HomeMy Public PortalAbout19800423 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 80-08 Meeting 80-8
oe
0(MM
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
April 23 , 1980 7 :30 P.M.
(7 :30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 26 and April 21 , 1980
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 :45) 1. Proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park (Alma
College Site) - H. Grench
(8 :00) 2. Site Emphasis Policy Workshop Follow-Up - H. Grench
(8 :30) 3. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot
Location - H. Grench
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 :50) 4. Preliminary Action Plan for the Implementation
of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District for Fiscal Year 1980-81 -
H. Grench
(9 :10) 5. Proposed Rancho San Antonio County Park Master
Plan - S. Sessions
(9 :30) 6. Appointment of Peace Officers - S. Sessions
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional open Space District
Appointing Peace Officers
(9 :35) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations
ADJOURNMENT
Herbert A.Grench,Generathfanager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,NonetteG.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,EdwardG.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,DanielG Wendin "T
24
i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
I
Notice of Meeting
of
Budget Committee
April .24 , 1980 at 11 :45 A.M.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA
There will be a meeting of the Budget Committee of
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at
11:45 A.M. on Thursday, April 24, 1980 at 375 Distel
Circle, Suite D-1, Los Altos, California for the
a
purpose of discussing preparation of the budget for
the 1980-1981 fiscal year.
M-80-34
(Meeting 80-8
4/23/80
A -enda Item No. 1)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTMT
MEMORANDUM
April 18, 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park (Alma College Site)
Introduction: The concept of a State park on the former Alma
College site and some surrounding lands west of Highway 17 and
north of Summit Road has been discussed for some time. District
financial support for a State park in the south part of the
District was included under the Committed Land Purchases category
in the current fiscal year' s budget (see report R-79-24 of June 7,
1979) . The District' s maximum share was expected to be $400 ,000.
You have taken action to support inclusion of such a project in
AB 990, which is a parks omnibus bill working its way through the
State legislature. In parallel with this legislative effort,
the District has been working to have such a project included
in the State' s priorities for expenditure of Proposition 1 funds,
should this measure be passed by the voters in June. The State
Park and Recreation Commission is currently holding hearings to
consider nominations for potential projects.
The proposed project is summarized in an attachment.
Discussion: Correspondence in support of the project is attached,
and it would now be appropriate formally to endorse the project
and make the financial commitment.
Recommendation: I recommend that you formally (1) endorse the pro-
posed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park as outlined in the attachment,
and (2) commit a contribution of $400,000 or 10% of the acquisition
cost of the parcels, whichever is less.
I
15660 Gardenia way
Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
April 5, 1980
Mr. Herb Grench, General Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Dear Mr. Grench:
We write to express our enthusiastic support for the proposed
Bear Creek Redwoods State Park, and to urge that the District
involve itself as fully as possible and necessary in the acqui-
sition of the site .
The continuing shortage of gasoline and its steadily increasing
cost would Make especially timely the development of such a
park next door to the San Jose metropolitan area. Moreover,
the proposed site includes such varied terrain and natural
features that it could be developed to provide recreational
and educational opportunities for persons of widely differing
interests and ages.
Sim erely,
Mr. and Mrs. William F. Canfield
PROPOSED
BEAR CREEK REDWOODS STATE PARK
Every child should know what a forest smells like after it rains and be able
f n redwood needles. Ever adult should be able to
to walk on a trail o spongy e y
shed city cares and stroll beneath tall trees.
These experiences are available on the northern coast of California but they
could also be available within a 15 minute drive of the heart of the City of
San Jose if the proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park becomes a reality.
A 1 ,000 acre site on State Highway 17 has to be one of the most. unique opportu-
nities in California for establishment of a State Park adjacent to a major
urban area. It encompasses an interesting variety of terrain and natural envi-
ronments which could attract visitors from the entire San Francisco Peninsula
and the Santa Cruz coast with a combined population of 2,500,000.
Attractive Amenities. Although close to urban centers the property itself is
located in an area of large lot subdivisions, undeveloped properties and Christ-
mas tree farms. Level grassland hilltops, which afford vistas of the Santa Clara
Valley and surrounding rugged canyons and forested hills, are ideal active day
use areas for picnicking and children's activities.
It is unusual to find a water recreation area in a redwood park but this property
fronts on Lexington Reservoir, a 500 acre park managed by Santa Clara County,
which adds a dimension to the use potential of this site.
One of the most unusual natural features on the property is the San Andreas Rift
Zone. An earthquake fault runs through the site and landforms associated with
it could be the focus of an educational program incorporating an interpretive
geology trail . Such a program would be of great interest to residents of the
Bay Area whose lives are directly affected by the San Andreas.
It is extraordinary to have mature redwood and Douglas fir forest so easily ac-
cessible from the urban area. Most forests of this type are found on the coast
side of this mountain range which is an hour's drive for most urban residents.
A few virgin redwoods remain on this site. One double-trunked tree measures
eight feet in diameter. This forest environment of thundering creeks, tall ferns
and towering trees gives one the feeling of being in a remote wilderness.
Potential Uses. In addition to its proximity to population centers and its ex-
ceptional natural features this property is an ideal location for a State park
facility since it contains several buildings formerly used as a college. These
buildings could easily be converted to a visitor center, educational center,
r personnel tr
aining
in headquarters.
and park meeting lace 9 q
9 P P P
Perhaps location is the site's most appealing feature. Because it fronts on a
State highway it could serve as a gateway to the Santa Cruz Mountains park system;
some AO 000 acres
of
park land. With this addition it could become possible to
hike from the urban area to the sea, a distance of 50 miles. The prospect of
being able to backpack in a mountain wilderness, reminiscent of a remote national
park, for 5 days starting just 15 minutes from the city is truly exciting.
I
PROPOSED
BEAR CREEK REDWOODS STATE PARK
Every child should know what a forest smells like after it rains and be able
to walk on a trail of spongy redwood needles. Every adult should be able to
shed city cares and stroll beneath tall trees.
These experiences are available on the northern coast of California but they
could also be available within a 15 minute drive of the heart of the City of
San ,lose if the proposed Bear Creek Redwoods State Park becomes a reality.
A 1 ,000 acre site on State Highway 17 has to be one of the most- unique opportu-
nities in California for establishment of a State Park adjacent to a major
urban area. It encompasses an interesting variety of terrain and natural envi-
ronments which could attract visitors from the entire San Francisco Peninsula
and the Santa Cruz coast with a combined population of 2,500,000.
Attractive Amenities. Although close. to urban centers the property itself is
located in an area of large lot subdivisions, undeveloped properties and Christ-
mas tree farms. Level grassland hiiltops, which afford vistas of the Santa Clara
Valley and surrounding rugged canyons and forested hills, are ideal active day
use areas for picnicking and children's activities.
It is unusual to find a water recreation area in a redwood park but this property
fronts on Lexington Reservoir, a 500 acre park managed by Santa Clara County,
which adds a dimension to the use potential of this site.
t
One of the most unusual natural features on the property is the San Andreas Rift
Zone. An earthquake fault runs through the site and landforms associated with
it could be the focus of an educational program incorporating an interpretive
geology trail . Such a program would be of great interest to residents of the
Bay Area whose lives are directly affected by the San Andreas.
It is extraordinary to have mature redwood and Douglas fir forest so easily ac-
cessible from the urban area. Most forests of this type are found on the roast
side of this mountain range which is an hour's drive for most urban residents.
A few virgin redwoods remain on this site. One double-trunked tree measures
eight feet in diameter. This forest environment of thundering creeks, tall ferns
and towering trees gives one the feeling of being in a remote wilderness.
Potential Uses. In addition to its proximity to population centers and its ex-
ceptional natural features this property is an ideal location for a State park
facility since it contains several buildings formerly used as a college. These
buildings could easily be converted to a visitor center, educational center,
meeting p P lace and .ark personnel training headquarters.
Perhaps location is the site's most appealing feature. Because it fronts on
State highway it could serve as a gateway to the Santa Cruz Mountains park system;
some 40,000 acres of park land. With this addition it could become possible to
hike from the urban area to the sea, a distance of 50 miles. The prospect of
being able to backpack in a mountain wilderness, reminiscent of a remote national
park, for 5 days starting just 15 minutes from the city is truly exciting.
�� 1f f/ 1 �`` ��,_�\\ \ _ .. ..._. ��,•I��1r1t ,11 ,,}���'� i (J /1 j(� •i\ T ,Y�
r- .\�..-ti 1'•ii/:1'�l ��.15�.4.�1 -N _ -- \.c\1`P...` ...tLJ.:+.wfwj.4lRAJ.V.�J.-4[✓ Js�w(1L:i �'N1/l /..l.aaZ �.'1l1 th Jrl, _
7
3 Ong PROPOSED
=' BEAR CREEK REDWOODS STATE PARK -�
r — .---- �'=V� ;
Res
U` V\ •. �-=��i \�\ V .L` \•�`�.!\• _ i�J SPILLWAY 645 ��•�\� �� l�/ +✓�
" - 1 436
/�� \�), •�,%�'.
—14330(
4 •
♦K tF�Peserunrrsir
- r
r7L, 01
y
1
\ L dt rTanM1, WT
i `J, 'Alm ire w W!"15
�X- wAlnta � 1.K �GeS ��✓-tn � \� \ ��
—��College `�.� �, A� � till ��:�
"��o � .`,, �_� ^, � ' i/��y j R�ca-d\✓�/lc\t�! 3 j}k.• '�C�+ e\� \�!) i � � .'\`�C���, \\`` ;
IL �i
II� JI I 1
.tntontezu
III).)Sc
- I Tf� ,
\\. \
8M 2134�._
- ke
_---•��:Park -
rl
Potential Uses
Picnic/Children`s Activity Area
• 02 Nature/Conference/Training Center
Rcc'n r_ �3 Earthquake Trail
® Water Sports Area
Redwood Grove Nature Trail-
AANCISCO\ reffl0nt
is
F;SHNATI 0"
-1 C&
S3
L0VF§REP
2 cf.�V,
Belmont MA+ DdL
'46000, TV -n-w
AND •
--San Cailp;'s
dwood'Cit spriRp
> 0
5"'East
GAME
Rinenun Palo Alto
1, • 3 ot
Ywo 937 REFUGE t
1,1 3
Menlo Park
',AEI-jF
Palo Alt o
Milpitas
R0. rzr.K g 1;syW u r r L \ `,,N ; r..,rn...; ( c,• �aa•m• 's ,A Kr,z°. s - - �
+;
0
I nfte
4
A 121 IT
3
4 vale
Santa a.
A"ft c t
7 Z
7 7 3, SC
2
Pro c� • EMW S.L. :w",7z
Grego" 13
R pefm3nente- �f. Cupertino
41A 3
Jose
A
Cam bell
SAN MATEO CO_ J(I
Of OWAk PAIM • CREEK-a
Z= 4
SARAYO(JA
IZX�I. , - 2
OAP
Pescadem Saratoga
cadem
B UT,4 NO
C6.,
f %aw Secenc Monte
14
OF ftIA
6Jax,c r Los Gatos
cf 4* 1
�_AI
A
AIA TEO CO. IJIAI�'=I ,
FOREST
ST-4 Tle p-4
A PE
MES.WATER
B,4sl.v
v 14 WATER REM AAEA PEG.AREA 0Uc-v9Lv9w
L
A, 1 D
C4 .6YOOS�� 12 I
A demmft
ill 9 T Creek
�Oly city
31
A
C
A�U We
hu we
Boulderreek LO
Brookd3le
Z Lwpikco
Zaylr
Ben
Lomondis
n A,.
7
2
rvf 3
',12
U. "
_#RKS
.-relcon
Bonny DODD r
0",
Palley 9 6
E0j,"Pt.
Davenp-rl Landing ..zff..T& all
3
Davenport 7
�'?
v
CAL..
j C
soqual
Santa Cru,
.0del
—c
REGIONAL MAP
4 ,qvC—
PROPOSED PFAR 'REEK REDwarm-, STATE PARK l Belch
M-80-33
(Meeting 80-8
4/23/80
Agenda Item No. 2)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 15, 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Site Emphasis Policy Workshop Follow-Up
Discussion: Attached is a report R-80-16 from S. Sessions to me
regarding Site Emphasis Policy Workshop Follow-Up.
Considerable staff time involving several persons was devoted to
trying to sort out important policy issues from the workshop.
However, the workshop format was much more geared toward full
participation in generating and exploring ideas than toward
definition of issues. The minutes of the meeting reflect this
emphasis. Therefore, we are reporting back to you at this stage
before more staff time is spent and before participants forget
altogether what transpired at the workshop.
Conclusion: Loathe though I am to suggest it (because committee
work requires much Board and staff time and some committees have
not been able to complete assignments yet) , further ' identification
of policy issues and approaches to these issues may be most
effectively handled by a committee. If you do appoint a committee,
I urge you to define its task well and to make clear your expec-
tations as to when it should report back. Unfortunately, this
is an extremely busy time of year for Board and staff, particularly
because of budget preparation, and some other activities will
have to be delayed or cut back if appreciable staff time is needed
before July 1 for the workshop follow-up.
The committee could also refine the questionnaire somewhat and
recommend how it should be filled out to represent Board consensus.
R-80-16
y
•
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
April 16 , 1980
TO: H. Grench, General Manager
FROM: S. Sessions, Land Manager
CONTRIBUTORS: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager, C. MacDonald,
Public Communications Coordinator, and J. Fiddes,
Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Site Emphasis Policy Workshop Follow-up
Introduction: This report is a follow-up to the February 23,
1980 Site Emphasis Policy Workshop and recaps the discussions,
policy questionnaire, and issues discussed at the meeting. At
the conclusion of the workshop, staff was directed to identify
policy issues in order to allow additional discussion on the
various issues before policies could be formulated.
The Site Emphasis Policy Workshop focused on the goal of defining
emphasized and non-emphasized sites in order to establish policy
guidelines for site emphasis and promotion of emphasized and
non-emphasized sites. In order to allow some statistical quanti-
fication of peoples' thinking on the issues, a questionnaire
was prepared and utilized to provide a focus for the small group
discussions. The questionnaire results were tabulated according
to the respondent groups of public, Board and staff, as well
as an overall total.
The large group discussion focused first on the questionnaire
elements of publicity, promotion, site exposure, site amenities,
and programming. This discussion then evolved into an issue
discussion to allow the formulation of policy as set forth in
the workshop goals.
Discussion: The tabulated results of the workshop questionnaire
are attached for review and consideration. The assumption was
that a majority of yes votes would be a consensus. The
stated ground rules were that a non-vote equalled a no vote.
A list of individual comments and suggestions is also attached.
Some tentative conclusions can be drawn from the questionnaire
results. Input from the public, Board and staff appears to be
similar, with the consensus directed towards 1) positive
publicity, but restricting promotion of non-emphasized sites,
2) site exposure, through signs, on emphasized sites with re-
stricted exposure on non-emphasized sites, and 3) the question
of site amenities and programming directed to emphasized sites
that could accomodate the impacts of emphasis.
R-80-16 Page Two
The questionnaire generated comments and suggestions which will
have to be evaluated.
The large group discussion focused on the questionnaire elements.
Statements and comments were directed to questions arising from
the questionnaire, as well as questions arising from the small
group discussions. The minutes of the meeting relate comments
made during the large group discussion.
The following policy issues and questions were developed from
the written and verbal comments expressed during the workshop
as well as from the questionnaire results:
A. The differences in physical and development characteristics
of emphasized and non-emphasized sites need to be identified.
There is a possibility that the District should not have
such a rigid distinction but rather have varying degrees
of emphasis depending on specific site factors such as
location, access, features, and carrying capacity, and on
dollars .
B. Should the District have a public relations policy on
emphasizing the five identified sites even though the
District would not manage most of the sites?
C. Do we need a complete redesign of land management and
associated publicity policies or simply a refinement with
more detail and some additional policy statements?
D. Several specific issues were raised with the request to
discuss at a future date. Items such as provision of rest-
rooms and drinking water, types of signs, provision of maps,
publicity levels, and the District' s role in open space
need to be addressed. How would the Board fill out the
questionnaire by consensus?
Conclusion: The workshop consensus was to agendize items such
as ranger ride-along programs, emphasis and publicity policy,
as well as specific items dealing with promotion format and cost
factors. These items require further discussion in order to
formulate a policy. Additionally, staff feels that a Board
overall consensus (one yes or no vote) for each part of the
questionnaire would be beneficial.
E = EMPHASIZED SITE
r �AT�t NEHP = NON-EMPHASIZED HIGH USE
2 POTENTIAL SITE
NELP = NON-EMPHASIZED LOW USE
E POTENTIAL SITE
III. SIGNS/SITE ExPOSURE -
1 1. 3" x 5" boundary enforcement identification
plaque ($30.0 0 each)
2. 20" x 30" "Use of Preserve" Regulatory Sign
2 ($75.00 each)
' r
a. Place adjacent to road for maximum
a visibility
i
b. Place on trail away from road/access
b �p (low visibility)_
. 3. Large 3' x 12' site .identification signs
3 (like Los Trancos)
4 �- z *4. Off-site directional signs ($50. 00 each)
5 �- 5. Trail Directional Signs ($40. 00 each)
6. 3" x 5" Private Property signs at access to
6 �2' adjacent property from District lands ($25.00 eac'.
*7. District information sign ($150.00 each)-
*8. Site history information sign ($150.00 each)
8 � .
9. Split rail fencing (District style) ($10.0.0
9 j per linear ft. )
/ �10. Hiking/equestrian stiles ($150 .00 each)
10 �p
11 ill. Other
12 �12. Other
* At this point, this item has been- interpreted to be beyond
the scope of existing Boar
d poZicy and practice.
Site Category.
2 BOARD (6)
NP LP
I. PUBLICITY .-
A. BROCHURES & MAPS
1 1. W x 11" site info sheet with map in
current format as for "Skyline Preserve"
.a J a. District-wide general distribution
b b. On-site/office distribution •
c c. Office only/restricted distribution
2 2. 8h" x 13" foldout site map with general
site information
.a a. District-wide general distribution
b b. On-site/office distribution
c c. Office only/restricted distribution
3. One 12" x 18" foldout informative brochure
3 containing information on District and
identifying all sites
a a. District-wide general distribution
b b. On-site/office distribution
c � / c. Office only/restricted distribution
4 4. Other
B. MEDIA PUBLICITY/SPECIAL PROMOTION
1 1. Site promotion in newspaper
(, (�„ a. at time of acquisition
b = b. on a continuing basis
2. Site promotion in newsletters (such as
2 _ _ Open Space)
a �S' `� a. at time of acquisition
b / b. on a continuing basis
3. Site promotion in magazines
4 4. Site promotion via speakers program and
-3 slide show
5 S" T 5. Site promotion through special event displays
6 *6. T.V. and raaio •`;v;F�rage
7 s� _ / 7. Book - regional trail guides, etc.
8 8. Other
*At this point, this item has been interpretrt to be
beyond the scope of existing Board po7,cy -nd practice.
SIT.+ CA'�'ECo�C'Y •
uQ � P
III. VISITOR/SITE AMENITIES
1 , 3 1. Trail construction (average $5. 00 per running foot)
2 2. Parking areas (like Los Trancos) ($800.00 per
parking stall)
3 �'' / 3. Roadside Parking (turnouts) (average 3 car
parking $2,000.00)
4 4. Restrooms (portable type) ($1200. 00 each)
a �3 / / a. only when required by public ordinance
b .3 b. as a general practice
5 / *5. Drinking water availability
6 *6. Picnic areas
7 ?. Other
8 8. Other
1
IV.. PROGRAMMING
1. Docent tours, regularly scheduled publicized
1 program, no reservations required (as at
Los Trancos)
a 2 � �' � 2« Docent
tours
brequest only (as -currently
done at Monte Bello)
3 3 3. Other educational groups (providing programs
3 such as Nature Explorations)
*4. Promotion of recreational shuttle bus service
4 AA z by transit district
5 5. Other
6 6. Other
*At this point, this item has been interpreted. to be beyond
the scope of existing Board policy and practice.
• E -- EMPHASIZED SITE
S NEHP = NON-EMPHASIZED HIGH USE
POTENTIAL SITE
NELP = NON--EMPHASIZED LOW USE _
E POTENTIAL SITE
14P LP _
II. SIGNS/SITE EXPOSURE -
J;Z- j2- l� 1. 3" x 5" boundary enforcement identification
1 plaque- ($30.00 each) _
2_ 20" x 30" "Use of Preserve" Regulatory sign
2 2 ($75.00 each) • -
a. Place adjacent to road for maximuid
a j3 visibility
b. Place on trail away from road/access_
b (low ,visibility) _
•
. 3. Large 3' x 12' site identification signs
3 1 ,� (like Los Trancos)
*4. off-site directional signs ($50.00 each)
4
/0 5_ Trail Directional Signs ($40.00 each)
6. 3" x 5" Private Property signs at- access to
6 /� adjacent property from District lands ($25_00 e
7 ;k7. District information sign ($150.00 each)
*8. Site history information sign ($150_00 each)
$
9. Split rail fencing (District style) ($10.00
9 / per linear ft. )
.10, Hiking/equestrian stiles ($150-00 each)
10 -
12 !11. Other "For Info re this site, ca1-1 'D at 965-4717
12 112. Other More modest site identifications signs
Metal .interpretive signs
Metal regulatory signs where needed
Legible yooden_msp of site
*At this point, this item has been interpreted to be
beyond the scope of existing Board policy and practice.
Site Category
STAFF(15)
2 3
u� NTEE
i4 P LP
I. PUBLICITY .
A. BROCHURES & MAPS
1. g x 11" site info sheet with map in
1 current format as for "Skyline Preserve"
,a a. District wide general distribution
b - S 9 Z b. On-site/office distribution . _
C. office only/restricted distribution
G
2 ; 2. 83g" x 13" foldout site map with general
site information
i
-a .5 a. District wide general distribution
b .r b. On-site/office distribution
c 2 J C. Office only/restricted distribution
3. One 12" x 18" foldout informative brochure
3 containing information on District and
identifying all sites
a a. District-wide general distribution
b 2 t b. On-site/office distribution
c c. Office only/restricted distribution
4 4. Other Area'map for particular areas
zs --w1 e stri ution.
site history.brochure.
Eliminate 42.
- - +- Somthing that explains District's over-all
site enphasis policy
B: MEDIA PUBLICITY/SPECIAL PROMOTION
1 1. Site promotion in newspaper
a. at time of acquisition
.a
b b. on a continuing basis
2. Site promotion in newsletters (such as
2 open Space)
a / /,� a. at time of acquisition
b / b. on a continuing basis
1 jo 3. Site promotion in magazines
4 t2 4. Site promotion via speakers program and
slide sho:r
5 j t 5. Site pi:motion through special event display
6 j *6. T.V. and radio coverage
7 11L 7. Book - regional trail guides, etc.
8 l 8. Other Books published by MFROSD and also others
School programs
Phone directory
*At this point, this item has been interpretF:: to be
beyond the scope of existing Board pot icy -n d practice.
r
E
III. VISITOR/SITE AMENITIES
1 1. Trail ccastruction (average $5.00 per running foo
2. Parking areas (like Lcz. Trancos) ($800 .00 per
Is,
� � parking stall)
3
;S 23. Roadside Parking (turnouts) (average 3 car
2 000.00 . . _
. parking $ . ) .
4 4. Restrooms (portable type) ($1200_00 each) w
a r ,2 a. only when required by public ordinance
ot b_ as a general practice -
5 - .,� *5. Drinking water availability
6 / *6. Picnic areas ,
7 7. Other Maintenance of existing.trails & roads.
8 8.. Other Enoourage others to provide &'maintain turnotits -
• Use existing turnouts -
Bike trails
IV.. PROGRAMMING
1. Docent .tours, regularly scheduled publici.zea
1 ! program, no reservations required (as at.
Los Trancos)
2 O t J ,,� 2. Docent tours by request only (as -currently
done at Monte Bello)
r-/L c�r ��„ 3. Other educational groups (providing pr_ogran�s
3 such as Nature Explorations)
jfl *4. Promotion of recreational shuttle bus service
by transit district
5 5. Other Occasional Ranger-led. tours
6 6. Other Cooperate with shuttle Lt� 62-tn c;Z at- ,•,r, n;��,-;Ct-
expense.
Day canps like one at Picchetti(run by otters)
Special District events.
*At this point, this item has been interpreted- to be beyond
the scope of existing Board poZicy and practice.
- E = EMPHASIZED SITE
—5ma CATE9440; NEHP = NON-EMPHASIZED HIGH USE
t POTENTIAL SITE
NELP = NON-EMPHASIZED LOB USE
�`•�� POTENTIAL SITE
�P LP _
II. SIGNS/SITE EXPOSURE -
-
3" x 5" boundary enforcement identification -
plaque- ($30.00 each) _ -
•2. 20" x 30" "Use of Preserve" Regulatoiy Sign
2 ($75.00 each)
a. Place adjacent to road for maaximtuxf
a �- visibility
_ b. Place on trail away from. road/access -
b '(low. visibility). -
. 3. Large 3' x 12' site identification signs
3 (like Los Trancos)
4 ;*4. Off-site directional signs ($50.00 each)
5 ,/ 5. - Trail Directional Signs ($40.00 each)
6. . 3" x 5" Private Property signs at access to
6 j adjacent_ property from District lands ($25. 00
,
;k7. District information sign ($150.00 each)
7
8 **8. Site history information sign ($150.00 each)
9. Split rail fencing (District style) ($10_ 00
9 per linear ft.)
}� �10.- Hiking/equestrian stiles ($150 .00 each)
10 "!
11 I11. Other« "Preserve Boundary" signs instead of
Private Property signs
12 Source of Information signs
Modest Site Identification Sign
Map plaques at sites
Small Boundary signs (without
"No Trespassing")
*At this point, this item has been interpreted to be
beyond the scope of existing Board policy and practice.
Site Category.
PUBLIC (4)
�♦ �, L7 V 4
LP
I. PUBLICITY.
I
A. BROCHURES & MAPS
1. Sh" x 11" site info sheet with map in
1 current format as for "Skyline Preserve"
:a 2 a. District-wide general distribution
b. On-site/office distribution .
b
c. Office only/restricted distribution
c'.
2 2. 8h" x 13" foldout site map with gene*rml.
site information
a a. District-wide general distribution
b b. On-site/office distribution
c c. Office only/restricted distribution
3. One 12" x 18" foldout informative brochure
3 containing information on District and
identifying all sites
a a. District-wide general distribution
b b. On-site/office distribution
c C. Office only/restricted distribution
z 4. Other: Area maps to identify sites & categories
y General informative pocket-size brochure
not specific to a site.
'Maps (Regional scale)
B: MEDIA PUBLICITY/SPECIAL PROMOTION
1 1. Site promotion in newspaper
-a ,3 3' a. at time of acquisition
b , b. on a continuing basis
2. Site promotion in newsletters (such as
2 Open Space)
a 3 .3 a. at time of acquisition
b; b. on a continuing basis
r
3. Site promotion in magazines
4. Site promotion via speakers program and
.3 slide shots
5 t�. 5. Site ptoTnotion through special event display^
6 *6. T.V. and raaio coverage
7 Book - regional trail guides, etc.
8 3 .2 2 l Other
?. Book published by MROSD
8. Book published by others
*At this point, this i.tera has been interpretrc �o be
beyond the scope of existing Board poZ. cy :zd practice.
1
PUBLI (4)
III. VISITOR/SITE AMENITIES
l 1. Trail ccnstruction (average $5.00 per ru-nning foo;
2. Parking areas (like Los Trancos) ($800.00 per
2
parking '-
stall)
3 3. Roadside Parking (turnouts) (average 3 car,
parking $2,000.00) _
4 4. Restrooms (portable type) ($1200.00 each)
a _ -3 a. only when required by public ordinance
b ) b. as a general practice
5 / 1*5. Drinking water availability
6 2 1*'6. Picnic areas
7 7. Other Maintain existing trails
8 8." Other Maintain. existing regional, ,trails _
• Take advantange of existing turnouts
IV.. PROGRAM114ING
1. Docent. tours, regularly scheduled publicized
a 1 . program, no reservations required (as at. j
Los Trancos)
2. Docent tours by request only (as -currently
done at Monte Bello)
3. Other educational groups (providing programs
3 such as Nature Explorations)
*4. Promotion of recreational shuttle bus service
4 by transit district
5 5. Other All sites open - to public •(hiking)
6 6. Other . .
xAt this point, this item has been i•n lerpreted- to be ba and
the scope of existing Board police and practice.
E = EMPHASIZED SITE
Sn7E CA-re ofzy NEHP = NON-EMPHASIZED HIGH USE
POTENTIAL SITE
� 2 �
NELP = NON-EMPHASIZED LOW USE
u E POTENTIAL SITE
uP LP
II. SIGNS/SITE EXPOSURE
f
1. 3" x 5" boundary enforcement identification
1 - plaque ($30.00 each)
2. 20" x 30" "Use of Preserve" Regulatory Sign
2 /,!S` j ($75.00 each)
a. Place adjacent to road for maximum'
a i visibility
b. Place on trail away from road/access
b L� (low visibility).
J . 3. Large 3' x 12' site .identification signs
3 (like Los Trancos)
�* a i s 0. 0
4 � � 4. Off-site directional s gn ($5 0 each)
5 1 , 5. Trail Directional Signs ($40. 00 each)
6 6. 3" x 5" Private Property signs at access to
adjacent property from District lands ($25.00 eae�
7 t7. District information sign ($150.00 each)
;*8. Site history information sign ($150.00 each)
8 !
9. Split rail fencing (District style) ($11.00
'g g J 7 per linear ft. )
I
10 10. Hiking/equestrian-stiles ($150.00 each)
11 !11. Other
I
12 `12. Other
* At this point, this item has been. interpreted to be beyond
the scope of existing Board policy and practice.
i
Site Category
2 ENTIRE WORKSHY (2 5) '
WP LP
I. PUBLICITY .
A. BROCHURES &MAPS
1 1. current l 11 site f sheet rrentformat asfor "Skyline Preserve"
.a a. District-wide general distribution
b 9 f- _ b. On-site/office distribution .
c. Office only/restricted distribution
2 2. 8h" x 13" foldout site map with general
}—� site information
.a ! It a. District-wide general distribution
b 14 b. On-site/office distribution
c C. Office only/restricted distribution
3. One 12 x 18 foldout informative brochure
3 containing information on District and
identifying all sites
a ( �j _ ! } a. District-wide general distribution
b / / b. On-site/office distribution
c c. Office only/restricted distribution
4 4. Other
B. MEDIA PUBLICITY/SPECIAL PROMOTION
1 1. Site promotion in newspaper
a a. at time of acquisition
b b. on a continuing basis
2. Site promotion in newsletters (such as
2 Open Space)
a ,fib a. at time of acquisition
b, b. on a continuing basis
$ a 3. Site promotion in magazines
4 4. Site promotion via speakers program and
slide show
5 I 5. Site promotion through special event displays
} *6. T.V. and raaio r^vrage
7 � 7. Book - regional trail guides, etc.
8 �( 8. Other
*At this point, this item has been interprets to be
beyond the scope of existing Board po k ey nn d practice.
III. VISITOR/SITE AMENITIES
1 1. Trail construction (average $5. 00 per running foot)
2. Parking areas (like Los Trancos) ($800.00 per
�I
2 -3 parking stall)
3. Roadside Parking (turnouts) (average 3 car
3 / parking $2,000.00)
4 4. Restrooms (portable type) ($1200.00 each)
a a. only when required by public ordinance
b / - b. as a general practice
5 11� *5. Drinking water availability j
6 3' **6. Picnic areas
7 7. Other
8 8. Other
IV.. PROGRAMMING
1. Docent tours, regularly scheduled publicized j
1 program, no reservations required (as at I
Los Trancos) i
2. Docent tours by request only (as -currently
2 done at Monte Bello) I
3. Other educational groups (providing programs
. 3 such as Nature Explorations)
4 *4. Promotion of recreational shuttle bus service
` 1P by transit district
5 5. Other
6. Other
*At this point, this item has been interpreted to be beyond
{
the scope of existing Board poZicy and practice.
i
,II .
VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
I. PUBLICITY
A. BROCHURES & MAPS
1. Area maps to identify sites and emphasis categories.
2. General informative pocket-size brochure not specific
to a site.
3. Regional scale maps.
4. Site history brochure
5. 8�" x 11" Planning Area Site Locator Map
6. Eliminate 8�" x 13" foldout site map. Publish 8� x 11
7. Something that explains District' s over-all site
emphasis policy.
B. MEDIA PUBLICITY/SPECIAL PROMOTION
1. Books published by MROSD.
2. Books published by others.
3. School programs.
4. Maps (AAA) , County and City maps.
5. Phone directory (yellow pages listing) .
II. SIGNS/SITE EXPOSURE
1. Smaller Preserve Boundary signs.
2. More modest site identifications signs.
3 . "For Info re This Site, call MROSD at 965-4717" signs.
4. Metal interpretive signs.
5. Metal regulatory signs where needed.
6. Legible wooden map of site.
7. "Preserve Boundary" signs instead of Private Property
signs.
8 . Small Boundary signs (without "No Trespassing" )
III.VISITOR/SITE AMENITIES
1. Use existing turnouts, when safe.
2. Maintenance of existing trails and roads for use.
3. Encourage others to maintain existing turnouts.
4. Bike trails
IV. PROGRAMMING
1. occasional Ranger-led tours.
2. Cooperate with shuttle bus service at no District
expense.
3. All sites open to public (hiking) .
4. Special District events.
5. Day camps like one at Picchetti (run by others) .
R-80-18
AA,
(Meeting 80-8
4/23/80
Agenda Item No. 3)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
April 16, 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: S. Sessions, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Location
Introduction: On March 12 , 1980 the Board of Directors considered
the question of placement of the proposed parking lot at the
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (refer to report R-80-5) . At
that meeting, you decided to schedule a Special Meeting, to
which the members of the Palo Alto Planning Commission were
invited, to review possible locations for the parking lot.
The Special Meeting was held on Saturday, April 12, 1980. The
focus of the meeting was to review and discuss the various parking
lot areas and the evaluation criteria used by staff during the
planning process.
Discussion: Staff still supports the proposed "G" parking area
for previously presented reasons, including ingress/egress, good
visual proximity to Page Mill Road for user safety and surveil-
lance, minimum visual impact from Page Mill Road when compared
to other possible locations, plus ease of construction and de-
sirable relationship to the Preserve 's circulation plan.
In order for staff to proceed with the project, the Board of
Directors should now decide which location it desires. If
location "G" is not chosen, staff would recommend area "I" as
a second choice. Although "I" is not as desirable as "G" , it
would at least have access and visual characteristics that would
be acceptable.
Staff would like to refer the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
development plan to the Palo Alto Planning Commission at their
scheduled meeting on May 28, 1980 with a request to approve
the project, including the parking lot location, subject to a
favorable soils report. The reason for this approach is to
eliminate engineering expenses should the project be rejected
or amended at any level. Once the parking location is approved,
engineering studies can be completed.
R-80-18 Page Two
It is staff' s position that a soils report is only necessary in
the areas affected by the parking lot and maybe in some of the
trails area. Should a significant change occur in the project,
either through an amended parking lot location or an engineering/
soils report requirement, staff would return to the Board for
further consideration.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors
approve the proposed "G" location for a parking lot and authorize
staff to proceed with the necessary reviews, approvals, and
engineering for the proposed Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
development plan.
R-30-19
(Meeting 80-8
4/23/80
Agenda Item No. 4)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
April 17 , 1930
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
CONTRIBUTORS : C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager, S. Sessions ,
Land Manager, C. MacDonald, Public Communications
Coordinator, J. Fiddes , Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Preliminary Action Plan for the Implementation of
the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District for Fiscal Year 1980-81
Introduction: The District' s activities have been guided by
an Action Plan, which implements the Basic Policy and other
policies adopted by the Board of Directors, since March 1974 .
The Action Plan' s function is to identify priorities and
major projects, plan and allocate budget funds, evaluate pro-
gress , and summarize the purpose of the District' s major
programs.
The proposed preliminary Action Plan for fiscal year 1980-81
is attached, and as in the past, the current year' s Action
Plan has been used as the foundation for developing the new
Action Plan and for showing explicitly the changes , additions ,
and deletions from the 1979-80 Action Plan.
Discussion: Because of the air of uncertainty that surrounds
the passage of Proposition 9 , as well as the uncertainty of
the direct effects the proposition would have on the District
if passed, staff has developed the proposed preliminary Action
Plan for 1980-81 under the assumption that Proposition 9 will
not pass. If California' s voters adopt Proposition 9 on June 3 ,
appropriate changes would be made in the Action Plan prior to the
Board' s final adoption of the plan later in June.
Directors Green, Wendin, and Shelley reviewed the proposed
Action Plan for 1980-81 at the Budget Committee Meeting on
Thursday, April 10 and decided that the plan be recommended
to the full Board for preliminary approval. In addition, the
Budget Committee will be reviewing ways to evaluate District
progress for fiscal year 1979-80, based on the activities and
projects set forth in the current year' s Action Plan, and
R-80-19 Page Two
should be prepared to present its recommendation to the full
Board at your meeting of April 23 , 1980.
The proposed Action Plan describes the District' s major pro-
grams for fiscal year 1980-81, and they are :
I. Open Space Acquisition Program
A. Negotiations Subprogram
B. Land Analysis Subprogram
C. Special Projects Subprogram
II. Open Space Management Program
A. Planning, Design and Development Subprogram
B. Operation, Maintenance and Docent Subprogram
C. Enterprise Activities Subprogram
III. Public Communications and Governmental Liaison Subprogram
A. Public Participation and Education Subprogram
B. Public and Private Liaison Subprogram
C. Media Subprogram
IV. General Management and Program Support
Open Space Acquisition Program
The Action Plan for fiscal year 1980-81 is much the same as
the current Action Plan. This is the second year of reduced
funding resulting from the passage of Proposition 13 and will
be a continuation of a carefully planned acquisition program
to purchase the most strategic parcels to achieve overall
District greenbelt and trail continuity goals. All possible
funding sources, gift programs through Peninsula Open Space
Trust and cooperative projects will be emphasized. The pos-
sibility of the passage of Proposition 9 puts us in an even
more difficult situation, and this next fiscal year may see
the District entering into some strategic trades of property
rights in order to best conserve the District' s remaining
land purchasing power.
Additionally, the Land Acquisition program will focus on
completing the backlog of committed land purchases, (which
includes the District' s Land and Water projects) . This fiscal
year includes the last 6 months of the contract for the tem-
porary Land Acquisition Representative. The Board authorized
this temporary position to help clear up the acquisition
backlog ,and we plan to be well along on that goal by the end
R-80-19 Page "Three
of the calendar year.
Open Space Management Program
This year' s Open Space Management Program provides for the
District' s continued efforts to increase public awareness
of District sites and activities.
Short term and long range planning and development and im-
plementation of use and management plans will be the focus
of the Planning, Design and Development Subprograms. Special
projects such as the Picchetti Ranch restoration, Rancho
San Antonio Park coordination, Hassler Building resolution
and implementation of the Monte Bello development plan will
highlight the year' s activities.
The Operation, Maintenance and Volunteer Subprogram will con-
tinue to provide responsible management of District lands
through a ranger patrol program. The Docent interpretive
Program will be structured for eventual implementation on
other emphasized sites in addition to the Los Trancos and
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve programs.
Continued management of the Enterprise Subprogram, including
an on-going analysis of revenue sources and effective manage-
ment techniques will insure that enterprise activities will
be consistent with land management policies.
i
The significant change between this year' s Action Plan and
last year' s is the refocusing of the general land adminis-
tration subprogram activities into other subprogram areas.
The thrust of administrative activities will be to develop
management guidelines for site emphasis, to interface with
other agencies with mutual interest, and to interface be-
tween land management and land acquisition activities to
ensure that efforts are consistent with District goals and
objectives.
Public Communications and Government Liaison Subprogram
The Public Communications and Governmental Liaison Program
Action Plan is almost identical in substance to last year's
plan.
A few changes in wording have been made to reflect the fact
that some projects in last year' s Action Plan have already
begun and others are yet to be initiated. (A few others
may better fit a "wish list" than an Action Plan, but have
been retained in the hope that some steps can be taken in
some new directions. )
R-80-19 Page Four
The one substantive change is in Subprogram B, Public and
Private Liaison, item 2, where the wording reflects a change
in emphasis in the District speakers ' program.
General Management and Program Support
During fiscal year 1980-81, the major focus of this program
will be the continued development of management strategies
and Board policies that will allow the District to deal with
reduced funding situations as they arise. New projects and
activities included in the Action Plan for 1980-81 are the
coordination of election activities for Wards 3 , 4 , and 7 ,
and the implementation of the various recommendations pre-
sented to the Board in the May and November, 1979 Salary-
Fringe Benefit and Personnel Systems Study by the District' s
personnel consultant, Gary Foss.
Staff Resources
Total staff resources for each of the District' s major pro-
grams are outlined below. Significant percentages of incre-
mental staff time are included, and unless otherwise noted,
a staff member' s time is allocated to a single program,
even though s/he may work to some extent in other areas.
Open Space Acquisition Program
Land Acquisition Manager
Real Estate Analyst
75% Secretary - Land Acquisition & Public Communications
Land Acquisition Representative (T)
Student Intern (T)
Open Space Management Program
Land Manager
Operations Supervisor
Environmental Resource Planner
Environmental Management Planner
Secretary - Land Management
Rangers (8 existing, 1 additional possible)
Volunteer Coordinator (PC)
Public Communications & Governmental Liaison Program
Public Communications Coordinator (P)
25% Secretary - Land Acquisition & Public Communications
R-80-19 Page Five
General Management and Program Support
General Manager
Administrative Assistant
Secretary - Administration (P)
Accounting Specialist (P)
Controller (P)
Legal Counsel (P,C)
T=Temporary Employee, P=Part-time Employee, C=Contract Work
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors
review the proposed preliminary Action Plan for fiscal year
1980-81, modify as is necessary, and tentatively adopt the
Action Plan so that it may serve as a guide for the formulation
of the budget for the coming fiscal year. As noted earlier in
the report, the passage of Proposition 9 could seriously im-
pact the Action Plan, and therefore, appropriate changes may be
required prior to the Board' s final adoption of the plan in
June.
In addition, I recommend that you determine the most effective
way to evaluate District progress for fiscal year 1979-80,
based on the possible alternatives the Budget Committee will
present to you at your meeting of April 23 . The Committee
will be meeting on April 18 to consider evaluation. My own
thinking at this point is that a Board-staff workshop could
be held before July 1, with the Board taking the lead in
evaluation and the staff supplying information to the Board.
Alternatively, the Budget Committee (or a special committee)
could do the evaluation and report to the Board.
i
i
I
ACTION PLAN
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASIC POLICY
OF THE
I
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
FOR THE 1980-1981 FISCAL YEAR
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I. Open Space Acquisition Program
II. Open Space Management Program
III. Public Communications and
Governmental Liaison Program
IV. General Management and Program
Support
i
i
i
I !
f
I
(
(
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
I
l
I
Subprograms
I
A. Negotiations
I
B. Land Analysis
I
C. Special Projects
I
I
To Implement the i
BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE:
I
The District will purchase or otherwise
acquire interest in the maximum feasible
amount of strategic open space within the
District planning areas.
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - _ --- - - - - - - - - --
B. Land Analysis Subprogram
Summary
This subprogram is designed to determine the present status of parcels
located within the District and serve as a guide as to which parcels
are most vdivable significant to the District in terms of planning for
acquisition and meeting the District's stated objectives.
Priorities for Current Year
Existing and new information will be compiled which will aidin negoti-
ations for parcels. Opportunities for bargain purchases may be identified
as a result of this subprogram.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. in-eOn�UMC tiOn-Wi th-ften-BP&Ce-Mdndgeffient-PrO grdrft7-develop Develop
acquisition recommendations. and projected land acquisition costs in con-
junction with Open Space Management Program.
2. Compile and maintain information on real estate market activities.
3. Gather information on local, State and Federal regulations (e.g. ,
zoning, and subdivision and urban service), and on restrictions or
plans contained in general plan elements and other planning studies.
4. Complete and maintain a parcel research filing system.
Catalogue information on special considerations such as deed restric-
tions, utility-availability encumbrances, financing and tax consider-
ations. This includes theestablishment of a working relationship
with title companies and other information sources.
5. Continue work on gathering and maintaining a comprehensive and
efficient map system which contains the data necessary for effec-
tive negotiations.
7
16. Maintain a comparable data index with cross reference to mapping
system for use in cost estimation and appraisal analysis.
8
-7. Continue to gain knowledge of land use laws and status of current
legal issues.
Required Staff Resources
15% of time of Land Acquisition Manager
60% of time of Real Estate Analyst
25% of time of Secretary-Land Acquisition and Public Communications
1000 of time of student summer intern
A. Negotiations Subprogram
Summary
This subprogram includes the continuation and initiation of contacts
with landowners, realtors and other appropriate individuals in order
to convert the major portion of the District' s income (including tax
revenue, current grants, State surplus and borrowing power, if feasible)
into commitments on major properties throughout the District.
Priorities for Current Year
The District will concentrate its efforts on the purchase of high pri-
ority parcels at desirable prices (market value or less) , and secondarily
will seek opportunity acquisitions (bargain prices or outright gifts) of
other parcels, within budget and cash constraints.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. Maintain and initiate contacts with landowners, real estate appraisers
and brokers, developers, architects, engineers, zoning and planning
officials, and financial institutions.
2. Explore various alternatives to offer advantages to landowners, as
well as to the District, regarding terms of purchase (e.g. , options,
installment purchases, defeasible fee, etc. ) .
3. Explore additional methods to protect open space lands for less than
the total cost of fee acquisition (open space easements, acquisition
of development rights, development dedication, cooperation with pri-
vate individuals and groups, etc. ) .
4. Maintain a working relationship with Peninsula Open Space Trust in
order to enhance the possibility of bargain sales, gifts and fund
raising efforts.
5. Publicize, through news articles and speeches, the land acquisition
program of the District, thereby increasing chances that people
will contact the District regarding land purchase and gift oppor-
tunities.
6. Institute eminent domain proceedings, in the extraordinary case, in
the event negotiations fail to elieit produce an agreement on terms
of purchase where the parcel involved is key to the District' s
program.
Required Staff Resources
60% of time of Land Acquisition Manager
20% of time of Real Estate Analyst
30% of time of Secretary-Land acquisition and Public Communications
100% of. time. of temporary Land Acquisition Representative` ;(112 year remaining on contract)
C. Special Projects Subprogram
Summary
This subprogram will include all related projects, including liaison
with other public and private agencies which will help to broaden
the Band Open Space Acquisition Program and make it more effective, while
heightening the public awareness of our overall goals and capabilities.
Priorities for Current Year
The District will maintain a relationship with other land acquisition
organizations operating within the District. This subprogram will
also help to increase the ef fie ieney-of-the-averal I-prag rams effectiveness
of other District programs, including the obtaining of additional matching
funds and grants where possible.
Typical Projects for-edrrent-Year and Activities
1. Develop multi-year spending plan for land acquisition which opti-
mizes use of cash and borrowed funds to accomplish acquisition
goals- within budget constraints.
2. Make timely application for grants available to the District and
review information newsletters periodically which contain such
data.
3. Seek and encourage joint acquisition projects with other agencies
and groups which will further stretch District funds, which have
been otherwise restricted by recent tax legislation.
4. Utilize consultants to investigate and/or negotiate in special
situations.
5. Maintain a relocation assistance program utilizing staff and con-
sultants as necessary.
6. Initiate and maintain contacts with non-profit charitable institu-
etc-.J organizations (Sen?pervirens Fund, Save the Redwoods League, Audubon Society,
Trust for Public Land, etc. ) to coordinate actions being taken on lands
of open space significance.
7. Implement the procedures necessary to comply with State and Federal
guidelines where required and or appropriate under acquisition and
relocation policies.
Required Staff Resources
25% of time of Land Acquisition Manager
20% of time of Real Estate Analyst
20% of time of Secretary-Land Acquisition and Public Communications
(
i
l
I
I
I
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
t
i
i'
Subprograms
A. GeneEal Land AdiftinistEatien
A. R. Planning, Design and GenstEuetien Development
B. E. Operation, Maintenance and Volunteer
I
{ C. R. Enterprise Activities
i
l
{ To Implement The
� I
BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE:
The District will follow a land management
policy that provides proper care of open space
I
.land, allowing public access appropriate to the
nature of the land and consistent with eco-
logical values.
I
(3-. B. Operation, i-ntenance and Volunteer F _ nrogram
Summary
This subprogram will continue responsible patrol of District lands and
include development of a program to train rangers in the maintenance
of District lands and the enforcement of District
regulations. The program will-eentinue includes educating the public
about the features and proper use of District lands, partieelarly
through the docent and volunteer interpretive program.
Priorities for Current Year
This subprogram will focus on continued development of a fully com-
petent ranger team able to handle emergency as well as day-to-day
patrol situations, with emphasis on the priority sites. Admini
strative policies for field operations will continue to be developed.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. Continue development of a team for operation and maintenance
functions, including implementation of portions of site use
plans -effent-plants.
2. Maintain District field operations office and equipment sterage
facilities.
3. Utilize volunteers and temporary personnel such as California
Conservation Corps, eETA-enpleyees Scouts and interns.- Titilize
volunteers for such projects as trail clearing and litter clean-up.
4. eentinue Coordinate with user groups the development of a community-
based interpretive program (including local schools) for Rancho
San Antonio Open Space Preserve, er -and other priority sites.
5. Sant-iniie-tc -wo-rk- en--devel-epment-a Operate a docent interpretive
program for Monte Bello and Los Trancos Open Space Preserves and
eventual implementation on other prierity emphasized sites as
appropriate.
6. Remove debris from one of-three or more sites where previous owners
and use had resulted in large debris accumulations.
7. eentin"e-to-develep Complete operations policies regarding ranger
uniforms, use of District vehicles and equipment, emergency situations,
public contact, and residences.
8. Develop and distribute brochures and-eeurtesy-tags; warnings and
citations to instire encourage the responsible use
of District lands.
9, Monitor increased site use and patterns to provide documented statistics for
future Land Management decisions.
10. Plan for future staffing structure to meet increased user needs and patrol
requirements.
Required Staff Resources
20% of time of Land Manager
25% 15% of time of Sen+er-E)pen-Spaee Environmental Management Planner-
25% 10% of time of A95aeiate-open-Spaee Environmental Resource PlAnner
65% of time of Operations Supervisor
100% of time of Rangers (8 existing, 1 additional possible)
25% of time of Secretary - Land Management
100% of time of Volunteer Coordinator
A. Planning, Design and Development
Summary
This subprogram includes short term and long range planning,
development and implementation of use and management plans ,and
review of plans and documents from other agencies.
Priorities for Current Year
I
This subprogram will focus on continued development of use and
management recommendations and the implementation of those recom-
mendations.
I Typical Projects and Activities
I
1 . Develop preacquisition recommendations for potential District
acquisitions in conjunctions with open space acquisition program.
2. Develop interim annual and biannual use and management plans.
3. Develop land management guidelines to implement site emphasis
policies.
4. Review other agency subdivision plans, zoning changes and general
plan amendments and environmental documents that may impact
District lands .
f 5 . Continue to encourage cooperative development and management
plans with other local jurisdictions and groups with interests
similar to the District .
6 . Prepare feasibility reports and implement plans for special projects
such as Picchetti Ranch restoration, Rancho San Antonio County
Park coordination , and Hassler building resolution .
7. Implement the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Use and Management
Plan and other approved plans.
8. Develop and implement specific resource management plans such
as controlled burning, grazing and erosion controls.
9. Prepare specific construction plans and specifications for
development projects.
10. Establish volunteer and intern programs whenever feasible, to
accomplish special projects.
11 . Maintain a standardized series of maps and special presentation
materials for all District lands.
12. Prepare appropriate portions of grant applications.
13. Prepare environmental assessments, environmental impact reports
or negative declarations as appropriate to District projects.
14. Make site features available to the handicapped where practical .
15 . Continue liaison with citizens ' trails groups on regional and
local trail plans .
16. Prepare site brochures and maintain a reference and slide library
for the District .
Required Staff Resources
70% of time of Land Manager
75% of time of Environmental Management Planner
80% of time of Environmental Resource Planner
25% of time of Operations Supervisor
75% of time of Secretary - Land Management j
DT C. Enterprise Activities Subprogram
Summary
This subprogram will implementatien, where
feasible, all aspects of revenue producing potential on District
sites, including but not limited to:
1) Structures
2) Agriculture
3) Concessionaire Activities
These activities will be consistent with overall open space land
management policies, particularly protection of natural resources and
minimization of any conflict betweenenterprise- activities and public
use of the sites.
Priorities for Current Year
This subprogram will focus on impte-
menting and managing compatible revenue producing
subprogram programs to insure maximum benefit to the District. This
will include a review of current leases and policies, grazing alter-
natives, and land/structure guidelines.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. Continue studying possible revenue producing sources, including
a review of previous reports, evaluating District standards
and economic tradeoffs.
2. Implement revenue producing programs consistent with the Basic policy
on revenue producing activities.
2. 3. Administer all structure leases.
3. 4.Administer all agricultural leases.
Required Staff Resources
10% of time of Land Manager
100 of time of Senior-epee-Spaee Environmental Management Planner
100 of time of Operations Supervisor
10% of time of Environmental Resource Planner
--- - -- - - - - -
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND
GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM
Subprograms
A. Public Participation and Education
B. Public and Private Liaison
C. Media
To Implement the
BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE
The District will educate and make clearly
visible to the public the purposes and actions
of the District, and will actively encourage
public communications and involvement in District
activities.
B. Public and Private L:' ;on Subprogram
Summary
This subprogram will include meetings, land tours, and contacts with
other agencies, private organizations, and interested individuals.
Efforts will be made to continue to acquaint citizens with the programs
and policies of the District and to encourage cooperation in preserving
open space.
Priorities for Current Year
The District will cooperate with other public agencies, private organ-
izations, and interested individuals in seeking legislative remedies to
the problems created by the passage of Proposition 13 and in exchanging
information on programs and issues of mutual interest and concern.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. maintain regular contact with officials of other agencies and private
organizations for the exchange of information, cooperation on special
projects, and participation in special events such as conferences and
seminars in order to inform the District staff and Board on current
issues.
2. Expand the program of giving presentations and distributing materials
to public agencies, and private organizations,
to-explain-the-9 is triet,9-geals-and-progr ams with particular emphasis on
county and city planning departments and city councils within the District's
boundaries.
3. Continue to work with legislators, legislative committees, State and
Federal administrators, other agencies, private organizations, and
interested citizens for information and action regarding State legis-
lation and specific local issues.
4 . Utilize the services of the Legislative Consultant to implement the
Legislative Program.
5. Continue contact and cooperation with staff and officials of other
regional park and open space districts for the purpose of exchanging
information and technical expertise.
6. Maintain address files of government officials, private organizations,
interested groups, and citizens to be used for distribution of fact
sheet, newsletter, and other pertinent materials and information.
7. Review agendas and minutes of other appropriate agencies.
Required Staff Resources
-301 20% of time OTS 5 hours . per week) of Public Communications Coordinator
(part-time)
.10% 15% of time of Secretary-Land Acquisition and Public Communications
Board and other staff as available
A. � ,Public Participatic ind Education Subprogram
Summary
This subprogram will focus on the long-term goal of informing the
public about the District' s purposes and bringing more constituents
into the role of advocate for the District, as well as on the short
term goal of mobilizing the immediate support needed to assure that
the District' s acquisition program is adequately funded.
Priorities for Current Year
There will be an increased emphasis on the clear communication of
District goals and programs, with the overall aim of generating
greater public support and the specific aim of motivating indivi-
duals to volunteer their talents to the District.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. Publicize the docent
ing-thei:r-envi:renmental-projeets programs on District sites.
2. Continue development and distribution of
PeJ4:eyT-site-4:n fermati enT-Progress-report-and-ether informational
brochures in accordance with District policy.
10. 3. Publicize availability of District sites at a level consistent with
Board policy and with short and long term ability to manage sites
responsibly within budget limits.
3. 4. Broaden Continue the public speaking engagements program to reach
other public agencies, civic organizations
Expand-rdnge-of-pregr am-wi th Investigate new topics and methods of
presentation as-well-as with new participants, including volunteers.
4. 5. Hold public hearings on important matters, inviting public comment.
5. 6. Publicize availability of slide presentations and large District
display. Continue development
of other smaller displays.
6. 7. Identify and develop new ways of actively involving
various segments of the constituency in the programs of the District.
4. 8. Print-and-di-stribute Continue printing and distribution of fact sheet and
newsletter to current and potential "Friends of the District" and
measure the effectiveness of this effort at appropriate intervals.
6. 9. Investigate possible sources of funds such as federal or private
grants or corporate sponsorship for the production of a film promoting
the preservation of open space.
9. ZO. Involve-eammunity Seek volunteers, and/or student interns in-the
to compile an official District history in preparation
for the District's Tenth Anniversary.
Required Staff Resources
40% of time (10 hours per week) of Public Communications Coordinator (part-time) l
5% of time of Secretary-Land Acquisition and Public Communications
Staff and Board as available for speaking engagements
Interns and volunteers as available
I
I
C. Media Subprogram
Summary
This subprogram will stress-the-Bistriet'-s-panel-aegt�isitien-anal-gifts
pregrax�s-as-6aeii-as-the-�*area-et-epen-spaee-preser�rat�r®n;-e:g-;-seenie
�Seat�tp;-habitat-ter-tailel�ite-anal-natsrai-�regetatien;-�ailelerness-e�per-
ienee-elese-te-he�te;-lea-intensity-reereatienal-ttse;-and-pre�*entien-et
urban-sprawl inform the community about the District's activities in such areas as
Board actions, land acquisition, site development, docent program, gifts program,
special hearings, special events, etc. Primary emphasis will be placed on in-
creasing public awareness of the District through the media and will
include development of feature articles. An-inerease-in-the-quantity-anal
eli�aersitp-et-p�3�lieatiens-will-he-inelt�eleel-in-this-pregram.
Priorities for Current Year
Communications with the press will continue to be the primary means of
dissemination of news. Possibilities for publicity in other media will be explored
and implemented whenever feasible and appropriate. Ether-media-setzrees-will-be
t�tilireel-�ahene�er-passible.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. Continue regular communications with the local and regional press.
2. Continue the regular reading, clipping, and circulating of newspaper
and magazine articles.
3. Begin-publieity-about Publicize the District in nati-enal-newspapers
and magazines, park and recreation publications, and environmental
newsletters.and attempt to measure the effectiveness of these efforts.
4. Establish contacts with
radio and television stations to acquaint them with the District and
its objectives. Arrange for occasional public service spots on radio or TV
to increase public awareness of the District.
Required Staff Resources
30.% 40% of time (7-5 10 hours per week) of Public Communications Coordinator
(part-time)
-1946 5% of time of Secretary-Land Acquisition and Public Communications
25% of time of volunteer (two hours per week)
i
GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM SUPPORT
To Implement The
BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE:
The staff of the District will administer
the affairs of the District on behalf of
the public so as to maximize accomplishment
of the goals of the District within existing
financial and other constraints.
I �
I I
I
Required Staff Resources
Personnel below work on all programs:
General Manager
Legal Counsel (part-time under retainer)
Controller (1/4 time) --18-�etrs-per-wee}c}
Administrative Assistant
Secretary - Administration (2/3 3/4 time)
Benier-Aeeenntr�g-C1er3�-f�f�-t�eme} Accounting SpeeiaZist (2/3 time)
75% of time of volunteer (8 hours per week)
I�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
General Management ant. rogram Support
Summary
This section includes those general management and program support
activities assignable to more than one program. Work in such areas
areas such as personnel, budgetr office planning, and general procedures,
and coordination of functions are is included here.
Priorities for Current Year
Aside from recurring projects such as those listed below, emphasis
will be placed upon post-Proposition 13 forecasting,-:of future revenues
and developing ef alternative Board policy and management strategies
for dealing with possible future situations.
Typical Projects and Activities
1. Forecasts of post-Proposition 13 future revenues and development
of alternative Board policy and management strategies for dealing
with possible future situations will be made.
2. Perform administrative and legal obligations as required by State law.
3. Update Action Plan and prepare annual budget.
4. Provide financial management and accounting, including investment
of temporarily idle funds.
5. eontin ne to coordinate assignments of eentr011" and 3be9ftl eo"nselT
Coordinate the election of District directors in Wards 3, 4 and 7.
,7-r6. Administer personnel functions such as Unemployment Insurance and
Workers' Compensation; adopt and implement internal administrative
policies; provide orientation to new employees; administer and
review employee benefits, salary ranges, and job descriptions as
appropriate.
6-. 7. Review workload distribution of support staff and make appropriate
adjustments.
8. Complete implementation of recommendations contained in Foss
personnel study.
679. Continue evaluation of overall organizational structute and staffing
requirements.
97L0. Continue to
provide immediate office space needs and evaluate future require-
ments and alternatives.
+Ovll. Enhance staff effectiveness through
staff meetings and workshops, training seminars, and team building
activities.
i
R-80-17
I
(Meeting 80-8
4/23/80
' `"°►� Agenda Item Pdo. 5)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
April 16 , 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: S. Sessions, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Rancho San Antonio County Park Master Plan
Introduction: The District' s staff received a copy of the Rancho
San Antonio Park Master Plan from Santa Clara County and a copy
of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed County
park facility on March 26, 1980. Staff was requested to review
the material and submit any comments to the County within twenty
days.
The proposed park facility has been reviewed on several occasions
during the planning process. Discussions have been ongoing be-
tween County
staff and District staff in order to provide a
facility with compatible amenities that would interrelate with
the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and would meet the
recreational needs of approximately 500,000 people in the County
i
who live within a half-hour driving radius from the facility.
i
i
The schematic master plan identifies the Rancho San Antonio Park
as a 130 acre facility located approximately one mile from the
interchange of the Interstate 280 freeway and Foothill Boulevard.
Access to the facility would be via Cristo Rey Drive. Amenities
within the 130 acre park site would include some 12. 7 acres of j
maintained turf, which would provide picnic sites and areas for
active recreational uses. Parking for some 225 cars would be provided
by 9 parking sites, each with a capacity of approximately 25
vehicles. The entrance to the park facility would be developed
in a manner that would allow closure of the facility during
! evening hours. A visitors ' center capable of providing displays
as well as staff facilities would direct visitors into the park
facility. Three comfort stations would be provided, as well
I Y•
as two specific picnic areas for large groups. Additionally,
approximately one mile of park service road would be constructed
with a bridge to cross over Permanente Creek. Hiking trails
and a jogging trail with a parcourse would be constructed, A
I
i
I
I
R-80-17 Page Two
bicycle trail link would be provided from Cristo Rey Drive
to St. Joseph Avenue. The conceptual plan has also identified
a parking area for horse trailers and a trail plan with con-
necting trails leading to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve.
The Environmental Impact Report identifies potential impacts
associated with implementing that master plan. Major impacts
have been identified as follows :
Geology and Topography: Principal hazards are associated with
seismic activity from nearby faults. These hazards include
ground rupture, shaking, landslides, and liquifaction. The
hazards which are present in many areas would not impair the
low intensity use proposed for the site.
Hydrology: With proper mitigation, hydrological impacts would
be insignificant. No increase in downstream flood potential
is expected.
Biology: The proposed park plan offers long-term beneficial
impact to the local biology, since it preserves most of the
existing habitat and serves as a buffer for the adjacent Rancho
San Antonio Open Space Preserve.
Traffic and Circulation: The demand for parking may exceed the
capacity of the proposed parking areas. This could result in
spillover parking onto Cristo Rey Drive. Mitigation measures
would have to be taken to preclude additional annoyances to
the Maryknoll residents. Traffic volumes along St. Joseph
Avenue would be reduced if the project is implemented, with a
corresponding beneficial impact to the adjacent residents
located along St. Joseph Avenue.
Noise: The elimination of visitor traffic on St. Joseph Avenue
would significantly reduce present noise impacts. The restric-
tion of vehicular activity on park roads, motorcycle usage,
and operation of loud radios and other voice amplification de-
vices would be mitigation measures for the noise impacts.
There are several other impacts associated with construction
which are short-term in nature and would be offset by the
long-term benefits provided by the facility.
Some adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated
if the project were implemented include an increase in traffic
volume on Cristo Rey Drive, an increased need for additional
public services in the project area, such as water, police and
fire protection, increased fire hazard, and increased potential
annoyance to the surrounding land users.
R-80-17 Page Three
The Environmental Impact Report also identifies alternatives to
the proposed project. They include:
A. No project. Under the No Project alternative, the site would
remain under the ownership of Santa Clara County and would
remain in its existing state.
B. A park site with fewer and/or no public facilities. A less
intense development of the park site. The facility would
not be consistent with the goals of the County's Parks and
Recreation Department and could be viewed as an extension
of the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve.
C. A park facility with more public racilities. Development of
the park site with more facilities than presently proposed
would not only increase construction and long-term maintenance
costs, but would provide a more intense facility, potentially
capable of handling more visitors and would thereby proportion-
ately increase impacts.
Discussion: The proposed master plan for the Rancho San Antonio
Park incorporates comments and suggestions made by the Mid-
peninsula Regional Open Space District staff during the initial
planning process. The draft Environmental Impact Report for
the proposed facility does not identify any potential short-term
or long-term impacts on the District ' s adjacent open space preserve.
Some benefits to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve from
the proposed park facility would be improved access, circulation,
and parking. Those elements would also be the cause of certain
impacts, such as visitor usage, associated noise, and litter,
for which the District may have to take mitigation measures in
order to preserve the integrity of the adjacent open space preserve.
Increased usage in this area would have some negative impact on
the Deer Hollow Farm and fencing, re-routing of trails, and a
gating system might be required.
Identified in the Rancho San Antonio Park master plan and alluded
to in the draft Environmental Impact Report would be the require-
ment for the District to be involved in the operational aspect
of the facility. This could include patrolling by the Ranger staff.
Several items contained within the master plan proposal which the
District should evaluate further include the proposed equestrian
facilities and the impacts of introducing equestrian units from
the park into the open space preserve.
The District presently does not have the capability to provide
maintenance of this facility, although we could provide some
patrol and management. The impacts of picnic areas, intense
recreation facilities, and associated litter will have to be
addressed. The development of a jogging trail with a parcourse
should have a positive benefit on the adjacent open space preserve
since the direction of jogging traffic would reduce the existing
impacts on the hiking trail users.
R-80-17 Page Four
It should be noted that Santa Clara County staff has scheduled a
public hearing for the certification of the Environmental Impact
Report on April 28, 1980. Since the County is the lead agency
in this project, it is responsible for the public hearings and
certification, and has project responsibility. It should be
noted that the approval of the EIR is not approval of the project,
but rather, is certification that the EIR document was prepared
in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act guide-
lines. The District still has the right to modify the project
scope by reviewing and approving the location, type, and in-
tensity of facilities to be developed on District lands.
The schedule presented by Santa Clara County is to certify the
EIR and proceed with the bidding process in order to construct
the first phase of the development plan by September 1980. The
scope of the first phase includes the Cristo Rey Drive access
and park service road, some of the parking areas, one comfort
station and the visitor display center. No development would
occur on District land.
Conclusion: Although several long term impacts appear to be
associated with the facility, the overall benefit and relation-
ship of this park facility to the open space preserve could be
beneficial. Staff' s recommendation would be to convey this
position to the County of Santa Clara Department of Parks and
Recreation for the purpose of proceeding with the Environmental
Impact Report review. It should be identified in the District's
comments that impacts on the adjacent open space preserve have
not been identified to the District' s satisfaction, and miti-
gation measures would have to be proposed for those concerned
areas. Therefore, the District would be approving the master
plan and,-associated Environmental Impact Report in concept,
with the understanding that the District and the County will
identify and resolve possible impacts through subsequent agree-
ment and management plans, which might include an exchange of
management responsibilities between the agencies as the in-
creased usage of the park affects the less intensely used
preserve.
M-80-32
(Meeting 80-8
4/23/80
Agenda Item No. 6)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 11, 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Appointment of Peace Officers
Introduction: At your meeting of January 14, 1976, you accepted
the recommendation that District rangers be appointed as limited
status peace officers as outlined under Section 830. 3 (1) of the
Penal Code of the State of California (refer to Land Manager' s
report R-76-2, dated January 7, 1976) .
David Topley and David Sanguinetti, the District's new rangers
have completed the necessary courses required under the Penal Code.
This course completion and the passage of the attached resolution
will qualify them as peace officers.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors
adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Appointing Peace
Officers, which will appoint David Topley and David Sanguinetti
as peace officers pursuant to Section 830. 3 (1) of the Penal Code
of the State of California.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT APPOINTING PEACE OFFICERS
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The following persons are hereby designated as
peace officers of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District pursuant to Section 830 .3 (1) of
the Penal Code of the State of California and
under Sections 5558 and 5561 of the Public
Resources Code of the State of California, to
enforce the Regulatory Ordinance for use of
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands
and any applicable federal, State and local laws:
David M. Topley
David T. Sanguinetti
REPLY TO: COMMITTEES
0 DISTRICT OFFICE Education
2435 FOREST AVENUE Chairman
SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95128 Subcommittee on
(408)241-6900 �V� Postsecondary Education
0 CAPITOL OFFICE 111 Ways and Means
• yy• <"'(�' rtr y� Chairman,Education
ROOM 5119 f X*fil is ' ,�}lt Inhale Subcommittee of
STATE CAPITOL lu g Ways and Means
SACRAMENTO 95814
TEL.:AREA CODE 916
4454253 JOHN VASCONCELLOS
ASSEMBLYMAN,TWENTY-THIRD DISTRICT
ID
I
i
i
April 9, 1980
Herbert -
I appreciate the special opportunity - as Chairman of our Assembly
Ways and Mans Committee - to serve you, our entire Legislature
and state government, and all the people of California.
I am awed, deeply pleased and excited, and a bit anxious - as I
I
undertake this enormous responsibility. I have much to learn,
but I feel ready. I trust that my experience of eight years on
the full Committee, six years chairing its Subcommittee on
Education and three years on the Joint Budget Conference Commit-
tee adequately equips me to assume the chairmanship.
I
I look to you to help me further educate myself- especially
about the facts and figures, arguments and issues of concern to
you. To the limits of our time and energy, I will make myself
I
and my staff (especially my assistants Steve Scheier and Margaret
Prado) available to you. I invite and welcome your advice,
suggestions, critique - now and in the future.
I
My immediate goals are:
i
- To grow and match the competence of my predecessor, tutor and
friend - Dan Boatwright;
To provide each bill a full, fair - and concise - hearing, I
- To provide a human balanced budget - tight and without waste
n i
no dime wasted ever fed an hungry child") ; I
( Y �J Y
- To provide every Californian the most accurate, current,
clear and credible facts and figures on the possible ramifica-
tions of Proposition 9 (Jarvis II) - so every Californian can
make the wisest decision on June 3rd for him/herself and for
the persons and goals s/he holds dear.
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I �
I i
I
I '
I
Herbert Grench
Page 2
My overall goals are:
- To operate an open Committee - so we have the advantage of
hearing from all particular interests, so we can make the
wisest decisions in the public interest;
- To carry into my new assignment - my special commitment to
human beings, healthy human development and human values;
- To help make California the most healthy and prosperous place
anywhere for growing human beings; and
- To increase the credibility of and confidence in our govern-
ment - in the minds and hearts of people.
Let's work together - to make things work - better for all
Californians.
I wish you well.
John Vasconcellos
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
I o"nf
1 'T'r<
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
April 16, 1980
Honorable John Vasconcellos
Room 5119
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Vasconcellos:
Thank you for your letter of April 9 , 1980, and congratulations
on your appointment!
I have been keenly interested for a long time in the relationship
between individuals and their natural, constructed, and social
environments--how we create and shape these environments and
how they in turn affect us as individual human beings. Your
newsletters have always been of great interest to me, because
the things you have been saying about human growth and potential
have been the complement to my particular activities in pre-
serving significant portions of our natural environment.
I should like to extend to you an invitation to visit with
some staff and Board members at the District's office to share
specific information about this District and the legislative
picture in Sacramento, and to explore some of these philo-
sophical ideas.
Bob Beckus, our legislative advocate in Sacramento, or I will
also be in touch with you and your staff from time to time
regarding specific legislation.
With best regards,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG: jc
Herbert A Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Dufty,Barbara Green,Nonette G Hanko.Richard S.Bishop.Edward G.Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin
20"= 0001051C
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
April 11, 1980
Honorable Victor Calvo
21st Assembly District
Room 5031, State Capitol Building
Sacramento, Ca 95814
Dear Mr. Calvo:
Attached is a letter we directed to you in July,
1979 regarding SB 664 by Senator Nielsen on swamp and
tidelands.
It is my understanding that lands within the
boundaries of our District are not being excluded.
Therefore, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District I wish to
reaffirm our strong opposition to this bill.
Although my Board has technically limited its
concern to lands within District boundaries, there
was very strong sentiment that this proposed legis-
lation was quite contrary to the public interest
wherever the bill might apply.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG-jg
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
R. Beckus
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
I -
I
y I
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 OISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE O-1.LOS ALTOS.CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
July 12, 1979
Honorable Victor
Calvo
21st Assembly District
Room 5031, State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblyman Calvo:
We are opposed to SB 664 by Senator Nielsen as passed by the
Senate, unless, at a minimum, the bill is amended so as to exclude
lands within the boundaries of the riidpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (Redwood City though Sunnyvale along the Bay, plus unincor-
porated pockets) . The District's Legislative Consultant, Bob Beckus,
has informed us that it is not Senator Nielsen's intent to include
these lands; however, our analysis of the bill indicates that they
would be included. The public trust in scamp and overflow lands
should not be given away by .the State, but title controversies
should continue to be settled on a case-by-case basis by .the State
Lands Commission. Our research has indicated that there are
environmentally valuable or restorable public trust lands within
this District. Some of these might potentially be purchased, and
others might be quit-claimed to the State as a result of title
controversy settlements.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely yours,
ours
I
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ck
cc: Senator Jerry Smith
Senator Nielsen
Robert Beckus
-2-
depending on a number of factors. However, this reduction comes at a
time when the General Fund surplus is virtually depleted. As a result,
this second Jarvis initiative would cut the state's ability to continue
the current level of bail-out and force drastic revision of public
financing and service provision.
Overview of Proposition 9
Proposition 9 is a constitutional amendment placed on the June 1980
statewide ballot. It contains three principal features:
I. a requirement that the Legislature fully index the
state income tax schedule whereby tax brackets are
adjusted to reflect annual changes in the California
Consumer Price Index;
2. an exemption of business inventories from property
taxes; and
3. a requirement that the Legislature reduce personal
income tax rates by at least 50 percent from those
in effect in 1978.
Income tax brackets are currently indexed until the end of the 1981 tax
year. Proposition 9 merely removes the "sunset provision" and continues
this feature indefinitely.
The business inventory issue is moot since AB 66 of the 1979 session
fully exempted inventories from property taxes. However, since Proposi-
tion 9 puts this statute into the constitution, the Legislature would be
prevented from repealing the exemption in the future. According to the
Legislative Analyst's office, the state may be removed from any obligation
to reimburse local governments for the revenue losses resulting from this
exemption starting in 1981-1982 and thereafter.
The major impact of this initiative is contained in the requirement that
the schedule of income tax rates be reduced from the present range of one
percent to eleven percent to a new range of no more than one-half percent
to five-and-a-half percent. The resultant loss in state revenues would
total $4.9 billion in 1980-1981 and $4.2 billion in 1981-1982. The first
year impact is larger than the second because the initiative would become
effective in June 1980 and would apply to income earned not only during
fiscal year 1980-1981 but all income earned in 1980 which includes the five-
month period preceding the June 3 election. The "first year" impact,
therefore, ranges over an eighteen-month period. However, depending upon
the legislative response to Proposition 9, most notably SB 1464 (Campbell ),
which would move the effective date of Proposition 9 back to June 1980,
the state revenue loss could be reduced to $3.0 billion in 1980-1981 and
$3.6 billion in 1981-1982.
i
MEMORANDUM
DT: April 17, 1980
TO: Legislation and Governmental Organiza�j%on Committee
r
FM: Patrick Mason, Chief Economist, ABAG J�
RE: Impacts of Proposition 9
Introduction
The passage of Proposition 9 on June, 1980, will most likely have the
following consequences:
a suspension of California bond ratings and subsequent downward
revision, resulting in increased financing costs of roads,
sewers, water treatment, and other physical development;
• delayed expenditures on financing, maintenance and repair
of existing facilities, leading to much higher future
costs;
9 reduction or elimination of state bail-out;
• reduction or elimination of state subvention revenues;
a loss of $3 billion to $4.9 billion in state revenues
in the first year causing major cutbacks in state
programs, such as education and health and welfare;
• shift of $1.1 billion of California tax revenue to
Washington, D.C., due to lower deductions for state
tax payments;
• loss of $120 million to $200 million annually of
federal revenue sharing due to reduced state effort.
Local governments in California have become increasingly dependent on
state revenues since the passage of Proposition 13. Within the Bay Area,
cities, counties, and special districts currently receive approximately
a quarter of a billion dollars per year from the state to offset the losses
mandated in the first Jarvis initiative. Another $1.3 billion are channeled
from the state into all of the public education facilities in the region.
While the first Jarvis initiative reduced property tax revenues by nearly
$6.9 billion, the state was able to draw on a substantial surplus to miti-
gate the impact of such a huge revenue loss on local government. By cut-
ting state income tax rates in half, Proposition 9 would reduce state
revenues somewhere between $3 billion and $4.9 billion in the first year,
7,1
-4-
and property tax relief. According to Senator Rodda, even if all state
employees whose services were financed from the General Fund were fired,
and all universities and state colleges, prisons, mental hospitals, and
other state facilities were closed, the expenditure savings would not be
sufficient to offset the revenue loss of Proposition 9.
The third option is to reduce state payments to schools and other local
governments by the full amount of the deficit by allowing the "deflator"
mechanism in AB 8 of the 1979 session to operate. The deflator mechanism
is a provision in the 1979-1980 bail-out legislation which specifies that
if General Fund revenues fall below the current level , then reductions
shall be made in specified state aid payments to schools, cities, counties,
and special districts. Schools will bear half of the shortfall . Cities,
counties; and special districts will bear the other half. These reductions
will automatically take place if the proposition passes, unless the
Legislature adopts a concurrent resolution to the contrary.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that some state expenditures
--such as the homeowner property tax exemption and debt service--are mandated
in the constitution, and others are tied to federal funds which would be
reduced in proportion to state cutbacks.
The State Legislature is currently considering two actions which would reduce
the loss of revenue. SB 1464 (Campbell) would move the effective date of
the proposition up to June 4 rather than January 1, thereby limiting the tax
cut to income earned after the election and not allowing the cut to be retro-
active to the beginning of the year. While this would save $1.4 billion for
the state, it would be limited to the first year only.
Another possible action is the repeal of AB 276 (Bergeson) of 1979, which
indexed the income tax brackets to changes in the Consumer Price Index.
Repeal of AB 276 would apply the tax rate cut to the tax brackets that were
in effect in 1978 rather than the indexed or broader tax brackets that would
be in effect in 1980, resulting in a savings to the state of more than $655
million. Furthermore, this would result in an annual and continuing reduc-
tion of revenue loss. Both of these actions could reduce the first year
revenue loss from $4.9 billion to $3.0 billion in the first year, and from
$4.2 billion to $3.6 billion in 1981-1982.
Impact on Local Governments
Whatever combination of policies the state formulates to respond to
Proposition 9, the message is very clear for local governments--less money.
How much less is impossible to determine at this time, but examination of
current bail-out figures should provide an idea of how much local entities
stand to lose.
Local governments and the educational system in the Bay Area have become
heavily dependent on state money. The cities, counties, and special
districts in the nine-county Bay Area received about one Quarter of a billion
dollars in fiscal year 1978-1979. They are receiving a s ght y lower
amount this year. State funds for education--i .e. , grades K-12, community
colleges, CSUC, the UC system--totaled over $1.3 billion in the region in
1
the first year after Proposition 13. In addition, cities ties an
d coun
ties es rely
on state subventions, which include but are not limited to revenue from:
-3-
Several billion dollars in state income taxes would revert to the federal
government rather than the taxpayers because there would be less of the
state tax to deduct and also because there would be a loss of federal
revenue sharing funds, which are based on matching state dollars. Cali-
fornians would pay approximately $4.2 billion in additional federal taxes
over the first three years and would lose $4 million in federal funds for
every $100 million in state income tax cuts under Proposition 9.
When the first Jarvis initiative reduced property tax revenues, the state
was able to draw on its substantial surplus to mitigate the impact of the
revenue loss on local goverment. However, the state Legislative Analyst
estimates that the General Fund surplus will be down to $674 million at the
end of fiscal year 1980-1981. The Senate Finance Committee chairman, Senator
f 1981-1982, the General Fund surplus
Albert Rodda, projects that by the end o even without the
will have given way to a multi-million dollar deficit,
passage of Proposition 9. The measure will cut an additional 25 percent of
the General Fund revenues in 1980-1981 and further increase the deficit.
The dual effects of a multi-billion dollar revenue loss and a depleted fund
surplus place continuation of the current level of state bail out funds in
serious jeopardy. Table I contains the state fiscal relief to local govern-
ments and schools since Proposition 13. The 1980-1981 bail-out package,
estimated to be around $5.3 billion, assumes Proposition 9 fails. Passage,
however, would dramatically change the state's ability to continue this
transfer of revenue which has protected local government from drastic losses.
Table I
STATE BAIL-OUT SINCE PROPOSITION 13
FY 1978-79 $4.3 billion
1979-80 $4.8 billion
1980-81 $5.3 billion (estimate)
State Resnse
With the initiative's passage, the state will be faced with three basic
options, or some combination thereof:
1 increase other taxes;
2. reduce state expenditures;
3. reduce state payments to schools and local governments.
None of these options will be easy to implement, but increasing state
taxes may bet least plausible step to make up the revenue loss in view
of the perceived "taxpayer revolt" and the two-thirds vote requirement.
A reduction of state expenditures alone to offset the revenue loss is not
possible as the entire "state" portion of the budget amounts to only
$4 billion, or about one-fifth of the total state budget. The other four-
fifths of the budget goes to local governmental jurisdictions and special
districts to support such programs as education, health and welfare services,
i
i
-5-
alcoholic beverage fees
vehicle "in lieu" fees
gasoline taxes
cigarette taxes
trailer coach licenses
business inventory exemption reimbursements
city and county share of property tax collections
These revenues plus the state buy-out of local obligation for MediCal, SSI ,
SSP, and AFDC programs have enabled local governments to weather the imme-
diate effects of Proposition 13 and continue to provide essential services.
The new allocation formula in the wake of Proposition 9's passage will be
determined in the political arena in Sacramento. the Legislature will be
forced to decide what share local governments will bear of the cut-backs.
To the extent that the state decides to continue the bail-out to the local
jurisdictions, larger cuts will correspondingly be made in the state's own
portion of the budget.
Proposition 9 does more than undermine the fiscal stability of and force
deep cutbacks in local governments and education. It also threatens to
choke off construction growth within the region at a time when new develop-
ment is essential to local economic and fiscal health. Proposition 13 and
Proposition 4 have already re-written the book on financing of capital improve-
ments and public infrastructure development. The full impact has not yet been
1 however, because man communities had considerable new development in
felt, y
the "pipeline" as well as the use of state bail-out funds. Industrial ,
commercial , and residential growth in the future would only be possible if
local entities can provide the basic services and facilities such as streets,
sewers, lights, water, education, etc.
Financing of local public facilities and services would be more expensive
if Proposition 9 passes, for two reasons;
1. The use of general obligation bonds is no longer
available to local governments. The result is
that bonds carrying greater risk and higher interest
rates must be used.
2. Propositions 13 and 4 caused the downgrading of
III
California's bond ratings.
Proposition 9 would
cause a possible suspension of ratings and
certainly revised lower ratings and even higher
interest rates.
H ig h interest rates have always been anathema to balanced growth.
! Traditionally, the building of public facilities has been fairly cheap due
! to the low interest rates and tax-exempt status of general obligation bonds.
These bonds were issued on the basis of local government's ability to raise
revenue through the tax system in order to pay off its debt. When Propo-
sition 13 eliminated this option for local governments, other types of bonds
and financial instruments which are more expensive became the alternative.
i
.
I,
The fact that Proposition 9 is on the ballot in June has caused the
rating service of Standard and Poor's to downgrade the State of California's
bonds from the highest rating of triple A to a double A category. This
signifies less investor confidence in the market and a higher risk associ-
ated with California bonds. Local governments, the state, and the taxpayers
will have to pay even higher interest rates as a result of the lower rating.
Actual passage of Proposition 9 would rake the situation much worse. The
two major bond rating services--Standard and Poor's and Moody's--have
indicated that the rating of all California bonds may be suspended until
governments can provide sufficient budget information that would result in
a new and even lower rating.
There are now approximately $4.7 billion in bonds statewide yet to be issued
which will be threatened with delay and higher costs if the rating services
suspend or lower these ratings. In terms of labor, $4.7 billion of publicly
financed construction translate into more than 97,000 on-site construction Jobs.
Some communities which are unwilling to incur higher interest costs must resort
to "pay-as-you-go" development of basic services and facilities. In other
words, the entire cost of a water treatment plant or sewage facilities must
be paid for over the course of the project's construction, even though the
facility is designed to serve an area for a long period of time. Rather
than capitalize the cost over the entire period of use, the "pay-as-you-go"
method puts the entire cost up front. This cost will be immediately passed on
to the new residential or industrial property owners. Such a radical increase
in costs could easily slow down or choke off new construction because the
public may not be able to absorb the costs in that manner.
Conclusion
In the twenty-three months since the passage of Proposition 13, state and
local governments have undergone major changes in the way in which basic
h
services are financed, resulting in a sift of the burden from the local level
to the state. The state's superior ability to raise revenue due to the impact
of inflation on the income and sales taxes, together .with a substantial sur-
plus of General Fund revenues, has enabled this shift to take place without
major dislocations. Proposition 9 not only will reduce state revenue neces-
sary to bear this burden, but it will do so at a time when the surplus is
near total depletion. As a result, the state will not only have to reduce
the level of services it provides, but a large percentage of the cutback will
be forced onto local governmentand education budgets. The major dislocations
which were avoided after Proposition 13 will become a reality upon the passage
of Proposition 9.
Recommendation: Staff recommends ABAG oppose Proposition 9.
If the Committee agrees, the Executive Board
will be asked on the evening of April 17 to
concur.
r
"Y CJU AR_rR'JN._VITED- TO, .ATTEND
THE. FOURTH" ANNUAL..
La
. r
•ram���;�r `�
P
�r
CPR /NRPALEGISLATIItE°:C4N -
m
AND FEDERA 1 BR11
k May 14-15, 1980;LL.
SACRAMENTO..COMMUNITY/CONVENTION CENTER'
{ SACRAMENTO; CALIFORNIA
Sponsoredby the California Park anti RecreationSociet7and �= � h
' the National Recreation and°ParkAssociation,,PacificSouthwest�R iori .
in Cooperation with the CPRS Administrators;Section -
-� DEADLINE MPRE-REGISTRATION REQUIRED tt„ AY71980'
s
This fourth annual Legislative,Conference and:Federal Aid.Briefing.;is designed"_ta provide'you.+witlzt c
firs t-hand;.°u to-date infoimationrn on.-existin state and.federal, assistdnce, programs,and. endin .
p`, 9` P P g°
legislation: State administratiom officials and`state legislators,,asp wel14 as:MPA-'staff and,-federal,
officials, will brief delegates on'aFvariety of issues:There will°alsabe.workshops during^,,the conference
on the statelfederal>legislative-process and legislative-advocacy techniques;,.and.an:opportunity to,,
present your views to state legislators during a Thursday morning breakfast:`
Pre-Registration Required Deadline: May 7, 1980
PROGRAM CONTENT
Wednesday, May 14, 1980
STATEISSUES
8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. El Dorado Room
REGISTRATION Convention Center
9:30 a.m. - 12:15 noon El Dorado Room
MORNING GENERAL SESSION Convention Center
"Welcoming Remarks"
Paul T.Thiltgen,President, California Park&Recreation Society
KEYNOTE ADDRESS:
Mary Ann Graves,Director of Finance, State of California
"The Fiscal Outlook for California State and Local Government"
THE FACTS ABOUT PROPOSITION 9, "THE JARVIS II INITIATIVE"
Marian Joseph, Field Coordinator, Citizens For California
(the anti-Proposition 9 organization)
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
A status report on important state legislation affecting the park and recreation field,
including funding for parks and recreation, Proposition 4 implementing legislation, force
account bills, tideland oil revenues for recreation, surplus school site measures,
and others.
9 Abby Haight, Acting Executive Director, CPRS
e Russ Selix, Legislative Representative, League of California Cities
0 Vic Pottorf ,f, Legislative Representative, County Supervisors Association of California
DEVELOPING CPRS'S 1981-82 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
An opportunity for delegates to provide input and assist the CPRS Legislative Committee
in planning the future legislative direction of the parks and recreation movement
in California.
* Solon"Doc"Wisham,Jr., Chair, CPRS Legislative Committee
* Members of the CPRS Legislative Committee
12:15 p.m. - 1:45 p.m. Yolo Room
LUNCHEON Convention Center
Speaker:To Be Announced
2:00 p.m. -5:00 p.m. El Dorado Room
AFTERNOON GENERAL SESSION Convention Center
THE FINAL PUSH FOR PROPOSITION 1
Learn the facts about the"Parklands and Renewable Resources Investment Fund,"
the$495 million bond issue on the June 3rd ballot, and how you can be directly involved
in its passage.
Ane Merriam, Executive Director, Californians for a Resourceful Economy
Pre-Registration Required Deadline: May 7,1980
9 Huey Johnson,Secretary, Resources Agency, State of California
0 Russell Cahill,Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California
A WORKSHOP ON GRASS ROOTS LOBBYING—WHAT MATTERS TO YOU?
This session will present specific actions that park and recreation professionals can take
home to help them achieve policy and legislative objectives in their community, in
Sacramento, and in Washington. Emphasis will be on the human dynamics in the
legislative process. Lobbying skills, at both the local and state level, has become
even more important with the passage of Proposition 13 and the specter of Proposition 9.
Kare Anderson,Grass Roots Lobbying, Inc., Berkeley;former legislative consultant
to State Senator Peter Behr.
5:00 P.M.-6:30 P.M. Yolo Room
CONFERENCE RECEPTION Convention Center
Thursday, May 15, 1980
FEDERAL AID AND LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING
8:00 a.m. -9:30 a.m. Yolo Room
LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST Convention Center
CPRS will invite your Senators and Assemblymembers to join you for breakfast to
discuss statewide and local issues important to you.
9:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon El Dorado Room
MORNING GENERAL SESSION Convention Center
"Welcoming Remarks"
James D.Ruth, Chairman, NRPA Pacific Southwest Regional Council
FEDERAL ISSUES
"CREATIVE FEDERAL FINANCING FOR
PARKS&RECREATION IN THE'80's"
e How federal assistance programs have been affected by the recent federal
budget decisions.
* Outlook for next year and beyond.
0 New directions for public agencies.
* Program promotion and constituency building.
0 Federal assistance to expand your revenue generating capability.
9 Federal assistance to reduce your operation and maintenance costs.
* Lobbying to get more money or get the rules changed.
PRE-REGISTRATION FORM
"CPRS/NRPA LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
&FEDERAL AID BRIEFING"
Pre-Registration Required Deadline:May 7, 1980
Return This Form To:
CPRS/NRPA Legislative Conference
1400 K Street,Suite 302
PLEASE PRINT Sacramento,CA 95814
NAME
DEPT./AGENCY ADDRESS
CITY STATE_ZIP
Name of your: State Senator
State Assemblymember(s)
(This information is important so that we can invite your legislators to the Thursday morning breakfast)
REGISTRATION FEE:$35.00
Includes two meals, reception, background materials,registration kit,all sessions.
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:CPRS
HOTEL RESERVATION FORM
Complete this form and return to CPRS/NRPA Legislative Conference, 1400 K Street, Suite 302,
Sacramento, California 95814. To insure accommodations, reservations must be received two weeks
prior to your arrival. Deposit of one night's room rate is required to hold room. IMPORTANT TO YOU:
MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO THE MANSION INN HOTEL.
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY Zip
A.M. A.M.
Date of Arrival Date of Departure P.M.
Number of nights desired
CPRS/NRPA Legislative Conference and Federal Aid Briefing,May 14-15, 1980
Conference Hotel Single Dbl./Twin
Mansion Inn S32 S38
Three blocks from Convention Center
National Recreation&Park Association U.S. POSTAGE
1400 K Street, Suite 302 PAID
Sacramento, California 95814 Permit No. 1622
Non-Profit Org.
Sacramento,CA
95814
MR HERBERT A DRENCH
GENERAL MANAGER
TIME VALUE DATED MATERIAL MIDPENINSULA FEGIONAL OPEN SPA
375 D1STEL CIRCLE SUITE D-1
LOS ALTOS CA 94022
�as evu� comw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
April 16, 1980
Mr. Harold I. Silverman
Associate Editor
The San Francisco Examiner
Box 3100
Rincon Annex
San Francisco, CA 94119
Dear Mr. Silverman:
I should like to offer the attached letter for the
"Reaction" column in California Living. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy.Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop.Edward G.Shelley.Harry A.Turner.Daniel G.Wendin
The restricted access-vs.-overuse controversy
over Foothills Park (California Living, April 13,
1980) 'is only a symptom of the real and more general
problem of inadequate park and open space lands to
meet the present and future needs of a burgeoning,
recreation-oriented population.
There is an answer to the dilemma, and that is
to act now to protect large enough expanses of public
open space so that no single area is overwhelmed by
the numbers of people who wish to enjoy the out-of-doors.
The regional urban greenbelt programs on the
Peninsula and in Marin County illustrate positive efforts
in this direction. To succeed, such efforts will require
i
public support both for the acquisition of land before
it is lost to development and for the wise stewardship
of this heritage. In the final analysis, it is up to
the people of the Bay Area to decide how important it
is to them and for those who will follow to have "room
to breathe. "
Herbert Grench
General Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Los Altos
Revised
C-80-7
April 23, 1980
Meeting 80-8
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
n Amount Name Description
928 $ 190.00 First American Title Guaranty Company Preliminary Reports
929 16.65 Financial Publishing Company Book
930 35.00 American Right of Way Association Seminar Registration Fee
931 724.62 Dorn's Safety Service District Vehicle Expense
932 20.02 Image Technology, Inc. Mapping Services
933 296.40 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
934 34.25 MintoW;s Lumber Company Field Supplies
935 176.00 Communications Research Ccnipany Radio Equip. Maintenance Agreeren
936 473.89 The Hub Schneider's, Inc. Ranger Uniforms
937 82.00 P. G. & E. Electricity - Sites
938 25.54 Rancho Hardware & Garden Supply Field Supplies
939 313.40 Union Oil District Vehicle Gas & Oil
940 29.24 Charlotte MacDonald Private Vehicle Expense
941 32.76 San Jose Mercury News Classified - Accountant
942 180.83 Shell Oil Conpany District Vehicle Gas & Oil
943 10.50 Victor California Field Supplies - Maintenance
944 72.21 Utility Body Cmpany District Vehicle Expense.
945 12.02 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
946 179.97 California Water Service Water Service, Rancho San Antonia',
947 18.08 David Topley Ranger Uniforms
` 948 19.00 Park Maintenance Subscription - 3 years
949 194.01 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. District Vehicle Expense
950 22.00 Santa Clara Color Service District Vehicle Expense
951 94.17 Herbert Grench Educational Assistance
952 19.90 Robert McKibbin Ranger Uniforms/Travel Expense
953 52.53 El Camino Dodge District Vehicle Expense
954 39.90 Stanley R. Norton Telephone, Meal Conferences-�Iarrch
955 359.14 Mobil Oil District Vehicle Gas & Oil
956 17.25 Action Photo Service Film/Prints
957 750.00 Flame- Fire & Land Management Enterprises PZonte Bello Chen Space Preserve
Fire Plan
958 69.25 Signs of the Times Signs - Rancho San Antonion Open
Space Preserve
I�-
'Page IM
April 23, 1980
C-80-8
r Amount Name Description
959 $ 15.98 Graphicstat, Inc. Photographic Reproduction
960 2,250.00 David Ingram, Inc. Appraisals
961 306.90 Olsten Tefnporary Service Terip. Secretary Services
962 25.39 Herbert Grench rieal Conferences
963 2,031.25 Elizabeth Wore Scott Interest Payment - E1 Serena
964 . 3,412.50 Maryanne Moore Hayes Interest Payment - El Sereno
965 504.00 Gera Sheehan Road Repair
966 3,487.88 Birnie Lumber & Fence Co. Split Rail Fencing
967 206.37 Petty Cash Slide Library, Private Vehicle
Expense, Meal Conferences, OfficE
Supplies, Advertising, Printing,
Training & Seminars, and
Miscellaneous Expense.