Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19801008 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 80-22 Meeting 80-22 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 Regular Meeting Board of Directors A G E N D A October 8, 1980 375 Distel Circle, D-1 Los Altos , CA (7 :30) ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations (7 :50) *APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 20 and 24 , 1980 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (8 :05) 1. Offer to Purchase Hassler Health Home Property - C. Britton (8 :20) 2 . Program Evaluation Workshop Follow-up - H. Grench (8 : 40) 3. Thornewood Lease Parameters and Proposal Schedule - S. Sessions (8 :55) 4 . Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan - S. Sessions OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED (9 :10) 5. Review of Permit Procedures and Liability Implications - S. Sessions NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (9 :30) 6 . Summary Review of Use and Management Plan for Planning Area VIII (Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve) - S. Sessions NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED (9 :45) 7 . Public Hearings for Land Acquisition - H. Grench (10 :00) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS CLAIMS EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations and Personnel Matters ADJOURNMENT *Public Meeting is expected to begin at approximately 7 :50 P.M. 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 R-80-56 (Meeting 80-22 October 8 , 1980) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT October 3, 1980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SUBJECT: Offer to Purchase Hassler Health Home Property Discussion: After extensive negotiations with the City and County of San Francisco for the purchase of the subject property, District staff has worked to resolve the differences of opinion and technical requirements for consumation of the purchase. Normally at this point, staff would prepare a purchase agreement for execution by the City and subsequent consideration by your Board. However, in this case, the City is bound by their ordinances which require an executed "Offer to Purchase" to be considered by their Board as the final step in the process. Also, an accompanying resolution of your Board will allow them to authorize a direct sale to the District rather than schedule the sale for public auction or go through a stipulated or contested court action. The Offer to Purchase Agreement is attached and contains the terms and conditions for the proposed acquisition. The purchase price of $2, 240, 000 is in accordance with a State approved appraisal allowing for full Land and Water Grant reimbursement. (The total Grant refund would be approximately $1.1 million less state surcharge. Additionally, there is $300, 000 available from the Hassler Assessment District) . Under this offer, San Francisco would have 90 days to approve and accept the agreement and, if approved, escrow would have to close within 60 days thereafter. This could mean that escrow could close as early as late January or early February of 1981. The only unusual aspect of this offer is Clause 7 which limits the District' s profit should there be a voluntary sale of the property within the 10 years following close of escrow. Since this property will be recommended for dedication as open space, as well as being subject to the terms of the Land and Water Contract, this particular clause would not adversely affect the District' s ownership or use of the property. We have been advised by City staff that this clause is absolutely necessary if they are expected to recommend that this offer be accepted by the City' s Board of Supervisors. It should be noted that there is no guarantee that this offer will be accepted by the City, but that this offer would be extended by the District in good faith and,accordingly, the City Real Estate staff would probably support acceptance. During the Page Two interim 90 days, District staff would continue to supply all necessary documentation and information to expedite this matter after it is forwarded to San Francisco. After ratification by San Francisco, staff would return to the Board for approval of escrow closing procedures and recommendations for dedication and use and management, as originally outlined in reports R-77-10, dated March 9, 1977, and R-79-35, dated October 4, 1979. It is hoped that the en- gineering report for disposition of the buildings will also be ready at that time ( see report R-30-40, dated June 26, 1980) . Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the accompanying Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional open Space District Approving of offer to Purchase Real Property, Authorizing officer to Execute an Offer to Purchase Agreement, and Authorizing General Manager to Cause to Give Appropriate Notice to Offeree (Hassler Health Home Property. ) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING OF OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO CAUSE TO GIVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE TO OFFEREE (HASSLER HEALTH HOME PROPERTY) The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows : Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby approve that certain offer to purchase real property from the City and County of San Francisco as contained in the Offer to Purchase Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President and appropriate officers to execute said offer to Purchase Agreement on behalf of the District. Section Two. The General Manager of the District shall cause said Offer to Purchase Agreement to be delivered to the offeree to be acted on within the time provided therein. The General Manager further is authorized to execute any and all other documents necessary or appropriate to the transaction. Section Three. The General Manager of the District is authorized to expend up to $5, 000 to cover miscellaneous costs related to this transaction. deed conveying the ..fight, title and interest the City in and to the said real property, subject to any restrictions, reservations and ease- ments of record. 4. The City does not guarantee the condition of the property, nor does it assume any responsibility for the conformance to codes or permit regula- tions of the City and/or County in which the property is located. It is the buyer' s responsibility to determine all building, planning and zoning regulations relative to the property and the uses to which it can be put. The property will be sold on an "as is" basis. 5. In the event this offer is not accepted by the City ' s Board of Super- visors, any payment will be refunded in full without payment of interest. 6 . In the event buyer fails to pay the balance due in the time specified above, time being of the essence, buyer shall forfeit all rights, includ- ing the right to the above deposit which shall be retained by City as liquidated damages to offset damages sustained by City as a direct and proximate result of buyer' s failure to pay said balance, and all right, title and interest in said real property shall continue to remain vested in the name of City free of any claim or equity of buyer or those claiming ! through him. 7. it is expressly made a condition herein that if the District sells fee title to said property, or any portion thereof, except for another public purpose or use for which the power of condemnation would be availabletwithin ten (10) years from the date of recordation of the deed conveying said property, the District will retain that amount or propor- tional amount paid to City and County of San Francisco for the purchase of said property together with an amount for appreciation for the time period from the date of purchase. The appreciation shall be measured by the average annual rate of return District has received for the investment of its cash funds for each year, up to and including the year of sale, multiplied by the purchase price (proportional) paid to the City and County of San Francisco, with each successive year compounding at the previous year or years accumulation. Any amount received by District over the proportional purchase price, plus the accumulated interest described above, shall be paid to the City and County of San Francisco as its share of any subsequent sale. Dated Signed Midpeninsula Regional open Telephone Space District By President, Board of Directors Address 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-111 Los Altos, CA 94022 Page 2 of 2 CITY AND COUNTY Or SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT TO The undersigned hereby offers to purchase the following real property upon the terms and conditions of purchase hereinafter set forth : BEING more particularly described in preliminary title report n451006 , as amended, from Title Insurance and Trust, dated August 23, 1979 and labelled Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. TOGETHER WITH a right of way 40 feet in width across the adjacent water department lands commonly identified as San Mateo County Assessor's parcels 093-150-010 and -020, along the presently travelled road. ALSO TOGETHER WITH an assignment of the rights to exercise an option to purchase 40, 000 gallons per day of sewage capacity from the South Bay Side System Authority, of the 50, 000 gallons per day currently allocated to the City. RESERVING unto the City Water Department that certain aquediict tunnel easement as described in Note 3 of said -preiliminary titL-l' e r%-port. Herewith is the required deposit in the amount of $10, 000. 00 in connection with my offer to purchase said property for the sum of $2, 240,000. 00. The undersigned agrees to pay the balance of the purchase price within ' j6_0 days after confirmation of the sale by City ' s Board of Supervisors. It is understood that the City shall record said deed when the balance is paid. The undersigned agrees to pay the cost of recording and any documentary stamp. You are requested to deed said property from the City to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a public Distict and close the transaction through Title Insurance and Trust, - 333 Marshal ' Street, Redwood City, California 94062. TERMS OF SALE 1. It is understood that this offer to purchase vests no right, title, interest or equity in or to said real property unless and until this sal: has been approved by the Board of Supervisors in the manner provided by law and a deed has been duly executed and delivered. 2. It is further understood that the right, title and interest in the property to be transferred by sale shall not exceed that vested in the City and that no policy of title insurance shall be furnished by the City in connection with this transaction. It is the buyer's responsibi- lity to pay escrow fees, if applicable, and to obtain a policy of title insurance, if desired. 3. Upon receipt of the full purchase price of $2, 240, 000 and confirma- tion of the sale by the City' s Board of Supervisors, the City will issue ) M-80-73 (Meeting 80-22 0 oe October 8, 1980) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM September 29 , 1980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Workshop Follow-up Introduction: At the conclusion of the Program Evaluation Work- shop of Saturday, September 20, 1980, staff was expected to re- turn to the Board with any revisions in the 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities statements for each program or subprogram (refer to memorandum M-80-66 , dated September 16 , 1980) . As I indicated at the workshop, program leaders did not intend to revise the 1980-1981 Action Plan, as would normally be done according to the fourth step of the January review process which we followed for the workshop, but would review the 1980-1981 Action Plan priority statements to determine if any revisions were needed, based on the workshop discussions. Discussion: The changes for the Open Space Acquisition and Open Space Management and Public Communications/Governmental Liaison Programs Key Projects and Activities are indicated in italics on the attached sheets. No changes were indicated for General Management and Program Support, and therefore the material pre- sented for this program at the workshop has not been duplicated in order to save paper (and trees) . During the workshop, several topics which require follow-up by the Board and the staff were introduced and discussed. They are: 1) Need for the Site Emphasis Committee to meet and determine policy questions that must be addressed by the full Board; 2) Need for a policy guideline on publicity, including brochures, distribution of Openspace newsletter and radio/TV coverage; 3) Need to discuss the suggested Ranger ride-along program as an agenda item at a future Board meeting; 4) Need to plan for the consolidation of open space management policies. This item should probably be considered as one of the key activities for the Open Management Program in the 1981-1982 fiscal year. M-80-73 Page Two Conclusion: In conclusion, I want to reiterate the comment I made at the conclusion of the workshop that, based on the workshop dis- cussions and interchange of information and ideas , it appears that the Board and staff are in agreement on what the key projects and activities for the 1980-1981 fiscal year should be for each of the District's major activity areas. However, it should be noted that there were mixed feelings on the part of the management and admin- istrative staff on the actual effectiveness of the workshop. Initial reactions varied from the workshop being extremely worthwhile and productive considering the limited timeframe to non-productive. It was felt that the Board could have been more active in confirming that staff had selected the correct priority projects and activities. I believe that the participants did an effective and efficient job of meeting the stated goals of the workshop. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors con- cur with the attached proposed changes in the 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities . No great inconsistencies were found between the 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities and the wording of the 1980-1981 priority statements in the Action Plan. It is also recommended that a discussion be held on October 8 as to the effectiveness of the workshop in meeting the stated goals for the day and as to whether the goals or format should be modi- fied in the future. i OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM Special Projects Subprogram 1979-1980 Key Projects and Activities 1. Develop multi-year spending plan for land acquisition which optimizes use of cash and borrowed funds to accomplish acqui- sition goals. PROGRESS - A spending program has been developed. 2. Keep abreast of grants available to the District, submit grant applications on a timely basis, and follow-up on grants for which any applications were filed. PROGRESS - The District was unsuccessful this past year in ob- taining any new Land and Water Conservation Fund grants . Some of the reasons include: 1) less funds available, 2) more com- peting grant applications, 3) grant criteria changed to focus on urban areas, and 4) current District unspent acquisition grant funds. However, a District project was included in the State Park Bond Act priority list and in the omnibus park acquisition legislation (AB 990) . A new SB 174 (Roberti-Z'Berg) project was also approved for the Edgewood site. 3. Seek and encourage other agencies and groups to undertake sole or joint acquisitions which will preserve additional open space. PROGRESS - The joint acquisition of the Edgewood State College site was set in motion. The most significant joint venture was the creation of Bear Creek Redwoods State Park acquisition project with the State of California and the County of Santa Clara. A joint project with Save the Redwoods League and the State for a major trail corridor was initiated this year. 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities 1. Eliminate the current grant project backlog (see Negotiations Subprogram) and continue to submit timely grant applications for future projects and follow-up on two exisitng and any new crppZications. 2. Seek and encourage other agencies and groups to undertake sole or joint acquisition projects which will preserve additional open space. Specifically, bring the Bear Creek Redwoods State Park joint project to conclusion and inititate at least one additional joint project with Santa Clara County. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Planning, Design and Development Subprogram 1979-1980 Key Projects and Activities 1. Develop, review, and implement use and management plans and make recommendations for pre-acquisition planning(which Zands to buy as wett as initiaZ use and management pZans)in conjunction with -the Open Space Acquisition Program. PROGRESS - Twelve District sites within the ten planning areas were reviewed as part of the annual use and management review process. In addition, 17 pre-acquisition plans with use and management recommendations were prepared, plus numerous informal reviews of use and management considerations in support of the Open Space Acquisition Program. The Wunderlich to Saratoga Gap trails corridor was identified and specific plans for properties such as McNiel and Fine were prepared. The Monte Bello develop- ment plan was prepared, but implementation was delayed by the requirements of the City of Palo Alto planning process. 2. Help coordinate the planning for joint agency park projects, such as Bear Creek Redwoods State Park acquisition, Slate Creek trail connection, Rancho San Antonio County Park, and the multi- jurisdictional Bayfront Trail system. * PROGRESS - Coordination took place and continues on the above noted projects. 3. Prepare a fire management plan for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. PROGRESS - Plan completed. 1980-1981 Key Projectsand Activities 1. Continue to develop, review and implement Board approved use and management plans, both in conjunction with the Open Space Acquisition Program and the annual review process. This also includes implementing the Monte Bello development plan when approved, leasing the Picchetti and Thornewood properties , and completing Hassler site preparation in conjunction with the Open Space Acquisition Program when plans are approved. 2. Continue to coordinate the planning of joint agency park projects by serving as a liaison between other governmental agencies. 3. Resolve site emphasis questions and adopt policy as necessary. This activity was included in the 1979-1980 General Land Administration Subprogram which was deleted in the 1980-1981 Action Plan so that tasks could be incorporated into other Open Space Management sub- programs. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Operation, Maintenance and Volunteer Subprogram 1979-1980 Key Projects and Activities 1. Provide responsible level of stewardship of District lands and respond to public needs. PROGRESS - The District maintains an active training program to insure that field staff has knowledge of current techniques and methods. Areas of training include Peace Officer training, Advanced Law Enforcement, public safety, fire suppression, defensive devices, interpretive studies, and maintenance and operations procedures. One serious and several minor accidents and one fire occurred on District preserves, and the occurrences were adequately handled. 2. Implement those-portions-of site use and management plans .that can-be-accompl±shed-by-b±str±ct-staff. PROGRESS - Almost all of the use and management plan recommen- dations were implemented. Weather and staffing fluctuations required restructuring of priorities, and efforts are underway to complete delayed projects. 3. Operate a docent interpretive program for the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve and develop programs for other sites. PROGRESS - The docent staff of 40 operated a successful inter- pretive program which included regularly scheduled weekend tours, and a spring wildflower walk program. In addition, docent-led tours were provided for some 80 groups upon request. Twenty new docents were recruited during the year and successfully completed their in-service training program. A special tour of the Fremont Older home was conducted. 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities 1. Continue to provide a responsible level of stewardship of District lands, including planning for future organizational structure to meet the increasing user needs. 2. Continue to implement approved site use and management plans and recommendations, including specific plans such as the Monte Bello fire management plan. Begin to prepare a comprehensive maintenance and operations plan for District preserves. 3. Continue to operate a docent interpretive program focusing on meeting increasing user needs and program demands . Implement plans for regularly scheduled interpretive walks on Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Formulate plans for development of a docent program for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Enterprise Activities Subprogram 1979-1980 Key Projects and Activities 1. Administer existing leases and enterprise accounts. PROGRESS - Six rental accounts and two agricultural leases were a maintained with an expenditure of $13,500, returning $34,500 in gross revenue. 2. Prepare a study of possible additional revenue-producing sources. PROGRESS - Study not completed. 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities 1. Continue to administer existing leases and rental accounts. 9. Monitor staff time as weZZ as out-of-pocket costs required to administer and maintain enterprise activities. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS/GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM Public Participation and Education Subprogram 1979-1980 Key Projects and Activities 1. Print and distribute fact sheet and newsletter to current and potential "friends of the District" and measure the effective- ness of this effort at appropriate intervals. PROGRESS - Two printings of a fact sheet and three issues of the Openspace ,newsletter were distributed during fiscal year 79-80. More than 500 people have asked to be added to the mailing list (which now totals 2120) and 80 readers have chosen to become paid subscribers, contributing a total of $819 between September 1979 and June 30, 1980. 2. Broaden the program of presentations-displays to reach other public agencies, civic organizations, schools, etc. Expand range of program with new topics, presentation methods, and display materials. PROGRESS - During fiscal year 79-80, Board and staff members made more than a dozen presentations to a wide range of groups including service clubs, planning commissions, high school and college classes. Student volunteers helped produce a new slide show, and new equipment (auto-synch tape recorder) was purchased to allow for new presentation methods. Three portable displays were created and shown at environmental fairs, libraries, schools, and in the lobby of a savings and loan company. 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities 1. Continue printing and distributing the Openspace newsletter. Issue updated versions of fact sheet as needed. Conduct tele- phone survey and incorporate findings in planning of future publications. 2. Continue program of public presentations and displays , with emphasis on scheduling talks to city councils, planning commissions, park and recreation commissions, etc. Find new sources of "people power" to create new slide shows and display materials. Make an effort to determine which kinds of presentations or displays are the most effective. PUBLIC COMANSUNICATIONS/GOVERNMIENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM Public and Private Liaison Subprogram 1979-1980 Key Projects and Activities 1. Accomplish priority items in District's Legislative Program utilizing services of Legislative Consultant. PROGRESS - Every A and B priority legislative item has been accomplished. For example, the Bear Creek Redwoods State Park Project was amended into AB 990, the District-sponsored AB 3299 and SB 1550 were approved, and other relevant legislation was approved, amended, or rejected in the District's interest. 2. Enhance communications With San Mateo County planning staff,so that District is informed on planning and development activities at earliest possible stage. PROGRESS - Communications were improved through meetings and implementation of new procedures by County. 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities 1 . Accomplish priority items in District' s Legislative Program utilizing services of Legislative Consultant. 2. Communicate with San Mateo County elected officials regarding land use questions of mutual importance. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS/GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM Media Subprogram 1979-1980 Key Projects and Activities 1. maintain regular communications with the press. PROGRESS - Regular communications with the press were maintained throughout FY 79-80 through the distribution of news releases (after each Board meeting and on other occasions as required) , phone calls, and personal contact with reporters, editors, and freelance writers. Feature stories about the District appeared in most of the regional papers as well as in publications such as Sunset magazine and the Sunset Western Campground and Trail Guide. 2. Develop contacts with radio and television stations. PROGRESS - Several radio and television contacts have been developed with resulting coverage from these media. Speci- fically, we had an informational TV spot shown on Channel 11 during "Earth Week 80" . We also gave several taped interviews to KXRX news radio on such subjects as Proposition 1. 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities 1. Continue regular communications with the press. 2. Continue developing contacts with radio and TV. Explore possibility of using student volunteer help to produce film for showing on public access cable TV as well as short public service "recognition" spots. 3. Set policy guidelines (including proactive and reactive modes) on radio-TV publicity coverage for the District. M-80-74 (Meeting 80-22 October 8, 1980) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM October 2, i980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: S. Sessions, Land Manager SUBJECT: Thornewood Lease Parameters and Proposal Schedule At your meeting of August 13 , 1980, staff presented a schedule for Thornewood proposal solicitations (refer to memorandum M-80-56 , dated August 7, 1980) . The Board directed staff to target the definition of parameters for the second meeting in September. Subsequently, at the September 24 , 1980 meeting, the Thornewood proposal parameters were presented to the Board for review, except for the Thornewood Grounds Committee ' s recommendations for use of the grounds and barbecue area. The decision to approve the para- meters and direct staff to solicit proposals was deferred until the October 8 , 1980 meeting so the Thornewood Grounds Committee could meet and formulate their recommendations. The Thornewood Grounds Committee met at Thornewood on Saturday, September 27, 1980 and discussed the relationship of the grounds and barbecue area to the structure. The meeting was continued to Wednesday, October 1, 1980 at the District office where further discussion was held and public input received concerning the use of the grounds and barbecue area. The Commattee 's report on - the use of the grounds and barbecue area is attached to this report. Because time is of the essence in this matter, staff would like to be sure that Board members are aware of the schedule constraints, i.e. , requirements to make a legitimate (but still minimal) proposal solicitation. If the Thornewood parameters are approved on October 8 , and staff is authorized to solicit proposals, it appears that the first meeting in January, 1981 would be the earliest reasonable date that proposals could be presented to the Board for review. The following Proposal Schedule "A" allows one week to prepare and mail parameters to known interested parties and to start a publicity program to solicit additional inquiries. Eight weeks are allowed for proposal preparation by interested parties, and another two weeks for staff (and possibly a Board committee) to analyze and evaluate the proposals received. M-80-74 Page Two Proposal Schedule "A" 1. On October 8 - Board authorization of parameters 2. By October 15 - Proposal parameters prepared and mailed (continues on demand) 3. From October 10 - November 14 - Publicity on proposal solicitations 4. From October8-December 5 - Assuming individuals are interested in submitting proposals, staff responds to inquiries and conducts tours. 5. December 5 - Proposals due no later than 5 : 00 P.M. 6. December 8-December 17 - Staff (and possibly a Board committee) reviews and analyzes proposals received 7. December 17 - Report prepared for Board review 8. December 24 - Board meeting expected to be cancelled, therefore go to meeting in January 1981. Proposals will be reviewed by Board An alternate solicitation schedule could be considered, though not nearly as desirable as Schedule "A" . It compresses the proposal time by four weeks by reducing preparation time to five weeks and review and analysis time to one week. Proposal Schedule "B" 1. October 8 Board authorization for parameters 2. October 15 Proposal requests mailed 3. Through November 7 Publicity continues 4. Through November 19 Proposals prepared, tours conducted 5. November 19 - Proposals due 6. November 24-28 - Review and analysis 7. December 3 - Report prepared 8. December 10 - Board review of proposals received An individual interested in submitting a lease proposal would probably be able to respond with a written proposal in three weeks, if that individual had already toured the Thornewood site and had made preliminary financial evaluations. However, the more reasonable assumption is that an interested individual would M-80-74 Page Three have to tour the area more than once, prepare an estimate to refurbish, and then develop a financial package. This process could take four weeks plus another week to prepare a written proposal to be submitted to the District. Therefore, the eight- week r adequate at a minimum to ex o week schedule A appears adeq expect p proposals. Recommendation: I recommend that the Board approve the attached proposal parameters and authorize staff to proceed with the solicitation of proposals based on the "A" schedule. i I MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORA4DUM October 2, 1980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: The Ad Hoc Thornewood Grounds Committee (R. Bishop and H. Turner) SUBJECT: Lease Parameters for Thornewood We recommend that item 3 c of the "Lease Parameters for Thornewood" state "immediate barbeque area and a trail connection between the proposed upper trail or the alternative lower trail" . We further recommend that you direct our staff to include in the trail plan an open area that has a view of the bay and that is adjacent to the upper trail. The attached maps that were used by us at a public meeting of the evening of October 1 accompany this memo. In the course of arriving at our recommendation we used a field inspection and consultative process , that is, we sought out members of the Thornewood Committee (in person and by telephone) and listened carefully to their ideas and concerns. Our general objectives were to arrive at a feasible recommendation, that is, one that would not significantly in- hibit our receipt of lease proposals and to respond constructively to the wishes and hopes of the Thornewood Committee. Through it all, we were dealing with the conflicts that arise when private use and public access come in close proximity. The essence of the position of the members of the Thorne- wood Committee is that access be provided to the barbeque area and to a portion of the lawn with an unrestricted view of the bay. They had in mind a rest stop for hikers. After we decided that the lawn would be excluded from the public access area, we looked for some other way to provide a view from a rest stop. The result is our second recommendation to you. If you concur, we will disband this Committee. r� ' E ' -� n c M6 f • o D C t' 0 �O :t e �. 1 i . -� i 4 I' LT PARAMETERS FOR THORNEWO The District's goal is to preserve the Thornewood house, built in the 1920 's and a unique example of summer estate life in the foothills which has survived virtually intact. Proposals are required to be in writing, describing the proposed rehabilitation and should include the proposer' s background, including financial resources . Proposals must specifically address how the District's parameters would be met. Proposals will be evaluated as to the extent that they meet the specific criteria and desirable characteristics listed below. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS 1. Historic Renovation A. The building 's exterior must be rehabilitated to a reasonably historically accurate degree. The interior entry and living room must be maintained in a reasonably historically accurate condition. B. The Thornewood house must be reconditioned to a safe condition to allow for limited public access. Auxiliary buildings must be stabilized to meet local codes or they must be demolished. C. All rehabilitation activities will be subject to all appli- cable health, safety, building, and zoning codes, and the lessee will be required to secure all permits necessary to meet these codes. D. A mutually agreed upon committee will advise on, review and approve all plans for building rehabilitation and landscaping of the grounds. E. Within 24 months of the start of lease, lessee must complete rehabilitation of the exterior of the Thornewood house and grounds. An additional 12 months will be allowed for in- terior rehabilitation. F. Once rehabilitation is completed, lessee may not make any alterations, additions, or improvements without the written consent of District. 2. Leasehold Area A. The lease area to be considered is approximately 3 acres (subject to survey) , including the house and auxiliary buildings, existing landscaped grounds area, and the drive access. B. The grounds within the leasehold area must be maintained in a presentable manner at all times. 3. Public Access Public access is to be provided for as follows : A. Limited public access to the leasehold area, including the Thornewood house. B. Provision for at least four District-sponsored "open houses" , all of which will be tours of the grounds and exterior of the Thornewood house per year. Two of these tours will include of the interior of the Thornewood house. C. Public access will be provided to the immediate barbecue area and a trail connection between the proposed upper trail or the alternative lower trail. Page Two 4 . Financial A. Proposal must contain provisions for the rehabilitation of the leasehold area without District financial involvement. B. Lessee must maintain liability insurance in an amount satisfactory to the District. The lessee will maintain special insurance so that the buildings would be histori- cally reconstructed in the event of a catastrophic accident. 5. Terms The lease will have a maximum term of 25 years. 6. Miscellaneous A. Any addition to the Thornewood house or any buildings constructed by lessee must be designed to be architec- turally compatible. B. Lessee will be responsible for all costs associated with hook-up to the domestic water supply as part of the re- habilitation. C. Lessee's maintenance of domestic animals will be restricted to the leasehold area. D. The District would consider allowing the construction of amenities such as a swimming pool, stable area, or a garden area for lessee's use. E. Lessee's vehicles and guests' vehicles will be restricted to the leasehold area. F. Lessee will be responsible for coordination with adjacent inholder for the sharing of responsibility and costs for maintenance of the private water supply and access road. G. District will reserve the right to pass over the access road for patrol and maintenance purposes, open house tours, and public trail crossings. DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS 1. Although it would be desirable not to expand the Thornewood house, any expansion must be to the rear and must conform with existing design and construction. 2. Accurate rehabilitation of the complete interior of the house and inclusion of the complete interior during the open house tours would be desirable. 3. Rental income to the District would be desirable. 4 . It would be desirable to demolish existing cottage buildings and landscape the area. MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE CONTROLLED BURNING PROJECT - PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Introduction: The MROSD Board of Directors approved on August 13, 1980 a fire management plan for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and authorized Phase I of the controlled burning project which is tentatively scheduled for implementation in October or November of 1980. Phase I will be the beginning of an on-going program which is designed to protect the natural resources of the Preserve while reducing the fire hazard. A. Description of the Project Area. 1. Location, Size, Boundaries and Setting. The 2500 acre Monte Bello Open Space Preserve is located on Page Mill Road, approximately seven miles southwest of 1-280 and principally within the limits of the City of Palo Alto. The Phase I burn area consists of approximately 600 acres within the northwest section of the Preserve (see attached map, Exhibit A) . It is bordered by private property at five locations, by Page Mill Road and by the remainder of the Preserve. Located 20 minutes from the urban area, the project area is visible from 131 miles along Page Mill Road and from 5 miles along Skyline Boulevard. 2. Natural Resources. a. Topography, Geology and Soils. Elevation varies from 2, 600 feet on Monte Bello Ridge to 2, 000 feet at the bottom of Stevens Creek Canyon with slopes of from 10% to 50%. Soils on Monte Bello Ridge are mapped as being of the Maymen Association, which are subject to medium to rapid runoff and a high erosion hazard. Other grassland soils are of the Madonna Association, subject to medium runoff and moderate erosion hazard. Soils on steep 50-75% chaparral-covered slopes are underlain by the Felton-Ben Lomond complex and Los Gatos and Maymen soil associations which are subject to very rapid runoff and very high erosion hazard. b. Vegetation. The Project area contains approximately 320 acres of annual grassland and 280 acres of mixed coyote brush, chamise, sagebrush chaparral and oak-madrone woodland. (-See attached Exhibit B - areas identified as la, lb, 5a and 5b. The California Native Plant Society maps of rare and en- dangered plants do not show any rare or endangered species within or near the project area. Neither have any such plants been discovered during the past three years while MROSD docents have been compiling plant lists for the site. Page Two C. Wildlife. The attached Exhibit C lists animals which are known or likely to frequent the Preserve. The rare California mountain lion, which typically ranges over a 50 square mile territory, has been sighted on the Preserve a couple of times during the last several years. 2. Archeological/Historical Resources. An archival search showed that there are no recorded archeo- logical sites within the project area, and the controlled burn itself would not have any effect if any sites were present. (See attached Exhibit D) . The only structures contained in the project area are a cottage, partially destroyed by a fire, and a free-standing chimney, both of which may be demolished before the burn is scheduled to take place. B. Description of the Project. 1. Program Objectives. This project proposes the initiation of a controlled burning program on the 2,500 acre Monte Bello Open Space Preserve managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. This site is visited by hikers, equestrians, and picnickers from the entire Bay Area. It is expected to become one of the major hiking areas on the Midpeninsula and be incorporated into the existing 40 mile Skyline to the Sea trail route when development of visitor facilities and improvement of access is completed during 1980=81. The project area is located in the dry foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and contains highly flammable chaparral, grassland,and mixed hardwood and conifer forests. Residences are scattered throughout the surrounding area where a devas- tating wildfire could happen at any time. If a fire were to start in Stevens Creek Canyon, fuel conditions and the topo- graphy are such that the entire Preserve could be destroyed. Because of this threat of a wildfire, the District has de- cided to embark on an on-going fire management program to protect the natural resources of the Preserve. This program is based on the concept of burning the plant communities on the site under controlled conditions and on an established schedule. This type of fire improves the health and appearance of plant communities and reduces the fuel load so that the chances of a wildfire occurring are greatly reduced. Program objectives are to: 1. improve public safety by decreasing the fire hazard on the Preserve and, consequently, on surrounding properties; 2. --maintain an inviting recreational landscape; 3. educate the public and other public agencies as to the value and feasibility of using controlled burning as an integral part of urban land management. Page Three Unlike some controlled burning projects which are conducted for the purpose of converting vegetation types from, for instance, brush to grassland, the burn in this program is intended to serve a "cleaning out" function where existing plant communities will remain. Therefore, this type of burn will be far less disruptive of the environment than vege- tative conversion projects would be. 2. The Burn Method. a. Preparation. Before burning commences, firelines will have been constructed around the perimeter of the Phase I burn areas and near boundaries with adjacent private property. These lines, cut to contain the fire, will be 10 feet wide; within a 2 foot wide strip, the vegetation is removed down to the mineral soil and for the remaining 8 feet, the vege- tation is cut down to near ground level. (The environmental impacts of fireline construction have been addressed in previous MROSD reports. ) b. The Burn. In accordance with the objective of the program, the burning method will be selected by the fire consultant. Burning will be conducted under specific weather conditions such that a surface fire will burn through the woodland under- story, burn grasses to the ground, and burn brushland plants down to the root crown. Virtually the entire 320 acres of grassland and approximately 50% of the remaining 280 acres of brush and woodland will be burned. In other words, a patchwork effect will be achieved where burned areas are interrupted by patches of vegetation which remain untouched. The burn will most likely take place during a one month period, dependent upon weather conditions, and it is antici- pated that there will be no more than five days of actual burning during that time. C. Permits Required. Burn permits will be required from fire the City of Palo Alto, which has primary ire Jurisdiction, and the Bay Area Air Pollution Control Board. C. Beneficial Impacts Expected. 1. Reduction of Fire Hazard. The project area is located in the dry foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and contains highly flammable plant communities. Residences are scattered through- out the surrounding area where a catastrophic wildfire could occur at any time comparable to those that occurred under similar conditions in Santa Barbara, Bel Air, and Berkeley. If a fire were to start in the Stevens Creek Canyon portion of the project area, fuel conditions and the topography are such that the entire 2500 acre Preserve could be destroyed. Page Five news media in order to explain the program to the public. On burn days, signs will be posted at appropriate points on Page Mill Road, Skyline Boulevard, and Moody Road to explain the smoke that motorists might see. Impact: Smoke-Poison Oak Fumes. When the brushland is burned, the smoke will contain poison oak fumes which can be a health hazard to people who are extremely sensitive to this plants. Mitigation: Local residents will be warned on days when brush will be burned so that they can make arrangements to leave the area if they wish to do so. Impact: Smoke - Traffic Hazard. The smoke could create a traffic hazard on Page Mill Road and Skyline Boulevard by decreasing visibility. Mitigation: The proposed method of burning with a line of fire, rather than burning piles, will disperse the smoke over a large area. Also, the fact that burning will be done in the fall is a mitigation measure, since both dead and living plant material will contain less moisture to be released as water vapor (which is a large component of smoke) than would be released in a spring burn. Burning will be conducted during the work week if possible, when there is far less vehicle traffic in the area. Some of the burning could and may be done at night, when the smoke would be far less visible, and there are even fewer motorists in the area. b. Restriction of Visitor Access. Impact. The Preserve will be closed to visitors during burn days and the day following each burn day. Mitigation. This is an unavoidable but necessary impact for visitor safety and in order to conduct an efficient program without spectator interference. However, since it is anti- cipated that the site will be closed for a maximum of 10 days, most likely on week days which are light visitor use days, this is an insignificant impact. c. Destruction of Resident Wildlife. Immediately before the burn, there will be enough human activity involved in preparation such as deer and coyote, will leave the that large animals Y , t , g area. During the burn, small burrowing animals commonly retreat underground and are not affected by the fire. Birds will either leave because of the human activity or some species will stay to feed on insects which are flushed out by the smoke. Because this is a fall burn, birds will not be nesting at this time of year and there is no danger of disrupting nests. Page Six Mitigation. This is an unavoidable impact. However, since this will e a Patchwork burn, the animals who will not immediately return to the burned areas will simply be dis- placed to unburned areas. In other words, the populations will be redistributed, but not permanently driven out of the Preserve by the burn activity. d. Hazard to Adjacent Private Property/Escape of Fire. Five Private properties border the burn area and precautions need to be taken to contain the fire within the designated burn area of the Preserve. Mitigation. Firelines will be constructed on the Preserve near private property boundaries to the following specifi- cations: 101 wide, with all plant material removed down to mineral soil in a 21 strip and vegetation cut down as close to ground level as possible for the remaining 81 . Since one property owner, McKim, is working with the District, to include their property in the burn the fireline will be constructed or, their property to contain the fire within their designated burn area. Ignition for the burn units near these properties will commence at the firelines and move in toward the Preserve in order to increase the width of the firelines by burning. (This procedure will be followed at all firelines around the entire perimeter of the burn area. ) Fire fighting equipment will be standing by at the burn site; six MROSD four-wheel drive pick-ups equipped with 100 gallon water pumpers; two MROSD fire trucks, each with a 500 gallon capacity; a 1,000 gallon fire truck from nearby Palo Alto Foothills Park. Approximately 50 trained firefighters equipped with standard manual wildland firefighting equip- ment will be working on the burn. The Palo Alto Fire Depart- ment and the California Division of Forestry will have personnel present as observers and these agencies will be informed of each burn day's activities. e. Traffic Circulation/Spectators. On-lookers could become a problem, particularly if large numbers of cars were to park along Page Mill Road. Mitigation: Burning on weekdays should avoid this problem. However, a District ranger or other appropriate person should be stationed on Page Mill Road near the Preserve entrance directing any spectators to park in the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve parking lot where they can safely watch the burn activity. 2. Long Term - After the Burn. a. Visual Impact - Fire Scorch/Plant Regrowth. When burning has been completed, approximately 25% of the Preserve will be covered with ash. In the grassland, all of the grass cover will be removed. The chaparral will be burned back to the root crowns in a patchwork effect, and in the wood- land a large percentage of the undergrowth will be burned out. In other words, the scenic landscape will be disrupted. Page Seven Mitigation. Because this is a fall burn, the grasses will begin to sprout with the first rain after the burn and the charred ground should be covered with green grass within six weeks. The chaparral will begin to sprout from the root crowns and will recover to healthy looking brushfields within two years. In the woodland, falling leaves will cover the ash in a matter of weeks, and the cool fire should avoid scorching tree trunks. This is an unavoidable impact, but burning in the fall will lessen the length of time during which it is a significant effect. b. Soil Erosion. Removal of plant cover by burning will expose the soil in the grassland and brushland to increased erosion hazard during the first season's rains. (Erosion will not be a significant problem in the woodland, since burning in this community will be on very gentle slopes at the bottom of the canyon. Also, the upper story of trees, which intercepts the rainfall, will be undisturbed. ) Mitigation. Unlike an extremely hot wildfire, which can destroy all plant material including root systems, using a cool, controlled fire will allow grass and shrub root systems to remain as a soil stabilizing agent. Burning at the beginning of the rainy season, when rainfall is normally light, is also a mitigating factor. After the burn, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service will inspect the area and advise the District of appropriate conservation measures, such as reseeding on steep slopes or installation of water diversion bars. E. Alternatives to the Project. Alternative methods of achieving the program objective should be considered. 1. Various mechanical methods of removing downed trees and thinning brushland and woodland are common practices. Heavy bulldozers can be used to drag a ball and chain over brushland, which crushes and uproots plants. Another method is to use a bulldozer to clear brush. These methods, however, are very disruptive of the soil. Fire, which is a natural ecological influence, is more compatible with District land management policies. 2. Another alternative is to use hand labor to cut and pile material and then burn the piles. This method is useful and cost effective on small areas. The District, however, is working with a 2500 acre Preserve, and wants to treat all of it as soon as possible. Hand labor would be costly and a slow process. Page Eight 3. A third method is to use browsing animals, most frequently goats , and concentrate a large number of animals in a section of chaparral to be cleared. The animals completely strip brushland plants, but this is the only plant community in which they are an effective tool for reducing fire fuels. In an urban area, such as where the project is located, it is often impractical to locate a large enough goat herd and an owner who would be willing to transport the an and effectively contain them within a specified, but unfenced area for a short while. 4 . A fourth alternative is no project at all. The District could continue to wait for a wildfire to occur and risk losing this valuable recreational resource which the public has entrusted to them for safe-keeping. However, neighbors of the Preserve strongly advocate the District' s taking a more positive role in managing the fire hazard in this entire foothill area. F. Summary of Impacts. The proposed Controlled Burning Plan - Phase I has the potential for exerting both positive and negative effects on the human and natural environment as summarized below: 1. Positive Effects (a) Reducing fire fuels, thereby protecting the Preserve and surrounding private property from catastrophic wildfire. (b) Maintaining the Preserve' s plant communities in a healthy condition. (c) Improving the health of wildlife populations and attracting greater numbers and different kinds of animals. 2. Negative Effects (a) Increased exposure of soil to erosion, significant effect for two years. (b) Production of smoke during anticipated 10 days of burning. (c) Closure of the Preserve for approximately 10 weekdays maximum. (d) Temporary unsightliness of scorching and ash-covered ground. (e) Disturbance to animals during the burn. SOURCES Jason Greenlee, Fire and Land Management Enterprises, 1129 Western Drive, Santa Cruz, CA Doug Erskine, Botanist and MROSD Docent, 225 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA Doug Cheeseman, Ornithologist, De Anza College Biology Department Dr. Clifford Schmidt, Plant Ecologist, San Jose State University Biology Department California Archaeological Site Survey, Regional Office, Cabrillo College, Aptos, CA .............. UY N, R -zt I r 71 C2 PAW IU ALTO Y N, L LOS ALTOS HILLS xi )kIRt TO GAP f, kk EXHIBIT A SITE MAP (USGS) a-ra nog GE i s ace MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 9 CA 1 2500 ' North Exhibit B -; .•�� ___�_ HIKING TRAILS HIKING a rQUESTRIAN .m* .as .m ROAD PARKme e ` M+ fr Ay"{,.e'�.6• t.� �'rr' 7.• I,�+� !e MILL 0 f�D "T f yy wP p '� RIDGET0P RANCH 8KYUN E CAnI N � �* r �; �f '• r DOCENT PARKING AN fN D'�S'y.L��"�'+��;�, ' �. i•i•ei#��'t��M tlq{�k��� �� e � Y. r ,4 , i i`kv,r•r � rr�14v 4" TQl {�1W�.�1 { �.•.iy '.45 +, ti.�` yQ!6-M a {jl " 1. .�,a A� '.Y!fi•r'•;c?•� �4 SAN MATEO COUNTY ' ' -{,%i8 p�-� i+J �-�a�i y, �' `r t�'G'+•yY��y�'rlk�'�51' ':�.•� 11. y iy y{R ," +{�• r �:�s �i 3.K'S � ri �r � �•v' 1 1�f�I V � � 4 Y� C j1 I h r r•'�'i AW l .r •..,:t N },r'�I�rlyy ily.;F,.•. ..;. �i.b' `` �� 1 / Y�;'•y.y��yy.4. Rh¢4y�y-S�rrx YL.:y Y� S''•a `! p, ''44 •WWjj i y 'S y: • �' ►x ^�t.4R ��ri`jsY;} +".fix`"`-yeti SKYLINE CO 1mile PARK MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: MONTE BELLO FIRE MANAGEMENT AREA Exhibit C Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Plant List Amol e Chlorogalum poneridianum (Lily) P-abv blue eyes Nemophila nenziesii ('XTatprleaf) Bay Tree, California Umbellularia californica (Laural) Bedstraw, Climbing Galium nuttallii (Madder) Redstraw, Sweet scented Galium triflorum (`ladder} Blackberry, California Rubus ursinus (Rose) Blackberry, California Rubus vitifolius (Rose) Blow-wives Achryrachaena mollis (Composite) Blue dicks Erodiaea nulchella var. naudiflora (Amaryllis) Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchiun bellum (Iris) Pracken Pteridium aquilinun, var. oubescens (Fern) T Brodiae,a Brodiaea capitata (Amaryllis) Brookline Veronica americana (Figwort) Broam, Prench Cytisus mospeessul anus (Pea) Broco, Scotch Cytisus scoparius (Pea) Buckeye Aesculus californica (Buckeve) Bur chervil knthriscus scandicina (Carrot) Buttercu,r) Ranunculus hebe-carpus (Buttercup) Buttercup, California Ranunculus caliCornicus (Buttercup) Cha,7ise Adenostoma Easiculatum (2ose) Checker Bloom Sidalcea malvaeflora (Mallow) Checker lily Fritillaria lanceolata (Lily) Chia Salvia colutribariae (Mint) Chickweed, Common Stallaria media (?ink) Clover, Indian Trifoliurl dichotomum (Clover) Clover, Owl's Orthocarous densiElorus (Figwort) Clover, D,41's brthocarous purpurascens (Figwort) Clover, Tom-cat Trifoliun. tridentatum (Clover) Coffeberry Rhai-OnLIS californica (7luckthorn) Coltsfoot, Western Petasites friqidus var. palmatus (Composite) Coral root, Stripped Corallorhiza striata (Orchid) Cottonwoo,1, Black Populus tri.chocarpa (Willow) Cow parsnip Heracleum lanatLLm (Carrot) Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis var. consan-juinia (Composite) Coyote mint 'Ionardella villosa (Pint) Cucumttx-r, NTestern WiM '^arah Oreganus (( ourJ) Cudweed, Lowland Gnaphalium palustre (Composite) Cudweed, C,Jeedy Gna,rohaliLrii luteo-album (Composite) Currant, Chaparral Ribes ralvaceum (Gooseberry) Currant, Red flowering Rihes sanguineum var. glutinosum. (Gooseberry) Dandelion Agoseris grandiflora (Composite) De e rwe ed Lotus sco'-parius (Pea) Elderberry, blue Sambucus nexicana (Honeysuckle) Er iastrufr. Eriastrun ambramsii (Phlox) Fern, Coffee Pellaea andronedaeEolia (Fern) Fern, Goldenback Pityrograwa triangularis (Fern) Fern, Western Chain Woo(�qarJia fi-mbriata (Fern) Fiddleneck, Common -Amsinckia intermedia (2,orage) Field mustard Brassica canpestris (1,1ustard) Figwort, Coast Scrophularia californica (Figwort) Filaree Erodium botrys (Geranium) Foxtail chess Promus rubens (Grass) Fragrant everlasting Gnanhaliun heneolens (Composite) Fuchsia, California Zauschneria californica (7-vening oriji,rose) Geranium, Cut leaf Geranium disse--tLtm (Geraniums) Gilia, nird's eye cilia tricolor (Phlox) Gooseberry, Canyon Ribes menziesii var. lertos�,mum (Gooseberry) Hedge !;custard Sisymbriurl officiralp -('Mustard) Hedge nettle Stachys bullata (flint) Hoarhound, Conmon-white Ilarruhium vulqare CNint) Holly leaved cherry Prunus ilicifoli;-:%. (Peach) H.oun,9's tongue cynoglossum grande (3orage) fluckc—T-jerry, California Vaccinium Ovatum (Huckleberry) Indian warrior Pedicularis densiflora (Figwort) Jim bush Ceanothus sorediatus (Buckthorn) Johnny-j umr--r-up Viola pe-donculata (Violet) Lace pod Thvsanocarr)us curvipes (Mustard) Lace Pon' -1hysanocarous radians (Mustard) Larkspur, Slue Del?. hinium decorum (3uttercup) Larkspur, Coast Pjel-.hinium patens (3uttercup) Lonatiun, Caraway-leaved Lomatium caruifolium (Carrot) Lonatiun, Wooly-fruited Lomatium dasvcarpum (Carrot) Tunine Lupinus albifrons (Pea) Canine Luninus bicolor (Pea) I\rbutus i-Renziesii (death) ,Ianzoiita, 'brittle leaf Arctostaphy los crustacea (Heath) Manzanita, Island Arctosta-,bylos insularis (ieath) Maple, ":Ag leaf Acer macrophyllun (Maple) 'liner's lettuce riontia peerfoliata (Purselane) 11onkey flower, Sticky Mimulus aurantiocus (Fiawort) 111ountain mahogany Cercocarpus betuloides (R.ose) Mule Ears Wyethia qlabra (Corroosite) Mule Ears, Gray rWyethia helenoides (Composite) :Tpke3 eriogonum Friogonum latifolium (Buckwheat) Oak, California Black Quercus kelloglii (Oak) Oak, Canyon Quercus chrysolepis (Oak) Oak, Coast live Quercus agrifolia (Oak) Oak, Interior live Quercus wislizeni (Oak) "Da k, Scrub Quercus dumosa (Oak) Oat, Twild A.vena f 3tua (Grass) Ox-tongue, Bristly Picris echioides (Composite) • Paint Prush, T-7ight's Castille-ja 17ightii (Fig,riort) Paint Brush, Woolly Castilleja foliolosa (Figwort) Pea, Comnmon Pacific Lathrys vestitus (Pea) Phacelia, Imbricate Phacelia imbricata (1,,7aterleaf) Pineapple weed i'latricaria matricarioides (Com.posite) Pitcher sage Lepeclainia calycina ("Tint) Plectritus, Pink Plectritus congesta (Valerian) Plectritus, white Plectritus macrocera (Valerian) Plum, Sierra Prunus subcorJata (?each) Poison Hemlock Conium maculatum Poison oak Rhus diversiloba (Sumac) Af Popcorn flower, Rusty Plagiobothrys notho'cii1vus (Corar L _je) Popov, California Eschcholzia californica (Poppy) Purple star thistle Centaurea calcitrapa (Composite) Quaking grass, Biq P.riza niaxima, (Grass} Rattlesnake weed Daucus pusillus (Carrot) Red maids Calandrinia ciliata var. menziesii (Purselene) Pose, J,�70od Rosa qyIninocaripa (Pose) Sagebrush, California Artemisia californica (Composite) Sanicle, Coast Sanicula laciniata (Carrot) Sanicle, Purple Sanicula bir-innatifida (Carrot) Sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella (Buckwheat) Shepherd's needle Scandix pectin-veneris (Carrot) Shepherd's purse Capsella bursa-pastoris (mustard) Shooting star Dodecatheon hendersonii (Primrose) Silk-tassel bush, Coast Garrya ellintica (Silk tassel) Slender woolly heads Psil ocarphus tenellus (Composite) Sneezeweed Heleniun puberulLbi. (Composite) Snowberry, Creeping Symphoricarpos mDllis (Honeysuckle) Solomon's Seal, Slim false Similacina stellata var. sessilifolia (Lily-of-the-Valley) Star lily Zigadenus freinontii (Bunch flower) Stephanomeria, Tall Stephanomeria, virgata (Composite) Sunflower, 1,7ooly Frio--)hyllury lanatun (Composite) Tareeed Madia elegans (Composite) Tovon HeterchTeles arbutifolia (Apple) Trefoil Lotus hu.mistratus (Pea) Watercress Nasturtium officinale (IMustard) Nillow, arroyo Salix lasiolepis (willow) Willow, Coulter's Salix coulteri (willow) Iloodland star Lithophraqma heterophylla (Saxilrage) Woodland star Lithophragma affinis (r) Yerba Buena Satureja douglasii ((dint) Yerba Santa Eriodictyon californicum (laterleaf) C1rrjr -b�+ Rt� r '1oc.ve��( itrtl a� nUAQ-A S' tt7 " = S7SS r�A is 1 Exhibit C PARTIAL LIST OF WILDLIFE ON THE BLACK MOUNTAIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVE BIRDS Coopers Hawk Accipiter coo2erii California Quail Lophortyx californicus Mourning Dove Zenaidura macroura Barn Owl Tytq alba Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Dusky Flycatcher EmpidoEZE—obii-r—holseri Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota House Wren Tryglodytes aedon Robin Turdus migratorius' Cassins' Finch Carpodacus cassinii House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus- Oregon Junco Junco oreganus Brewer's Sparrow �zella breweri Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Song Sparrow Melospiza melodic Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Yellow Warbler Dendroica peteFFI-a California Thrasher Toxostome redivivum House Sparrow Passer—dom'esticus Golden Eagle Aquila chrysactos Scrub Jay 4phelocoma coerulescens MAMMALS Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Jackrabbit Lepus californicus Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae Broadhanded Mole Scapanns latimanus Raccoon Procyon lotor Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale putokius Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Coyote Canis lotrans Bobcat Lynx rufus California Ground Squirrel Citellus beecheyi Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys mieglatis California Mouse Peromyscus californicus Dusky Footed Woodrat Neotama fuscipes Brush Rabbit Sylyilagus bachmani Mountain Lion Felis concolor Western Grey Squirrel Sciurus griseus Gray Fox Urocyon Cinereoargenteus Badger Taxidea taxus REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS California Newt Taricha torosa Western Fence Lizard Scelo ©rus occidentalis Western Garter Snake Thaminophis elegans California Mountain Ringsnake Lampro eltis zonata ` Common Garter Snake Thamno2his sirtali Western Rattlesnake Crotalus uirid'—� is California Slender Salamanader Batrachose s attenuatus Western Toad Buto boreas Coast Horned Lizard Ph . nosoma coronatum Western Skink Eymec� es skiltonianus li i a r � I i r ill Exhibit D California Archaetogical Site Survey SAN FRANCISCO SAN IAAT60 SANTA CRUZ iniftional Office SANTA CLARA trail Co"t Cootinti" SAN BENITO MONTEREY Cabrillo College, 6500 Soquel Drive SAN LUIS OBISPO Aptos, Ca 95003 (408)425-6294 September 24 , 1980 Cynthia DiGiovanni Environmental Consultant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Distrit 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, Ca. 94022 Dear Ms. DiGiovanni, An archival search has been completed on the 600 acre area within the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve as outlined on your map. There are two recorded archaeological sites within two miles of the subject parcel. Based on ethnographical data and settlement pattern studies, the area of the subject parcel is considered archaeologically sensitive. The area has not been sufficiently surveyed archaeologically and a surface reconnaissance is recommended. Whereas the actual burning has little e.ffect on a site, preparations such as grading, bulldozing, etc. can be very destructive to archaeological sites and these activates are of the most concern in cultural resource preservation. An archaeological consultants list is enclosed for your information. Sincerely, J. M. Cooper Regional Office R-80-55 (Meeting 30-22 Ikk October 8 , 1980) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT October 2 , 1980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: S. Sessions, Land Manager SUBJECT: Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan Introduction: At the Board meeting of August 13 , 1980 , staff in- js in report R-80-47, dated August 20, 1980 that an environ- mental assessment for the Fire Management Plan would be prepared and submitted to Palo Alto as the lead agency to review and make a deter- mination for a Negative Declaration, or request an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed project. Palo Alto has since declared that the District is the lead agency as well as the respon- sible agency for the project. Therefore, the determination of environ- mental impact rests with the District. Palo Alto has app3;oved the Fire Management Plan and issued a fire permit for the project. Discussion: An Initial Study, i.e. an environmental impact assessment, Has been prepared for the project and is on file with the District for inspection and review. Based on the Initial Study, which pro- vides an environmental inventory for evaluating the potential impacts on the environment, both beneficial and adverse, from the proposed project, staff has determined that pursuant to Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, a Negative Declaration is warranted for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve fire management project and therefore, the project does not require the preparation of an EIR• C.E.Q.A. Guidelines for project evaluation indicate that if a project is not exempted by the Guidelines, the Lead Agency shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If any aspects of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial , then an EIR must be prepared. The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An iron-clad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. Also the effect of any mitigating measures included as part of the project is to be taken into consideration in the findings to insure that potential impacts have been minimized. There may be a difference of opinion on whether a particular effect should be considered ad- verse or beneficial, but where there is, or is anticipated to be, a R-80-55 Page two substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency should prepare an EIR to explore the environmental effects involved. In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project, while secondary consequences are related more to primary consequences than to the project itself. A project shall be found to have a significant effect on the en- vironment if: (a) The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (b) The project has the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. (c) The project has possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable. (d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The initial study prepared for the District indicates the following impacts could be expected. A. Potential Beneficial Impacts 1. Reduction of fire hazard 2. Improved health and increased diversity of vegetation 3. Improved health and increased diversity of animal population 4. Improved aesthetics B. Potential Negative Impacts - Short term 1. Visible smoke during burn, which may create concern from people who see it 2. Smoke fumes during burn could present possible hazard to people who are sensitive to poison oak fumes or particulates 3. Smoke may create a traffic problem along Page Mill Road and Skyline Boulevard 4. Preserve restrictions - Preserve visitors will be restricted during burn 5. Wildlife - Preserve wildlife will be disrupted 6. Hazard to adjacent property of escaped fire 7. Spectators could create traffic problems R-80-55 Page three C. Potential Negative Impacts - Longer term 1. Visual - fire scorch 2. Soil erosion The short term negative impacts are potential only during the burn period. mitigation measures include public notification of the burn, traffic control, pre-burn preparation, and time and method of the burn. The longer term potential impacts are proposed to be mitigated by the type of burn prescription which allows a "cool" fire, and the time of the year in which grasses begin to grow after the rain, which will reduce the visual impact and mitigate possible soil erosion problems. The alternatives to the project are: fuel reduction by mechanical methods, by manual methods, by using browsing animals, OR no project. Conclusion: The effects of the proposed project on the environment, both short term and long term, are not expected to be significant impacts, based on the data and mitigation measures identified in the Initial_ Study. Therefore, staff has determined that a Negative Declaration is warranted for the project. A Notice of Determination of this Negative Declaration was posted on the project site, mailed to all interested organizations, agencies, and individuals , and published in the local newspapers. Additionally, notice was mailed to adjacent property owners . Recommendation: I recommend that the Board of Directors, contingent upon evaluating any public comment on the proposed Negative Decla- ration and Initial Study, approve the Negative Declaration for the project and authorize staff to file a Notice of Determination with the respective County and City clerks stating that the District has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and that pursuant to the provisions of C.E.Q.A. no E. I .R. has been prepared. 'eALU A" FIRE DEPAFiTITNT Fire Perini c (ApplicFL'it s neme) dppnin� ],�-$;c�' 1_- ace District having r adC application this 19t day of _ m2,F,r I�j 8� for a per:'i.t for IiI1JDLl�.G FIi'2s' UNDER THE PROVI_S-'10kJS OF THE Uia1r'O11M FlRL CODE, F22T1vLE' 1.1, SFii1iZ; 1?.I01, said applicant, upon sinning this permit and assenting to the conditions herein imposed. shall be entitled to rain-Lain a fire- within the PALJ ALTO CITY LIMiITS at (location) Monte Bello M Eoad, P.aloAltn, CA Vlat eria-i to be burned This permit issued for a of -the following reason i p o any g s. Bonfira, ceremonial or recreational fire Fire used l:y fire --r-ice to abate a fire hazard in aceo;•La_n::, Section 13055 of the Health and Safety Code. Fire used to instruct public or industrial em 10 ees. or studera:. P P Y Rurnir.0 of diseased prunings of a c6rn.ercial_ orchard. (9:00 a.-I. to 4:00 i Special Instructions 1. All burning nust meet requirements of the Eay.IV- ea Air Pollution Control District, and in soree instances, tritten approval must be obtained fro-*_ BiViFODP by Prior to issuance of a fire permit. 2. Fire must be attended by a responsible and competent adult at all tier as. 3. Dense, heavy or offensive smote shall not be per,-,itted. 4. Fire to be of suck size and conducted under such conditions as rot to be a fire hazard. 5. Adequate provisions must be made for. removal of debris not conswned by fire. b. Prop:i.... a_'_-quate fire extinouisliers or 3ther htr_ control at all times. This pez•ait. js good for dates of prober 1, 1980 - December 31, 1986 �� ISSUED BY: NILLIf,M 2::)!?�'F 'ire Chief I herein- cer l ify that I have read the above permit and I hereby adr.ee to be bound by the condition.-3 thoreof and all re-1,u.1remonts of the LtNIFO.u'II FIRE CODE and be recponoible _reraonalis for any and all darnages :•:Bich r-Iny accuse to any and all porsons and property whale rer, b; reason of the nointenance of -the pe-rniitted fire. 375 Distel Circle, D-1,_Lps Utoq,,.._CA 9 2 _ 5 (]iplicants Address; Applicants Signature) Eric R. Mart, Operations Supervisor !I 0 ya 0 -10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 94301 AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (415) 329-2441 September 8, 1980 Ms. Cynthia D. Giovanni AIidpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Cynthia: I spoke with Roy Abrams, City Attorney prior to departing on my vacation concerning environmental assessment for the controlled burning of the Montebello Open Space Preserve. Both he and I agree that responsibility for preparation of an EIA rests with the Midoeninsula Regional Open Space District in this case. CEQA guidelines in Section 15030 defines Lead Agency as that "public agency which has the principle responsibility for carrying out or approving a•project. The Lead Agency will prepare the environmental documents for the project either directly or by contract." And further, in Section 15054, "If the project is to be carried out by a public agency, the Lead Agency shall be the -public agency which proposes to carry out the project." Since the City of Palo Alto does not require the issuance of a permit for the controlled burn, MROSD assumes the function of Lead Agency. The City, as a responsible agency, will revieia the environmental document prepared by iLROSD prior to the planned activities. 4 Should you have further questions, please call me at 329-2149. Sincerely,. ROBERT M. BTZUVi�1 Associate Planner RAIB:j b City o Q? ` o CALiFOR ►11A 9430� Cityof Palo Alto Fire Department - August 11, 1980 Mr. Eric Mart Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, California 94022 Dear Eric: The Palo Alto Fire Department approves the fuel management concept proposed for the' Ibnte Bello Open Space Preserve. You have requested permission to grade fire lines in preparation for burning of excess fuels this fall. The Fire Department approves the construction of the proposed fire lines.. As the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve fire management plan is implemented, would you please notify this office of any burning dates or changes in the plan as proposed. Our hope is that this project will result in future prescribed burning programs to reduce the wild fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills. Sincerely,/ ROBERT R. WALL, Fire Marshal Palo Alto Fire Department cc: Bob Brown, Planning Department Larry White, Parks and Open Space Department Jason Greenlee P Open Mid peninsula Regional O Space District P g P Initial Study PART I A. Name , location, and brief description of project : Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan to be im p1-ieZgnted on 600 acres of the 2500 acre Monte Bello Open Space ,Preserve located on Page Mill Road, some 7 miles southwest of I-280 within the limits of the City of Palo Alto noo B. A Description of the environmental setting: The 600 acres consist of 10% to 50% slopes on the Monte Bello Ridge. The project area contains 320 acres of annual grasses and 2$0 acres of chaparral C. The project is/is not compatible with existing zoning and general plans. If not , please explain below: N/A D. For identification environmental effects , see attached checklist. (PART II) E. For a discussion of any potential significant effects and ways to mitigate them, if any, see attached E.I .A. F. Recommended Action: X Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report G. Persons who prepared this Initial Study: Steven D. Sessions Date : 9Z30/80 H. Name and Address of proponent: Page two PART II Identification of Environmental Impacts : (Explanations of es" and "maybe" answers are included on attached sheets) y I� 1. Geology, will the project: YES MAYBE NO a. result in an increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off site? X b. be located on or adjacent to a known earthquake fault? X- C. disrupt the soil causing substantial erosion, silta- tion or land sliding. X d. cause destruction or modif- ication of any unique gologic feature? X 2. Water. Will the project: a. be located in a known flood plain? X b. involve alteration (s) of a streamcourse or body of surface water? X C. change the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an acquifer by cuts or excava- tions? X d. change, absorption rates, drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X e. involve discharge into; or alteration of, any surface water resulting in reduced water quality, including but not limited to, increased turbidity or dissolved oxygen? X 3. Air. will the project result in: a. substantially increased air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? t Page three YES MAYBE NO b. the creation of objectionable odors? X C. alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in local or re- 8 gional climate? X d. the creation of dust smoke or fumes or the application of potentially hazardous ma- terials such as herbicides or pesticides? X 4 . Plant and Animal Life. Will the project: a. result in the removal or dis- turbance of any rare or endangered plant or animal? X b. reduce the acreage of any ag- ricultural crop? X C. result in the removal of substantial amounts of vegetation? X d. alter the ecological balance of an environment unit, either on or off site? X e. significantly affect a breeding, feeding, or Nesting area? X f, change the diversity or numbers of any species of plant or animal? X 5. Natural Resources . Will the project : a. involve the removal or depletion of on-site rock, sand, gravel, trees , oil or minerals? X 6. Permit Application. Will the project: a. require the approval of any federal , state, regional or local agency or district? If yes, list below: X Burn permits from the City of Palo Alto and Air Pollution District 7 . Noise. Will the project: a. increase ambient noise levels, r X either ono off-site? Page four. , f 8. Circulation/Traffic. Will the project : YES MAYBE NO a. generate substantial additional traffic in the area? X _ b. generate the use of off-road vehicles of any kind excepting ranger patrol vehicles? X C. require alterations to present circulation patterns? X d. have substantial impact on existing road systems? X e. effect existing parking facilities or create a demand for new parking facilities? X f. increase traffic hazards for motor vehicles.? bicyclists pedestrians? X— 9 . Public Services . Will the project: a. substantially affect a public water supply or sewage disposal system? X b. result in a need for increased X fire or police protection? C. cause groundwater pollution as a result of new septic systems? X d. require the expansion or extension of any public utility? X e. require any public service currently operating at or near capacity? 10. Energy. Will the project: a. cause the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X 11. Land Use. Will the project: a. result in substantial land use changes that would adversley affect the population ulation either on or off site? X b. serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas , or increase development intensity of already developed areas? X C. vary from adopted an community or county policy. x__ Page five YES MAYBE NO d. involve lands currently protected under the Williamson Act or an open space easement? 12. Sociocultural. Will the project : a. result in an alteration of an historic, archeological or paleontological site, structure, object? X b. require the relocation of people or businesses currently on site? X C. obstruct scenic views or create an esthetically offensive site? X Potential cant Si nifi f g Effects and Mitigation Measures A. Potential Beneficial Impacts 1. Reductio n of fire hazard 2. Improved health and increased diversity of vegetation 3. Improved health and increased diversity of animal population 4. Improved aesthetics B. Potential Negative Impacts - Short term 1. Visible smoke duringburn which f ch may create concern from people who see it 2. Smoke fumes during burn could present possible hazard to people who are sensitive to poison oak fumes or particulates 3. Smoke may create a traffic problem along Page Mill Road and Skyline Boulevard 4 . Preserve restrictions - Preserve visitors will be restricted during burn 5. Wildlife - Preserve wildlife will be disrupted 6. Hazard to adjacent property of escaped fire 7. Spectators could create traffic problems I i . C. Potential Negative Impacts - Longer term 1. Visual - fire scorch 2. Soil erosion The short term negative impacts are potential only during the burn period. Mitigation measures include public notification of the burn, traffic control, pre-burn preparation, and time and method of the burn. The longer term potential impacts are proposed to be mitigated by the type of burn prescription which allows a "cool" fire, and the time of the year in which grasses begin to grow after the rain, which will reduce the visual impact and mitigate possible soil erosion problems. The alternatives to the project are: fuel reduction by mechanical methods, by manual methods, by using browsing animals, OR no project. i :i4ir.:-a.. ••.•::::... ..1. :.:• �y!.�;':' `'•1•!•. '•i M ,.�T` ��:•j. v 1+��-�,-.�. •"'.,� r �,�.• ;l'1 sue" :i-x' .1.. A'' �i�' �`fit 1rr� ....� -••- { �s� _•. Open- S ��r {�`_ ,� `� ✓�y� 1 v 10,0,17-1 JAI Pe ALTO 1 f•�; a l`1 t` >• ''1'ap�l `-tom y�� \ —�__ J�`�'1 ` i r--� `I•�`f. f-/=�i:� ,f f�7� �' y �` �'�1/�� � p�' vl � �i�pe },. �ce S'�' �`'. ��./1 � '�cY�".•''l'� s �', o ` r u CC ti p „' � G i � i rj r, •3lravz 1 •\ _ -\ 0 LOS ALTOS r�1 � HALLS r /r >a Long,R i:d ; '_ S 1� SARAT0GA GAP �_ ,. � >� 1 </ • +S �'.�1 �\t���`� �v,�C � � `, i •-"i�-- _ -- ----.-__ _. _ __ >�ii�- r..�n Q '._� ` -\� � 7*0�>l �J �`- - _ {co- • 1. r EXHIBIT A - SITE MAP (USGS) _ .�./f�-� ice! ape s�a e . rye x MNTE BELLO, OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 1" = 2500 ' North to AtIDPE1INSULA REGIONAL. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is filing a Notice of Determination for a negative declaration in com- pliance with section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) . . I Project Title: Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan Contact Person: Steve Sessions, Land Manager Telephone : (415) 965--4717 Project Location: Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, approximately 7 miles southwest of I-280 within the lin.its of the City of Palo Alto Project Description: Approximately 600 acres of the 2500 acre Preserve will be burned in a controlled manner to reduce an existing fire hazard and project the natural resources. The proposed controlled burning is intended to serve a "cleaning out" function rather than for the purpose of con- verting vegetation types. Therefore, this burn will be far less disruptive of the environ- ment than the vegetative conversion projects would be. Burning will be conducted under specific weather conditions in accordance with a burning method selected by a fire consultant. The project will reduce the buildup of hazardous fuel materials and will improve the heal.t— and diversity of plant communities, as well as the animal population. This is to* advise that the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has approved the above described project and has made the folio-aing determination regarding the above described project: The project is not growth indicative, and the environmental i ,:pacts are either of short term, i.e. : the duration of the burn, or have adequate mitigation measures as identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment that the project is not expected to have sicnifi- cant impact, and therefore, a. Ilerative Declaration is warm-r--y: The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District will review the request for a Negative Declaration during the regular meeting of October 8, 1980 __ t + 8 i ���, �� _` . �. _��� �<< M-80-7'1 (Meeting 80-22 low October 8 , 1980) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM September 29, 1980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Review of Permit Proceduresand Liability Implications At your meeting of September 24, 1980 , you deferred this agenda item, Review of Permit Procedures and Liability Implications, to your meeting of October 8, 1980. My report (R-80-51, dated September 17, 1980) to you on the matter was included in your packet of material for the September 24 meeting. R-80-54 (Meeting 80-22 ►" October 8 , 1980) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT September 30, 1980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: S. Sessions, Land Manager, and D. Woods , Environmental Management Planner SUBJECT: Summary Review of Use and Management Plan for Planning Area VIII (Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve) Introduction: In accordance with the Land Management Planning Process and Schedule of Reviews, this report consists of a brief summary of use and management recommendations for the Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve, Planning Area VIII. In the past year, there have been three additions to the previously existing 290 acre Preserve, increasing the total acreage to 680 acres, plus a one-half interest in the 137 acre Laye property. The additions were the 186 acre Fairweather property near Mt. Thayer, the 121 acre Mindling property near Lexington Reservoir, and the 83 acre Bell property located south of Kennedy Road. I. Kennedy Road Area - Site Use and Management This area consists of the former Kennedy Trails property and the most recent acquisition, the Bell parcel. Use of these sites has been confined to neighbors gaining access from ad- jacent private property and, occasionally, visitors who park along Kennedy Road. Hiking and horseback riding are the most common activities. Management concerns include overnight camping with open fires and motorcycle use at the higher elevations . These activities have been difficult to curtail since the patrol road became impassable in the spring. Attempts are now being made to reopen this road. A. Dedication Status The 373 acres are undedicated and recommended to remain undedicated to allow for the possibility of density trans- fer or an exchange of lands. Page Two B. Completed Use and Management Recommendations 1) The sites have been opened to hikers and equestrians who can gain access from adjacent property. Kennedy Trails does have an access route on the appurtenant right of way entering from Kennedy Road. C. Incompleted Use and Management Recommendations 1) Fences, gates, and boundary signs should be placed where necessary on the Kennedy Trails and Bell parcels. Status: A gate and stile is to be placed at the Black- berry Hill Road entrance and at the southern boundary this fall at a cost of $1, 000 . 2) The existing Kennedy Trails dirt road should be mini- mally maintained for patrol purposes. Status: The road was badly washed out in the spring and may cost up to $2,000 to repair. Funds are included in the 1980-81 budget. This effort will provide a road to a standard for patrol purposes, and as requested by the Central Fire Protection District. 3) The two unused wells on Kennedy Trails should be capped to protect water quality and preserve the water source. Status: This effort is scheduled for Spring, 1981. D. New Use and Management Recommendations None. Limekiln Canyon Area - Site Use and Management This area, formerly the Mindling property, is used by local equestrians and hikers. Limekiln Canyon Road, passing through the northern portion of the site, is relatively unused except for nearby quarry traffic, and there appear to be no problems with roadside dumping or loitering. Motorcycles occasionally reach the upper trails, but their use does not seem to be significant. A. Dedication Status The 121 acres are undedicated and recommended to remain undedicated to allow for possible trading of development rights. B. Completed Use and Management Recommendations 1) The site remains open to hikers and equestrians who can gain access from Limekiln Canyon Road or any of the other roads with permission of the adjacent property owners. R-80-54 Page three C. Incompleted Use and Management Recommendations 1) Fences, gates, and boundary signs should be placed where necessary. Status : Fences and gates will be deferred until it becomes necessary to prevent undesirable access. Boundary signs will be installed during Spring, 1981. D. New Use and Management Recommendations None. III. Mt. Thayer Area - Site Use and Management This site, the former Fairweather property, is the most remote of District lands and receives little use. Hikers and eques- trians gain access to this property from adjacent private property, and there is no public vehicular access to the area. There have been no reported problems on this site. A. Dedication Status The 188 acre parcel is undedicated and recommended to remain undedicated to allow for the possibility of density transfer. B. Completed Use and Management Recommendations 1) The site has been opened to hikers and equestrians who can gain access from adjacent private property. C. Incoaleted Use and Management Recommendations 1) Fences, gates , and boundary signs should be placed where necessary to control off-road vehicle use. Status: A study will be completed this coming spring to determine the best location, and fences, gates, and signs will be installed then. 2) The existing dirt road should be minimally maintained for patrol purposes. Status: The road had some damage as a result of last spring's rains, but does not currently need to be re- graded. D. New Use and Management Recommendations None. R-80-54 Page four IV. El Sombroso Area - Site Use and Management The District has acquired only a one-half interest in the Laye property and may not have the specific authority to allow the general public on the property. Therefore, the property is being left in its natural state, and the site is being used by local equestrians and hikers gaining access through private property from the Kennedy Road area and the Mt. Thayer area. The District does have the right to protect its interest and the landscape by installing gates, fences, and signs if it should become necessary. A. Dedication Status The one-half interest in the 45 acre parcel is undedicated and recommended to remain undedicated. B. Completed Use and Management Recommendations The site should remain open to hikers who can gain access from adjacent private property. Status: The site is open. C. Incompleted Use and Management Recommendations None. D. New Use and Management Recommendations None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the amended use and management recommendations contained within this report. It is also recommended that the Board approve the naming of the indi- vidual sites within the Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve as the Kennedy Road area, the Limekiln Canyon area, the Mt. Thayer area, and the El Sombroso area. :; ; :;` :i � ram^ '.: Q21 J GFi`OZ•Iltelr �1• _ +4 r/ :J i� - r -'J. i h - - �\ J, � IR ROAD. — '� i(. r ���.. ��. � '�� r� l �}��j ' i� ✓�1zao5�" � � �i��i�i' \�_ /� "'"IcQ� 420 �ri'�= /1J.../��r`�-•-✓�-"`���� / \\ •c--�J ��`'%,/!Ii. �����,..,' \ -`./'vfl`-�r /� intees ID ct, 000 EL'SOM$RO Q t f�/r ?� �(�� � � tAREA ,jj'��, .- _� . is � •-� ��-� ;., � i��_�-��� _ ,' -�/ � " 1 Montt v un gwah°Z m t,`t0 1 ) \ "� /�.• - t��rr= X. i d.A G19 uoss°a NLLLI 1.5 °„eNANNON oui>�r f"t ps bRD �r ro.�r.rC�ja�Q$® r, os tyres .r1 �� RD, !RECREATION Ark r+rror �/t pD AREA. „ 16 �', b� ` /�� .` EXHIBIT A — SITE MAP (USGS) _ :{•: Aldercro% �X% _n. Chemeheta Park e� y, /8P7�• ��- N, Atdwlro � �,�— .L MANZANITA RIDGE Estr s, •H°,y _ / 'tYree . OPEN SPACE PRESERVE t> s.s Ity �e �. I , 1 t �__,. J.1 �,�" — l" = 2000 ' North ':;' oa rj �,800 r„-,,, ,: '1. .•P r: _ V19114 L SOMBROSO � `` �� /��'1 i��/� � °o'>. � SEA \\, ��` �- 1 interest- \, t �_ -S );�-�r �, ! "V-' f • �� , � 'vim �^ �._._ � ��oo, ���r L- �,� �\ `�� .\- �-- -- y - f ��, •- \ \\31-0 A �U..�-• --�-^� - ���,� •1 \,yam�. ��. - � `r"''1 ✓ j% �• � \ �O \� \-`\ \ `\ �i -� ay .. ���•��_lb✓ � �\:_.��•'� `\`��1���`\BMA �_./ - I _ / 77. BK M t U m u n h u m 1. •\1 `�. / \`\CrIlk" ,'f�V b Qh iN.RRRpN _eiLORIDN roLL € l+ REDNDM1D RYE. '����. ��v✓% N�r� :` � QO 1 ex o s Fh KYOF ee ' las! 4Rl•�S RD RD, 0- .O 16grme'r 1 y F,a 1 rwe ath e r) Gatos' --i. —'� 1 ✓ ,� r �:��I ��(�(� ^ - en�re„ / OU/CRSAL 1 ( Vice. �� ��,` BM e J RES _ �'LExrNereN - eu.� o^�S i �� \/ ��fi�'Ma`✓� /�r �t• WATER 3 --JRECREATION RF[nF�r�ON�a l� •� ' AREA 44". �, V;� l •6 FA�p � �r \ G EXHIBIT B - SITE MAP (USGS) w nlcotton \ ` ChenEYeW Park Rn.TIMYER�•` '�o `� , 1 ADDITION TO rood 4, ER ---°�" o :•'' �/J)i)�''� MANZANITA RIDGE 4 7 OPEN SPACE PRESERVE North'2000 1 =" ` s u M-80-72 (Meeting 80-22 October 8 , 1980) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM September 26 , 1980 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Listing of Land Acquisitions as Public Hearings Discussion: The question arose, most recently on July 23 , whether land acquisitions should be listed on your agendas as Public Hearings , and the matter was slated for future discussion. Acquisitions, in fact, were so listed until mid-1976 when the practice changed. In Section 1. 47 of your Rules of Procedures , Public Hearings are defined as "Any matter which, in the opinion of the Board of Directors , requires notice to and response by members of the public may be placed on the agenda under this category" . (Under the District's practice, the placement of an item on an agenda and the normal pre-meeting distribution of the agenda constitutes the "notice" . ) Except for the consideration of public necessity in potential eminent domain proceedings , Legal Counsel has ruled that a Public Hearing is not required by law for a land acquisition decision. However, under your procedures the public always has been invited at each meeting to speak on all relevant matters on or off the agenda. There is an additional dimension to be considered, namely, notic- ing of Public Hearing items in addition to their appearance on the agenda. In my opinion, formal legal notices are next to use- less for informing the general public of a matter, and paid ad- vertisements are of little value. The success of the District's land acquisition program hasbeen aided by the lack of cumbersome procedures which seem to hamper other agencies , and correspondingly allows the District to respond quickly to the needs of the land- owner. No change in procedure is being recommended. If, however, you wish to list land acquisitions as Public Hearings on future agendas, I can return with a resolution which would amend Section 1.47 of your Rules of Procedure by adding : "Any acquisition of land shall be listed under this category the first time that particular acqui- sition appears on the agenda. " Such a listing would make it clear to the outside world that the public is indeed invited to comment before an acquisition deter- mination (pro or con) is made. M-80-72 Page Two Legal Counsel will report separately on the legal definition of "Public Hearings" and notice requirements . There is also the question regarding possible notification to adjacent landowners when acquisitions (particularly under the possibility of eminent domain) are being considered. As I recall, this matter was to be placed on an agenda if and when requested. Finally, on January 23, 1980, there was discussion about placing on a future agenda the question of notification of property owners when their property was being considered in connection with a grant application. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT October 1, 1980 To: Board of Directors From: Stan Norton, Legal Counsel Subject: Legal Requirements, "Public Hearings" After having researched the matter, I find no general legal discussion on the subjects of "public hearings" and "notice requirements. " Aside from any notice requirements, "public hearing" implies little more than an open public meeting, assured in the case of California local agencies by the Ralph M. Brown Act, coupled with an opportunity to be heard. Since it has always been the District' s policy at its public meetings to hear freely from the public, our proceedings in this respect would seem to qualify as "public hearings" even though not specifically so designated. As to the notice requirement, this is usually governed by statute, and occasionally by constitutional considerations. Except where the use of eminent domain is involved, the District is not required by statute to give notice of its intent to purchase land. Occasionally the courts will hold that constitutional principles require such notice. For example, in the recent case of Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) , 21 Cal. 3d 605, 'Sup. 156 Cal.Rptr. 718, the California Supreme Court held that the county' s approval of a subdivision map sufficiently impacted a "significant property interest" of a nearby land- owner that he was constitutionally entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. (The Subdivision Map Act required no such notice. ) The court said in part: 1,Due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest. " (Citations) (p. 721) Board of Directors - 2 I am aware of no decision, however, that suggests the mere acquisition of land by a public agency would consititute a "deprivation of a significant property interest" as to a nearby landowner, and certainly not as to the public at large. In brief , I conclude that our present procedures for the acquisition of land are legally correct. If the Board wishes to impose on itself additional requirements, I would find no legal impediment. I 't 1 i k11D 0,,' -NSU1.. F:GIO:Y , 0?K1 S, C D I S a Ic- x: TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: For Your Information DATED: October 3, 1980 I I I i, Copy of entire report available in District office. t Observel- 1%.1-evorr y � �� i979-i98o r��t 7 . r k Los Afros-.Mounratn ^Vices lcaq'ue of 'Women N orers w � e I C014TENTS Governmental Bodies Observed Observer Page 1. Los Altos City Council Barbara Frech 1 2. Los Altos Hills City Council Helen Helson 2 3. Mountain View City Council Kathleen Comerford 3 4> Los Altos Planning Commission Katy Buechner 6 5. Mountain View Environmental Marilyn Terman 7 Planning Commission 6e Los Altos. Elementary School District Merrian Nevin 8 Board of Trustees 7. Mountain View Elementary School Sallie Kladnik 11 District 8. Mountain View-Los Altos Union Marcia Allen 13 High School District 9. Foothill-De Anza Community College Carole King 14 District 10. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Marian Blukis 15 District 11. El Camino Hospital District Laura Dawson 16 i I Agendas and summary minutes of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors are posted and filed in the League office. These documents are valuable to the local League Board in keeping track of League concerns currently considered by the Supervisors and as a notice of availability of various staff and task force reports. League action at the county level must be approved by 3/5 of County Council (Presidents of the five local county Leagues). ............... Similar copies also sent V to Santa Clara County -Al A. Planning Commission and \t. Parks and Recreation Commission MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 September 25, 1980 Mr. Dan McCorquodale, Chairman Members of the Board Board of Supervisors County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding San Jose, CA 95110 i Dear Mr. McCorquodale and Members of the Board: At our meeting of September 24, 1980, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District reviewed the draft of the 1980 General Plan for Santa Clara County, focusing their discussion on how the draft General Plan impacts the District's policies and programs. After b - v requested th Board a 6 0 vote, discussion e considerable that our proposed changes to the General Plan be forwarded to you for consideration of inclusion in the final version of the plan. The changes adopted by the Board are contained in the attachment and they are also being forwarded to the Plan- ning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. In the event you should have any questions concerning the changes the Board has requested, please contact me or Herbert Grench, the District' s General Manager. Sincerely, Barbara Green President Board of Directors BG:jg cc: MROSD Board of Directors 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 Wendln Attachment A. (Pull Out Section - Parks) REGIONAL PARKS, TRAILS, AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS PLAN 1. (under map description) , Pl Parks and Public Open Sj2ace. Other Publically _Owned Open Space Lands. Remove description of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District from main paragraph. Add a second subtitle and paragraph as follows : Regional Open Space Lands (in bold type) Includes open space lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District which are generally undeveloped and open to the public without permit. 2. (map) , Pl Use appropriate color to describe Crittenden Marsh. Use appropriate color to describe Los Trancos Open Space Preserve (portion in Santa Clara County) . Consider trails between Henry Coe Park and Grant Ranch and northwards. Color in as Proposed Parks the white area above Sanborn Park to Highway 9. 3. (under Baylands) , P2 Describe Crittenden Marsh. 4. (under Foothills and Mountains) , P2 Individually describe the District's major preserves. B. (Pull Out Section - Land Use) LAND USE PLAN 1. (under Resource Conservation Areas) Other Public Open Lands, L2 Remove District from main paragraph. New second paragraph: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands are generally undeveloped and open to the public without permit. 2. (under Resource Conservation Areas) Hillside Areas, Development Policies : Density, Ll and L2 * We question whether a development of 160 acres or larger should be exempt from any policies that do apply to smaller developments. 3. (under Other Land Uses) University Lands Academic Reserve and Open S ace L3 / P P , r Development Policies * Development policies under the Hillside Areas of Resource Conservation Areas should apply. 4 (map) . Ll * The area bounded by Page Mill Road, 1280, Arastradero Road- and Foothill Expressway, including Coyote Hill, (except for the area developed as the Stanford Industrial Park) is outside the Urban Service. Area and should be colored as Resource Conservation Areas. * Color in Baylands parks and open space. C. (Pull Out Section - Transportation) 1. (under Public Transit) , Policies, Tl * Include a statement (Policy 7) that public trans- portation service to major regional parks and open space areas shall be provided. This policy statement should be consistent and added to the Public Transit policies listed on Page 45. l I 'All e1, 'Ve o MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 September 25, 1980 Mr. Dan McCorquodale, Chairman irman Members of the Board Board of Supervisors County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding San Jose, CA 95110 Dear Mr. McCorquodale and Members of the Board: At the September 24, 1980 regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, our Board discussed the possible impacts, both positive and negative, that the arming of Santa Clara County park rangers might have on the District and its own rangers. Because the District has a joint powers agree- ment with the Santa Clara County Park and Recreation De- partment, a decision to arm the County rangers will impact the District, and therefore, before the County decides to arm rangers in areas where the joint powers agreement is applicable, the District requests direct involvement in the planning for implementation of such a decision. The Board' s decision to request this action was based on a unanimous vote. Sincerely, Barbara Green President Board of Directors BG:jg cc: MROSD Board of Directors 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 C-80-18 Page One Cctober 8, 1980 Meeting 80-22 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT C L A I M S Amount Name Description 1458 $ 164.53 Aqua Velop, Inc. Photostats of display maps 1459 1,124.00 Gregory Archbald Professional Services 1460 16.81 Bay Microfilm Office Equipment Maintenance 1461 140.34 Signs of the Times Signs 1462 23.80 David Camp Educational Assistance 1463 25.00 Diane Conradson Ecology Lecture - Docent Training 1464 84 30 County Clerk Deposit for Jury Fees 1465 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Services - September 1466 128.88 The Dark Room Photos 1467 15.00 Econo-line Express, Inc. Legal Paper Delivery 1 1468 1,926.75 First American Title Guaranty Co. Title Insurance & Escrow fee 1469 30.93 Graphicstat, Inc. Legends for Display Maps 1470 12.00 Harbinger Communications Listing in Harbinger File 1471 10.67 Monte Vista Garden Supply Field Supplies 1472 632.92 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service 1473 2.96 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities 1474 206.56 PG&E Utilities 1475 83.39 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies 1476 480.00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services 1477 27.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription 1478 654.83 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense 1479 49.86 Standard Brands Paint Co. Field Supplies 1480 33.60 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense 1481 27.50 David Topley Tuition Reimbursement 1482 10.35 United California Bank Services for Promissory Note 1483 81.53 West Publishing Co. Reference Books 1484 214.69 Xerox Corporation Maintenance Agreement 1485 150.00 California Consortium Workshop Fee 1486 10,000.00 City and County of San Francisco Option on Hassler 1487 29.10 Herbert Grench Meal Conference 1488 48.00 Joan Combs Workshop Fees Reimbursement C-80-18 - Page Two October 8, 1980 Meeting 80-22 Amount Name Description Tt 1489 $ 92.00 Jeannie Barroga Graphics Design-Display Map 1490 400.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Services 1491 148.20 Steven Sessions Private Vehicle Expense j C-80-18 Page One I October 8, 1980 Meeting 80-22 REVISED MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT f C L A I M S # Amount Name Description 1458 $ 164.53 Aqua Velop, Inc. Photostats of display maps 1459 1,124.00 Gregory Archbald Professional Services 1460 16.81 Bay Microfilm Office Equipment Maintenance 1461 140.34 Signs of the Times Signs 1462, 23.80 David Camp Educational Assistance 1463 25.00 Diane Conradson Ecology Lecture - Docent Training 1464 84.30 County Clerk of Santa Clara Deposit for Jury Fees 1465 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Services - September 1466 128.88 The Dark Room Photos 1467 15.00 Econo-line Express, Inc. Legal Paper Delivery 1468 1,926.75 First American Title Guaranty Co. Title Insurance & Escrow fee 1469 20.93 Graphicstat, Inc. Legends for Display Maps 1470 12.00 Harbinger Communications Listing in Harbinger File 1471 10.67 Monte Vista Garden Supply Field Supplies 1472 632.92 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service 1473 2.96 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities 1474 206.56 PG&E Utilities 1475 83.39 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies 1476 480.00 Rogers, Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services 1477 27.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription 1478 654.83 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense 1479 49.S6 Standard Brands Paint Co. Field Supplies 1480 33.60 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense 1481 27.50 David Topley Tuition Reimbursement 1482 10.35 United California Bank Services for Promissory Note 1483 81.53 West Publishing Co. Reference Books 1484 214.69 Xerox Corporation Maintenance Agreement 1485 150.00 California Consortium Workshop Fee 1486 10,000.00 City and County of San Francisco Option on Hassler 1487 29.10 Herbert Grench Meal Conference 1488 48.00 Joan Combs Workshop Fees Reimbursement C-80-18 Page Two October 8, 1980 Meeting 80-22 REVISED Amount Name Description 1489 $ 92.00 Jeannie Barroga Graphics Design-Display Map 1490 400.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Services . 1491 148.20 Steven Sessions Private Vehicle Else 1492 47.83 Norney's Office Supplies 1493 32.80 William Upson Private Vehicle Expense 1494 42.00 Herbert Grench _ Out of Town Conference Expense 1495 93.51 Craig Britton. Out of Town Conference Expense 1496 102.75 Petty Cash Drafting Supplies, Office Supplies, Meal Conferences, Private Vehicle Expense, and Aerial Maps. r I