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