 11 Barrels 250 g oak 3 Dollies two wheel hand trucks 1 Corker hand operated corker 1 Press approx. 2-ton screw & basket 1 Crusher steam driven feed and crush 4 Fermenters open redwood tanks All of the cooperage is deteriorated. The tanks and barrels may be feasible to repair. Some of the other equipment appear serviceable with repair. 16 APPENDIX D PERSONAL PROFILES OF THE PARTNERS • John V. Rakich : Age 47, John is an aeronautical research scientist employed at NASA Ames Research Center. He holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, and in Aeronautics from Stanford University. He is a past president of the San Francisco section of the American Institute of Aero- nautics and Astronautics. A native of the San Francisco Bay Area, he has lived in the Santa Clara Valley since 1958 and now resides with his family at 21822 Lindy Lane, Cupertino. There are iuur children in the family, two in college, one employed locally, and the youngest attending Kennedy Jr. High School. John started his personal winemaking experience in 1971 but his association with winemaking goes back many years to his boyhood years, when he helped his father make wine at home. His father, incidentally, had a legendary reputation among his peers as a master winemaker. Thus, John's present activity is the realization of a long standing ambition to carry on the family tradition of fine winemaking. Now that his family respon- sibilities have diminished, he is able to devote more of his spare time to this activity. This has paid off in the form of a gold medal in the amateur winemaking competition at the 1977 Harvest Festival at Santa Rosa, an event judged by several com- mercial winemasters from that area. John has long desired to enter into a commercial winery operation in order to be able to make wine with the proper equipment, and with a measure of control and excellence not possible in an amateur operation. 17 William P. Gilbreath : of 1624 Petal Way, San Jose has been an area resident for 15 years. He is married with two children. He holds a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Washington and has been employed by NASA Ames Research Center since graduation except for a brief period of study into reef ecology. At Ames, he is research scientist with considerable experience with advanced energy systems , chemistry and metallurgical topics. He serves as Project Scientist for Space Settlements and deputy Manager of a project to determine remotely the skin temperature of the Space Shuttle during entry. He is a member of several professional societies and has written several dozen articles for scholarly publications. In addition to his presentations to national and international scientific bodies he is a fre- quent lecturer on popular space topics to local schools and civic groups. He has been actively involved in winemaking activities for the past five years. George S. Deiwert : Age 38, George is a research scientist at NASA Ames Research Center, having worked there since 1963. He holds a PhD degree in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue university. Raised in Indiana, he has been a resident of Santa Clara County since 1963 and has resided at his present address of 12272 Via Roncole, Saratoga since 1968. George began amateur winemaking in 1970 and has taken winemaking courses at U.C . Davis , as well as several locally in wine appreciation. His father too was an amateur winemaker in Indiana. As a hobby and activity George has found winemak- ing most enjoyable. At this time he feels he is ready to invest more time and capital to assure a successful commercial operation. 18 Charles K. Lombards Charles was born in Jamestown, a small Swedish community in upper New York State, in 1937. As a result of his father's career in the civil service , he lived and found his education over the breadth of the United States - North, South, East, and West. He has received Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Nuclear Engineering and Applied Physics from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and a PhD in Applied Mechanics from Stanford University. Charles has been a Post Doctoral Fellow at NASA Ames Research Center and is currently employed as a Research Scientist at Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory. Married and the father of two children, Charles currently resides with his family in Palo Alto. He has been a resident of Santa Clara County for ten years. He became an active wine- maker four years ago. 19 Page two . 't (b) Topography, Geology and Soils. The site varies in elevation from 1,600 feet at Stevens Creek to 2,675 feet near the summit of Black Mountain. Rock out- croppings are common on the 30ato 75% slopes. Unstable soils with a very high erosion hazard predominate. Four intermittent creeks, Indian, Bay, Gold Paine and Indian Cabin, descend from Monte Bello Ridge into Stevens Creek, which lies along the San Andreas Rift Zone. (c) Vegetation and Wildlife. Three vegetative communities are represented on the property: grassland, chaparral, and oak-bay-Douglas fir forest, with a lush riparian corridor along Stevens Creek. The moist and protected east-facing canyon slope is shaded by tall bays and firs while the more severe exposure and shallow soils of the steep western slope restrict the vegetation to the drought tolerant chaparral and grassland. The mixture of diverse environments and the remoteness of the property makes it ideal wildlife habitat, probably supporting large populations of mule deer and some coyote and bobcat. In addition, the endangered California mountain lion has been sighted in the area. Current Use and Development: Sunnyvale's Peterson High School has used the property and the adjacent MROSD Black Mountain Area in (` connection with an environmental education/awareness program. The ( Palo Alto Fire Department has granted a use permit for the High School to use a camp area in the Stevens Creek Canyon portion of the site, with use not to exceed four weeks in summer and one weekend a month the rest of the year. A limited number of cattle. currently graze the property near the structures. (a) Inventory of Structures. Three wood structures are concealed from general view by a pocket of trees on the otherwise open ridgetop. The location of the following is shown on the attached map: (a) A large barn in fair condition. (b) A house in fair condition presently occupied by a caretaker. (c) A garage/barn with attached living quarters, (no one living in it) in poor condition. (b) Roads and Trails on Site. An unsurfaced road descends to the canyon from Monte Bello Ridge. It parallels Stevens Creek to a corner of the existing Monte Bello Open Space Preserve where the road ends and a trail continues down stream to Stevens Creek County Park and the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. Another -2- .. R-78-7 y (Meeting 78-5 ..�� Agenda item No. 1) Ile MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT February 14, 1978 TO: Board of Directors FRO1.12: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Stanford Property) Introduction: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has been offered the opportunity to purchase 694 acres of land in the Palo Alto foothills from the Board of Trustees of Stanford University at a price of $475,000. The property was donated to Stanford by George F. Morell in a series of gifts from 1961 to 1972 for academic purposes. Mr. Morell is a Trustee Emeritus of Stanford. He was formerly publisher of the Palo Alto Times and President and Chairman of:. the Board of.- Peninsula NeW;papers`:Incorporated. Proceeds from the sale of the . the property to the District will be used in accordance with Mr. Morell's wishes. This acquisition would become an addition to the existing Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, bringing the total acreage of the Preserve to over 2,400 acres. The property represents the only missing piece in a recreational corridor extending from Saratoga Gap to Palo Alto Foothills Park and Page :dill Road, a distance .of 8.0 air miles. When considered with nearby County, City and other MROSD lands , this addition would complete a contiguous park and open space greenbelt of more than 6,000 acres. From a ridgetop overview, the dominant impression of the property is of wide open grassland, dropping off steeply into the 1,000 foot deep Stevens Creek canyon. A hike along the canyon slopes affords a spectacular panorama of natural landscape extending from Mt. Umunhum in the south to Windy Hill in San Mateo County. Reaching the canyon bottom, the hiker is rewarded with the high mountain country sounds of rushing water and wind in the conifer forest. Description of the Site: (a) Size Location and Boundaries. The 694 acre property (see attached map) is bordered to the east, west and south by the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and by private land to the north and northeast. The Duveneck I Windmill Pasture Area of Rancho de San Antonio Open Space Preserve lies 2 mile to the north, with the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve lk miles to the northwest. All of the property is within the City of Palo Alto. Page three unsurfaced road enters the site from the Page Mill Road Area to the northwest. These roads provide two access routes to the site, making patrol possible in conjunction with existing District lands. Planning Considerations: The property is contained within the City of Palo Alto, zoned Open Space, 10 acre minimum lot size. ' It has been determined that the acquisition of this land for open space purposes would be in conformity with the General Plan of Palo Alto. The MROSD Master Plan evaluation, which rates lands .according to various open space values, shows the property as scoring highest in the following resource categories: protection of wildlife and natural vegetation, the wilderness experience, and low intensity recreation. It has a middle ranking for scenic backdrop, view from scenic roads and highways , and the composite score. Relationship to Existing Trails and Regional Trails Plans : Located as it is between existing MROSD lands, this property iss an essential part of an extensive trail route from Saratoga Gap to Page Mill Road with a connection from Castle Rock State Park further south. The Preliminary California Recreational Trails and Hostel Plan r shows a schematic representation of a Santa Cruz Mountain Trail corridor extending from San Francisco to the Santa Cruz coast, which could possibly cross the property along Skyline Boulevard. Potential Use and Management: The remote location of the canyon portion of the property makes it a valuable wildlife preserve while affording a wilderness experience within a half hour's drive from the urban area. The site represents an essential supplement to surrounding park and open space lands in that it creates a contiguous 6 ,000 acre management unit and the .major trails links as discussed above. This acquisition would further the protection of the Stevens Creek watershed while protecting the natural features of Monte Bello Ridge as seen from Skyline Boulevard and Highway 9. Interim Use and Management Recommendations : The following recommendations are being made until a long term use and management plan is prepared simultaneously with one for the Page Mill Road Area that is scheduled for completion by May 1973. See the attached map for location of the items discussed below: (a) The site should remain open to hikers and equestrians who gain access via the Black Mountain Area and the Monte Bello Ridge portion of the Page Mill Road Area of the existing Monte Bello Open Space preserve. (b) A trail connecting with the existing Black Mountain Area and Page Mill Road Area should be temporarily designated using existing roads and trails. Page four (c) Only existing unsurfaced roads should be maintained for patrol use. (d) The docent program presently offering naturalist-led tours on the existing Monte Bello Open Space Preserve should be expanded to include this site. (e) Overnight camping should be restricted to the designated area on the adjacent Preserve for the present time. Because of the large. demand for hiking and equestrian overnight camping in this area, location of a camp should be coordinated with the City of Palo Alto and other potential operating agencies. (f) The grazing potential of the site should be studied in conjunction with the adjoining Black Mountain and Page Mill Road Areas of the Preserve. Grazing should continue at the present level. (g) The present caretaker should continue in residence on a temporary status until completion of the use and management plan, at which time a long term recommendation will be made. Naming: It is recommended that the property become an addition to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, Black Mountain Area and be officially known by the same name. , Terms: This proposed purchase, at the favorable price of $475,000, or approximately $684 .00 per acre, is partly conditioned upon the payment of all cash at the close of escrow (within 30 days hereof) . Also included in the purchase price are several old wagons and farm implements originally owned by the Morell family, Additions to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve constituted the District's 1976 State Park Bond Fund application, and it is anticipated that the full purchase price will be reimbursed by the State after we have completed all of their requirements. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving Agreement to Purchase Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Addition - Stanford Property) . It is further recommended that the Board adopt the interim use. and management recommendations contained within this report, and adopt the name "Monte Bello Open Space Preserve , Black Mountain Area" for the site. 1 0 ' ' .-----a ( ; fS 05 Rancho. San Antonio O.S.P./ `J,/ / Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area = Los Trancos la�o �� ► �i�t 7 Open Space Preserve) Q�3 ' .5prtnfJ a \15 13 ~18 Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Structures ; r Page Mill Road Area T� y aabr eEleccc,� ^' tK r. !x�v fi F ' ltrway Beacon `J i \BEack;Niountain VL Eaoe t ya' ' M . f Proposed Acquisit/i�on � ►�� �� °a 1, �'_ BM,``2125 !� VL 47 •t"'\ � \•a . `S \ � N `\ �i @ � ;7`J'., 1• 11 lii �' `\� .:�.("`- S ?' 46� :=7 40 � _. `�\ BM h 53��- `. •'.ate L .`� e J - /1 i1�G�-/✓' '� \ .� �' Monte Bello p. \-\-.\-- `\ � { �../ '�.. � -.:✓J• �_; ice, Open Space Preserve/;- .. - i 1``4 f' ,;jam/���,/-�.1 \�n r J � � a'� •- t�.� i ' o�� \ 1.\\\�... •.vo. �)y�— -. _ _. -- Sri V -� ack Mountain Area 1`—arrt r� \J•` l����JJJ \ _ ` \ �/- cel ;BM Eg�6Q �pA �_A1VLQ _25( Stevens Creek County Park FjF e' M�ritain PROPOSED ADDITION TO /-- fi0'ITE : ELLO O.SIPI ; ,�--�� ' •I " '` �-- ' '' ,''�'`�� ` ' `_ ELfiCIK PIOUliNTAIN AREA RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING. OF THE TRANSACTION (MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ADDITION - STANFORD PROPERTY) The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: Section one. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain purchase agreement between The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District dated February , 1978 , a copy of which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President and appropriate officers to execute the Agreement on behalf of the District. Section Two. The President of the Board o other appropriate officer is authorized to execute a certificate of acceptance to any deed granting title to said property. Section Three. The General Manager of the District shall cause to be given appropriate notice of acceptance to the seller. The General Manager further is authorized to execute any and all other documents in escrow necessary or appropriate to the closing of the transaction. Section Four. The General Manager of the District is authorized to expend up to $5,000 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, and other miscellaneous costs related to this transaction. w and all restrictions and n reservations of record, ot her x th an current taxes, as described below, and exceptions numbered 2 through 9 in the Preliminary Title Report No. SJ 1-3628 issued to DISTRICT by First American Title Guaranty Company, San Jose, under date of February 22, 1977. Said Preliminary Title Report is labeled Exhibit "C" and attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. PURCHASE PRICE AND CONDITIONS. The purchase price of the property described in Exhibit "A" shall be the sum of FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($475,000.00) payable contemporaneously with delivery of Grant Deed. DISTRICT shall pay all escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction, including title insurance premium. Evidence of title shall be in the form of a standard policy of title insurance issued, by First American Title Guaranty Company. 4. PROPERTY TAXES. TRUSTEES shall pay all due and unpaid taxes, which shall be prorated as of the date of close of escrow. e 5. KNOWING WAIVER. TRUSTEES and DISTRICT understand and agree that TRUSTEES are entitled to receive the fair market value of the property described in Exhibit "A" , as required by Government Code section 7267. 2, and as determined by an appraisal obtained by DISTRICT; and further understand that no Ouch appraisal has been made of said property and TRUSTEES hereby waive any and all existing and/or future rights they may have to the fair market value of said property, as determined in accordance with said Government Code section 7267.2, should DISTRICT obtain an appraisal subsequent to the date of this agreement for the purposes of securing State or Federal participation in the acquisition of said property. 6. MISCELLANEOUS PERSONALTY ACQUIRED. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that payment in clauF 3 above includes, but is not limited to, payment for miscellaneous personal property, which is being acquired as a part of this transaction, and which items are listed and described on Exhibit PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this ' ,. day of .-�f: ; 1978 by and between THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers, hereinafter referred to as "TRUSTEES" , and the MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a Public District,hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT" . WITNESSETH: RECITALS: (A) TRUSTEES are the owners of that certain real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" which are attached hereto and by this reference incor- porated herein and made a part hereof; (B) The DISTRICT desires to purchase and TRUSTEES are trilling to sell said property to the DISTRICT for the consideration and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. This is the whole of their Agreement and the performance of this Agreement constitutes the entire consideration for said purchase. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED as .folloc,s: 1. PURCHASED PROPERTY. On the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, TRUSTEES agree. to sell and convey the property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit comprising approximately 694 acres, generally referred to as all Assessor' s Parcels 351-12-030, -034, -038, -039 , -042, -044 , and_ 351-06-011 , (all Santa Clara County) and :080-311-020 (San Mateo County) to the District, and the DISTRICT agrees to purchase said property from TRUSTEES. 2. CONDITION OF TITLE. TRUSTEES shall convey said property to the DISTRICT by Grant Deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, taxes and assessments, penalties and costs, leases (rocord ed an d unrecorded) , easements, rights--of-oral, bongs and any EXHIBIT "D" (Miscellaneous Personalty) Wooden wheeled John Deere road Grader Harrow attachment Wooden John Deere manure spreader r Seeder attachment Wooden John Deer farm wagon Utility trailer (wire spoke wheels) Wood heater Rustic dining table 'F J 7 . ACCEPTAN'CF.. The DISTRICT shall have a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date hereof within which to accept and execute this Agreement, and during said period of thirty (30) days this contract shall constitute an irrevocable offer by TRUSTEES to enter into a contract with the DISTRICT on the terms and conditions set forth herein, and in consideration of which DISTRICT has paid, and TRUSTEES acknowledge receipt of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10. 00) . 8 . CLOSING. The purchase and sale shall be closed within Thirty (30) days from the acceptance by the DISTRICT under Paragraph 7 of this Agreement through an escrow as above mentioned. 9 . SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the respective successors, heirs and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. 14IDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: ACCEPTED FOR RECOIUMENDATION: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE _ LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR L. Craig Britton UNIVERSITY Lund Acquisition Manager By : i.ECO_iMf:tiDED FOR APPROVAL: ----K William F. R2assy ' . . . . . Vice President for Business z�hdFinance Herbert Grench General Manager APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: 1y Katherine M. Duffy Vice-President, Board of Directors ATTEST: Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM : c Stanley Mort n, District Council -3- t-78-35 Meeting 78-5, Agenda item No. 2) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM February 16 , 1978 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Progress Report on Use and Management of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve Attached is a report (R-78-4 , dated February 15, 1978) to me from the Land Manager regarding the Progress Report on Use and Management of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. It is recommended that the Board approve the supplemental use and management recommendations contained in the report. i AW R-78-4 MIDPENI NSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT February 15, 1978 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Progress Report on Use and Management of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve Introduction: The Land Management Planning Process adopted on July 27, 1977 requires that an informational update be presented on each open space preserve one year after adop- tion of the use and management plan. The purpose of these progress reports is to briefly summarize (1) the implemen- tation of physical improvements; (2) improvements which have yet to be completed in the coming year; (3) visitor use and any management concerns; and (4) present new use and manage- ment recommendations which staff feels should not be put off until the complete plan review in another year. The Use and Management Plan for the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve was contained in the acquisition report adopted on November 24 , 1976. The plan called for the site to be open to hikers and neighboring equestrians, with construction of a trail system and parking area to facilitate use. The Use and Management Plan review is scheduled for February, 1979 . A. Use of the Preserve. This Preserve has become the most heavily used of the District sites because of its location, easy access, trail and parking area development, and relatively high level of publicity connected with special events. Docent-led tours of the Preserve began in September, 1977 with 398 people participating in a total of 24 tours through December, 1977 . Special events included Orienteering Day in March, 1977 and Dedication of the San Andreas Trail in November 1977. Establishment of the interpretive San Andreas Trail, __a joint project with Foothill College, has probably been the most influential factor in drawing large numbers R-78-4 Page two of visitors to the Preserve through exposure to the Foothill College exhibit and publicity on the campus. The site is enjoyed by a large number of visitors who create relatively few management concerns. The 25 to 30 car capacity parking area overflows during peak periods on weekends; however, the surplus cars can be accommodated on the shoulder of the road. If use con- tinues to increase as it has during the past year, the parking situation may become a management burden. The major patrol concern has been stray dogs and visitors bringing dogs onto the Preserve in violation of District regulations. B. Status of Major Recommendations Contained in the 1976-77 Plan. 1. Construction of a parking area. Status: Completed March, 1977. 2. Establishment of a trail system. Status : Interpretive loop and connectors completed April, 1977. 3. Designation of a "natural area" for environmental protection (see attached map for location) . Status: Has remained intact by virtue of steep terrain and lack of access. 4. Cattle grazing to be discontinued for one year to allow range recovery, but likely to be con- tinued. Status: The Board of Directors approved the con- cept of grazing on Los Trancos during the 1978 season at its meeting of February 8 , 1978. Los Trancos is a potential grazing site but it is not certain this will be implemented in calendar year 1978. The site is still being studied and a grazing plan will be developed if feasible in conjunction with other sites on Page Mill Road and Monte Bello Ridge. Within the grazing plan special care will be taken to include consideration of ways in which to maintain the grassland wildflowers. R-78-4 Page three 5. Removal of three structures: barn, shack and pump- house. Status: Removed winter of 1977. Two remaining cisterns will be removed in conjunction with cleanup activities on Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, Page Mill Road Area, in spring, 1978 6. Installation of site identification signs, trail direction markers, woodrail fencing around the parking area incorporating a hiking stile, traffic signs on Page Mill Road warning of the parking area ahead. Status: All site signs and fencing installed in Spring, 1977. Staff is working with San Mateo County on placement of the traffic signs. Addi- tional signs will be installed along con- necting trails in the spring of 1978. 7. Cleanup and revegetation of an area where bay trees had been cut down. Status. Cleanup completed in spring, 1977. Revege- tation postponed due to last year' s drought and in order to assess natural regrowth in the area, i.e. stump sprouting and natural seeding of grasses and forbs. 8. Collection of visitor use data by ranger patrol log sheets. Status: This method of gathering data on visitation has been discontinued as being of limited effectiveness. Staff is working on devising a more produc- tive system that could employ the use of mec- hanical traffic and pedestrian counters and visitor registration boxes. In addition docents are logging use data which is avail- able to staff. 9. Name Status: Officially designated Los Trancos Open Space Preserve on January 12, 1977. R-78-4 Page four C. Supplemental Use and Management Recommendations for 1977-78 . 1. A perimeter equestrian trail should be established with associated directional signing and stiles (see attached map for proposed route) . The trail would principally use existing roadbeds and require only maintenance with no new construction. Estimated time of completion: Summer of 1978. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the use and management recommendations contained in this report as a supplement to the existing plan adopted on November 24 , 1976. JO/CD:pl .�+-T h h . . .y;�i � L�4W! ,;ii�,�u" �.¢�.. � �i. •�' .-,`ir„�'y ,Aer, ,.j .jrti 's �;+4P�lf� _ Qua/�rv>^�SOO. �y�1nr- d_l. �r ;i� •� '� '� 771 00 1 •i. , +\� i `�•..(^`ram-���`�`l ��,O �4,�±i';`I ,,'7/• -�._- t_� �+�� � i; V''•..--•• 57d `' a ,-. pop Vv/1 Sow »e� * Alto a, r roan �j ` �� 60°— d: - �fLi i PALO ALTO. FOO20 THILLS t o • a o .�-/ 0 T H I L L S �•' a ,� . 1`. "�. T. • z ter , eos _ ;OPEN �SPACE PRESERVE;(" ' r •�\. � � ��..� /moo � ��/� f LOS TRANCOS {. �' �+ \ a �° �� � •• ° OPEN SPACE PRESERVE �M M`%, 8 0 t0, cry' u 1 y T -+��� •ate �`�.,.q'� ��� A� �*3 .. •�'l.Y _ �/� �\ 1 , 1 S1ANfOFO � � N •• R � �1 �ytN6 Nlll •� Hal uAxVGa]Irl'�•f[':i\ r ,`' Q � i �� j p '�� d � r �� J 4 4 •t 6 i ?+ 2 c�\l�a a En .. J • 2000 ♦ D \ s •.,'�iey, �.n.+a•... ,� "�o C6 • ^IF J aru.u. Erf Portola _ >ws ar s Los ut@ 2 s s \ I \ Land& Vallel .o ?�a Altus +. o. 3 { AItoS c Esn •y> 7 rr ._.._ 1 �� .j - Q `s/ f �,i •.` �' Hills)� fl11 } a ��`��.� /• .� r `,1 \ �_f aql�� �sfyE 'r. � ,�soor_ MGgr 3 ,o. h ; V le', �1 0 R --• '!�i_mil` $@ \ /)\ 7 ':'�vAraK.r •- v f v g r•E•1Hrt Av iV �'�-•� ^ �_ _.i].may \ �. ~ N.I 3 LOS TRANCOS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE •`_'"-1 d s `sw 13 nAa Permanewe > CUpe NATURE TRAIL v `� p`� P4 / ` e:.-. ••-••••••••• SAPJ APJDERAS FAULT TRAIL Al 3 h' — — - CONNECTI t1G TRAILS - - ash rrt;<'• � _ - � � ��'[{srr.Er. .3� 7 ti v:a.m. ---- PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ^�+�� =I taaa. �I- ONGGa NATURAL AREAo„cp �_ y _ i` rortroE 4s; V� SAaA1 2 > M-78-36 (Meeting 78-5, Agenda item No. 3) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM February 16 , 1978 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT : Progress Report on Use and Management of the Costanoan Way Open Space Preserve Attached is a report (R-78-5, dated February 16 , 1978) to me from the Land Manager regarding the Progress Report on Use and Management of the Costanoan Way Open Space Preserve. It is recommended that the Board approve the continuation of all policy, improvement and management recommendations adopted to date for this site. i R-78-5 i . MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT February 16, 1978 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Progress Report on Use and Management of the Costanoan Way Open Space Preserve Introduction: The Land Management Planning Process adopted on July 27 , 1977 requires that an informational update be presented on each open space preserve one year after adoption of the use and management plan. The purpose of these progress reports is to briefly summarize (1) the implementation of physical improvements; (2) improvements which have yet to be completed in the coming year; (3) visitor use and any manage- ment concerns; and to present new use and management recommen- dations which staff feels should not be put off until the complete plan review in another year. The Use and Management Plan for the Costanoan Way Open Space Preserve was adopted on November 26 , 1975 and reviewed on December 8, 1976. The Plan called for the site to be open for hiking , photography and environmental education. The Use and Management Plan review is scheduled for next Febru- ary 1979. A. Use of the Preserve. Due to its small size, 2.1 acres, lack of parking and limited access, this site receives-very light recreational use. B. Status of Major Recommendations Contained in the 1976-77 Plan. No plans for recreational development were made. Recommendation: It is recommended that all policy, improve- ment and management recommendations incorporated in the origi- nal Use and Management Plan adopted in 1976 and upheld in 1977 be continued without adjustment for 1978. JO/CD:pl '8--37 ,_.aeting 78-5, Agenda item No. 4) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM February 16 , 1978 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Addition to Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands Attached is a memorandum (M-78-34 , dated February 16 , 1978) to me from the Land Manager recommending an Addition to Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands. It is recommended that the Board approve the additions as set forth in the Land Manager's memorandum. M-78-34 A. KC MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM February 16, 1978 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM: J. Olson, Land Manager SUBJECT: Addition to Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands Attached are the previously adopted Policies on Improvements with additions which deal with leasing of improvements and is similar in context to the lease conditions contained in the agricultural lease policy approved by the Board at the meeting of February 8 . (Recommended additions shown on page 4 of previously adopted Board policy. ) Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board approve the addition to the Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands and that this be incorporated into the original policy on improvements adopted by the Board. Fur- ther, it is recommended that the Board consider the use of the word "improvement" rather than "structure" throughout the previously adopted policies for clarification purposes. JO,.-Pl a, R-77-58 Page two structures which have identified potential uses may be retained for an indefinite period as stated in the use and management plan for the site. Other improve- ments will be removed from the site as soon as it is eco- nomically feasible within the constraints of the land management budget. The time scale for the removal will be determiend on the basis of both the cost of removal and the degree of negative impact on the site The.--,site plan will consider the cost arid'-practicality of salvaging materials being removed. C. Discussion. Improvements Used for Site Protection And Mana ement: (1) Im rov i.g. Ranger Station, Ranger and Caretaker Residences, Equipment and Water Storage Facilities,: Fences and Gates) If it is deemed necessary or desirable to have a ranger station or ranger (caretaker) residence in order to pro- perly care for the site, the decision to use an existing structure or to build a new structure should be made on the basis of cost effectiveness and site- compatibility. When a structure is used as a ranger or caretaker res- idence, rental will be at fair market value minus the value of services rendered to the District. Allow- ances may be made for the fact that available facili- ties may exceed the actual need of the occupant. Some improvements such as fences, gates, equipment and water storage. facilities may be required for the proper maintenance and protection of a site. Such im- provements will be constructed and/or maintained as required. (2) improvements for Public Utilization of the Site: i.g. , Education and Recreation Facilities, Youth Hostels, Restrooms, Drinking Water, Trails, Roads, Bridges and Parking Lot) Because the District's principal role is that of pro- viding low intensity recreational uses of its lands, improvements such as trails and parking lots will be considered as part of each site plan. Improvements which have potential for more intensive recreational or environmental and historic educational use will also be considered for retention or construction; however, the willingness of other agencies to bear any major costs of construction and/or management will be an important consideration. Facilities required for the health and safety of the public will be constructed and maintained only as required. in emergency cases, the staff will have discretion for immediate mitigation of hazards. t� MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Policies Regarding improvements on District Lands Adopted By Board of Directors January 11, 1978 i Introduction: In the process of fulfilling is primary function of acquiring open space, the District also becomes the owner of structures and other improvements of varying condition, use- fulness and value. Some of these improvements are appropriate to the open space around them, and others are not. Frequently, structures have some degree of historical value. As use of District lands increases, there will be additional pressure on the District to construct new facilities such as recreational buildings and parking lots. Since there are many costs involved with the maintenance, patrol and liability of structures, it, is ,important that the District establish a policy for the use, construction and/or removal of structures on District lands. Information on specific structures and their use, potential uses and final disposition will be found in the specific site plans.. The following policy statements are intended as a guide for the staff in the preparation of such specific site plans to be approved by the Board. A. Definitions. For the purpose of these policies, improvements will include all constructions such as buildings, recreation and sanitary facilities, utility structures, dams, fences and gates, roads, trails and parking lots. B. Policy Statement. All structures and other improvements existing on District lands at the time of acquisition are potential resources and as such will be considered for retention and will be , addressed in the site plan. In other than emergency situa- tions, public notice will be given as specified in the Land, Use and Management Planning process document before the de- cision is made to remove a major structure. The District will retain and maintain or build a structure or other improve- ment only if it is complementary to the objectives of the District outlined in the Basic Policy. Important considera- tions in the decision to retain an improvement will be its compatibility with the open space character of the site, its potential financial burden to the District in terns of lia- bility and management, and its proposed use. Existing I t R-77-58 Page three (3) Improvements which Contribute to the Character of the Site: (e.g. , Buildings with Unique Historical or Architectural Merit, Barns, Sheds and Fences) In order for the Board to determine the historical, cultural or architectural significance of a structure, the District will notify and consult such agencies as specified in the Land Use and Management Planning Process Document. As an aid to this determination, the District will conduct and maintain a survey of significant struc- tures within the planning area. When the District considers acquisition of a site which includes a structure or structures which are listed on the Na- tional Register for Historic Places or are clearly eligible for inclusion on that register, the District has a special responsibility to seek some means to protect these structures. An important consideration in the decision to retain such structures will be the availability of special funding programs or resources from other public agencies, private organizations or individuals for the costs of their restoration, main- tenance and operation. In extraordinary situations involving structures of exceptional historical or architectural merit, when other resources are not available, the District will. either exclude the structures from its acquisition or accept the respon- sibility to protect and preserve them for an indefi- nite period while seeking other means for continued preservation and/or restoration as identified in the historical resources inventory. Some structures associated with agriculture or other former uses of the site can contribute significantly to the site without detracting from its open space character. When economically feasible wi.thin�%the constraints of the land management budget, examples ' of these structures will be retained, maintained, and whenever possible put to use. (4) Improvements as Income Sources: Structures will not be maintained or constructed solely for the purpose of producing revenue. Rentals may be employed to maintain a structure which is being re- tained for another potential use or on a temporary basis in order- to help defray the cost of removal of an undesirable structure. :yhen a structure is temporarily retained for the purpose of revenue pro- duction, it should be rented for the fair market val- ue consistent with possible special restrictions -due to its location on open space lands, and its availa- bility should be advertised through normal channels generally used for this purpose, e.g. , newspaper ad- vertisement. R-77-58 Page four Recommended for Board Adoption on February 22, 1978 : If other factors are equal, a lottery will be used to determine the tenant, if more than one potential lessee is interested in the same improvement. The Board of Directors will review and approve improve- ments leases or licenses which are long term (over 1 year) and/or involve an anticipated income in excess of $3,500. The General Manager or his/her designee may enter into lease or license agreements on behalf of the District without specific Board approval if they are: (a) in amounts not exceeding $3,500 income to the District (including in-kind services) , and (b) no more than 1 year in duration, and (c) not long range commitments, e.g. , through improve- ments, which go beyond the scope of Board adopted interim or long term site plan, and (d) pursuant to a Board adopted interim or long term site plan Staff will have the discretion to enter into leases specifying either cash or in-kind services or a com- bination of the two as payment. If in-kind services are being accepted, they will in no circumstance exceed one year' s cash value without Board approval, to pre- clude the expectation of a continuing relationship. ( The following portion was adopted by the Board on 1/11/78) (5) 1,mj2rRv-_wwnts jar Nriculture and other Senial Uses-. Agricultural use which is consistent with the open space use of a site is encouraged by the District. Improvements for agriculture or other special uses will be retained or constructed as approved by the Board and stated in the site plan. M-78-33 (Meeting 78-5 Agenda item No. 5) Nlaw b or MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM February 15, 1978 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: ABAG Draft Environmental Management Plan Attached is a report (R-78-6, dated February 15, 1978) to me from the Administrative Aide regarding the ABAG Draft Environmental Management Plan. It is recommended that the Board authorize the President to send a letter to the Association of Bay Area Governments expressing the District' s support for the overall concepts set forth in the draft Environmental Management Plan. This would not imply that the Board endorses every aspect of the Plan, but that on balance it' s an important step in providing a liveable Bay Area environment for the future. HG:jg R-78-6 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT February 15, 1978 TO: H. Grench, General Manager FROM: A. Crosley, Administrative Aide SUBJECT: ABAG Draft Environmental Management Plan Introduction: At its February 8, 1978 meeting, the Board re- ceived copies of the Summary of the Draft Environmental Manage- ment Plan for the. San Francisco Bay Region which has been de- veloped by the Association of Bay Area Governments in cooper- ation with State, regional and local agencies. District staff has attended meetings and public hearings regarding the Plan, and I have reviewed the full text of the proposed draft. The Plan, which is scheduled for adoption on April 6, has been prepared to comply with State and federal laws regarding air and water quality, solid waste treatment, and other related matters under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency. Local agencies will be responsible for implementing the Plan, which can be amended annually. The failure of local agencies to adopt and implement the Plan could result in the unavailability of federal funding for projects designed to deal with environmentally-related problems, including transportation. Discussion: The proposed Environmental Management Plan attempts to treat the problems of a densely-populated urban area as related parts of an overall need for better planning and coord- ination, and to re-examine and try to change individual living patterns. The Plan encourages both broad and specific sug- gestions to reduce the environmental impacts associated with large numbers of people who require housing, jobs, shopping areas, schools, utilities, transportation, recreation and other services. The Plan emphasizes the use of public educa- tion; development of markets for waste materials; clarifi- cation, improvement and enforcement of existing regulations; the provision of incentives to both public agencies and the private sector to plan and initiate environmentally sound practices; encouragement of such specific measures as car pooling, alternative transportation methods, extensive bicycling systems, renovation and remodeling of existing structures, recycling and separation of waste materials, and cooperation among local jurisdictions . R-78-6 Page two Land Use Policies: The draft Environmental Management Plan also sets forth specific policies and recommendations designed to prevent urban sprawl and to maximize the efficient use of exist- ing urban services. The Plan urges LAFCOs to adopt both spheres of influence and urban service areas, and encourages counties and cities to enact non-urban zoning outside the designated urban service areas. Local agencies are further encouraged to re- strict development in areas of environmental concern through zoning, acquisition of land or easements, and pursuit of William- son Act contracts . The Plan suggests that cities review their policies regarding development permits to find ways of directing more attention to development of unimproved land within urban service areas, the reconstruction of decaying building areas, and promotion of more compact and better planned developments. District Policies: The District' s Basic Policy states that "The District will work with and encourgage private and other public agencies to preserve, maintain and enhance open space" and "The District will propose and urge preservation of open space to other governmental agencies. . .which have zoning powers. . . and will lend support to those groups which are urging other agencies to take actions consistent with the goals of the District. " The recently adopted Master Plan of the District emphasizes the importance of guiding the urban form in the Bay Area. The following excerpt from the acquisition policy "Open Space for Guiding Urban Form" expresses the District' s philosophy re- garding local land use practices: Uncontrolled urban sprawl and leapfrog development have been destructive to agriculture, have made efficient local government difficult and provision of urban services costly, and have aggra- vated pollution and transportation pro- blems. This destructive and wasteful process of urban development must be controlled by careful planning and proper land use regulations, and by the phased extension of urban services and facilities. To this end the District encourages and supports the efforts of the cities, the counties and the local agency formation commissions to enact and enforce policies and regulations to guide urban development. The District believes that future urban R-78-6 Page three development should occur in or near existing urbanized areas according to realistic and logical five-year growth plans prepared by each city, in cooper- ation with its county, and approved by its LAFCO. It is important that city plans be considered by the District in acquisition decisions within these planned urban areas. Along with the planning and regulation of development, there should be selec- tive acquisition of permanent open space areas on the urban fringe to induce compact development and to limit urban sprawl. This critical open space, par- ticularly threatened by development, is most valuable for guiding urban form. Conclusion: It appears that the land use policies and overall goals set forth in the draft Environmental Management Plan are consistent with the District's own goals and policies, and that it would be appropriate for the District to express its support of the Plan to the Association of Bay Area Governments. Recommendation: It is recommended that the President of the Board be directed to send a letter to the Association of Bay Area Governments expressing the District' s support for the overall concepts set forth in the draft Environmental Management Plan, and encouraging ABAG to continue working with local agencies to prepare a final Plan that is both effective and reasonable for those who will be affected by it. AC:jg r � C-78-4 February 22, 1978 Meeting 78-5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT C L A I M S # Amount Name Description 624 $ 600.64 Xerox Corporation Duplicating Expense 625 50.80 General Printing Company Printing-Warrants 626 540.00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services 1627 6.23 General Telephone Directory Information 628 119. 90 Manpower Temporary Services Temporary Office Help 629 14.30 Una Graphics Printing-Picchetti Map 630 395.54 Orchard Supply Hardware Improvements-Permanen,te, Field Supplies & Maint. & Repair-Page Mill Rd. Area 631 200. 00 Title Insurance and Trust Co. Title Reports. 632 253. 74 Lawrence Contract Furnishers Improvements-Office Drapes '633 22.25 California, Safety & Supply Co. Ranger Uniforms `6.34 55.78 Image Technology, Inc. Mapping Services-Filmwork 635 11. 83 Standard Brands Paint Co. , Inc Improvements-Picchetti 636 89. 85 Allstate Plywood, Inc. Improvements-Ranger Office 637 37. 95 Bob Garcia Fquipment Rental-Field ' 38 46. 41 Techni-Graphics, Inc. Printing-Business Cards 639 145. 59 Alvord & Ferguson Ranger Uniforms i640 125.03 Young & Associates Office Supplies 641 399. 38 Carolyn Caddes Photographs i Revised C-78-4 February 22, 1978 Meeting 78-5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT C L A I M S # Amount Name Description 624 600.64 Xerox Corporation Duplicating Expense 62.5 50.80 General Printing Company Printing-Warrants I626 540. 00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services i627 36 .23 General Telephone Directory Information 1628 119- 90 Manpower Temporary Services Temporary Office Help 6291 14 . 30 Uno Graphics Printing-Picchetti Map 630 395. 54 . Orchard Supply Hardware Improvements-Permanente, Field Supplies & Maint. & Repair-Page Mill Rd. Area 200. 00 Title Insurance and Trust Co. Title Reports 632 253. 74 Lawrence Contract Furnishers Improvements-Office Drapes 633 22. 25 California Safety & Supply Co. Ranger Uniforms 634 55. 78 Image Technology, Inc,. mapping Services-Filmwork �635 11. 83 Standard Brands Paint Co. , Inc. . Improvements-Picchetti 636 89. 85 Allstate Plywood, Inc. Improvements-Ranger Office ' 637 44. 51 Bob Garcia Equipment Rental-Field 638 46. 41 Techni-Graphics, Inc. Printing-Business Cards i 639 145. 59 Alvord & Ferguson Ranger Uniforms 640 132 . 18 Young & Associates Office Supplies 641 399. 38 Carolyn Caddes Photographs 642 2 ,000. 00 E. P. Brodd & Associates, Inc. Appraisal Report 643 165. 70 Carter Associates Computer Services 644 34 .33 Palo Alto Printing Printing-Labels 645 11. 96 Diversified Transportation, Inc. Parcel Delivery Service 646 30 . 00 CBM Type Mapping .Services 647 930. 00 Donald H. Ashley and Associates Appraisal Services 648 7, 043. 25 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Annual Insurance Policy 646 . 72 K. D. Coleman Co. Improvements - Trails 'i650 62- 73 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense 1 651 68. 03 Hubbard & Johnson Site Maint. & Repair 1652 100. 00 Regents of University of California Extension Course - Establishment of Trails i i653 84. 64 Shell Oil Company District Vehicle Expense # Amount Name Descri tion 054 $ 269.00 Mobil Oil Corporation District Vehicle Expense 655 386. 00 German Travel Service Michigan-Park & Recreation, Law Enforcement Snstitb te' °656 . 75 Austen"s Garment & Linen Rental Ranger Uniforms 657 45. 31 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense Office Supplies & Equip. Field Supplies Library Conference Expense Training & Seminars Return of Salary Advance I I I I