HomeMy Public PortalAbout19860409 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 86-08 Meeting' 86-08
M . ._
NOM
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday BOARD OF DIRECTORS 375 Distel Circle, D-1
April 9, 1986 A G E N D A Los Altos, California
(7:30)* ROLL CALL
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD BUSINESS
(7:45) 1 . Resolution of Support for California Trail Days -- D. Hansen
Resolution Supporting the First California Trail Days, April 19 and 20, 1986
(7 :50) 2. Proposed San Mateo County Ordinance Outlawing Sale and Use of Fireworks --H. Grench j
i
(7 :55) 3. Support of Proposition 43 -- H. Grench
Resolution Supporting Proposition 43 Which Places Before the Voters of California
on June 3, 1986 a Bond Measure to Provide Funding for Parks, Recreation and
Open Space for Development, Restoration, Land Acquisition and Other Related
Purposes
(8:00) 4. Appointment of Auditor for 1985-1986 Fiscal Year -- M. Foster
(8:05) 5. Scheduling of Additional Meeting in April -- H. Grench
(8:10) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation, Litigation and Personnel Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an -item you'Ae concerned with appeatus on the agenda, the ChaiA witt
.invite you to add&uz the Board at .that time; on otheA matteu, you may addnez.b the BoaAd
undetc UAat Communri.cationz. (An atteAnati.ve iz to comment to the Board by a WA teen Communica-
tion, which the BoaAd appreciates. ) Each speaheA witt otdinatiZy be ti.mited to 3 minutu" When
Aeeogn.ized, please begin by stating youA name and address. We Aeque�st that you bitt out the
4olam provided and ptesent it to the Recording Sectetary 6o that youtc name and addAas can be
accuAatety .ince.uded in the minutes.
*Times are estimated. Agenda is subject to change of order.
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Budget Committee will meet at the District office at 4:15 P.M. on Tuesdays, April 8, 15,
22 and 29 to discuss preparation of the budget for the 1986-1987 fiscal year.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL HEARING
There will be a Public Hearing at 7:30 P"M. , April 23 at the District office to consider
Ordinance Adopting Policies Regarding Use of Eminent Domain and questionnaire regarding
other land acquisition policies.
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TQ ATTEND
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSE, STAFF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Board President Acknow. Respond Meeting 86-08
Director Acknowledge/Respond April 9, 1986
_ Staff Acknowledge/Respond
f Y Draft Response Attached
!I _ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
Board Directive(s)
Other
Board of Directors
Mid Peninsula Open Space Distri L
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Members of the board, 20 Mar 1986
Trails and roads of special scenic value have recently been
lost in Santa Clara County. The ridges from Mt. Umunhum and
Mt. Loma Prieta south to Mt. Madonna park have been closed and
blocked by steel gates with private property signs. The people
who claim these roads are hostile and threatening and affect
the frontiersman image. I was saddened by the narrow minded
and shortsighted treatment of this area by -the county. I have
hiked and bicycled these mountains for more than twenty five
years and have enjoyed the magnificent vistas in all seasons.
When the roads were closed, I thought it was for the purpose of
protecting the terrain trom all wheel drive vehicles. Only now
did I discover that these roads are no longer accessible to the
public.
I believe that this loss of access is a significant precedent
that should not be allowed to stand. Further, I believe that
ultimately these mountain ridges should remain open space not
only for esthetics, but also for economic reasons.
Environmental damage resulting from construction on steep
terrain and the financial burden for taxpayers to support
utilities for such marginal residences is far greater than the
cost of maintaining this as open space.
From casual observation, it appears that the structures and
mobile housing presently used by the residents do not conform
to county health or building standards. There is little water
on the ridges and no sign of proper sewage management. By the
attitude and appearances of some dwellers, I suspect that they
may have chosen this area less for its natural beauty than the
remoteness from observation of their activities. This is not a
good environment for the future island of open space on Mt.
Umunhum. I urge you to consider this a high priority open
space goal and focus appropriate attention through the members
and by direct action with the county.
Sincerely,
Jobst Brandt
351 Middlefield Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
DRAFT FOR BOARD REVIEW
Mr. Jobst Brandt
351 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Brandt:
Thank you for your recent letter expressing your interest in the Mt. Umunhum
area and concerns regarding inaccessibility of certain roads and trails. The
District's Board of Directors considered your letter at our April 9 meeting.
The District shares your enthusiastic interest and fully recognizes the unique
open space values of these lands.
Over the past few years, we have embarked on a program to acquire and preserve
as much of this area as possible. There is now a total of 2285 acres of open
space in the Mt. Umunhum Area of the Sierra Azul Preserve which now encompasses
properties extending from Hicks Road to the top of Mt. Umunhum.
The trail and road system on the Preserve is being expanded as various proper-
ties are acquired. In fact, the most recent acquisition in progress, the
former Almaden Air Force Base, includes the addition of Mt. Umunhum Road which
will ensure public rights from Hicks Road to the top of the mountain.
At this time, all of the trails and roads on the Preserve are open to the public
for hiking and riding. When the acquisition of the Air Base property is com-
plete, Mt. Umunhum Road will also clearly be accessible for public access as far
as the upper gate near the structural facilities. The area immediately sur-
rounding the buildings will be temporarily closed during a two year planning
phase in an attempt to minimize security problems.
Our planning process for the Mt. Umunhum Area will be underway by this fall,
and we will be encouraging public involvement through a series of workshops
and hearings. We have added your name to our mailing list so that you will be
notified of these meetings, and we hope you will attend. We look forward to
your continued support in our endeavors to preserve this beautiful area for the
public enjoyment.
Sincerely,
Edward Shelley, President
Board of Directors
ES:ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
*40.
MIDPENINSUIA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
D R A F T
Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County
County Government Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear President Eschoo and Members of the Board:
At our April 9 , 1986 Board meeting the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District considered Supervisor
Nolan's proposed ordinance banning the sale and use of fireworks
in unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. The District already
has a ban against use of fireworks on District lands .
Our Board voted unanimously to support the ordinance. District
foothill preserves get a lot of use on the evening of July 4 for
viewing displays along the Bay plain, and our Rangers are out in
full force to protect the safety of the public and of District
lands. July, of course, is a month of high fire hazard. (Use of
fireworks is a regular, but lesser, problem at other times of the
year. ) Because some members of the public want to light fireworks
as well as to view them, the Rangers have a busy and sometimes
difficult time. Especially difficult are situations where the
incidents occur near the edge of District lands , and it is unclear
as to whether or not they occurred on or off District lands . It
would be very helpful , therefore, if our Rangers could enforce,
and possibly cite under, both a County ordinance, which they are
empowered to do, and the District regulations .
We urge you to adopt the proposed ordinance.
Sincerely yours ,
Edward Shelley
President
Board of Directors
ES :ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
,hill)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
DRAFT FOR BOARD REVIEW
Mr. Ross Henry
Executive Secretary
Department of Parks & Recreation
State of California
Recreational Trails Committee
P.O. Box 2390
Sacramento, CA 95811
Dear Mr. Henry:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the use of eminent domain for
trail acquisition. Tony Look presented the Committee's position at the
March 19 meeting of our Land Acquisition Policy Committee and followed up
a with the Committee on April 2.
The full Board will be considering policies regarding use of eminent domain
at an April 23 public hearing at 7:30 P.M. at the District offices. You
are invited to participate. Written comments for that meeting must be re-
ceived at the office by 5:00 P.M., April 17 to be included in the meeting
packet.
Sincerely yours,
Edward Shelley, President
Board of Directors
ES:ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
California Recreational Trails Committee
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board o/Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 86-08
April 9 , 1986
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMITTEE
P.O.BOX 2390 SACRAMENTO 95811 RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF
Board President Acknowledge/Respond
(916) 322-7384 Director Acknowledge/Respond
Staff Acknowledge/Respond
Draft Response Attached
Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
Board Directive(s)
MAR 2 6 1986 Other
Board of Directors
MidPeninsula Regional Open
Space District
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Board of Directors:
The California Recreational Trails Committee recently sponsored
a trail conference in Asilomar to discuss statewide trail
issues. Over 50 delegates participated, representing trail
organizations from throughout the State.
During the conference, there was a discussion regarding the
issue before your Board to eliminate the power of eminent domain
authority for the acquisition of trails. The consensus of the
members of this conference (see attached list of participants)
was that the power of eminent domain is a critical tool for a
successful trail program.
The District owns several large open space areas which can
easily be connected by trail corridors. Such trail connectors,,
however, may be lost because of unwilling sellers. The con-
ference recommends to your Board that you retain the right of
eminent domain to acquire critical trail links within the
MidPeninsula Regional Open Space system.
Sincerely,
Ross T. Henry
Executive Secretary
Attachment
1986 California Recreation Trail Conference
Connie Berto Bill Dempsey
Bridge Ride Committee Trust for Public Land
California Endurance Team , Inc . 82 Second Street
70 Crane Drive San Francisco, CA 94105
San Anselmo, CA 94960 (415) 495-5660
(415 ) 454-2923
Jim Bickhart , Jr . Bob Doyle
California Recreational Trails East Bay Regional Park Dist .
Committee 11500 Skyline Blvd.
Oakland, CA 94619
P .O. Box 5864
Santa Monica, CA 90405 (415) 531-9300
( 213) 399-3921 Pena Dwinger
Bill Bliss Equestrian Trails , Inc .
California Recreational Trails 13376 Sayre Street
Committee Sylmar, CA 91342
1849 Dry Creek Road ( 818) 362-6$19
San Jose , CA 95124 Larry Faber
(408) 377-4776 MidPeninsula Trails Council
3127 David Avenue
Ilse Byrnes Palo Alto , CA 94303
California Recreational Trails
Committee
P .O. Box 1029 John Fiske
San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 Mariposa County Trails
( 714 ) 493-4222 9618 Bondurant Mine Road
Phyllis Cangemi Coulterville, CA 95311
Community Access Network and ( 209) 878-3619
Whole Access Project Katherine Gould-Martin
517 Lincoln Avenue Los Angeles Forest Committee
Redwood City , CA 94061 of the Sierra Club
(415) 363-2647 2313 Amherst Avenue
George Cardinet , Jr . Los Angeles , CA 90064
Heritage Trails Fund
5301 Pine Hollow Road Samantha Graff
Concord, CA 94521
Tahoe Rim Trail
(415 ) 672-5072 P .O. Box 7241
South Lake Tahoe , CA 97531
Harry Dean, Jr . ( 916) 577-06?6
San Mateo County
Planning and Development David Hansen
County Government Center MidPeninsula Regional Open
Redwood City , CA 94063 Space District
(415) 363-4020 375 Distel Circle , Suite D-1
Los Altos , CA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Janet Heimann Bob Kirsch
Folsom Lake Patrol Santa Cruz Mountains Trail
9430 Oakleaf Way Association
Roseville , CA 95678 c/o P .O. Box 1141
(916) 791-0025 Los Altos , CA 94023
Ross T . Henry
Executive Secretary Art Kramer
California Recreational Trails County of Mendocino
Committee Dept . of Parks and Beaches and
P .O. Box 2390 Northern California Trails
Sacramento , CA 95811 Council
(916) 322-7384 559 Low Gap Road
Ukiah , CA 95482
Honorable Charles Hostler (707) 468-4267
State Park & Recreation Commission
9580 Black Mountain Road, Suite H Tony Look and Mildred Look
San Diego, CA 92126 California Recreational Trails
(619) 578-6421 Committee
P .O. Box 1141
Joe Inch Los Altos , CA 94022
California Recreational Trails (415 ) 968-4509
Committee
4137 East & 7th Street Eugene Marquart
Long Beach , CA 90804 Insurance Officer
( 213) 433-2562 926 J St . , Suite 615
Sacramento, CA 95814
Charles B. Jones
Big Santa Anita Canyon
Historical Society and Diane McMillan
The San Gabriels Trails County of Lake
Committee Department
Canyon Blvd. Department of Public Works
11216 j
Courthouse
Tujunga, CA 91042 255 N . Forbes St .
( 213) 359-5511 Lakeport , CA 95423
(707 ) 263-2341
Thomas Johnson
California Recreational Trails David Moore
Committee San Mateo County
P .O. Box 675 590 Hamilton
Kernville , CA 93238 Redwood City , CA 94063
(619) 376-6723 (415) 851-0326
Nancy Kaiser Roger Moore
Parks and Recreation Appalachian Mountain Club
Sacramento County 5 Joy Street
3711 Branch Center Road Boston, MA 02108
Sacramento, CA 95827
(916) 366-2061
f
Vie Obern and George Obern Nancy J. Ross
Santa Barbara Co . Trails Council Recording Secretary
4140 Marina Drive CA Recreational Trails Committee
Santa Barbara, CA 93105 P .O. Box 2390
( 808) 682-3175 Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 322-7384
Linda Palmer
Santa Monica Mountains Trails Council Sally Ryser
24735 Mulholland Highway Pine Ridge Association
Calabasas , CA 91302 15225 Perry Lane
( 213) 888-9830 Morgan Hill , CA 95037
(408) 779-7582
Kay Petersen
City of Lafayette Parks and Renee Shepard
Recreation Commission Santa Cruz County Horsemen' s
36 Deer Trail Association
Lafayette , CA 94549 7389 W. Zayante
Felton, CA 95018
(408) 335-5400
Russell Porter
Grants Administration Jim Shiro
CA Dept . of Parks and Recreation U.S . Forest Service
P .O. Box 2390 630 Sansome Street
Sacramento, CA 95811 San Francisco, CA 94111
(916) 445-0835 (415) 556-6983
Dick Pryor Maxine Spellman
Tahoe Rim Trail. California Coastal Conservancy
P .O. Box 7241 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
South Lake Tahoe , CA 95731 Oakland, CA 94612
(916) 577-0676 (415) 464-1015
I
Lewis C . Reed Pat Stebbins
San Mateo County Horsemen' s Assoc . California Coastal Commission
and Los Viajeros Riding Club 631 Howard Street , 4th Floor
225 Lindenbrook Road San Francisco, CA 94105
Woodside , CA 94062
(415) 543-8555
(415) 851-1714
David Sutton
Warren L . Rogers T .V. I .C .
Pacific Crest Trail Conference 4898 E1 Camino Real , 205A
P .O. Box 1907 Los Altos , CA 94022
Santa Ana, CA 92702 (415 ) 968-7065
(714 ) 540-6828
Jon Toste
Mary E . Rogers Marin Coastwalk
Pacific CrestClub
1451 Nye Street
P .O. Box 1907 San Rafael , CA 94901
Santa Ana, CA 92702 (415) 258-9459
(714 ) 540-6828
i
i
I
a
Karel Waugh Cindy Quarton
Summit Riders Horsemen' s Peninsula Open Space Trust
Associaton 300 Sand Hill Road
24766 Skyland Menlo Park, CA 94025
Los Gatos , CA 95030 (415) 854-7696
(415) 353-1466
Fran Stevenson and
Jim Whitmer Gail LaRoque
Christensen & Whitmer Insurance Los Altos Hills Pathways Committe
and Brokers 26989 Beaver Lane
20315 Ventura Blvd. , Suite 200 Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Woodland Hills , CA 91364
Alex Young Don Weden
Bureau of Land Management Santa Clara County
2800 Cottage Way 70 W. Hedding Street
Sacramento, CA 95825 Santa Clara, CA 95110
(916) 978-4730 (408) 299-2323
Daily Attendees:
Sybil Chappellet-Epps
California Recreational Trails
Committee
6006 San Antonia Ave
Carmel , CA
(408) 624-8319
Sylvia Ferguson
Companions of the Trail
707 Continental Circle , Apt . 1414
Mountain View, CA 94040
Mr . Greg Gilbert
California Coastal Trails
Foundation
P .O. Box 20073
Santa Barbara, CA 93120
Carolyn Lekberg
MidPeninsula Trails Council
1509 Mallard Way
Sunnyvale , CA 94087
(408) 737-2763
Mr . Tom McFarling
Sonoma Coastwalk
2126 Orchard Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
I
M-86-35
(Meeting 86-08
April '9, 1986)
AW
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1986
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; J. Nicholas,
Coordinator of Volunteer Programs
SUBJECT: Resolution of Support for California Trail Days
Background: For the past sixteen years, the Sempervirens Fund and the Santa
Cruz Mountain Trails Association have been sponsoring a Trail Days program at
Castle Rock and Big Basin State Parks in the spring of each year. This has
been a one weekend a year program to encourage volunteers to build and maintain
trails in parks and has had varying turnouts each year, ranging from over
2000 volunteers in the initial year to 200 in recent years. Last year, over
500 attended on two separate weekends.
For the last few years, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has
also participated in Trail Days and has had successful projects on several
Preserves. The Trails Information and Volunteer Center (TIVC) has taken over
the coordination of the Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Days and is coordinating
this year's events on April 19 and May 3. District projects are planned on
the Fremont Older and Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space. Preserves through
the TIVC.
Of major significance, and through a recommendation from the California
Recreational Trails Committee, is the fact that Governor Deukmejian has
declared April 19 and 20 as California Trail Days (see proclamation attached) .
The District is an official sponsor of a California Trail Days project with
our work being handled through the TIVC and District Ranger staff.
Your resolution supporting the First California Trail Days would be helpful in
fostering publicity and further support.
Recommendation: 1 recommend that you approve the attached Resolution of the
Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Supporting
the First California Trail Days on April 19 and 20, 1986.
�
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
M|DPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
SUPPORTING THE FIRST CALIFORNIA TRAIL DAYS,
APRIL 19 AND 20* 1986.
�
WHEREAS, the MidpanYnsula RegYcmeY Open Space District is blessed
with outstanding natural beauty in its Preserves, which are accessible to
residents of the District and other visitors alike through a growing trail
network; and
� WHEREAS, much of the maintenance and construction of the District's
trail system is dependent on the hard work and dedication of volunteers; and �
WHEREAS, trail maintenance and construction is especially important
during early spring in preparation for heavy use during the months following;
and '
WHEREAS, the MTdpenlnsula Regional Open Space District has been an
official sponsor of the Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Days for several years and
is now a sponsor of two projects for the 1986 California Trail Days in honor
of those volunteers who give freely of their time and effort to create and |
maintain trails used by the public,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the MldpenYnsula Regional Open
Space District Board of Directors recognizes, appreciates, and supports the
continued growth and maintenance of the District's beautiful trail system as
well as other systems throughout California through establishment of the
California Trail Days, as proclaimed by Governor Deukmejian for April 19 and 20"
1986.
�
�
� �
.w i[w M J K Ka. SI Kw w Kr. w K Kd. o Yw L K4 SI ���w iy rw y�a y
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
K
r
XX a� T
A PROCLAMATION
by the Governor of the State of California ;
K
WHEREAS, California is blessed with beautiful parks that are accessible to residents and
tourists alike through our state's trail system; and0
WHEREAS, the maintenance of our trail system is largely dependent on the hard work
and dedication of volunteers; and
WHEREAS, trail maintenance is especially important during the spring in preparation for
heavy usage during the summer season; and
WHEREAS, the Department -of Parks and Recreation and the California Recreational
Trails Committee is sponsoring California Trail Days in honor of those volunteers who give
freely of their time and effort to create and maintain recreationai trails used by the citizens
of California; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that all Californians recognize, appreciate and support the
continued maintenance of our state's beautiful recreational trails;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor of the State of California, do
hereby proclaim Apri: 19-20, 1986 as California Trail Days.
NSF ~�''� IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand
,% �, and caused the Great Seal of the State of
ICA �r California to be affixed this 3rd day of March
:A",
FIR
=m Governor of California
44
t z; ATTEST:
= P. Secretary of State
C LI FORNY
M-86-34
(Meeting 86-08
April 9 , 1986)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ME
MORANDUM
April 2 , 1986
TO : Board of Directors
FROM: H . Grench , General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed San Mateo County Ordinance Outlawing Sale
and Use of Fireworks
Recommendation : I recommend that you authorize the President of the
Board of Directors to sign the attached letter supporting the pro-
posed San Mateo County Ordinance which would outlaw the sale and
use of fireworks in unincorporatedareas .
Discussion : Attached is a letter dated March 20 , 1986 from San Mateo
County Supervisor Nolan which Director Hanko received and brought to
your attention at your meeting of March 28. Our Board decided
subsequently to place this matter on the April 9 agenda for consideration .
For reference , the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors passed a
similar ordinance in 1977 which essentially prohibits the sale ,
possession or use of fireworks in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara
County . To date , Gilroy and Los Altos are the only two remaining
cities in Santa Clara County which do not prohibit the sale , pos-
session or use of fireworks .
Informal discussions with fire prevention officials from both the
Central Fire Protection District and California Department of Forestry
indicate that the incidence of fireworks-related injuries and property
damage is appreciably lower in areas where the sale , possession or
use of fireworks is prohibited by law and aggressively enforced .
Use of fireworks on District lands is banned by District regulations .
We find that some District sites both in the foothills and Skyline
areas are very popular on the evening of July 4 for viewing fireworks
displays on the Bay plain . Inevitably , some of the viewers also
wish to light fireworks , and our Rangers , virtually all of whom are
on duty that night, have a busy and sometimes difficult time in
protecting the safety of visitors and District lands . July , of
of
r are incidents
m th o high fir hazard There course , is a on f h e
9
lighting of fireworks at the fringes of District lands where it is
not always clear whether the occurrences are on or off of District
lands , a difficult enforcement situation . Whether on or off,
public safety and certainly safety of District lands could be
threatened. Use of fireworks is a real but lesser problem at other
times of the year.
f
i
i
M-86-34 Page two
It would be very helpful to our Rangers if use of fireworks were
prohibited in unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. They could
then enforce and cite , if necessary , under County ordinance and
District regulations in either county. District Legal Counsel
has reviewed the proposed ordinance and saw no problem with it.
According to his aide , Supervisor Nolan is hopeful that adoption
of a County ordinance will help convince the cities of Pacifica ,
Daly City , South San Francisco , and San Bruno to adopt a similar
ordinance , as have the rest of San Mateo County cities ( see attached
article ) .
-Nil1 , �.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
D R A F T
Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County
County Government Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear President Eschoo and Members of the Board:
At our April 9, 1986 Board meeting the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District considered Supervisor
Nolan's proposed ordinance banning the sale and use of fireworks
in unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. The District already
has a ban against use of fireworks on District lands .
Our Board voted unanimously to support the ordinance. District
foothill preserves get a lot of use on the evening of July 4 for
viewing displays along the Bay plain, and our Rangers are out in
C full force to protect the safety of the public and of District
lands. July, of course , is a month of high fire hazard. (Use of
fireworks is a regular, but lesser, problem at other times of the
year. ) Because some members of the public want to light fireworks
P g
as well as to view them, the Rangers have a busy and sometimes
difficult time. Especially difficult are situations where the
incidents occur near the edge of District lands , and it is unclear
as to whether or not they occurred on or off District lands . It
would be very helpful, therefore, if our Rangers could enforce,
and possibly cite under, both a County ordinance, which they are
empowered to do, and the District regulations .
We urge you to adopt the proposed ordinance.
Sincerely yours ,
Edward Shelley
President
Board of Directors
ES:ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert A.Grench,Genera/Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy.Nanette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Ea.and G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Supervisor -10n-i Nolan North County 873-1800
Central County 573-2222
South County 363-4570
Coastside 726-5581
Richard L.Silver
kjz-xN MATED
Administrative Assistant
A
C0 U_ NTY OF Diane Breslow
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER - REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94063 Administrative Secretary
March 20, 1986
Nonette Hanko, Director
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District
3172 Emerson
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Friend:
As you and your organization may be aware, I am planning to introduce
a County Ordinance to outlaw the sale and use of fireworks in the un-
incorporated areas of San Mateo County.
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed ordinance. Please review it and
let me know your feelings and the feelings of your organization.
Hopefully, the new county ordinance will serve as a catalyst to the
cities in the county who still allow the sale anduse of fireworks.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Cordially,
TOM NOLAN
Supervisor, San Mateo County
db
enc.
ORDINANCE NO.
BOARD OF SUP::RVISORS, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 5125.1, 5125.2, 5125 .3, 5125 .4,
51.25 . 5 , 5125 .6, 5125.7 and 5125 .8 FROM AND ADDING
SECTIONS TO ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 2, PART ONE OF DIVISION V-
OF THE S N MATEO COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE REGULATING AND
PROHIBITING THE SALE AND DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS
The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State
of California, DO ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 6 of Chapter 2, Part One, Division V, of
the San Mateo County Ordinance Code commencing with Section
5125 . 1 and proceeding through Section 5125.8 inclusively, is
hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Article 6 of Chapter 2, Part One, Division V, of
the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby added to read as
follows :
ARTICLE 6 - FIREWORKS
Section 5125 .1. FIREWORKS DEFINED. "Fireworks" is a
combustible or explosive composition, or any substance or
combination of substances, or device prepared for the purpose of
producing a visible or an audible effect by combustion,
explosion, deflagration, or detonation, and shall include blank
cartridges, toy pistols, toy cannons, toy canes or toy guns in
which explosives are used, firecrackers, torpedoes, skyrockets,
roman candles, Daygo bombs, sparklers or other devices of like
construction and any device containing any explosive' or flammable
compound, or any tablet or other device containing an explosive
substance, except that the term "firework" shall not include any
auto flares, paper caps containing not in excess of an average of
twenty-five hundredths of a grain of explosive content per cap
1, I
I Via•
w
and toy pistols, toy canest toy guns or other devices for use of
such caps , the sale and use of which shall be permitted at all
times .
Section 5125 . 2. PERMITS FOR MANUFACTURING, SALE AND
DISCFIARGE.
(a) The manufacturing of fireworks and storage and handling
of such fireworks in connection with manufacture is prohibited
except under such special permits as are required by state and
local regulations.
(b) Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful
for any person to possess, store, to offer for sale, expose for
sale, sell at retail or use or explode any fireworks, provided
that any fire protection district or county fire warden shall
have power to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the
the San zeo -.runty Ordinance Coue is read as
granting of permits within the geographic area of their respon-
sibility and authority for supervised public displays of
fireworks by a local government, fair association, amusement
park, or other organization, or for the use of fireworks by
artisans in pursuit of their trade. Every such use or display
shall be handled by a competent operator approved by the Fire
Chief of said area or the County Fire Warden, and shall be of
such character and so located, discharged or fired so as,- in the
opinion of the Fire Chief or County Fire Warden after proper
investigation, not to be hazardous to property or endanger any
person.
(c) Applications shall be made in writing at least ten (10)
days in advance of the date of the display to the Fire Chief or
County Fire Warden. After such privilege shall be granted, sale,
possession, use and distribution of fireworks for such display
shall be lawful for that purpose only. No permit granted
hereunder shall be transferrable.
y .
I
. .
M
Section 5125.3 BOND FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY REQUIRED. The
permittee shall furnish a bond or a certificate of insurance in
an amount deemed adequate by the Fire Chief or County Fire Warden
for the payment of all damages which may be caused to a person or
to property by reason of the permitted display and arising from
any acts of the permitee, his agents, employees or
subcontractors.
Section 5125.4 UNFIRED FIREWORKS. Any fireworks that
remain unfired after the display is concluded shall be
immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of
fireworks remaining.
Section 5125.5 EXCEPTION. Nothing in this article shall be
construed to prohibit the use of fireworks by railroads or other
transportation agencies for signal purposes of illumination, or
the sale or use of blank cartridges for a show or theater, or for
signal or ceremonial purposes in athletics or sports or for use
by military organizations.
Section 5125.6 ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Seizure of Fireworks. The Fire Chief, County Fire
Warden, or Sheriff of the County of San Mateo, shall seize, take,
remove or cause to be removed at the expense of the owner all
stocks of fireworks offered or exposed for sale, stored or held
in violation of this ordiance.
(b) Violation of Ordinance as Misdemeanor . Every person
who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance, is guilty
of a misdemeanor.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and .effect
thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Welfare of pets cited
Supervisor Nolan wants all
fireworks banned in SM County
-Ay Steve Taylor �i/ ready-illegal pyrotechnics are what Nolan's proposed ban. concerned about fires and injuries adopted an ordinance prohibiting Nolan, a Redwood City resident
Times Tribune staff a7 �o really terrify dogs, cats and other If the ban is adopted, it would go caused by improper use of fire- dog owners from carrying their whose 4th District also includes
animals. into effect 30 days later— in plen- works, he may be even more con- pets untethered in the backs of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto,
Largely for the sake of Fido, The dispute is expected to go ty of time for the Fourth of July. cerned about"what they do to dogs pickup trucks being driven in unin- said he had pledged to seek a ban
Spot and other Peninsula pets, Su- public later this week, when Nolan The sale and use of fireworks and cats.It (the Fourth of July) is a corporated areas, Nolan said. in unincorporated areas if the City
p,ervisor Tom Nolan wants to ban officially announces his plans and has been banned in every city from very hard time for them." He said he approached the Pen- Council first enacted a ban.
the sale and use of"safe and sane" both men mobilize supporters and San Mateo to the Santa Clara Coun- Noting his own pet, a cat named insula Humane Society and other Hewell,who has led some unsuc-
brew•orks in San Mateo County's opponents of a proposed fireworks ty line, Nolan said. Peggy, is disturbed by loud noises animal lovers about what else con- cessful fights against fireworks
unincorporated areas. ban. In an interview Monday, he said caused by fireworks, Nolan jok- cerned them and was told a fire- bans in Menlo Park and elsewhere
But Don Hewell, district manag- The two sides formally will do a similar policy should be institut- ingly called his proposed ban "the works ban was a top priority. on the Peninsula, feels Nolan is
,er of Red Devil Fireworks Co. in battle beginning at 10 a.m. April 8, ed in surrounding areas outside of Peggy Nolan Relief Act." Another concern was the Red- barking up the wrong tree.
San Carlos, argues that firecrack- when the Board of Supervisors is city limits. Work on his fireworks-banning wood City Council's decision in
cherry bombs and other al- scheduled to consider and vote on Nolan also said that while he is proposal began after the county 1985 to ban fireworks. Please see COUNTY,A-4
Tuesday, April 1, 1986
C^ � /� '�\/ safe-and-sane fireworks would'be
(�+) Iv T like Prohibition— it could spur in-
creased purchases and use of fire-
crackers and the like.
Continued from A-3 As a result,the Board of Supervi-
Safe and sane fireworks like Red sors would be naive to think that a
Devils do not make exploding ban would eliminate fireworks use
sounds that frighten pets,he said. in unincorporated areas, he said.
Pets are upset by firecrackers, "It (a fireworks ban) is not real.
'.not by a family eating watermelon They're just kidding themselves (if
and ice cream with some (fire- they enact it)," Hewell said.
works) cones that are a tradition in Hewell said he now is preparing
this country," Ilewell said. statistics that show property dam-
What San Mateo County should age and injuries related to fire-
do instead is enforce existing laws works do not change significantly
against firecrackers,cherry bombs in communities after safe-and-sane
and the like that do explode and fireworks are banned.
ii-can cause fires and injuries, He said he believes the data will
Hewell said. show that fireworks in general do
"Sure pets are upset. I'd be, too, not pose serious problems in- San
if someone threw a cherry bomb at Mateo County.
me," Hewell said. Hewell met Monday night*wlth
"But we're not selling that prod- representatives of commVi ty
uct, so why should we be chas- groups that raise funds thr®pgh
tised?" fireworks sales to seek thei4.80-
Hewell also warned that a ban on port in fighting Nolan's plan.S ;
w
Mr86~32 �
(Meeting 86-08
April qv 1986)
K' �
MDDPENXNSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 1 ^ 1986 �
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Qranoh* General Manager
� SUBJECT: Support of Proposition 43
�
Recommendation: | recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution of the
� Board of UIrectors of the MYdpenineula Regional Open Space District
Supporting Proposition 43 Which Places Before the Voters of California on
June 3° 1986 a Bond Measure to Provide Funding for Parks, Recreation and
Open Space for Development, Restoration, Land Acquisition and Other Related
� Purposes.
�
Introduction: Your 1985-86 Legislative Program placed an /Y\m priority on
support mf S8 806, authored by Senator Presley and others. This bill ,
which was successful , places before the voters at the June, 1986 primary
election a $100^000,000 bond issue known as the Community Parklands Act of
�
� 1986.
Discussion: The attached information will remind you of the essential
features of this measure. According to preliminary information, the
MYdpenYnsula Regional Open Space District would be eligible for a block
� grant(s) in the range of $880,000 to $900*000.
Your support of Proposition 43 would be conveyed to the public via an infor-
mational press release and contacts with the editorial staffs of news-
papers within the District. The President of our Board of Directors could
also write a letter to the editor of each local newspaper in support of
the measure, perhaps co-signed by another Director in the coverage area of
the paper.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 43 WHICH PLACES BEFORE
THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA ON JUNE 3, 1986 A
BOND MEASURE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PARKS,
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE FOR DEVELOPMENT,
RESTORATION, LAND ACQUISITION AND OTHER
RELATED PURPOSES
i
WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California has adopted and
the Governor has signed the Community Parklands Act of 1986 which is known as
Proposition 43; and
WHEREAS, parks, recreation, and open space programs vastly enhance
our environment and our lives; and
WHEREAS, leisure facilities and open spaces in both urban and rural
areas are a necessity to life, since they have a substantial positive effect
on mental and physical health, economic productivity, and social problems; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 43 would place before the voters of California
a measure to provide financing of a program of acquiring, developing, or
restoring real property for local park, open space, and recreational purposes;
and
WHEREAS, enhancement of park, open space, and recreational facilities
projects have a direct economic benefit to our community and the state as a
whole and moreover, will benefit the health and well-being of Californians; and
WHEREAS, constituents of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
and surrounding area will benefit directly from funds which would be allocated
to the District if Proposition 43 is approved by the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District goes on record in support of Proposi-
tion 43.
f
March 3, 1986
PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SHEET ON
COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986
i A local Grant Program to be administered by the
State Department of Parks and Recreation if
Proposition 43 is passed in June of 1986
Advisor Committee
The State Department of Parks and Recreation requested the California Park and
Recreation Society for guidance through an advisory committee. CPRS has appointed
the CPRS Legislative Committee as that advisory body for administration of
the Community Parklands Act of 1986.
Bond Act Information
The State Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants Administration,
has already received many inquiries from interested agencies and individuals
on the Community Parklands Grant Program and the following is an attempt to
answer some of the most commonly asked questions.
1. Q - How much funding is involved?
A - $100 million total, all of which is for local government.
2. Q - How are funds distributed?
A - 60% of the fund is for cities, park and recreation districts and other
special districts; 40% is for counties and regional park districts.
All funds are allocated to each local entity on a per capita basis.
3. Q - What can funds be used for?
A - Acquisition, development, rehabilitation, improvement or restoration
of recreational or historic areas or facilities and development rights
and scenic easements.
4. Q Who is eligible.
A - All incorporated cities, all counties, all recreation and park districts,
all regional park districts and some special (multi-purpose) districts.
5. Q - Which special (multi-purpose) districts qualify?
A - A special district must meet the following qualifications:
1. Serves a definite "community" (see below for definition)
2. Be authorized to operate and manage parks or recreation areas
3. Employs a full-time park and recreation director
4. Offers year-round services on lands and facilities owned by the
district
III _
Must allocate a substantial portion of its annual operating budget
to parks or recreation areas or facilities (for purposes of this
program, it is proposed that "substantial" will mean the allocation
of 10% or more of its budget to parks or recreation areas or facilities)
Suggested Definition of "Community" - as referenced in Section 5702 of
the Community Parkslands Act of 1986 and relating to districts other than
regional or recreation and park districts, means -- an unserved portion
of a county, usually unincorporated, consisting of settled territory, and
which area is recognized as a community with definite boundaries and popula-
tion in the most recent County General Plan.
6. How much would an individual aggency receive?
A This would depend upon your agency's population. The final figure
will not be known until October 1, 1986. The general range estimated
at this time is $2.50 to $2.75 per capita for a city, park and recreation
district or other special district, and $1.45 to $1.55 per capita for
a county or regional park district.
7. How is the population determined?
A - By the latest available and verifiable Department of Finance population
data (the January 1, 1986 figures) .
8. Q - What if agencies do not agree on overlapping service areas?
A - The agencies must decide by October 1, 1986, or the Department of Parks
and Recreation will decide. .
9. Q - Are there minimum amounts for smaller agencies?
A - Yes, the minimum for cities and park districts is $20,000 and for
counties, the minimum is $100,000.
10. Q - About what population constitutes a small agency?
A - We will not know until this is computed, but it will probably be about
7-10,000 for a city and 70-80,000 for a county.
11. Q - Is there a minimum amount for each project?
A - yes, $20,000.
12. Q - when will funds be available?
A - July 1, 1987.
13. When must applications be filed?
A - Probably by December 1, 1986.
14. Q - Is this a competitive program?
A - No, this is strictly an allocation program to all eligible agencies.
15. Q - Are indoor facilities eligible?
A - Yes.
16. Q - Are operation and maintenance costs eligible?
A - No.
17. Q - Are administrative costs eligible?
A - Only those costs that are directly connected to the approved project.
18. Q - What clearances are needed?
A - The local agency will certify that they will meet all appropriate laws,
rules and regulations pertaining to the project.
19. Q - Are there any matching requirements?
A - No, on development projects; 25% on acquisition projects.
20. Q - Will individual projects appear in the State Budget?
A - No, only the agency and amount of money to appropriate.
21. Q - How are funds appropriated?
A - The eligible agency will notify the State of its desire to participate
and the State will appropriate up to 100% of the allocated funds.
22. Q - Must the State be notified of individual projects?
A - Yes, the amount of funds allocated to each project must be recorded
and this information forwarded to the State. The State is required
to make this list available.
23. How much State review will there be for each project?
A State review will be very limited. It is proposed that each agency
will certify to compliance with CEQA, building codes, land tenure and
historical and handicapped standards.
24. Q - Will the projects be audited?
A - The State may audit or have audited the records associated with the
State Grant projects.
25. Q - How large will the program be?
A - There will be over 600 agencies involved and it is anticipated that
there will be over 1,200 projects.
i
26. Q - Can grant payments be received in advance of project commencement?
A - It is anticipated that up to 90% of grants will be payed out immediately
upon request prior to the start of the project.
4
7 X7" A Al �1(LG U �v TS i4ND ,q-N�YSI S ^'1//}! Li4�3L� A� .
DI STRICT o F FI•C E
Proposition q
Community Parklands Act of 1986
Ch . 5 (1986 ; SB 806) February 18 , 1986
BALLOT TITLE ALvD SUMMARY
COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986 .
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred million dollars
($100 , 000,000) to provide funds for acquiring, developing ,
improving , rehabilitating , or restoring urgently needed local and
regional parks , beaches , recreational areas and facilities, and
historical resources .
-
i
BALLOT LABEL
COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986.
This act provides for a bond issue of $100 , 000 ,000 to provide funds
t
for acquiring, developing , improving, rehabilitating, or restoring
urgently needed local and regional parks , beaches, recreational
E
areas and facilities, and historical resources.
j • -
o Proposition 43 makes economic sense and deserves your
vote. r
n Proposition 43 . You and vour community deserve
Vote "yes" for Propo _ .. _
the park and recreation improvements it will provide. a�
ROBERT PRESLEY
State Senator, Riverside
Chairman, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife
JIM COSTA �
Member+ of the Assembly, Fresno
Committee on Plater Parks and. Wildlife
Chairman, Asse
mbly r
DAVIS .
CHAP-TES O.
President, California Park and Recreation Society
t
tii I
II�{
.1
if{}i
� � I
a
3 .
t �
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMFNT AGAUTST PROPOSITION 43 CS, £<'6
The opponent' s argument ignores the real and demonstrated g- cd
for the funds for local parks that will be provided by
Proposition 43.
o The simple truth is that local governments are. unable to
meet the constantly growing park and recreation needs of
our co=uniti.ers.
This measure is the responsible, traditional, and time-tested
method of helping our cities, counties, and- park districts to
keep up with increasing population growth and the steady
deterioration of older parks.
r'?-zS Lip
o Don't be -- by the opponent's figu.re-s.
r Hls figures go baek to 1964. That was a generation ago!
I" obviously, our cc•r=unities have grown considerably since then.,
creating new needs for local recreational facilities_ Also, the
figures he cites include funding for programs which aren't
included in Proposition 43.
The opponent seriously exaggerates the funds that will be
available for local parks in 1986 . He includes funding for
unrelated programs and federal funds that California probably
will never get because of proposed cuts in the federal budget.
o The existing program, which will expire next year, has not
met the needs of local communities-
Project applications have far exceeded available funds. T -e
purpose of Proposition 43 is to supplement these funds, aw .urirg
that our ccrsrunities can meet present and future recrezi t-io-,::l
E
needs .
8-5
As mentioned above, your politicians don' t want to use this
money for parks so that they can spend, it on something else.
Unfortunately, many voters are under the assumption th
at.�t b
p and
money is free money. Nothing could be further from the truth. - ►
If Proposition passes , it will cost the taxpayers
approximately $185 million ($185,000,000) to service that debt..
Please force your legislators in Sacramento to make the tough
decisions they were elected to make on how to spend the tax dollars
our government now collects. Don't give them another $100 million
($100,000,000) to play around with.
Vote "NO" on Proposition .
DEIV'1L I S BROWN
State Assemblyman
58th District
f
i
i F;
�s
�g
4
ARGUNZEM AGAINST ` OPOSITION
It' s time that the taxpayers of the State of California had the
straight scoop on what these multitude of bond issues are all
about_
Your State Legislature has been playing a shell game with you
for years and, of course, the politicians always win..
It' s really very clever. You see, if the politicians can get
the voters to approve bond issues for-motherhood and apple pie
items, like parks, then they will have free reign over all of your
tax dollars to waste on multi-billion dollar loser programs , like
welfare and other giveaway schemes.
Proposition. the Community Parklands Act of 1986 , is
exactly one such program. Who can be against- more parks and open
space?
Proposition should also be .defeated because a=3,r State
Department of Finance has predicted that over $70 million
($70,000 ,000) will be available for parks next year and
approximately $40 million ($40,000 ,000) the year after that. This
is money that will already be payed to the Mate by the working men
and women of California without having to raise more funds through
the expensive bond process or by raising tares.
To prove just how absurd this new request for money is , the
voters approved a $370 million ($370,0001000) Parks and P-ecreation
j
bond issue two years ago and have approved over $1 . 2 bil:'.:ion
($1 ,2oe ,000 ,000) in park funds over the past few elections . And of
that , $42.0 million ($420 ,000,000) hadn' t even been i.ssu-< <s of
Iasi Dece-mber.
S
P
e
REBUTTAL __--•THE ARGU1,1ENT IN FAVOR r. -P:UPOSITM4 (SB 80C
The supporters of Proposition would have you believe
that we haven't been spending any money on parks for decades_
The truth is we have been spending hundreds of millions of
4
dollars on parks over just the past few years-'
Of course, all the cities, counties and other groups. that can
get thei
r hands. on this money support Proposition. because its.
their s
e w.i 1rL be p
not ther usney Y
Please force your politicians to allocate money -for parks out-
of the tax doll ars they already co11 ect-. We don't need more debt
hanging over our and our children's heads_
As of last December, we as California taxpayers had general
obligation bonds (fit) authorized in the amount of $7.3 billion
($7, 300,000,000) and $2.5 billion ($2,500,000-,F0.00) of that. was still
i
f unissued- We-will pay over $525 million ($525,E100,000) for debt,
payments alone in the coming year.
Based on current interest rates and a 20_year retirement,
will cost us $178 million ($178 ,000,000) to pay .
Proposition F
3
off.
We are on the same path that the federal.- governrttent was on
only a few. short years ago.- Now they are so far in debt that
fiscal responsibility has become impossible
We simply don't need more debt. 2f parks are such a high
priority then let's fund them a sensible way and stop wasting tax
dollars on so many worthless programs.
Vote "No" for fiscal irresponsibility and on Proposition "' •.�
f
Dennis Bra
t State. Assemblyman
an
District
t
i
receive funds and will decide its own priorities for how its
share will be used . Depending en the local priority needs that
are identified , funds can be used for:
o Rehabilitating and restoring deteriorated park facilities.
a Playground equipment , swirnming_,pooLs, picnic areas,
baseball, basketball , tennis, and other sports facilities.
Land for new neighborhood , community, and regional parks.
• Improving public access to beaches.
• Restoring structures important to local history.
Improving hiking, bicycling, and equestrian trails.
Over the years, state assistance for local parks has
traditionally been provided through bond financing. Bonds are an
especially appropriate funding source because they spread the
cost over the life of recreation projects. This also takes into
acount the long-term public benefits from investing in the
rehabilitation and improvement of local parks.
Proposition is supported by numerous cities, counties , and
local park districts, as well as by recreation, historical,
conservation, and business groups. It passed the Legislature
with broad bipartisan support.
Proposition is a responsible way to address our future
recreational needs. It guarantees that every county, city, and
district providing park and recreation services will receive
funds in amounts reflecting the needs of the people who reside in
each jurisdiction,
Vote YES for better parks in our neighborhoods.
ROBERT PRESLEY
State Senator, Riverside
. Chairman, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife
PETER V. UEBERROTH
Commissioner of Major League Baseball
President, Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee
C. CARSON "CASEyn CONRAD
Executive Director, President' s Council on Physical Fitness
Sports, 1970--1984
Chief, California Bureau of Athletics, Recreation, Health
Physical Education, 1953--1970
Community Parklands Act of 1985
r
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION
Your YES vote for Proposition , the Community Parklands Act of
1986 , will assure better recreation facilities in our
communities.
Because of local funding problems,
9 Many park facilities are deteriorated or remain
undeveloped for full public use. -
• New projects that have been in the planning stage for
years have not been built.
Most of us know examples of these problems in our own
communities.
Proposition meets this serious shortfall in funding for
local park and recreation projects and provides a reliable
funding source for California's future recreational needs.
Our local parks are not keeping up with California's accelerating
population growth. Over the next 20 years, the state 's
population is expected to increase by 7.3 million, to a total of
over 31 million.
Putting this in perspective, we will have to meet the
recreational needs of an increased population almost as
large as Los Angeles County's present population.
The demands placed on our local park system are overwhelming and
continue to increase. In California, parklands operated by local
government receive an average of 1 ,000 annual recreational visits
per acre. This heavy use rapidly wears out our city, courtly, and
district park facilities. By comparison, state parks receive
only 55 annual visits per acre, and national parks receive about
4 annual visits per acre.
F There is a . clearly demonstrated need for funds for local park and
recreation projects. Local agencies applying for funding under
` the most recent park bond measure learned that qualified
applications for local park grants far exceed the available
r
funds.
9 In fact, last year the existing program provided only $1
in grant funds for every $5.80 in qualified project
applications.
M
Proposition funds will be distributed according to a simple
formula based on population. Each of our communities will
a
I
. I
consfiituting the city are:
In order that the me Sed by L"= act may be
submitted to th rs at thej une direct primary
electi „--i is necessary that thi's act ffect
ediately.
_ N
• invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
PPp
a lications of the chapter which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application, and to this
end, the provisions of this eha ter are severable.
SEC 2. Section 1 of this act shaU become operative on
July 1, 1986, if the voters, at the June. 3, 1986, direct
riraary election,adopt the Community Parklands Act of
1 64 as sex forth in Section 1 of this act; except that onl
the funds available for appropriation for st e
a ative costs pursuant to Section 5725 of e `
Public esources Code may be appropriated prior o the
1987-88 cal year.
SEC.3. otwithstand ng Section.3525 of the ections
Code,if this cot is adopted by the Legislature or before
January 29, 1. 6, Section 1 of this act shall a submitted.
to the voters at June 3, 1986, direct g ary election
in accordance wi provisions of the G ernsnent Code
and. the Ele ' Code gove ' submission of
statewide measures t the voters at statewide election_
. . . SEC. 4. Notwi ding any er provision of law,
r ► all ballots of the election hall a printed thereon and
in a square thereof, the or "Community Parklands
Act of 1986, and in the sam ,
the following in eight-po' e: "This act provides for
a bond issue of one hundr d ndollars ($100,000,000)
to provide funds fora uiring, veloping, improving,
rehabilitating, or re oring urgen needed local and
regional parks, bea es, recreational real and-facilities,
and historical r es." Opposite the are,there shall
be left spaces in hick the voters may pl e a cross in the
manner r by law to indicate whe er they vote
for or the act.
Where a voting in the election is done b means of
voting chines used pursuant to law in them er that
carries t the intent of this section, the use of the ting
mac . es and the expression of the voters' choi by
me thereof are in compliance with this section.
EC. 5. This act is an urgency statute necessary
e immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the
Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.The facts
i
be deposited in the fund. Any moneys made available
under this section shall be returned to the General Fund
from moneys received from the sale of bonds for the
purpose of carrying out this chapter. The money ,
withdrawn from the General Fund shall be returned to
the General Fund with interest at the rate earned by the
money in the Pooled Money Investment Account during
the time the money was withdrawn from the General
Fund pursuant to this section.
5734. The bonds authorized by this chapter shall be
prepared, executed, issued, sold, paid, and redeemed as
provided in the State General Obligation Bond Law
(Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code), and all of
the provisions of that law apply to the bonds and to this
chapter and are hereby incorporated in this chapter as
though set forth in full in this chapter.
57,�a. Soy for e
^" Solely the purpose of authorizing the .
„ p rp
issuance and sale, pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law, of the bonds authorized by this �
' chapter, the Community Parklands Program Finance -
Committee is hereby created. The committee consists of
the Controller, the Director of : Finance, and the
Treasurer. For purposes of this chapter, the Community
u
Parklands Program Finance Committee, is "the
committee" as that term is used in the State General
Obligation Bond Law, and the Treasurer shall serve as
chairperson of the committee.
5736. All money deposited in the fund which is
derived from premium and accrued interest on bonds
sold shall be reserved in the fund and shall be available
for transfer to the General Fund as a credit to
expenditures for bond interest.
5737. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that,
inasmuch as the proceeds from the sale of bonds
authorized by this chapter are not "proceeds of taxes" as
f that term is used in Article XIII B of the California
Constitution, the disbursement of these proceeds is not
' subject to the limitations imposed by that article. "
! 5738. If any provision of this chapter or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
'i
i
FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLNTUP�F: ON .5r57 SW 6 (PROPOSITION )
�G�s y ,�a�s � •
f
M
Lec itive Analyst
Feb. _ry 18, 1986
COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986 (SB 806)
Background:
In past years, the state has given money to local agencies to buy,
improve or restore parks and historic properties. The state has sold
general -obligation bonds to raise most of this money. (General obligation
bonds are backed fully by the state, meaning that the state will use its
taxing power to assure that enough money is available to pay off the
bonds.) All but about $25 million of $561 million authorized by previous
bond acts will be spent or committed to specific local projects by July
1986.
r, 1 Proposal
This measure permits the state to sell $100 million of general
obligation bonds for grants to counties, cities and districts that operate
parks or recreational facilities. The state Department of Parks and
Recreation would divide the bond money among counties, cities, and
districts, based. on their population (although certain minimum allocations
would be required). Counties and certain park districts would receive 40
percent of the grant money. Cities and certain other districts would
receive 60 percent of the grant money. The measure also requires the grant
recipient to contribute 25 percent toward the cost of property bought with
the bond money.
Each grant would have to be approved by the Legislature. The grants ..
could be used for many types of park-related purposes. These include (1)40
developing new parks and recreational trails, (2) fixing up existing parks, j
(3) buying land or paying to prevent land near a park from being developed,
Community Parklands A of 1986 (SB 806)--contd
( Yin 4) buying historic sites or buildings , (5) building recreational
9
facilities, and (6) providing access to beaches.
Fiscal Effect:
Paying Off the Bonds. The state would make principal and interest
payments over a period of up to 20 years from the state's General Fund.
The average payment would be about $9 million each year if the bonds were
sold at an interest rate of 7.5 percent.
Borrowing Costs for Other Bonds. By increasing the amount which the
state borrows, this measure may cause the state and local governments to
pay more under other bond programs. These costs cannot be estimated.
. Lower State Revenues. The people who buy these bonds are not
required to pay state income tax on the interest they earn.. Therefore, if
California taxpayers buy these bonds instead of making other taxable
investments, the state would collect less taxes. This loss of revenue
cannot be estimated.
Operational Costs. The local agencies that acquire or improve
property with;bond funds would have to pay the additional costs to operate
f those properties. These costs may be offset partly by revenues from the
new properties, such ,as entrance fees. These additional costs cannot be
s�
estimated.
Costs to Administer Grants. It would cost the Department of Parks
'i and Recreation $500,000 to $600,000 to administer the grant program. This
measure provides $400,000 to the department for these costs. The remaining
$100,000 to $200,000 probably would come from the state's General Fund.
r,
k
I�
i -2-
r
i
t .
Text of Protect Laws
-
This law admateap `asBM sc '0
tod �w ia
Of the coaldvabalL
law � t r
ear --�'w6f��. 'Resources
d�rAw�proy�as�to 1� .
2D that W*Ww.
PROPOSED IAW'
i
}
i
i
as the Community Parklands Act of 1986.
5701. The Legislature hereby finds and declares. as
follows:
(a) It is the resprmbility of the state to encourage;
and assist in the provision of,better-parks and enhanced
recreaticzaal. opportunities for all citizens of California.
(b) Comuasunity,•neighborhood, and regional parks,
beaches,recreational areas,recreational trails,and other
recreational facilities, and the preservation of historic
sites and structures contribute significantly to a healthy
physical. and moral environment and also contribute to
the economic betterment of the state.
(c) Many older parks and recreational facilities have
deteriorated to the point where the original investment
in them may become lost,and prompt action is necessary
to restore theca to usefulness.
(d) Accordingly,it is in the public interest for the state
to assist counties, cities, and district's in providing these
{ facilities for the use and enjoyment of citizens they serve.
5702. As used in this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings.
(a) "District"means any regional park district formed
pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500). of
Chapter 3 and any recreation and park district formed
t pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 5780).
a' With respect to any community which is not included
within a regional park district or a recreation and park
district and in which no city or county provides parks or
recreational areas or facilities, "district" also means any
other district which is authorized by statute to operate
and manage parks or recreational areas or facilities,
employs a full-time.park and recreation director and
offers year-round park and recreation services on lands
and facilities• owned by the district, and allocates a
substantial portion of its annual operating budget to parks
or recreation areas or facilities.
(b) "Fund" means the Community Parklands Fund.
(c) "Program" means the Community Parklands
Program established by this chapter.
I
_1
n. n nn. -
,-Article 2. Community Parklands Progrdim
5710. (a) The proceeds of bonds issued and sold
pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the
Community Parklands Fund, which is hereby created-
(b) All money deposited in the fund shall be available
for appropriation in the manner set forth in Section 5735
in an amount not to exceed one hundred million dollars
($100,000,000) for grants to counties, cities, and districts
for the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, or
restoration of real property for park,beach,recreational,_.
%or historical resources reservation purposes. -
P P rP
5711. (a) The total amount proposed to be
appropriated for the program shall be included in a
section in the Budget Bill for the 1987438 fiscal year and
each succeeding fiscal year for consideration by the
Legislature and shall bear the caption "Community
Parklands Program."
(b) Commencing with the Budget Bill for the 1990-91
fiscal year, any grant funds which were not accepted by
a recipient or were not encumbered by the recipient
Within the three-year period specified in Section 572.1 or.
which were restored pursuant to subdivision (e) of "
Section 5723 shall be available for appropriation for one
or more projects of the type specified in Section 5712 that
the Legislature deems to be of the highest priority,
statewide.
(e) All appropriations are subject to all limitations-
enacted in the Budget Act and to all fiscal procedures
prescribed by law with respect to the expenditure of state
funds unless expressly exempted from those laws by a
statute enacted by the Legislature. The section in the
Budget Act shall contain proposed appropriations only
for the program contemplated by this chapter, and no
t funds derived from the bonds authorized by this chapter
! may be expended pursuant to an appropriation not
contained in that section of the Budget Act.
5712. The grant funds authorized for the program
may be expended by the recipient for any of the
following purposes or any combination thereof:
hil The rehabilitation. immovement,or restoration of ..
wow
deteriorated roads, utilities, and other structures and
facilities within existing parks and recreational areas.
(b) Neighborhood, community, and regional parks.
(e) Beaches and public accessways to beaches.
(d) Historical sites and structures.
(e) Recreational areas and facilities.
(f) Hiking, bicycling, and equestrian trails.
(g) Development rights and scenic easements in
connection with any acquisition made for any purpose
specified in subdivisions (b) to (f), inclusive; so long as
the right or easement directly enhances the enjoyment or
usefulness of the acquisition.
Article 3. Administration -
5720. (a) The grant funds authorized, for the
program shall be allocated to counties,cities,and districts
on the basis of their populations, as determined by the
Department of Parks and Recreation in cooperation with
the Department of Finance on the basis of the most
recent verifiable census data and such other population
1; data as the Department of Parks and Recreation may
cl
require to be furnished by any county, city, or district.
(b) Forty percent of the total funds available for
grants shall be allocated to counties and regional park,
open-space, or park and open-space districts formed "
pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500).
Each county's allocation shall be in the same ratio as the
county's population is to the state's total population,
except that each county shall be entitled to a minimum
allocation of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). In
any county that embraces all or part of the territory of a
' regional park, open-space, or park and open-space
district whose board of directors is not the county board
of supervisors,the amount allocated to the county shall be
apportioned between the county and the regional district
in proportion to the population of the-county that is
included within the territory of the regional district and the population of the county that is outside the territory
of the regional district.
_(c) (1) Sixty percent of the total funds available for
4
-6
grants shall be allocated to cities and districtg,other than
regional park, open-space, or park and o en- ace
P sP _
districts. Each city's and each such district's allocation
shall be in the same ratio as the city's or district's
population is to the combined • total of the staWs
population that is"included in incorporated areas and in `
unincorporated areas within districts, except that each
city or district shall be entitled to a minimum allocation
of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). In any instance in
which the boundary of a city overlaps the boundary of a
district, the population in the area of overlapping
jurisdictions shall be attributed to each jurisdiction in
proportion to the extent to which each operates and
manages parks and recreational areas and facilities for
that population.In any instance in which the boundary of
a city overlaps the boundary of a district, and in the area
of overlap the city does not operate and manage parks
and recreational areas and facilities, all grant funds shall
' be allocated to the district
(2) Each city. and other district whose boundaries
overlap, shall develop a specific plan for allocating the
grant funds in accordance with the formula specified in
paragraph (1). If, by October, 1, 1986, the plan has not
been agreed to by the affected jurisdictions and
submitted to the Department of Parks and Recreation,
the Director of Parks and Recreation shall determine the
allocation of the grant funds among• the affected
jurisdictions. .
5721.. (a) Individual applications for grants shall be
submitted to the department for approval as to
conformity with the requirements of this chapter. The
application shall be accompanied by certification from
the planning agency of the applicant that the projeet•for
which the grant is applied is consistent with the park and
recreation element of the applicable city or Bounty's
general plan or the district's park and recreation plan and
will satisfy a high priority need. In order to utilize
available grant funds as effectively as possible,
overlapping or adjoining jurisdictions are encouraged to
combine projects and submit a joint application.
(b) The minimum amount that the applicant maY "
i
request for any individual project is twenty thousand
dollars-($20,000).
(e) Every application shall comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21OW)).
(d) Grants. that are wholly or -partially for the
acquisition of real property shall be made on the basis of
75 percent state funds and 25 percent local matching
funds or property donated to be part of the project The
recipient shall to the grant Pi certify department that there
is available, or will become available prior to the
commencement of any work on the projec , matching ,
funds or property in the required amount from a nonstate
source- Certification of the source and amount or value
shall be set forth in the application. -
(e) The director shall.annuaUy forward a statement of
the total amount to be appropriated in each fiscal year for �
projects approved for grants to the Director of Finance
for inclusion in the Budget Bill. The amount of grant
funds to be allocated to each eligible jurisdiction shall be
published in the Governor-s Budget for the fiscal year in
which the appropriation for those grants is to be made
and, as soon as possible thereafter, a list of projects for
which grants have been approved shall be made available
by the department-
(f) Grant funds shall be encumbered by the recipient
within three years of the date the appropriation became
effective, regardless of the date when the project was
approved by the department pursuant to this section.
5722. Grant funds may be expended for development,
rehabilitation, or restoration only on lands owned by, or
subject to a lease or other long-term interest held by, the "
applicant.If the lands are not owned by the applicant,the
applicant shall first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
director that the development, rehabilitation, or
restoration will provide benefits commensurate with the
type and duration of interest in land held by the
applicant. No grant funds may be .expended for any
f
rpose that is not directly related to the operation and
agement of parks and recreational areas and
s
i x
la
CAL,
5723. (a) No grant funds authorized by this chapter
shall be disbursed until the applicant agrees that any
property acquired or developed with those funds shall be
used by the applicant only for the purpose for which the
funds were requested and that no other use of the
property shall be permitted except by spec fic�act of the
Legislature.
(b) No funds shall be disbursed unless the applicant
agrees to maintain and operate the property to be
acquired or developed for a period commensurate with
the type of project and the proportion of state funds and
local matching funds or property allocated to the capital
costs of the project
(c) No funds shall be disbursed unless the applicant
agrees to make the property to be acquired or developed
open to use by the public by a*date specified in the
agreement_That date shall not be more than three years
after the date upon which the project was approved by
the department pursuant to Section 5721. The
depart+-n.ent may grant a postponement of the specified
��(} date if the property is not or will not be open to use by.
(j the public by the specified date due to circumstances
wholly beyond the control of ,the applicant. If the
property is not open to use by the public by the date
specified in the agreement, and -any postponement
thereof granted by the department,the grant funds shall
be restored in full to the department and the applicant
shall become ineligible to receive any further funds that
may become available pursuant to this chapter. Any
funds restored.pursuant to this section shall be deposited
-in the fund and shall be available for appropriation
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5711.
5724. Any grant made pursuant to this chapter, and
the performance of the applicant In expending the grant,
may be audited at any time by the department.
5725. Of the total funds available for appropriation
pursuant to this chapter, an amount, not to exceed four
hundred thousand dollars ($400,000), may be
appropriated for state administrative costs directly ..
incurred in connection with this chapter.
w
Article 4. Fiscal Provisions
5730
. Bonds in the total amount of one hundred
million dollars ($100,000,000), or so much thereof as is
necessary,may be issued and sold to provide a fund to be
used for carrying out the purposes expressed in this
chapter and to be used to reimburse the General.
Obligation Bond.Expense Revolving Fund pursuant, to
Section 16724.5 of the Government Code. The bonds
shall, when sold, be and constitute a valid and binding
obligation of the State of California,.and the full faith and
credit of the State of California is hereby pledged for the
punctual payment of both principal of, and interest on,
the bonds as the principal and interest become-due and
5 payable
573L There shall be collected each year and in the
same manmer and at the same time as other state revenue
is collected, in addition to the ordinary revenues of the
k' state, a sum in an amount required to pay the principal
4 of, and interest on, the bonds maturing each year, and it
is the duty of all officers charged by law with any duty in
regard to the collection of the revenue to do and perform
each and every act which shall be necessary to collect
that additional sutra.
5732. There is hereby appropriated from the General
Fund,for the purpose of this chapter,an amount that will
equal the total of the following:
(a) The sum annually necessary to pay the principal of,
and interest on, bonds issued and sold pursuant to this
chapter, as principal and interest become due and
payable.
(b) The sum which is necessary to carry out the
provlsfons of Section 5733, appropriated without regard.
to fiscal years.
5733. For the purposes of carrying out this article,the
Director of Finance may, pursuant to appropriate
authority in each annual Budget Act, authorize the
withdrawal from the General Fund of an amount or
.$ amounts not to exceed the amount of the unsold bonds
which have been authorized to be sold for the purpose of
carrying out this chapter. Any amounts withdrawn shall
w
I
Mr86-]7
(Meeting 86-08
April 9, 1986)
MDDPENDNSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 2^ 1986
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: M. Foster, Controller
SUBJECT: Appointment of Auditor for 1985-1986 Fiscal Year
�
� For the last seven years, Daloltte^ Haskins and Sells (DH8) has
served as the District's auditor. Each year DHS has performed its services
in a competent, professional manner and has regularly recommended worthwhile
improvements in our accounting practices and controls.
� Proposed Terms: DHS has estimated m fee of $6^500 for the 1985-86 audit
� including examination, preparation and printing of financial statements, a
management letter containing recommendations for improving procedures and
controls, and providing on-going training and assistance to our accountant. �
This represents a 4.8% increase over last year's standard fees and appears �
reasonable compared to the competitive quotes obtained 2 years ago and the
service DHS provides during the year.
�
Recommendation: | recommend that the Board appoint DeloiLte° Haskins and Sells
/s auditors for the fiscal year 1g��-�6. �
as _- -.-- ._- �
�
�
M-A6-33
(Meeting 86-08
April g, 1486)
M00PENDNSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT |
� MEMORANDUM
�
April 2, 1986
� TO: Board of Directors
�
FROM: H. Gnanch* General Manager
� SUBJECT: Scheduling of Additional Meeting in April
�
�
Recommendation: | recommend that you schedule a Special Meeting for
� 7:30 P.M. on April 16, 1988 at the District office for the purpose of
considering the Rancho San Antonio Use and Management Plan Review, second
readings of the Use and Management Plana for the Mt. Umunhum Area of the
� Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, the Almaden Air Force Station property,
�
and Jamison and Mazor property acquisitions, and for any other items to �
be listed on the published agenda. �
Discussion: You have tentatively set April 23 as the date on which the
Board would again be considering land acquisition policies, most notably �
a possible amendment to your draft policies further restricting potential
use of eminent domain for certain non-subdY»ydahle developed parcels.
An amendment was offered at your February 28 meeting to the policies
� drafted by the [and Acquisition Policies Committee (see R-86-15 for the
Committee report) and referred to your Committee which has subsequently
considered it at two public Committee meetings and plans to report to you
on April 23.
Since these policy matters may require considerable discussion, and other
lengthy items of Board business need to be addressed in the near future, �
it is advisable to schedule an additional meeting in April. The Board had
previously decided to have additional meetings, as required, on the third
Wednesday of the month. norma7ly.
a
iz'
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 4, 1986
Ii
i
i
i
DRAFT # 2 Meeting 85-07
DRAFT AGENDA ITEMS
Meeting Date:April 10
Category Time Title Name on bead Report Status
min.) Agenda Responsibility
OBWAR 1 5 Stour 2nd Reading David David
4 15 Santa Cruz Annexation
Resolution Herb Herb
" 2. 5 Windy Hill -- 2nd Reading David David
" 3 " 5 Los Trancos -- 2nd Reading David David
Thornewood U & M Plan
NBWAR 5 30 Review David David
-T-
I .
i
fi
{
1
L
i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
March 27, 1986
Mr. Harry Haeussler
1094 Highland Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Mr. Haeussler:
At our March 26 meeting the District's Board considered your letter of
March 12, regarding the results of Senator Morgan's survey.
Although 64% of the respondents answered "yes" to the question "Should
we make a greater effort to develop our parks and open space to make them
morepeople?",usable for
eo 1 e. i t does not n P P � necessari
ly foll
ow that y less money
should be spent on park and open-space acquisition. In fact 57% of the
respondents answered "no" to the question "Do we have enough parks and
p open space?". These kinds of surveys depending on voluntary response to a
mailing are, of course, broad-brush in nature.
More important, however, is the fact that the District has been putting
in a tremendous effort toward developing our sites. The attached list
shows development projects that have already been completed and those in
the active implementation stage. Our biggest development project yet is
underway as the District with the assistance of Senator Morgan and others
has received a $300,000 State grant towards implementation of
the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve development plan.
We welcome your attendance and comments in the Budget Committee meetings
as we prepare for the new fiscal year and develop capital improvement
and site management plans and budget on a multi-year basis.
Sincerely,
..Q,
Daniel Wendin
Vice President
Board of Directors
Enc.
cc: Senator Morgan
,4IROSD Board of Directors
I
Herbert A.Grench,Genera/Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nanette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin '.'
•dal !.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
March 27, 1986
Christine Fessler, Director
Recreation and Respite Services
The Crippled Children's Society
of Santa Clara County, Inc.
3851 Park Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
SUBJECT: Proposed Riding Ring
Dear Ms . Fessler:
Thank you for your letter of March 13 , 1986 regarding your proposal
to construct a riding ring on a portion of the Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve. Our Board of Directors considered this letter at
our March 26 meeting.
We appreciate your patience in waiting until our policies for out-
side special use proposals have been approved by this Board. How-
ever, it appears that these policies will not be ready for Board
action for at least another two months.
Staff has indicated that due to your willingness to provide public
amenities , flexibility for future District trail planning needs ,
and occasional use of the facility they will be drafting
an agreement for District Board approval
pp at our April 9, 1986
meeting. This should allow time 'g for your Board 's approval on
April 21 .
I suggest that you continue to work with our staff to complete
the draft agreement for our approval.
Very truly yours ,
Daniel Wendin
Vice President,
Board of Directors
cc : MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert A.Grench,Genera/Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Y' f
March 27, 1956
Mid-Peninsula Open Space District
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Ladies & Gentlemen:
We wish to express our heart-felt thanks to your group for joining the
search for our daughter, Denise.
Although it was unsuccessful this time, our hope is that she will someday
be found. Your willingness to give of your time and your efforts in
behalf of our daughter is overwhelming to us.
Sincerely,
�1)1 � �►
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
March 28, ,1986
Donald Ross, Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: 17975 Foster Road
a. Conditional Use Permit Application U-84-6
b. Environmental Impact Report EIR-84-1
Dear Mr. Ro
ss:
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has reviewed the revised draft EIR for the
proposed Western California University. Two major new actions are proposed in connection
with the Alma Bridge Road route which would have significant negative impacts upon the
District's and Town's Los Gatos Creek Park property.
l 1. Considerable sections of the proposed Alma Bridge Road access roadway would require
grading outside the 40 foot right-of-way through the Open Space Preserve.
2. The_approximately 110,000 cubic yards of excess material from the excavation of the
Alma Bridge roadway roadbed and parking ares is proposed to be deposited in a
major drainage north of the proposed roadway alignment. This drainage lies within
Los Gatos Creek Park and an area under an Open Space Easement which is awned in
fee title by the California Province of the Society of Jesus.
The District was not consulted about these changes during the preparation of the EIR.
They contradict the purpose for which the land was acquired and are specifically prohibited
in the legal documents entitled "Grant of Open Space Easement" and "Park, Recreation,
Scenic and Open Space Easement".
The District and the Town cooperated in the purchase of these park lands in order to en-
sure the property would "forever remain as part of the parks, recreation, ecological and
aesthetic resource of the midpeninsula area". Under the terms of the Parks, Recreation
and Open Space Easement held by the Town and District prohibited uses include those
which would significantly compromise scenic or natural values. This document specifically
prohibits "Excavation or other topographic changes except for specific park, recreation
and open space projects consistent with the intent and purpose of this easement. The
general topography of the Subject Property shall be maintained in its present condition".
Likewise, the Open Space Easement prohibits changing the topography, removal of indi-
genous trees and shrubs and dumping or storing of non-indigenous materials.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Ranlel G.Wendin
_ ' Donald Ross
March 28, 1986
Page Two
These are enforceable restrictions pursuant to the California Constitution and the
Public Resources Code of the State of California.
In addition, part of the funds for acquisition of the property were supplied by a Land
and Water Conservation Fund grant. Property bought with these funds cannot be "taken"
for non-recreational purposes unless it is replaced in kind.
Upon purchasing the property, the District agreed to a non-exclusive easement 40 feet
wide for roadway purposes. A map prepared by Creegan & D'Angelo showing proposed cuts
and fills is part of this agreement.
Since the road would bisect the preserve, the District opposes any excavation and fills
that go beyond the plans in the agreement. The enlarged cuts will make less of the park
available for recreational purposes. According to the EIR, the 30 foot wide alignment
with 2:1 slopes would result in a cut slope bank of approximately 7.88 acres. However,
in the geology section of the report the statement is made that the 2:1 recommendation
may have been premature and some portions of the road would require slopes flatter than
2:1, causing an even greater loss of acreage.
In this latest EIR, the geology of the site appears extremely unfavorable to the Alma
Bridge roadway construction. Only 20% of the alignment is classified as marginally
stable, with the remaining 80% unstable or moderately unstable. Four large landslides
have been mapped a a e along the route and accelerated erosion w n pp as see at various locations
g
throughout the alignment. Identified hazards to the cut and fill slopes include insta-
bility, gullying, accelerated erosion seepage
and subsidence plus a high landslide
potential. Such hazards could cause significant damage to the natural lands adjoining
the road.
Although revegetation is proposed as mitigation, the fact that the road area is geograph-
ically unstable and is composed of relatively infertile serpentine soil, indicates that
revegetation may not be successful. Removal of mature trees (up to 92, plus a dense
eucalyptus grove with trees too numerous to count, as well as completely filling a steep
canyon) would greatly detract from the visual quality of the Preserve and make it much
less attractive to visitors particularly during the hot summer months when shade is
welcome.
The biological and recreational impacts of the proposed fill site are not discussed in
detail in the EIR. A site visit revealed that the proposed fill dump site is a prominent
canyon containing a small creek surrounded by a thick growth of riparian vegetation,
including many mature trees. A road parallels this creek, connecting the main road along
the fence with the ridge. This road is an important part of the trail system, allowing
hikers and runners to loop through the property. At the top end of the canyon, above the
proposed fill site, is a very large gully which has recently eroded to over 12 feet deep.
The 'fill would cover .the canyon 60 feet deep, destroying valuable wildlife habitat,
covering the connecting road, part of the main road, and even the fence and part of the
open space easement area. below. The presence of the eroded gully above indicates high
potential for washout of the fill. The natural contours of the canyon would be replaced
by a surface graded into 20' wide benches with a concrete "v" ditch at the bottom. The
surface would be replanted with native grasses. The fill area drains through the open
space easement area and on down through the Town of Los Gatos into Los Gatos Creek.
Donald Ross
March 28, 1986
Page Three
Dumping fill on this site would replace a diverse rich natural habitat with a sterile
and unnatural one. It would definitely degrade the open space experience of the hikers
and runners who use this park.
For these reasons the District strongly opposes the Alma Bridge Road route alternative.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you require further information or have
questions on this letter, please contact David Hansen, our Land Manager, or Alice
Cummings, our Environmental Analyst.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG/DC:ds
cc: California Province for the
Society of Jesus
Creegan & D'Angelo
a* ..s
4e
0s•.rvs�.aI
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965.4717
March 31, 1986
Honorable Marian Bergeson
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Bergeson:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District, I want to convey the Board's unanimous support for
SB 1685 which you are authorin - a s it pertains to Y g� p regional park and
open space districts.
Section 21 of the March 12 version of the bill would allow our board
of directors to authorize check signatories by resolution. At the
present time this must be done by ordinance.
The signatory cards which the banks provide and are accustomed to are
in resolution format, which in our view is entirely adequate as a
formally documented public record.
Thank you for including this section in your bill.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Ralph Heim
9
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board or Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonefte G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE 0-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 3 , 1986
Deborah Nelson
Planning Director
City of Los Altos
City Hall
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos , CA 94022
Dear Debbie :
Congratulations on your new appointment ! We really hate
to lose you from San Mateo County Planning , but at least
we haven ' t lost you from the area . Rancho San Antonio
Open Space Preserve and the adjacent County Park , the
proposed full -care retirement center, and attendant
parking and traffic problems will be matters that
will keep us in contact , I' m sure.
Onward and upward! Los Altos is very lucky !
Best regards ,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG : jc
cc : MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert A.Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
i
I
i
Ex-planner for SM County
named to Los Altos post
Times Tribune staff sition turned it down after deciding
Deborah Sauers Nelson is the it would be too expensive to find
new planning director for the city housing in the Los Altos area.
of Los Altos. Nelson didn't face that problem
Nelson for the past eight years because she lives in Redwood City.
worked for the San Mateo Coun- She started her new job Tues-
ty Planning Department. During day. One of her first projects will
that time, she worked in a vari- be the updating of the city's gener-
ety of positions and on a wide al plan, which was last updated in
range of projects, including gener- 1974. Several elements require
al plan updates, permit processing, substantial review to bring them ;
long-range planning and environ- into compliance with current local
mental review. conditions and planning practices.
Before working for San Mateo She also will be reviewing the
County, she spent five years with city's environmental guidelines
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., doing and various development ordi-
facility siting and planning. nances and procedures.
Nelson's appointment concludes Nelson's husband,Peter, is a cor-
a search for the replacement of porate planner with the Pacific
Vern Gomes, who retired recently Gas and Electric Co. The couple
as city planner. Several of the ap- has two children, Andrea, 6, and Deborah Sauers Nelson
is first considered for the Po- Emmett,3. ... new top planner in Los Altos.
DRAFT # 2 Meeting 85-07
DRAFT AGENDA ITEMS
Meeting Date:April 10
i
Category # Time Title Name on Lead Report Status
(min.) Agenda Responsibility
OBWAR 1 5 Stour 2nd Reading David David
4 15 Santa Cruz Annexation
Resolution Herb Herb
" 2. 5 Windy Hill — 2nd Reading David David
3 5 Ios Trancos -- 2nd Reading David David
I
Thornewood U & M Plan
NBWAR 5 30 Review David David
t
CI
�I
I�
CIADIS No.86-0 7
Meeting 86-08
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April 9, 1986
C L A I M S REVISED
n Amount Name Description
9310 4.96 AT&T Consumer Products Telephone Equipment
9311 504.60 AT&T Information Systems Group Telephone Service
9312 45.0.0 ABAG Registration--Workshop M. Foster
9313 1,224.75 Baron Welding Pipe Gates for Picchetti
9314 114.10 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Private Vehicle Expense
9315 1,000.00 California Advocates, Inc. Consultant Fee--March
9316 6.18 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Supplies
9317 439.99 DeHart's Copy Xeroxing of Map Books
9318 122.27 Discount Office Supply Office -Supplies
9319 12.26 El Monte. Stationers Office Supplies
9320 96.13 John Escobar Reimbursement--District Vehicle Supplies
9321 16.40 Fish & Wildlife Reference Service Document
9322 73 .80 GTE Directories
Yellow Page Advertising
3 9 23 354.00 Raye Girouard
Patrol Services--April
9324 7.57 Harbinger Communications Computer Services
9325 200.00 Hodnick Design Consulting Fee
32 9 6 61.60 Jobs Available Classified Advertising
9327 50.00 Dr. Samuel McGinnis
Honorarium--Docent Instruction
9328 70.23 Mobil Oil Credit Corp. Gasoline for District Vehicles
9329 10.18 Norney's Office Supply Office Supplies
9330 7,048.30 Stanley Norton
Annual Litigation Services and
February Expenses
9331 6,700.00 Ortha Zebroski Survey & Design--Purisima Creek and Sky-
line Open Space Preserves
9332 754.47 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
9333 98.00 PAD Travel Out-of-Town Meeting
--H. Grench
9334 15.00 People for Open Space Annual Membership
9335 22.16 Pete Ellis Dodge Vehicle Parts
9336 119.00 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Rental
9337 8.44 Rancho Hardware Plumbing Supplies
9338 1101.08 San Francisco Water Dept. Hassler Water Service
9339 994H Santa Clara County GSA Highway Flares & Communication Se
rvices
ervices
9340 Shell Oil Company Fuel & Services--District Vehicles
9341 822.38 Skywood Gas & Towing Fuel for District Vehicles
93 r,:'_ 60.00 Swan Graphics
Typesetting
93 `3 35.00 Mary Lou Taylor
Honorarium--Docent Instruction
93 .'.'.: 85.00 University of California Extension Seminar--D. Hansen
CLAIMS No. 86-07
Meeting 86-08
April 9, 1986
REVISED
Amount Name Description
9345 400.00 Valley Title Company Preliminary Title Reports
9346 66.99 Sandy Voorhees Reimbursement--Private Vehicle Expense
9347 433.41 Voss Trucking Base Rock Repairs
9348 100.00 ZZZ Sanitation Company Sanitation Services
9349 50.00 Mabel Crittendon Honorarium--Docent Instruction
9350 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--March
9351 220.45 William Glass Trucking Base Rock--Road Repairs
9352 329.80 The Good Guys Audio System
9353 10.34 The Hub Schneider Uniform Key Rings
9354 37.00 Mary Hale Reimbursement--Audio System Deposit
9355 225.05 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Field and Office
. Supplies, Film Processing, Express
Mail and Private Vehicle Expense
Cl-JUVIS Nb. 86-07
K etincj 86-08
MIDPENINTSPLA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April, 9, 1986
C L A I M S
Amo u n t Name Description
9310 4.96 AT&T Consumer Products Telephone Equipment
9311 504.60 AT&T Information Systems Group Telephone Service
9312 45.00 ABAG
Registration--Workshop M. Foster
9313 1,224.75 Baron Welding Pipe Cates for Picchettj
9314 114 .10 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Private Vehicle Expense
9315 1,000.00 California Advocates, Inc. Consultant Fee--Tlarch
9316 6.18 Clark's Auto Parts
District Vehicle Supplies
9317 439.99 Dellart's Copy Xeroxing of Map Books
9318 122.27 Discount Office Supply
Office Supplies,
9319 12.26 El Monte Stationers
9320 96.13 John Escobar Office Supplies
Reimbursenient--District Vehicle Supplies
9321 16 .40 Fish & Wildlife Reference Service Document
9322 73 .80 GTE Directories
Yellow Page Advertising
9323 350.00 Raye Cirouard
Patrol Services--April
9324 7.57 Harbinger Communications Computer Services
9325 200.00 Hodnick Design
Consulting Fee
9326 61.60 Jobs Available Classified Advertising
9327 50.00 Dr. Samuel McGinnis Honorarium--Docent Instruction
9328 70.23 Mobil Oil Credit Corp. Gasoline for District Vehicles
9329 10.18 Norney's Office Supply Office Supplies
9330 7 ,048.30 Stanley Norton Annual Litigation Services and
February Expenses
9331 6,700.00 Ortha Zebroski
Survey & Design--Purisima Creek and Sky-
line Open Space Preserves
9332 754.47 Pacific Bell
Telephone Service
9333 98.00 PAD Travel
Out-of-Town Meeting--H. Grench
9334 15.00 People for Open Space Annual Membership
9335 22.16 Pete Ellis Dodge Vehicle Parts
9336 119.00 Pitney Bowes
9337 Postage Meter Rental
8.44 Rancho Hardware Plumbing Supplies
9333 101.08 San Francisco Water Dept. Hassler Water Service
9339 384.32 Santa Clara County GSA Highway Flares & Communication Services
93 -,'0 753.32 Shell Oil Company Fuel & *Services--District Vehicles
9341 822.38 Skywood Gas & Towing Fuel for District Vehicles
93 -2 60.00 Swan Graphics Typesetting
93 _'3 35.00 Mary Lou Taylor Honorarium--Docent Instruction
93 ~= 85.00 University of California Extension Seminar--D. Hansen
CLA-CMS No. 86-07
Meeting 86-08
April 9, 1986
-fti.,iount Name Description
400.00 Valley Title Company Preliminary Title Reports
66.99 Sandy Voorhees ReAmbursement--Private V�,hicle Expense
433.41 Voss Trucking Base Rock Repairs
100'.00 ZZZ Sanitation Company Sanitation Services
50.00 Mabel Crittendon Honorarium--Docent Instruction
500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--March
220.45 William Class Trucking Base Rock--Road Repairs
935- 329.80 The Good Guys Audio System
935,31 10.34 The Hub Schneider Uniform Key Rings
935' 37.00 Mary Hale Reimbursement--Audio System Po posit
' CLADIS No.86-07
Meeting 86-08
s
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Dater April 9, 1986
C L A I M S REVISED
n Amount Name Description
9310 4.96 AT&T Consumer Products Telephone Equipment '
9311 504.60 AT&T Information Systems Group Telephone Service
9312 45.00 ABAG Registration--Workshop M. Foster
9313 1,224,75 Baron Welding Pipe Gates for Picchetti
9314 114.10 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Private Vehicle Expense
9315 1,000.00 California Advocates, Inc. Consultant Fee--March
9316 6.18 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Supplies
9317 439.99 DeHart's Copy Xeroxing of Map Books
9318 122.27 Discount Office Supply Office -Supplies
9319 12.26 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies
9320 96.13 John Escobar Reimbursement--District Vehicle Supplies
9321 16.40 Fish & Wildlife Reference Service Document
9322 73.80 GTE Directories Yellow Page Advertising
9323 350.00 Raye Girouard
Patrol Services--April
9324 7.57 Harbinger Communications Computer Services
ices
9325
20
0.00 i n Hod Design
Desi
I� Consulting Fee
9326 61.60 Jobs Available
Classified Advertising
9327 50.00 Dr. Samuel McGinnis
Honorarium--Docent Instruction
9328 70.23 Mobil Oil Credit Corp. Gasoline for District Vehicles
9329 10.
18
Norne Offic
e ice Supply PP Y Office Supplies
9330 7,048.30 Stanley Norton
Annual Litigation Services and
February Expenses
9331 6,700.00 Ortha Zebroski Survey & Design--Purisima Creek and Sky-
line Open Space Preserves
9332 754.47 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
9333 98,00 PAD Travel
Out-of-Town Meeting--H. Grench
9334 15.00 People for Open Space Annual Membership
9335 22.16 Pete Ellis Dodge Vehicle Parts
9336 119.00 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Rental
9`337 8.44 Rancho Hardware Plumbing Supplies
9338 10t1� .08 San Francisco Water Dept. Hassler Water Service
9339 3A�+3 Santa Clara County GSA Highway Flares & Communication Services
9340 MIH- Shell Oil Company Fuel & Services--District Vehicles
9341 822.38 Skywood Gas & Towing Fuel for District Vehicles
9342 60.00 Swan Graphics
Typesetting
93 43 35.00 Mary Lou Taylor
Honorarium--Docent Instruction
9344 85.00 University of California Extension Seminar--D. Hansen
CLAIMS No.. 86-07
Meeting 86-08
April 9, 1986
REVISED a
7r Amount Name Description
9345 400.00 Valley Title Company Preliminary Title Reports
9346 66.99 Sandy Voorhees Reimbursement--Private Vehicle Expense
9347 433.41 Voss Trucking Base Rock Repairs
9348 100_.00 ZZZ Sanitation Company Sanitation Services
P y
9349 50.00 Mabel Crittendon Honorarium--Docent Instruction
9350 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--March
9351 220.45 William Glass Trucking Base Rock--Road Repairs
9352 329.80 The Good Guys Audio System
9353 10.34 The Hub Schneider , Uniform Key Rings
9354 37.00 Mary Hale Reimburrsement--Audio System Deposit
9355 225.05 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Field and Office
Supplies, Film Processing, Express
Mail and Private Vehicle Expense