Loading...
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.