Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19861008 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 86-23 Meeting 86-23 #4e 0 am MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 7 :30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING Old Mill Office Center Wednesday BOARD OF DIRECTORS 201 San Antonio Circle October 8 , 1986 Building C-135 A G E N D A Mountain View, CA (7 :30) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (September 24, 1986) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL- COMMUNId,A:TIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (7 : 45) 1. Resolution of Appreciation for Senator Bergeson H. Grench Resolution Expressing the Board' s Gratitude to Senator Marian Bergeson for Including District-Sponsored Sections in Senate Bill 1685 BOARD BUSINESS (7 :50) 1. Introduction of Douglas Gaynor, New Director of Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation -- H. Grench (8 :05 ) 2. Master Plan Presentation by Trust for Hidden Villa -- D. Hansen (8 : 35) 3. Final Adoption of Amendments to the Skyline Rige and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserves Use and Management Plans -- D. Hansen (9 :05) 4. Final Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for the Noravian Property Addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Pre- serve -- D. Hansen (9 :10) 5 . Disposition of Upper House at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve -- D. Hansen (9 :20) 6 . Proposed Addition to Los Gatos Creek Park (Lands of San Jose Water Company) -- C. Britton Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, Authori- zing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Trans- action (Los Gatos Creek Park - Lands of San Jose Water Company) (9 : 35) 7 . District Positions on November Ballot Measures -- H. Grench Resolution Supporting Santa Clara County Measure A on the November 1986 Ballot Resolution in Opposition to State Proposition 61 on November, 1986 Ballot (9 : 40) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS CLAIMS CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters) ADJOURNMENT Times are estimated. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an -item you're coneehned with appears on the agenda, ,the Chain. w.i.2.e. invite you to add Le%s the Boo Ad at that time; on other. mattetus, y y you may addneza the Board under O, at Commun cati.onz. An a.P.t Anatr.ve .us to comment .to the Board by a WAitten amm C un-ceatc.an which the Baand apptcecc.ate�s. Each speaFzeA w.c,t2 andtin"y be tim,cted to 3 minutes. When Aeeognized, ptease begin by stating youA name and addreezz. We uquat that you Aiti out the 4onm novided and ntezent .it to the Reeotd.in Secn.et �o that out name � p 9 � y and addne s can be accurate.-y ine2uded in the minutes. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS A Budget Committee meeting will be held on October 14 at Noon at the District Office. The public is invited to attend. A Special Board Meeting has been scheduled at 11 A.M. , October 18 at Los Gatos Creek Park for site dedication, discovery hike and picnic. Call District office at 949-5500 for details and meeting place. i Meeting 86-22 -41 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SANANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEPTEMBER 24 , 1986 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL President Edward Shelley called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Teena Henshaw, Daniel Wendin, Edward Shelley, Harry Turner, Richard Bishop, and Nonette Hanko. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen , Mary Hale, Jean Fiddes , Del Woods , James Boland, Carleen Bruins, Stanley Norton, and Doris Smith . II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 10 , 1986 Motion : D. Wendin moved the approval of the minutes of September 10, 1986 . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . III, WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS D. Smith stated that the Board had received a letter, dated September 10 , 1986 , from Michael B. Allen, 330 Primrose , Suite 400, Burlingame, re- garding the proposed Dyer property addition to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. She noted the letter had been given to the Board at the September 10 , 1986 meeting. E. Shelley stated the Board 's consensus that the verbal response at the September 10 meeting was adequate reply to this letter, and that the letter should be referred to Legal Counsel. IV, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications . V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA E. Shelley stated that the agenda was adopted by Board consensus . D. Hansen introduced Carleen Bruins , Open Space Management's new Administrative Assistant, to the Board. VI. BOARD BUSINESS A. Proposed Historic Preservation Grant Application for Picchetti Ranch (Report R-86-82 of September 17 , 1986) D. Hansen provided copies of a computer printout showing revised figures for the restoration of the building complex at Picchetti Ranch. He reviewed the 1985 grant application which was awarded Se-v,,General Manager Board of Directors:Kalherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S,Bishoo.Edward G.Shelley.Harr"A.Tanner.DaniAl A_Wandin r'Jeeting 86-22 Page Two in the amount of $100 ,000 and noted that an architectural firm had been hired to complete the plans and specifications for the elements to be funded by the 1985 grant. He said that the updated estimated costs and grant request had been revised upwards from $112 ,580 to $194 ,157. He said about $21,000 would be matched by a grant from Santa Clara County Historical Heritage. Commission. Ronald Stortz, lessee of the Picchetti Brothers Winery, explained that the increase in the amount of funds requested in the grant application was a result of a greater realization of what actual restoration costs are. He also noted that working with preservation funds has created a higher standard of restoration. He requested that the Board adopt a resolution that would be open-ended to allow for flexibility in the amount requested in the grant application. E. Shelley noted that the resolution does not address a sum to be requested in the application and that the flexibility is available. Motion : R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt Resolution 86-54 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving the Application and the Project Agreement for Historic Preservation Giant Funds for the Picchetti Brothers Winery Rehabilitation 'Project from the California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . B. Proposed Amendments to the Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve Use and management Plans and Approval of Site Access Improve - men Design (Renort R-86-84 of_ September 16 , 1986) D. Hansen advised that a planner under contract has been doing design work for the Stage One improvements to be funded from the $300 ,000 grant from the 1984 California Park Facilities Grant Pro- gram awarded to the District in 1985. D. Woods summarized the problems staff has encountered relating to the planned accessways and parking areas , and he reviewed the three amendments proposed to change the Use and Management Plans for the two preserves to accommodate an access driveway, parking facilities and, a trail to connect the tree farm parking area with the ranch area. N. Hanko said she had noted an outstanding area of buttercups located in approximately the area proposed for the parking area near Alpine Reservoir. D. Woods stated he was unaware of wildflowers in the area, and he said such an area could be identified in the spring. He said flexibility was allowed by the State in the final location of the parking lot, and the parking lot would be in the Stage Two grant. N. Hanko questioned the possibility of a right turn lane into the parking area from Skyline Boulevard.. and D. Woods stated that Cal- Trans will not issue a permit for any improvement in their right-of- way at this location. N. Hanko said she does not like the idea of whole-access parking around Alpine Lake because of the impact on the environment; she suggested staff look for another means of access for the physically limited, and she stated she was not willing to support a whole access facility at Alpine Reservoir based on the current parking Meeting 86-22 Page Three and road proposal near the Reservoir. K. Duffy asked if the minimum whole access driveway proposed by staff could also serve as a utility entrance to the Preserve. D. Woods responded that it could be done, but there would be a tendency on the part of the public to also use the driveway. D. Wendin stated his support of the staff recommendation to keep the utility entrance to the Preserve separcite to prevent negative impact from trucks and service vehicles entering the site. R. Bishop stated that a substantial part of the pristine natural look of the lake will be lost if a road is built around it. Ensuing discussion focused on the type of road which could be constructed around the lake and the distance to the visitor center. H. Turner said the proposed 15 minute walk to the visitor center would give the visitor an opportunity to experience the site. The possibilities of alternative access points , such as an underpass across Alpine Road or from the family compound area were discussed. D. Woods advised that the cost of building an underpass at Alpine . Road was estimated to be $250 ,000-$350,000 , and there is a long-term possibility that funding could be obtained from CalTrans Bikeways funding. N. Hanko noted that the 1985 grant had already been awarded, based on the original plan, and she asked how a substantial change in the lo- cation of the parking area would impact upon the implementation of the grant. D. Hansen said that some flexibility is permitted in the site plan and that the Master Plan, and not a detailed plan, had been submitted to the State with the grant request. N. Hanko stated the Board should not approve the location of the proposed whole-access parking area as presented by staff just to get a grant. H. Hauessler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos , asked if a kiosk would be located at the tree farm parking area to guide people to the ranch area. D. Woods responded in the affirmative. Bob Fisse , Star Route 2 , Box 402 , La Honda, questioned the possibility of putting arterial stop signs at the Alpine Road-Skyline Boulevard intersection to slow traffic approaching from the north and south. D. Woods noted that arterial stop signs would not sufficiently influ- ence traffic and could create a greater risk. E. Shelley said the noise factor would be increased. Jean Rusmore, 35 Berenda, Portola Valley, asked if the proposed regional trail, which will extend the full length of Skyline Boule- vard frontage, would suffice for whole access trail south from Horseshoe Lake. R. Bishop responded, and D. Woods concurred, that the steepness of the grade would prohibit use of the trail for whole- access purposes . Further discussion centered on using portions of the proposed regional trail for whole-access use. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board tentatively adopt the amend- ments to the Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Open Space Pre- serve Use and Management Plans pertaining to access and use of the ranch area, as contained in the staff report, and approve the design plans for site access improvements near the ranch area and tree farm. H. Turner seconded the motion. Meeting 86-22 Page Four Motion to Amend: N. Hanko, referring to item 1 on page 5 of the staff report, moved that this access be further studied by staff instead of being adopted as approved access and parking area. The motion died for lack of a second. Discussion: Discussion centered on how the proposed amend- ments in the staff report would be incorporated into the Master Plan. Also discussed was the impact the proposed changes would have on the proposed historical center at Sky- line Ridge. E. Shelley stated it was the consensus of the Board to consider other proposals submitted by the Skyline Historical Society for a center along Skyline Boulevard, but that it was not the responsibility of staff to locate facilities for the Center. Cindy Miller, of Peninsula Open Space Trust, stated POST's support for the Use and Management Plan amendments in the staff report and the application for 1984 Bond Act Grant application for project development of Phase I - Stage Two. The motion passed 7 to 0. C. Proposed 1984 Bond Act Grant Application for Skyline Ridge Open Space I Development Project Phase I - Stage Two (Report R-86-85 of Septem- ber 16 , 1986) D. Hansen reviewed the report and stated that staff is recommending a grant application in the amount of $355,700 to be used for Phase I Stage Two improvements of the Master Plan for Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve. D. Woods reviewed the major elements contained in the report which would be included in the grant application. K. Duffy questioned whether the trails system from the equestrian parking lot was extensive enough for equestrians , and D. Hansen responded that the lot is also intended to serve adjacent preserves. He said the current equestrian parking lot on the former McNeil property site would probably be closed since it was intended for use only until Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve was developed. Larry Hassett, 22286 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, stated his concerns about an equestrian staging area at Skyline Ridge, because of the impact it would have on feeder roads , including Page Mill, to the Preserve. He said that equestrian staging areas should be focused on lower properties that access up to the Skyline area. He stated that the District was not adequately reviewing the impact it was having on traffic in the Skyline area. D. Hansen stated that a consultant had done a traffic study as part of the preparation of Skyline Ridge Master Plan, and had concluded that there would be no major impact on the roads created by preserve users . D. Wendin stated that the Board had already approved a 20-year Master Plan for Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and that analysis of traf- fic impacts was to be done on anon-going basis. He noted that the District would be blamed, rightly or wrongly, for any increase in traffic in the Skyline area and said the District had been irrespon- sible in approving the 20 year Master Plan without setting in motion a more detailed study to determine the effect of traffic in the area. E. Shelley stated that traffic to preserves can be monitored by parking lot counters at entrances and said that there is no way of determining the original destination intended by preserve users. 86-22 Page Five Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board adopt Resolution 86-55 of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving the Application for Grant Funds Under the Regional Competitive Program of the California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984 for Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve Development Project (Phase I Stage Two) . T. Renshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. T. Eenshaw left the meeting at this time. D. Disposition of Upper House at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Report R-86-86 of September 19, 1986) D. Hansen presented the architectural designs for the upper house at Rancho San Antonio Preserve and reviewed the options and cost anal- yses for the structure as stated in the report. Discussion centered on the need for an additional Ranger residence on the Preserve and the financial benefits to the District if the structure were rented as an enterprise unit. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board authorize staff to implement Option A of the report to remodel the existing structure into a duplex as shown on the architectural plans, including landscaping and site restoration. R. Bishop seconded the motion. Motion to Amend: E. Shelley moved that the Board amend the motion and substitute Option C (removal of a portion of the house) of the staff report for Option A. K. Duffy seconded the motion. Discussion: E. Shelley stated he wanted to minimize the visual impact of the house on the top of the hill. R. Bishop spoke in favor of the original motion because he said he cannot conclude that the District would have no future need for the entire upper house, and the duplex would gen- erate income for the District. N. Hanko stated she supported retaining the entire house because she considers the house a resource and hopes public use could be considered in the future. K. Duffy stated she felt it was important to have a Ranger residence at the top of the hill, and two Ranger residences at that location were not necessary. She said that the District should not be in the rental business. E. Shelley called the question on the motion to amend. Ayes: K. Duffy, E. Shelley, and H. Turner. Noes: D. Wendin, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop. The motion to amend failed to pass on the three to three vote. The main motion failed to pass on the following vote: Ayes: D. Wendin, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop. Noes: R. Duffy, E. Shelley, and H. Turner. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board at this time approve reroof- ing three-quarters of the house. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. lotion: D. Wendin moved that the Board reconsider the defeated motion at the next meeting of the Board when T. Henshaw was present (presumably October 8) . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. Meeting 86-22 Page Six Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board table the motion until the next meeting. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. H. Grench stated that staff would not solicit roof bids immediately since the Board would again be considering the house's disposition in two weeks. E. Proposed California Province of the Society of Jesus Property Addition to Kennedy Road Area of the S Space Preserve (Report R-86-83 of September 17, 1986) C. Britton reviewed the terms of the proposed acquisition of the 160 acre property, which would link the Limekiln Canyon and Kennedy Road Areas of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, noting the purchase price was $320, 000. D. Hansen reviewed the Interim Use and Manage- ment Plan recommendations contained in the staff report. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt Resolution 86-56, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Agree- ment to Purchase Real Property, Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appro- priate to Closing of the Transaction (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Lands of The California Province of the Society of Jesus) . R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board tentatively adopt the Interim Use and Management Plan recommendations contained in the report, including naming the property an addition to the Kennedy Road Area of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and that the Board indicate its intention to dedicate the property as open space, reserving the right to allow for the possibility of the transfer of density rights on all or a portion of the property. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. F. Setting of October 18 Special Meeting (Report R-86-81 of Septem- ber 15, 1986) M. Hale presented the brochure advertising the dedication event for Los Gatos Creek Park which will be held in cooperation with the Town of Los Gatos on October 18, 1986, and briefed the Board on plans for the event. E. Shelley and R. Bishop said they would not be able to attend the event. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board schedule a Special Meeting for Saturday, October 18, 1986 at 11 : 00 A.M. at Los Gatos Creek Park for the purpose of dedicating Los Gatos Creek Park. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. VII. INT±ORMATIONAL REPORTS H. Grench called the Board' s attention to two informational items contain; , ` in the meeting packet: 1) a memorandum concerning the Action Plan item on a tour of District Preserves for County officials; and 2) a copy of correspondence he had had with David Christy of San Mateo County regardi , a potential picnic facility at Hassler. H. Grench also asked the Board to consider possible dates for rescheduling the second Regular Meeting in November, since the Rules of Procedure call for cancelling a meeting the evening before Thanksgiving. The Board was asked to reserve Wednes- da% , November 19 and Monday, November 24 as possible dates for the meeting 86-22 Page Seven meeting with the latter being the preferred date. D. Hansen reported that Santa Clara County had tabled Herb Regnart's request for a use permit for a stable operation in the Stevens Canyon Road area of Cupertino, and stated that Santa Clara County had advised that the vehicle bridge at Rancho San Antonio County Park will be in- stalled this fall. D. Hansen reported on the recent Monte Bello Road neighborhood meeting, which was also attended by Santa Clara County Supervisor Diane McKenna, pertaining to repair of Monte Bello Road at the Picchetti site. He said that the County is considering various options, and that they will be coming back in the spring with proposed plans for permanent solution to the slide problem. Interim repairs should be completed in five weeks, he noted. N. Hanko asked that when this item comes to the Board for consideration that a report be included from S. Norton pertaining to laws relative to the highest and best use of land. S. Norton advised that the statute on the use of land had not been changed. VIII. CLAIMS Motion : H. Turner moved the approval of Revised Claims 86-18. R. Bishop seconded the motion. N. Hanko stated she would be abstaining from voting on item 9032 on the claims list. The motion passed 6 to 0. IX. CLOSED SESSION The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 10 :20 P.M. S. Norton stated that two items of existing litigation, the McQueen and Aine lawsuits, would be discussed under the authority of Government Code Section 54956. 9 (a) . X. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11:53 P.M. Doris Smith Recording Secretary CIADr,; 1,o. .86-18 Meeting 86-22 MIDPENINL _,A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date:Sept' 24, )986 C L A I MS REVMD Amount Name • Description 9003 375.00 Ace Fire Equipment Annual Inspection of Fire Extinguisher 9004 145.13 Adia Services,- Inc. • Temporary Office Help _ 9005 13.64 AmeriGas Tank Rental 9006 31 .49 Craig Beckman Reimbursement--Seminar Expense 9007 SQQ.OQ R. L.` Brown Water Tank and Piping From Former Luckenbach Property " 9008 1 ,000.00 California Advocates, Inc, Legislative Consultant Fee--September 9009 580.34 California Water Service Company Water Service 9010 289.24 Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. Telephone Equipment Lease 9011 344.03 Clark's Auto Parts Repairs and Parts for District Vehicle 9012 307.31 Communications Research Company Radio Repairs and Service 9013 406.60 Comtemporary Engraving Co. , Inc. Name Badges for Staff/Board 9014 51 .92 Crest Copies, Inc. Bluelines 9015 133.75 The Dark Room Publicity/Advertising Photos for the Los Gatos Event 9016 1 ,269.82 Pete Ellis Dodge Repairs for District Vehicles 9017 45.48 E1 Monte Stationers Office Supplies 9018 207.75 Joan Escobar Reimbursement--.-Field Equipment 9019 69.23 Farrelle Communications .Company Radio Equipment 9020 20.00 Federal . Express Express p ess Mail 9021 330.00 First American Title Guaranty Co. Preliminary Title Report 9022 320,000.00 First American Title Guaranty Co. Land Purchase--Novitiate 9023 175.07 First Interstate Bank Nate Paying Agent 9024 17.61 Foster Brothers Security Systems Lock Repairs 9025 350.00 Raye Girouard Patrol Services 9026 380.00» Green Valley Disposal Company Dumpsters--Los Gatos Flume Project 9027 380.00** Green Valley Disposal Company Dumpsters--Los Gatos Flume Project 9028 197. 15 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Conference Expense and Meal Conferences. 9029 45.36 ' Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense 9030 40.89 Carrol H. Harrington Consulting Services--Name Badges 9031 150.66 Hubbard & Johnson Field Supplies 9032 92.45 International Business Machines Equipment Supplies 9033 32.97 Robert Jenne Private Vehicle Expense 9034 325.00 Charlotte MacDonald Consulting Services--Los Gatos Event Emergency Check Issued September 11 , 1986 �- Emergency Check Issued September 19, 1986 C I a i ms -NO".-86-T8"�_. Meeting 86-22 Date: Sept. 24, 198f ' Ao REVISED Name Description 9035 119.74 Minton's Lumber Supply .Company Field Supplies 9036 676.55* Mon Cheri Cooking School. t; Caterers Catering--Staff/Docent Event 9037 732.85** Mon Cheri Cooking School Caterers Catering--Staff/Docent Event _ 9038 107.02 Monogram Sanitation Repair Parts for Equipment 9039 181.65 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies 9040 10,496.20 Orrick, Herrington E Sutcliffe Legal Services--1986 Note Issue 9041 127.53 Pacific Gas Electric Company Utilities 9042 122.94 Petters Office Furnishings Chair 9043 44.14 Pitney Bowes Maintenance Agreement 9044 28.76 Precision Engravers Name Badges for Rangers 9045 500.00*** B. J. Rickard Caretaker Services 9046 500.00 B. J. Rickard Caretaker Services 9047 41 .74 David Sanguinetti Reimbursement--Seminar Expense 9048 190.00 County of Santa Clara Radio Dispatching Services General Services Agency 9049 2,318.86 County of Santa Clara Patrol Services Sheriff's Department 9050 .1 ,464.33 County of Santa Clara Adult Probation Workers for Los Gatos Pedro R. Silva, Probation Officer Flume Project__ 9051 90.55 Skyline County Water District Water Service 9052 38.43 Doris Smith Private Vehicle Expense 9053 300.00 Sunrise Winery Wine--Staff/Docent Event 9054 I ,000.00 2M Associates Consulting Services--Skyline R-idge - 9055 146.18 Unistrut Northern California Field Equipment 9056 109.96 Unocal Fuel for District Vehicles 9057 800.00 United States Postmaster Postage 9058 135.46 Utility Body Company Repairs for District Vehicle 9059 10.75 West Coast Shoe Company Ranger Uniform Expense 9060 144.61 Western Fire Equipment Company Fire Hose 9061 409.30 Xerox Company Maintenance Agreement 9062 181 .90 Yardbird Equipment Company Parts for Field Equipment 9063 241 .08 2 Typography Typesetting i 9064 172.42 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office and Field Supplies, Private Vehicle Expense and Postage 3 Emergency Check Issued September 5, 1986 Emergency Check Issued September 15, 1986 Emergency Check Issued September 15, 1986 R-86-87 (Meeting 86-23 A. A- October 8, 1986) AIF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT September 24, 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Resolution of Appreciation for Senator Bergeson Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Expressing the Board' s Gratitude to Senator Marian Bergeson for Including District-Sponsored Sections in Senate Bill 1685. Discussion: Sections 25 and 26 (attached) of Senate Bill 1685 as signed by the Governor and effective January 1, 1987 (Chapter 982) will make the following changes in the portions of the Public Resources Code that govern the operations of regional park and open space districts: Section 25. This Section adds language that will make explicit thatregional park and open space district boards of directors can use the three main benefit assess- ment district acts for park and open space acquisition and development. This ability can be very useful when a potential project is very popular with a local area and other sources of funds are insufficient. Section 26. Currently a district board must designate check signatories by ordinance. However, the signature forms provided by banks are in resolution format. The amendment will also allow designation by resolution. Senator Bergeson, a Republican from Newport Beach, is Chair of the Senate Local Government Committee. Senate Bill 1685 was a general purpose "housekeeping" bill for local government. SEC. 2,5. Section 5539.5 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 5539.5. For purposes of open space, parkland acquisition, and development, till provisions or the mt)rovenicht Act of 1911 (Division 7 (conimencin' with Section 5000), Streets and Flighways Code), the Improvement , Bond Act tif 100 ' (Division ;, 10 (commencing with Section 0500)1 8tteets and Highways Code), and 'the Municipal Improvement 'Act of 1913 (Division 12 (commencing with Section 10000), Streets and Highways, Code), are applicable to ' a district. Whenever the public interest or convenience requires,a district may, at the discretion of the board of directors use any or all provisjotis of 010hr,4ofs In order,to carry out any purpose of the dih�rjvt, &F P1=7. 2 7 SEC 26. Section 5552 of the Public Iles6urc6s"Code 4s amended to read: 5552. The controller is the custodian of the'funds of: the district,and shall make payments ,by check' or by warrant drawn upon the', district's , depositories for ,obligations that have been first apprcved by a majority'O' f the board of directors at a meeting of- the board 'of directors, The board;of directors also may; by resolution and' under ,any terms and conditions which it' may prescribe in the resolution,-authorize the controller to pay demands against , the� district, without the 'prior, specific approval of the board, that are for any purpose for which an expenditure has been previously authorized in the district's adopte8 budget and which do not exceed the amount of expenditure, so authorized. Demands so paid shall be presented to the board of-directors at the next regular meeting for, its review and,approval. If the funds of the district are maintained solely in,the county treasury, the county, auditor shall exercise: the powers otherwise conferred by this section on the!controller.,� The board of directors shall by ordinance or,res6lutio' 'n' authorize signatories for checks or, warrants,drawn "M" payment of obligations and demands against,the district. Authorized signatories shall be selected from members'df the board of directors of the district,the general mimagdr' of the district, the administrative secretary, or any b&r' officers and employees which may be designated by the board. A minimum of two signatures shall be required on all checks and warrants. The controller shall keep an account of all receipts and disbursements, and shall deposit all,money received by him or her in a depository or depositories selected by the board of directors. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIO14AL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT EXPRESSING GRATITUDE TO SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON FOR INCLUDING DISTRICT- SPONSORED SECTIONS IN SENATE BILL 1685 WHEREAS, SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO INCLUDE IN SENATE BILL 1685 SECTIONS' THAT WERE SPONSORED BY THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, AND WHEREAS, SENATOR BERGESON TENACIOUSLY AND SUCCESSFULLY MOVED SENATE BILL 1685 THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN BOTH HOUSES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND WHEREAS, GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMAJIAN HAS SIGNED SENATE BILL 1685 INTO LAW, AND WHEREAS, SENATE BILL 1685 IS OF DIRECT AND POTENTIALLY GREAT BENEFIT TO THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND OTHER REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS., NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPEN- INSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE TO EXPRESS ITS GRATITUDE TO SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON FOR HER EFFORTS ON THE DISTRICT'S BEHALF, PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MID- PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1986. ATTEST: DIRECTORS: DISTRICT CLERK R-86-89 (Meeting 86-23 October 8, 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT September 29 , 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Introduction of Douglas Gaynor, New Director of Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Doug Gaynor has graciously agreed to attend your October 8 , 1986 Board meeting to meet you and to say a few words on the park and recreation issues Santa Clara County faces and his approach to dealing with them. R-86-92 (Meeting 86-23 AA� Oct. 8, 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT October 1, 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager D. Hansen, Land Manager SUBJECT: Master Plan Presentation by Trust for Hidden Villa Introduction: In November 1985 the Trust for Hidden Villa contracted with 2M Associates Landscape Architects to complete a master plan for the Hidden Villa property which lies adjacent to the District' s Rancho San Antonio, Foothills and Monte Bello Preserves. In addition, the District retains an open space easement over 638 acres of Hidden Villa lands with 945 acres of easement pending, all of which were included in the area of the master plan (see map attached) *. In July of this year a draft workbook plan was completed by the consultants and is cur- rently undergoing scrutiny by three Subcommittees of the Trust. The plan is then slated for an adoption workshop by their Board in November. Because of the nature of the open space easements held by the District, mutual trail interests on the Black Mountain Trail and the relation- ship of the plan in general to District properties and interests, rep- resentatives of the Trust will be present at your October 8 meeting to give a presentation of the draft plan. *Plan maps from Hidden Villa will be available at your 10/8 meeting. Irk!'TAT*�i-r' 0I'[a '�*+�sZi�►'�Y��w." l�Alrr"j'1! 1\ ■ 1� � J"L7 Q � � ii ■ ■ �,. • ■ r. . n ■ ■ . r � t r'.c c �r ■ aka ■p■ i s'■ • • • ■ • n'■\. .'•. / C ■ ■ ■ r c s . • ■ • a • . • � ■ � a o c a ■ Ill !c I■ • III, i• • u x c c � • d I Ism Is Sig WIN 1 ■ ■ w. v;` � � �/ •I �• ICI `' 1 ■/ r a L. • • Is Is Is ■ .• — -�w.. .r— — ~�, III � a;`� ■ 1• r ■ • �` 1 rBill ■ • ■ ', a ■ t_ r L lr-� . • �I. M ai ■ •, ,,`�` - -. .WrOf ON ■ ■ - . •' i U . ■ : ■ ■ ■ ��.���:. ■ L 'I ■ C • ■i 0 i■ • 0 0 4 r]i■ ■ ■�// • 5 i■ a Il • r ■ • • • ■ 11 • 1.-�♦ :� a z',. a ._ ■ . : s'■ ■ R-86-94 (Meeting 86-23 October 8, 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT October 2, 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBLITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; D. Woods, Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Final Adoption of Amendments to the Skyline Ridge and Russiam Ridge Open Space Preserves Use and Management Plans Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the amendments to the Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserves Use and Management Plans as contained in report R-86--84 dated September 16 , 1986. Discussion: At your meeting of September 24, 1986 you tentatively adopted amendments to the Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Use and Management Plans. In addition, you approved the design plans for site access improvements near the ranch area and tree farm. Two concerns were expressed: 1) potential increase in traffic on Skyline Boulevard resulting from the development of Skyline Ridge, and 2) potential environmental impacts of the proposed whole-access driveway and parking area. A. Skyline Boulevard Traffic In response to the issue of traffic on Skyline Boulevard, an attachment "A" is included herein which was extracted from the Existing Conditions Report of the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve Master Plan. In summary, the information indicates that the development of Skyline Ridge should not seriously impact traffic flows on Skyline Boulevard or adjacent feeder roads to the northeast. Staff has contacted CalTrans to determine if traffic data will be available in the future to provide some type of basis for a traffic study, if the Board directs, following the development of parking facilities. They indicated that a random count is taken both north and south of Alpine Road every two years. The last count was taken in 1985. When the new parking areas are opened, you may wish to direct staff to survey usage of the parking lots so as to provide possible information that would be used at a later date in conjunction with the CalTrans data for an analysis of the Preserve' s use on highway traffic. B. Whole-Access Driveway and Parking Staff conducted a field trip on Monday, September 29 to familiarize concerned parties with the proposed whole-access driveway and parking area. Attendees included two members of the District's Board of Directors and members of the Peninsula Open Space Trust Advisory Committee. R-86-94 Page two What emerged from the field trip, generally speaking, was that 1) whole access staging is an important aspect of the future plans in the Alpine Reservoir area, 2) the proposed access driveway and parking area are the most acceptable options if no other alternative can be determined to be feasible, and 3) an underpass leading from the proposed parking area at Russian Ridge to the reservoir is the only potential alternative that could be considered. It remains staff ' s opinion that the proposed whole-access driveway will not significantly impact the environment and that through careful negotiations with a contractor, emphasizing sensitive grading and landscaping, the impacts can be kept to an acceptable level. Although the concept of an underpass may be ideal from an environmental standpoint, the additional costs of $180, 000 - $280, 000 would compete with other very important District projects unless outside funding could be obtained. Since the deadline for submittal of plans and specifications for Stage I improvements is July 1 , 1987 , it is imperative that we move forward with construction drawings and obtain permits for the projects. The following is a timeline indicating critical deadlines: Prepare Construc- CalTrans San Mateo County Project Description tion Drawings Review 'Review (potential EIR) 1. Whole-Access Oct. 1 - Oct. 31 Not Feb. 1 - June 1 Driveway & Parking (could be delayed Required Area to Jan. 1 -Jan. 30) 2. Tree Farm Access Oct. 1 - Oct. 31 Nov. 1 - Feb. 1 - June 1 May 1 The underpass design, if it were to be considered, would require approximately two months to prepare plans and specifications. In order to meet the February 1 target for submittal to San Mateo County, the design contract would have to be let in November. In an accompanying memorandum (M-86-77 , dated October 1, 1986) to you from Directors Hanko and Wendin you are asked to delay approval of the whole-access parking and road until staff has had a chance to study the matter further. As you can see from the schedule constraints, there is not much time for study. if you do choose to have further study, the rest of the Use and Management Plan amendments could still be adopted on October 8 . ATTACHMENT "A" z 1.2 ACCESS Val Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve is bordered along its entire northern side by IVState Highway 35 (Skyline Boulr vard), a two-lane, well-maintained road of moderate alignment and grade . Table 1, State Highway 35 Traffic Volumes, overviews average daily traffic, peak month (A .gust) and peak hour traffic counts. Current traffic is light, with the peak month at 2500 ADT (average daily traffic) and expected to stay so. Development/use of the Preserve could create a high percentage increase in traffic, particularly on weekends and holidays, but probably would not create traffic capacity problems on Skyline Boulevard. Traffic volumes on State Highway 9 east of Skyline Bouldvard are estimated at 3350 ADT with the peak month at 4600 ADT. None of the roads leading to Skyline Boulevard, except State Highway 92 to Half Moon Bay, are near design capacity in terms of traffic volumes. State Highway 84 between Woodside and Skyline Boulevard would approach capacity if all tributary properties along Skyline Ridge were w developed to the zoning densities permitted. However, San Mateo County distin- guishes between 'commute' capacity and 'recreational' capacity and recreational capacity would not be reached under the 'total development' scenario. Additional- ly, since the County studied road capacities in the area in 1982, acquisitions by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and others have reduced the develop- ment g P P potential (personal communication; Roger Young, San Mateo County Traffic En- gineer and Kim Vogl, San Mateo County Planning Department). Alpine Road west of Skyline Boulevard abuts the Preserve (and the leased in- holding) for approximately 1-1/2 miles. Alpine Road is a narrow, tightly main- tained (San Mateo) County road of moderate grades but severe alignment. 1982 traffic counts were about 300 ADT, and that figure is estimated to be valid today. 'Normal cars must be careful in passing oncoming vehicles on this road. Trucks, buses and trailers present real hazards. Passing opportunities are practically non-existent so the slowest vehicle.. "sets the pace". Turnouts for passing or for disabled vehicles are scarce. Recommendations are against anything that would in- crease traffic on Alpine Road or any access from Alpine except in the immediate vicinity of Skyline Boulevard. Across Skyline Boulevard to the north, Alpine Road becomes Page Mill Road in Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto. Page Mill Road had 1982 traffic counts of about 400 ADT. It is also narrow and two lane but of less severe alignment than Alpine, and has turnouts and emergency parking areas at reasonable intervals. There_are no regularly scheduled public transportation facilities on any of these three roads. Skyline Boulevard is the major rural north-south connector between mid San Mateo County and. the Felton/Scotts Valley area of Santa Clara County. It serves the agricultural and scattered low density residential uses along the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains. It is also the "backbone" tying together the smaller roads serving the more remote areas on the western slopes and the developed lands of the eastern slopes and Bay Area. Mileages and approximate travel times to some popu- lation centers and major highway junctions are shown on the Regional Setting Map. Note that it is approximately 30-40 minutes to each of the population centers. Alpine Road provides access to rural residential (or second home) areas, Portola State Park, San Mateo County Men's Correctional Facility (La Honda), and the town of La Honda. Page Mill Road leads down approximately 9 miles to the Junipero Serra Freeway (Highway 280) through the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and residential develop- ments of increasing density. In summary, highway access to the north, south and east is adequate for current and foreseeable traffic loads. Traffic to the west is restricted by the geometry of the road. No public transit is available or in the planning stage. TABLE 1 ' STATE HIGHWAY 35 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROAD AVERAGE PEAK MONTH PEAK HOUR DAILY TRAFFIC (August). j South of Route 9 540 740 170 North of Route 9 1850 2500 470 North of Alpine Rd. 1950 2700 490 R South of Route 84 2900 3950 730 North of Route 84 2050 2750 520 Source. California Department of Transportation 1� �y 4 R-86-90 (Meeting 86-23 October 8, 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT September 29, 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for the Noravian Property Addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the Interim Use and Management Plan for the Noravian property addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Pre- serve, including the naming, as contained in report R-86-70. I further recommend that you indicate your intention to withhold the property from dedication as public open space at this time. Discussion: At your August 27, 1986 meeting you approved the acquisition of the 30 acre Noravian property addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (see attached report R-86-70 of August 20, 1986) . You also tentatively adopted the Interim Use and Management Plan for the addition, including naming of the property as an addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and indicated your intention to withhold the land from dedication as open space. In accordance with your adopted Land Acquisition Notification Procedures, final adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan was deferred until after close of escrow to allow further for public comment. Escrow on the Noravian property closed on September 22, 1986. Staff has receieved no public comment since that time. R-86-70 -All tt. (Meeting 86-20 August 27 1986 g ) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT August 20, . 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager; D. Hansen, Land Managers D. Woods, Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Proposed Noravian Property Addition to Sierra A Preserve zul Open Space P.eco-=endation: I recommend that you adopt the accompanying Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents NecessaryAppropriate A ro riate to Closing of the Transaction (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Lands of Noravian et al. ) . I further re,,ommend that you tentatively adopt the Interim Use and Manage- ment Plan recommendations contained in this report, name the property an addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and indicate your intention to withhold the property from dedication at this time. Introduction: A 30 acre parcel of land, located east of Highway 17, has been offered for sale to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (see attached map) If acquired,c u� re d the parce l would become an addition to theSierra Azul Open Space Preserve. The property is an important part of the scenic backdropimmediately above Lexington Reservoir. It is contiguous to a 10 acre parcel of District property (formerly lands of Carter) and, because of the remoteness of these parcels from the existing areas of the Preserve, they should be considered the potential beginning of a new area which may link up with the rest of the ;reserve in the future. A. Description of the Site Size, Location and Boundaries The 30 acre property is approximately 2/3 mile east of Lexington Reservoir on the north side of a ridge located between Soda Springs Canyon and Hendrys Creek. The parcel is bounded by District land to the south and private property to the north, east, and west. Soda Springs Road passes through the northwest corner of the site. s'w R-86-70 .Page two j 2. Topography, Geology and Natrual Features The site is generally comprised of steep northeasterly facing slopes and has an average elevation of 1500 feet. There is a prominent ravine bisecting the parcel in the northwesterly cor- ner. This drainage is part of the Soda Springs Creek watershed. The soils are classified Los Gatos-Maymen, which are considered highly erodabla_ Prior to the 1985 Lexington Area fire, the vegetative city was primarily chaparral, with a narrow strand of bay trees located in the swale, and a few eucalyptus and knobcone pines scattered on the hillsides. Following the fire, the seeding program established a dense cover of ryegrass, and the chamise, toyon and eucalyptus are quickly recovering. B. Current Use and Development The property is currently undeveloped. The improvements include 1) an unsurfaced roadway which bisects the property from the north to south, 2) various collapsed metal structures, one of which appears to be a housetrailer, and a buried 55 gallon drum. The roadway does connect to Soda Springs Road via a claimed prescriptive easement which is passable by vehicle to a point approximately 500 feet south of the northerly boundary. There is no gate. C. Planning Considerations The property is located within unincorporated Santa Clara County and is zoned Hillside (HS) . Acquisition of the parcel for open space purposes conforms with the General Plan of Santa Clara County and Town of Los Gatos. The County' s Trails and Pathways Plan, as revised May 1982 , indicates a proposed trail corridor in the vicinity of this property, extending from Lexington Reservoir to Mt. Thayer. The parcel has a medium rating on the District's Master Plan map, a composite system of ranking lands' suitability as open space. D. Potential Use and Management The site should be maintained as a natural area to protect the visual backdrop of the Lexington Recrea tion' g on Are a anc the in tegrity grity of the watershed. Th e site could provid e a link in 1 P the regional trail system planned for the e area. E. Interim Use and Management Re commendations nda bons 1. Boundary plaques should be placed where appropriate. Estimated costs of $15 are included in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget. 2. A gate should be installed at the northerly boundary to prevent illegal entry of vehicles. Estimated cost is $600 , and funds are available in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget. 3. The remains of the metal structures and storage drum and other materials will be removed. A contractor will be sought for this project at an estimated cost of $2000-$2500; funds to be provided in fiscal year 1987-1988 budget preparation. -86-70 Page three F. Dedication I recommend that this property be withheld from dedication at this time to allow for the possibility of the transfer of density rights or trade or sale of the entire parcel if the District is not success- ful in completing the trail corridor in this area. Withholding this property from dedication is consistent with the status of the adjoin- ing District-owned land. C. `amincl I recommend that this property become an addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve and that a specific area name be considered at a later date if the unit is enlarged. H. Terms The purchase price for this property stipulated in the attached Pur- chase Agreement would be $100,000 payable in cash at close of escrow. This price is based upon the "site" value with an average of $3,333 per acre. The funds for this purchase would come from the District's 1986 Promissory Note Issue proceeds and be charged against the New Land Purchases budget category, I 'f / is = M;,,:::q�+x. , i �. •% `' v mu -sussr' .• ■■'-•�` ` 1 . -fJ :,� ��//+j ��• `� `��T�\\ � �� �,r C - � � _/"e°�a,'yhON ..,.�.�: ..• � _ ,�'w .•o,h„°�. IN ,�� Conv���'11 G� �i'.��r�• ��i •ds� , � 1 .IOS e. `•s PROPOSED - is ,F� ' r'� �: '` „- �;• 6ttos ' LOS GA 1 aS ^\ CITY PARK sl f ��, -� � � ��=_ VM LOS GATOS ! _ CREEK .29 —�• � � � — •^i!r��( .' � _ �~��,� ✓f ��%� P?,'.KMC. iCT.!na�e�'a PA - �. "• �• , i '^�— 1- �.--� � a,, '�,t. ntortv _ ESta.{s.: ti\ ;, "'�'' `t�^�,`v„4 P tr s' ✓!/.:it Q� :2; >>a _ ._ V'=_ `L w ::��,� ' -ii/'•�'� ^_� t !j� ^`/G`300- � _ \�;\. ��; �-."ram/-"� '/�'.i���. ��/�'1��/�'�/ lT2�a05-f i.�_: �\NZ- i752Prtey9j\ c/ LIMEKILN t 1 >" -w� - X '� .�rf ' �` `��, •� �f,�; /` k� CANYON AREA �o ,r' 32 SODA SPRINGS ROAD: -Co co a Fie �, x`� ` �t` •'�Jr - _ •` i� ` �� t �•� - s** ; y .:� t ,> •, i0a0t r s :^r�!''`• --�-/. '1` .� / -� --.f�.:' a .�• �"��. Xv PROPOSED ADDITION (30 ACRES) �� �_ ` _ lSC�jam'' •,_`'r `�'' •�''\^^`--\'•/� ; L VA ; ROPERTYi -- � SANTA W C a LLEY 4 C -',�»- � f� WATER DISTRICT (LEXIINITOA RESERVOIR ; RECREATION a4EA) + U l`'t` �`�, �' + _8 t�/' •� LOS GATOS CREEK PARK AND LIMEKILN CANYON AREA . _ - ■ V�; _ .•` M e � ` SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE I A2.E SCALE 11' = 20001 NOR TH R-86-91 (Meeting 86-23 Nlof October 8, 1986) �► , we MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT September 30 , 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: D. Hansen, Land Manager SUBJECT: Disposition of Upper House at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve After a three-to-three vote on this matter at your September 24, 1986 Board meeting, you tabled a motion to remodel the existing structure into a duplex until your October meeting. Please refer to the attached staff report (R-86-86 of Septem- ber 19, 1986) for background information on this item. R-86-86 V (Meeting 86-22 September 24, 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT September 19, 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: D. Hansen, Land Manager SUBJECT: Disposition of Upper House at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Recommendation: I recommend, based on your previous decision to retain the entire upper Rancho San Antonio Open -Space Preserve structure, that you approve plans and authorize solicitation of bids to complete work to divide the upper house into a duplex structure to serve both as a Ranger residence and enterprise dwelling. If you do not wish to proceed with this proposal but wish to retain the structure at this time as a single unit, I request that reroofing be nonetheless approved. If you should de- cide to change your earlier decision and to retain only a smaller unit, reroofing would still be an immediate necessity. If you should decide that the structure should be demolished demolition funds would be necessary. Introduction: At your meeting of May 14, 1986 staff presented a plan of action to proceed with renovation and use of the two large residences at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (see memorandum M-86-53 dated May 9, 1986 and report R-84-14 dated September 20, 1984) . You approved commencing with architectural plans to complete the modification of the lower house into a duplex. You agreed with the staff recommendation to drop the idea of using the upper house as a multi-purpose facility. You decided that staff should only return with architectural options that kept the house intact (not reduced in size) . Staff 's recommendation was to divide the upper house into a duplex with a Ranger in residence in about a year in one part, and probably eventually a Ranger in the other part. In the interim the units would be enterprise rentals. Architect Kenzo Handa was hired immediately to complete the plans. Glenn Smith, the District's Landscape Architect under contract, assisted Mr. Handa with landscape and site work. the plans will be presented to you for your perusal at your Septembt:.r 24 , 1986 meeting. Discussion: The following is a summary of the estimated costs of two options that would keep the house intact And for reference the costs of reduction in size and demolition. A. Remodel existing structure into a duplex as shown on plans , including landscaping and site restoration $ 21,400 New roof 10 ,000 TOTAL $ 31,400 B. Fix up existing structure as large single family residence (this would preclude use R-86-86 Page Two as a Ranger residence) $ 5,000 New roof 10,000 TOTAL $ 15L000 C. Partial removal of southern wing and renovation of remaining structure including landscaping $ 12,500 New roof on portion remaining 8,000 TOTAL $ 20,500 D. Total demolition of building and renovation of site to natural area (this earlier figure is inconsistent withthe demolition cost portion of option C, which is lower by com- parison) TOTAL $ 40,000 You had indicated at your May 14 , 1986 meeting that you desired to retain the entire structure as a resource to be utilized. open Space Management staff is interested in using the house for a Ranger residence as soon as feasible. Retaining the structure as a large single family house, while desirable as an enterprise rental structure, would not serve the Ranger residency interest. In any case, where the whole or a portion of the structure is retained, immediate roof repair is necessary to know the struc- ture will remain habitable this winter. Part of the structure is currently rented to tenants who work at Deer Hollow Farm. Funds currently budgeted in the open Space Management Program and Enterprise Subprogram for renovation of the upper residence are $20 ,000 . The same fig- ure is available for the lower residence, and staff is proceeding with the division of the lower structure, as authorized, into a duplex to serve as a Ranger residence, enterprise structure, or for Deer Hollow Farm staff. R-86-88 Adw (Meeting 86-23 Oct. 8 , 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT September 29 , 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager; D. Hansen, Land Manager; W. Goggin, Real Property Representative SUBJECT: Proposed Addition to Los Gatos Creek Park (Lands of San Jose Water Company) Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the accompanying Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, Authorizing officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appro- priate to Closing of the Transaction (Los Gatos Creek Park - Lands of San Jose Water Company) . I further recommend that you tentatively adopt the Interim Use and Manage- ment Plan recommendations contained in this report, including naming the property an addition to the Los Gatos Creek Park, and that you indicate your intention to dedicate the property as public open space. Introduction: On September 12 , 1984 you approved acquisition of the former Novitiate property as part of a cooperative project with the Town of Los Gatos (see report R-84-40 dated September 5, 1984) . The property is now named unofficially as Los Gatos Creek Park. Running roughly north to south and paralleling Los Gatos Creek for a length of approxi- mately 3775 feet through the western portion of the Los Gatos Creek Park property is a 33-foot-wide strip of land totalling 2 .86 acres owned in fee by the San Jose Water Company (see map attached) . This strip con- tained portions of an abandoned water flume which was built in the early part of this century. During the search for the best location to reroute the Jones Road Trail , it became evident that the flume route with its already graded bench would be ideal. This route would eliminate the need for a proposed alternative route which entailed extensive switch- backs on steep and unstable terrain. San Jose Water Company, when approached on a potential trade of the property for the District' s offer to remove the old flume, accepted with the stipulation that the District pay only their overhead costs for the transaction. This transaction is before you and was approved by the Water Company Board of Directors on August 20, 1986. R-86-88 Page two A. Description of Site The property is a 33-foot-wide by 3775-foot-long strip of land running generally north and south from the northeasterly property corner of the Town of Los Gatos ' Novitiate Park property, which is one mile southwest of the Town center. The strip has been owned by San Jose Water Company since 1916 . The land is a steep side slope (in places over 50% slope) with sheer rock outcroppings in the more southerly portion (except in the steepest areas) . A bench had been cut along the route to accommodate the flume. Most of the flume has already been removed by District supervised Santa Clara County court crews under a Permit to Enter granted to the District by the Water Company. In the southerly portion of the property the flume had previously been demolished by the County Sheriff' s Department. Unfortunately much of this material was scattered over the area when this section was dynamited and remains to be removed. Vegetation of the property is from the oak, bay, madrone community, with chaparral species on the more southerly portion. A chain link fence runs along portions of the east and west bound- aries of the property. The portion of the flume right-of-way next to the Town Park (and containing the restored section of the flume in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos' historical requirements) would be trans- ferred to the Town under a separate agreement which would be pre- sented for your consideration after close of escrow. B. Current Use and Development The site currently contains the remains of the water flume. A lawsuit currently is in process against the San Jose Water Company and the Jesuits involving the family of a youth who was injured two years ago on the flume. The District will not be inheriting this case by acquiring the land on which the flume is located. C. Planning Considerations The property is located within unincorporated Santa Clara County but will be annexed to the Town of Los Gatos at the time the adjoining Los Gatos Creek Park property is annexed. The property is rated as medium on the District' s Master Plan map, a composite system of ranking lands' suitability as open space. Acquisition for open space is in conformity with both the Los Gatos and Santa Clara County General Plans. D. Potential Use and Management The site should be utilized for the Jones Road bypass trail on the northerly section and absorbed into the former Novitiate property as an integral part of Los Gatos Creek Park. The flume should be completely removed on all portions of the site except for a 20-foot- long section to be retained and rehabilitated as an historic !� i I i �� e�� ���' � �� ��^; �, R-86-88 Page three exhibit for the Town of Los Gatos. The San Jose Water Company will be responsible for the preservation of portions of the flume as outlined in the correspondence between the Town and the Water Company, and made a part of the attached Purchase Agreement. E. Interim Use and Management Recommendations Following completion of District acquisition of the property, that portion immediately adjoining the Town of Los Gatos ' Novitiate Park, containing the section of flume to be preserved, would be trans- ferred to Town ownership (see attached letter) . 1. The District will remove portions of the old flume from the property as soon as possible. All remaining portions of the flume route will be signed as closed and fenced off at least until that portion of land which contains the flume his been transferred to the Town of Los Gatos. 2 . The Jones Road bypass trail has been constructed on the flume right-of-way. Necessary funds, estimated at $10 ,000, were available in the current budget. 3. Boundary signs will be installed on the southerly portions of the property where the land passes beyond Los Gatos Creek Park. Wildland and Trail signs will also be installed. Funds are available in the current budget and are estimated at $500. 4. Necessary chain link fencing, private property signing, and any remaining flume material will be removed as part of routine site maintenance by District staff. 5. The newly constructed segment of the Jones Road Trail from the Town of Los Gatos ' Novitiate Park to the original trail route has been declared temporarily closed to bycicyles under Sections 905 .1 and 604 of the District' s regulations. This is due to the extreme steepness and narrowness of the trail and adjacent verges , the high use by walkers and runners , as well as bicycles and the potential conflicts involved, and the number of dangerous blind curves on the route . Alternative trails to access the site from the Town run along Los Gatos Creek to the Lexington Dam and Alma Bridge Road entry. At the time of Board review of the initial Use and Management Plan for Los Gatos Creek Park, which is slated for review within the next three months , suggested alternatives or solutions to bicycle use of the Jones Road Trail will be rr�sented by staff. In the interim, staff will continue to meet local bicyclists, Town of Los Gatos staff, Midpehinsula Trai_'..; Council, and other trail users to resolve and delineate the per-___-a.- ent solution (s) to the use of the Jones Road Trail. F_ R-86-88 Page four I I F. Dedication I recommend you indicate your intent to dedicate this property as public open space. The dedication would be done prior to the transfer of a portion of the right-of-way to Los Gatos . In accord- ance with Section 5540. 6 of the Public Resources Code, the trans- ferred portion would remain dedicated. G. Naming I recommend that this property be named as an addition to Los Gatos Creek Park, an unofficial name that is being reviewed. H. Terms Under the terms of the agreement, San Jose Water Company is donating the property to the District. The District will pay $2000 adminis- trative costs of San Jose Water Company in transferring title. These costs include engineering, legal , Public Utilities Commission approval, mortgage releases, and escrow fees. San Jose Water Company will remain responsible to the Town of Los Gatos for the restoration and/or preservation of a portion of the flume structure as may be required by the Town of Los Gatos. I Alm •J r Fil 1 N- ' �1Q�r aiiuE e6��•° 9 vRD SEfEAA `�\lr __�j, ;\'\ ,4 .Af _ - O '` • I / °r. �y _ ;Il• 1 �wit— 1 5 a . .� C 1�\ •r .•� � C. 2� U 5 OH Oy=NANNON � A I1r0550?.ALL � � a i •��/ l •�•� = -� VI�U♦ 11 1 .'. •.• �M �irzi � �.lMiLLe`' ��c. ^� '�, ;•' •� Gatos j -- - Town - posed Addition Property H ..,..Prop i-.• � � _ :FPIv(i?oN\cyr�N �.°.� 30 foot widih SEA AREA OS GATOS !� CREEK PARK <<. t� H•_-�� / ; .AldtrcreR •r' / J �./y $ ; -1 •Chemeketa Park .t �f r rR1a8is °•Holy �""""""' 253 �• lrJl��LaP. , _jr�. �,� �l / IdDo -- ` 24os1p �t� cl- _ '�"✓ / � �+11\, �/goo �J ,1�: i _ tc— MEKILN Y7 / � l u CANYON AREA od 601 ff --s V11 SODA SPRINGS ROAD,:in -- �•. �.-= i � LOS GATOS CREEK PARK AND LIMEKILN CANYON AREA, SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ,ice. � —•oo � \ '+ � l" 1%=-L_. SCALE 1" = 2000, a NORTH n. RESOLUTION NO. 86-58 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZ- ING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (LOS GATOS CREEK PARK - LANDS OF SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY) The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows : Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby accept and approve that certain Purchase Agreement between San Jose Water Company and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President and appropriate officers to execute the Agreement on behalf of the District. Section Two. The President of the Board or other appro- priate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of Acceptance to any deed (s) granting title to said property. Section Three. The General Manager of the District shall cause to be given appropriate notice of acceptance and approval of agreement to sellers. The General Manager further is authorized to execute any and all other documents in escrow necessary or appro- priate to the closing of the transaction. Section Four. The General Manager of the District is authorized to expend up to $1,000. 00 to cover the cost of title insurance, if any, and other miscellaneous costs related to this transaction. PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between SAN JOSE WATER COMP ANY, a California Corporation, formerly known as SAN J'OSE WATER WORKS, a Corporation, hereinafter called "SELLER," and MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a public district organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, hereinafter called "DISTRICT. " 1. PURCHASED PROPERTY SELLER agress to transfer to DISTRICT, and DISTRICT agrees to receive from SELLER, SELLER'S real property located partially within the incorporated area of the Town of Los Gatos and par- tially within an unincorporated area, all in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, containing, 2.86 acres, more or less, commonly referred to as Santa Clara Assessors Parcels 537-01-002 , 537-02-001 and 537-02-002, and shown in red on the map designated Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Said property is to be conveyed together with any easements, rights of way, or rights of use which may be appurte- nant or attributable to said real property. 2. PURCHASE PRICE AND MJ!NNER OF PAYMENT It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that SELLER is donating said real property to DISTRICT without payment, but that DISTRICT shall reimburse SELLER for SELLER'S costs of processing the conveyance of title to said real prop- erty to DISTRICT. It is further understood and agreed that such processing costs shall be the amount of Two Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($2,000. 00) payable in cash at close of escrow as here- inafter provided. 3. TITLE AND POSSESSION Conveyance of title and reimbursement of SELLER'S processing costs shall be accomplished through escrow number 333957 with Golden State Title Company, 4.1 North First Street, San Jose, California. Title and possession of said real property shall be conveyed to DISTRICT at the close of escrow by Grant Deed, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, judgements, easements, taxes, assessments, covenants, restrictions, rights, and conditions of record except.: A. Taxes for the fiscal year in which this escrow closes which shall be cleared and paid for in the manner provided for by Section 4986 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. B. Any exception or exceptions to title appearing on Golden S,-_ate Title Company' s Preliminary Report No. 333957 which DISTRI".T may subsequently identify in writing. San Jose Water Company Page Two 4. COSTS SELLER shall pay all escrow, recording, reconveyance, mortgage release, lien satisfactions, discharge of Judgements,ements or an other 9 r y charges, costs, or fees incurred in order toal •deliver marketable etab e title to DISTRICT. In the event' DISTRICT desires title insurance, DISTRICT shall pay the premium therefor. 6. LIABILITY SELLER shall indemnify and save harmless and defend DISTRICT, its directors, officers, and employees from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, expense, claims and demands, direct or consequential, arising from SELLER'S ownership, operation or main- tenance of said real property prior to the .date of close of escrow. 6. HISTORICAL RESTORATION Notwithstanding any other provision of this .AGREEMENT, SELLER shall remain responsible to the Town of Los Gatos for the restoration and/or preservation of a portion of the flume structure on said real property, together with any reasonably associated activities, as contemplated in the following letters attached hereto as Exhib- it "B" and incorporated herein by this reference: (A) Letter to SELLER from Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director of the Town of Los Gatos, dated November 12, 1984, and (B) Letter to Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director of the Town of Los. Gatos from SELLER'S Manager of Public Relations and Customer Service, dated November 19, 1984. 7. COMMISSIONS DISTRICT shall not be responsible for any real estate sales com- mission or other related costs or fees in connection with this transaction. 8. LEASES OR OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES SELLER warrants that there exist no oral or written leases or rental agreements affecting all or any portion of the subject property, nor are any persons occupying the property. SELLER further warrants and agrees to hold DISTRICT free and harmless and to reimburse DISTRICT for any and all costs, liability, loss, damage or expense, including costs for legal services, occasioned by reason of any such lease, rental agreement, or occupancy of the property being acquired by DISTRICT (including but not limited to relocation payments and expenses provided for in Section 7260 et spec . of the California Government Code) . 9. WAIVER OF STATUTORY COMPENSATION SELLER understands that it may be entitled to receive the fair market value of the property under the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqui.<:.:ition Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and California Government Code Section 7267, et seq. SELLER acknowledges that it is familiar with the applicable Fed- eral and California law. SELLER hereby waives all exi 'wing and future rights it may have to receive the fair market va1.ue of the Property under any applicable federal or California law. San Jose Water Company Page Three 10. ACCEPTA`ICE AND TE R•IS OF ES CROW DISTRICT shall. have sixty ._ (60) days following the execution hereof by SELLER to -accep,t and execute this AGREEMENT, and during raid period this i +strument shall constitute an irrevocable offer by SZ_ •`'R to t--r an5_ ,- and convey the aforesaid r eal ty to DISTP_^^ for the consideration and under the terms rand rconditions herein set forth. Time being of the essence and provided that this AGREEMENT is accepted and exe�;ted by DISTRICT, this transaction shall close as soon as practicable, but not more than thirty' (30) days -follow- ing the acceptance and execution by DISTRICT, through an escrow as set forth in Paragraph 3 hereinabove, or other such escrow holder as may be acceptable to SELLER and DISTRICT. 1_ :-ACCRUAL The provisions hereof shall accrue to the benefit of and bind the respective assigns or successors in interest of the parties hereto. :`sD?ENI ISUL_A REGION;I: 3PEN SPACE SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY DISTRICT f 'a California Corporation APPROVED AS TO FOR-NI: . By: L Date: Sta.ley Ndrton, Dis_rlct Counsel CCE?T ORf RECO:•iMENDATION: G2GtQL,- By: Gh� N �l Date-, �u ZO !� L. /Craig Britton, SR/WA ...__ Land Acquisition Manager F PPROVED AN7D ACCEP_ ' "D President, Board of Directors I r TT,EST: Dis`rict Clerk Da*e: Gov EE d W P A L,QT 15 , .33 AGiZF�j X f' u1 �---- - t FLUM o v ZO k 2�3 21 SJWG LDT 70 Z. 525 AGi:2�ES i ,.f POKTIoN 0 - sjwc i I--OT 70A 7 .335 AC R.t�5 ! " . TOWN of LOS GATOS CIVIC CENTER• 114 EAST MAIN STREET• P.O. BOX 949•LOS GATOS;CAILIFORNIA 954►31t y s . ' r PLANNING DEPARTMENT - 408/354-6872 November 12, 1984 - San Jose Water Company P.O. Box 229 San Jose, CA 95196 'Attn: Richard Ba loc ca RE: LOOS CMOs F,LLRL= Dear Mr. Balocco: { t The Los Gatos Town Council, at=.ite me.#ting df:%November 5, 1984, concluded that the flume should be removed to protect.. the,publki. but.- the fallowing shall be done to • recognize its historical signi�ficiince: ,4' _ ,.sue ;,n z t : -_� •L,'„ .4 - •• , 1. Prior to its removal Ban 3osext#ater LJor�Ca:shall take extensive photographs to record the flume and it5'.cbnstre)Ction --f'or-..future, deference. 2. The company shall preserve as',tauch as possible 'of'I the flume in place on flatter ground (possibly near .the:To n.'s Novitiate park site, subject to review and recommendation by the Town*'s 'Parks Commis-ion). 3. The company shall offer ,to recorastrugt. �i portion af. the flume at the Forbes Mill Museum (subject tc atceptake' by the. Forbes Mill Museum Board). 4. The company shall offer other artifacts from the flume to the Los Gatos Museum and the Forbes Mill Museum. s S. The company shall erect an appropriate plaque 'regarding the flume at an appro- priate location as decided by •"the Coa►pany*. the Town, the County and the various historical groups. 6. All of the debris shall be cleaned up,and. !removed and 'spec3al care must be taken to avoid damage -to any vegetation around or below the flume. 7. Plans shall be submitted to the County of Santa Clara for review and approval to restore any areas where the debris crra;es scars in the hillsides. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me between the hours of 1:00 p.m, and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Very truly yours, L.EE E. BOLJIMAN Planning Director :rb EXHIBIT Page-1 of , cc: See distribution list attached ? - - -- } TOWN of LOS GATOS CIVIC CENTER• 110 EAST MAIN STREET• P.O.BOX 949•LOS GA?OS,CALIFORNIA 95031 =" e• 12 Y 1984 Sa�► 3o�e bFatet* Ct�� -_ ._ '..._. : _ Page 2 t� Distribution: David R. Mora, Town Manager 4x Los Gatos Historic Preservation•Cditi tape: • Nicole Clapp, Chairman, 16950-Tlacer 6aksHAvenu+e, Los Gatos 95030 Bob Conan, 222 Tai t'Avenue, Cds Gags. 95430 John Lien, 190 College Av6nUer-l:o`s�-Gatos 95030 ., Kathy Morgan, 142 Wheeler- Avetiva►:'Loi .Uta,--::95030 Catherine Smi th, 122 Whitneyr Lois 0ato !; 9 ;.:• Ca<sntY of Santa Clara, Historical Heri#aqe Commissionr: t/a Clerk of the Board's Office, 70 W. Hedding Street, East. Wingr. 10th-Floor• San Jose, CA 95110 Art Ogilvie, County of Santa' Clara,, Planning :Department, 70 W. Hedding�t,reet,_East Icing, San Jose, C4 95110 z�-�-" ""� Fc{bes Mill Museum ;a _ Lcs Gatos Museum, 4 Tait Avenue, Lee.Gatos WOO` Atari: Emerson Shaw Les Gatos Heritage Preservation Society, 323 "�PetTri$ylvarjia Avenue, Lets Gatos 95030 Attn: Lois Chapson =` , Les Gatos Parks Commission c/o BOi�Bryant, Directo nance Services r of, Parks, Forestry and Mainte- Les Gatos Planning Commission' Co-.nty of Santa Clara, Sheriff'% Department, 180 U., Heddi.ng Street, San Jose, CA 95120 Attn: Sgt. Bob Pulling ` , , 1. Mi:peninsula Regional Open. Space-District, `375- D1stsl `Circles Suite D-1, Los Altos 94•,'P-2 Attn: Craig Britton Santa Clara Valley Water Distr 57 ict,: 50 `Almaden ,:Expresswayt "Sam;jose, CA 9511E ��1.11�31iC San t �= Water se � Company 374westSar.t3C1waSt.. P.O.Bcx 229 San Jose.CA 95105 40a 2 3-7 November 19, 1984 . ." Mr. Lee Bowman P1_==ing Director Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street. P.Q. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031* Re: Los Gatos Flume Dear Mr. Bo,.=au: Our Co=auy has reviewed the conditions outlined in your letter dated Novae:. 12, 1984. We agree with all. of the conditions but have the follc-ain.g co rents: 1) We plan to reserge a 20 r F. foot sect ion of the Flume near the . Novitiate Park- 2) We will donate two 6 foot sections of the Flume, one to the Forbes Muse= and one to the Los Gatos Museum. Please have both museums contact me directly to make the appropriate arrangements. 3) Please have the Forbes and Los Gatos Museums contact me about the type of artifacts they are interested in acquiring. 4) Please provide us with your specific location for a plaque. We suggest the College Avenue crossing or Novitiate Park.. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Best regards,* RICHARD BALOCCO Manager of Public Relations and Customer Service RB:tr cc: Paul Schreiber George Belhumeur EXHIBIT Page—3L10f R-86-95 (Meeting 86-23 October 8, 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT October 2 , 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: District Positions on November Ballot Measures Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the following resolutions : a. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Supporting Santa Clara County Measure A on the November 1986 Ballot b. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in Opposition to State Proposition 61 on the November 1986 Ballot Discussion: Two measures on the November ballot are of direct concern to the District, namely the Santa Clara County Parks Charter Amendment, Measure A, and the Gann Public Pay Limit on the State ballot, Proposi- tion 61. These measures were discussed by your Legislative Committee consisting of Directors Bishop, Hanko, and Wendin at their October 1 public meeting. The attached materials (available at the District office) describe the measures. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend support of Measure A and opposition to Proposition 61. RESOLUTION NO. gti_,q Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Supporting Santa Clara County Measure A on the November 1986 Ballot WHEREAS, Santa Clara County's present and future park needs have been only partially met by past funding measures , and WHEREAS, the citizens ' past investments in County parks need to be protected and enhanced, and WHEREAS, the County's parks provide diverse outdoor recreational opportunities that enrich the quality of life in Santa Clara Valley, and WHEREAS, the parks program of Santa Clara County and the open space program of the Midpeninsula Regional Space District supplement and complement each other, NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby support Santa Clara County Measure A on the November 1986 ballot and urges voter approval. i RESOLUTION NO. 86-60 Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in Opposition to State Proposition 61 on the November 1986 Ballot WHEREAS, Proposition 61 , if approved by the voters , would have far-reaching deleterious effects on the quality of government in California and on the ability of State and local governments to hire and retain employees of the highest calibre, and WHEREAS, Proposition 61 , by jeopardizing the concept of a public service career in the State , would impact all citizens and the level of government services they have come to expect, and WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is not only interested in employing and retaining employees of high quality, commitment and dedication, but also is dependent on interactions and therefore the quality and commitment of State and other local government employees, and WHEREAS, the inability for employees to accumulate sick leave could encourage abuse of sick leave privileges and make it difficult for employees to protect themselves against extended illness , and WHEREAS, the requirement to place salary measures on the ballot would be unwieldy and inefficient and would be an additional expense to the citizens of California, and WHEREAS, it would be impossible to hire many crucial contractual services under the constraints of Proposition 61 , and WHEREAS, the ambiguous language of Proposition 61 is confusing and passage would undoubtedly lead to years of litigation, NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve to oppose Proposition 61 on the November 1986 ballot and urges voter rejection of the measure. SANTA CLARA COUNTY MEASURE A r FYI ` .�stable, although limited funds, t0; and industrial Santa Clara;possible the measure "principally provide,y Measure D backers noted that lino Mayor Barbara Rogers,Sunn i ,Jeep parks opan to serve county..4 pConstruction of a light-rail line subsidized benefits to the elite 'the 93 new buses will replace older vale Mayor Brian O'Toole and Pa o LO- residents from San Jose to Los Gatos; and members of the Santa Clara Count .buses w, 11 fi County,- Alto Mayor Mike Cobb. t Among Measure A backers area possible extension of the Bay Area Manufacturing Group and other ` ', They argued that the district is The elected officials noted �n t�: Continued from A-1' Santa Clara County Supervisor Su-A, Rapid Transit system system from special.Interests." streamlining bus routes and adding t iJ;sanne Wilson, forager San Jose. Fremont to Sunnyvale or Mountain.. The manufacturing group repre� transfer centers to shorten com their ballot argument that,.itftif a '. ►triIlion was s ent to bu �f ' measure is passed, people appoint- p y park''Mayor Janet Gray '�:ayc-s a:d Lieiemv sents dozens of the county s major, ,muters'travel time. ` p y,.chairman bi iha Lora,' Another ed by supervisors could serve-for - ri ads, $13.5 million to d6relo Courtne goal of the plan is an up- high-technology industries. The Measure B allows supervisors to t iem and the rest to operate and Prieta Chapter of the Sler a Club'., raging of the CalTraiit,commuter group has strongly.backed efforts appoint a supervisor, sheriff,' dis- up to 2%2 years before an election, t iaintain them: Measure A opponents,prmaril' traln service, expansion of com-'to alleviate traffic so industries can. tract attorney or assessor to fill va It is wrong and unfair for` in- `ir;When the fund expires next 'representatives of United Taxpay:� 4nuter bus services, further Bevel- attract more employees to Silicon,, icancies in those positions. ctimbent officials to choose A,qo c une,'offlcials expect it to have ers Inc., counter that too much.of'' -6prheni of commuter lanes .and Valley The appointment would continue will represent a certain district, 4 negated$102 million ✓�'"+t� a .the,property-tak revenue goes to,. „bikeways,and the addition of about The opponents also argued,,that'' I until the next rims or general and then allow that individual �o `'Measure A'is expected to lase par ks 200 bus s:ceiters, transfer centers money is being wasted'on a' light-' election,depending on whic came serve for an extended period 6f additional $24 million for rthe *;The measure;they said,"enables': and park-and-ride lots. rail system and historic trolley cars' f first; time,"they said. j :wnd, even at the lower''reservotlte,county to provide-a di I ropo' The transit program would con- :because only 1 percent of,workers; , . An election cannot be held with- No individual or group has iri fit? te. .tionate shah or the p-epec.y taxes 41nue to be financed with revenue 'in the county actually use public' in 180 days of the occurrence of a ten a ballot argument opposirt�g ;The county proposes to spend 20 `for parks,,thus cutting the fain , from a half-cent sales tax that transit vaeane or In the year preceding Y� Y P g Measure C which would permit ercent of that arnount to.buy more share of cities,schools and spec lal: YeoUnty voters approved In Marche ' ''Your "no' voices objection to? �., y i 1 the year in which the vacant post- the county counsel to hire three.s�2- ' Dark lands and 80 percent to devel-` dlstricts.'-' ;;' ;, 1976..No new tax would be levied, paying �J percent sales tax, subsi- tion's term expires. , pervisory people,to manage W4,01- op; malntaln and operate the 11:% The'ta.xpayers' group al.s upponents of the,measure,in- dizing empty buses and m11118n-dol� ;;. According to, the measure's sup-,,fice,as well as a confidentidl serve- parks. charged.la the ballot argunliettt thatr'R6bert' ode Murphy Sabatino,foreman of;,far trolley cars while the countyi ;porters, taxpayers will save money', tary.; �, According to the ballot argument the parks departiileut w6dld 496- e,198 -85 County grand fury,'and `keeps,,approximately`$200'million, by consolidating elections,for va �r Ifavoring extension of the park the revenue onetrtpt0yee emplre Pecfc,foreman bf the 1985• taxpayers' money in reserve," said, cant positions with regular elec Also on the ballot will be fottr trharter fund, "a yes vote on Mea- building." ' �' t ,�86 county grand Jury. the measure's opponents in their: tions, instead of holding special, measures -- F. G. H and L, ,- ,;` re A will not increase property, Measure,D seeks the advice of ,In'iheir% ballot ar uments, o po-, ballot Ar uments placed by the Santa Clara Valle+ g p g elections. £take§.`` voters on a five-year fan far im• heats questioned the transit dis- ' Measure.D.su Water District y p Q pporters include The special elections`cost tax- In,T,h'e 'argunf eat contends that, proving and expanding the county', trlct's'wisdom in;recentfy buying.Santa Clara County' SupervlsorS4 payers about $110,000 for asuper- The measures would allowstf e r&6aI sure'A"only relates to hove ex transit system. y i' 93 new buses at a time when rider- Rode Diridon and Susanne Wilsod;t visorial race and.$55,000 for skier- Water district to establish,a pro- 4tting tax revenues Are allocated;` The.plan Calls for conipietioa 0 Ship is�decreasing and 11.6 buses the Santa Clara County.Manufac- tff, district.attorney;or:assessor. gram to assess property owners for > :for park purposes." a light-rail system to shuttle paste '' are Idle or,not working, turing Group and Bernadette Ertl; �c� the cost of maintaining ores rp Measure A supp'lifters say the sengers along a 20-ttllle' route;b j neAcco According to Measure D oppo chairwoman of the Guadalupe {e. Among the'measure's opponents within flood-control zones throhgp- darks fund is necessary to provide tween residential south San Josef ts, y o the goals ilsted in g o at group of the Sierra Club ter.¢ re supervisor Tom Legan, Cuper out.the county..: t ,. .,yr::h�R!/•il �,,,t,hg�.4�ff,,,�,6�.�� '�'.1�,''a!'�.:w.•,�r.�}e �,vR�n :�t,nd�,w.O%,,�wec-aep;.��wr..'3n�wu .c�e.� '�,•��►� � r � �•�.d,.�,.�.�y�.,...p.•. .b�.b..I N* o 1� 'C9 V. > O q q V• f , •t yr�yi C_` _ .� � ti F. 'Zr. z Q A u Q 0,0 ,� +� W'li v O ; y""'. `C > C« cb w ,b ', dl q �' d C fp t/1 ys. 0 1�►++ G q :7 L' C+a+ V a 1 >�r w� 'C C� ~ CL O v d• �1 y d tJ t7 .. q O L 7 Gk q C d 1 > O q Odd ld O«+ ivy . .:° >. o �� � c to .t "� w q o ( v, aO o d d o d•o 1; d «.�'� aw p p�,, a; c r: t: - • r. ,^ r" ..) '8 e/1r� Ia c`d d, ,q z. a.� O 0... 3 �. C '' a J p VI q q-. CJ d CLdw m a se:� � q > q a q �i a� � >, co ° o o a '� q:; CO O:A rn �•- � C7d�. " ► off P, oi y. ; t>oc �.� o von' O O^ O cod CO co' .� o: u Buoy m coo > a ^ar~ p y, p ea ; 'be ; �;eoaiprp ..� �„� q y� o a � A qa >~ �--, a co c �vo �i ev d :: o = o c °' °y' lib u o 0 1 ,t; i ;1 •�, S j a+ 7" L7 O• p O O f a ro ¢ R1 +, .� OJ OQ �r' > d o ld 6 a N,a• C� '} d pp y co o o� 4) d d a coo q +�' ,t"'•iJ p O } ro' O , lA, d O' '�d i! O d d y l� d 4. N-th d O ❑ N G ' C al 1.N.r.�, f'. �M�'! ,,V(�..��), ,� �i-- ;;;-.��n.O�. ' BcF= � 1� i°: :v.c - 0.•, �ti °.' >+c • d v+fi a • d 'L �a•, ��a's� z7 0c� �q ❑ V co eu O Q) C o O - C � ; � u o � °'o . q ` q $ q v,a 0.2 a•^ O.Q x odo din 0 o,o w.�r v n° nO� CO4 acaa ° a > �C� � do . q 4 E SUP E R Vjs� sp NN AUG 1 �9aF GEORGE A MANN 4 �tdRA L© OFM07J BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY" OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY GOYE'RNMENT CENTER, EAST 'WING SUSANNE.WILSON 70 WEST HEOOIHG ST./ SAW JOSE,CA 05110 / (408)299-2323 SUPERVt000 FIRST DISTRICT ARGUMENT" IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A The demands placed on our Santa Clara County parr system are overwhelming and continue to increase. Over 8 million people will visit our parks this year. Measure A is necessary to insure minimum funds to: Maintain and operate existing county parks. Rehabilitate and restore park facilities. Improve public access to bicycling, hiking and equestrain trails. Maintain adequate ranger staffing in all county parks for the public. A Yes vote on Measure A will not increase property taxes. Measure A only relates to how existing tax revenues are allocated for park purposes. Measure A is necessary to provide stable, although limited funds, to keep parks open to serve county residents. Measure A is an extension of the mandate expressed by voters in 1972 and again in 1978 that the county must set aside funds to insure that we have an- adequate park program 1-o serve Santa Clara County residents. Measure A is a responsible way to address our needs fc - quality recreational areas and services near our homes. Vote Yes on Measure A. Measure A is supported by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Commission. The undersigned authors of the primary argument in favor of Ballot Measure A at the General Election for County of Santa Clara to h . held on November 4, 1986, hereby states that such argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE Measure A Amendment to Shall Section 604 of the Santa Clara The Charter County Charter be amended to provide for YES of Santa Clara the transfer from the county general fund County to the county park fund of an amount NO estimated to equal an amount which would be raised by a tax of one and one-half cents ($0.015) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation of all real and personal property situated within the County of Santa Clara, that twenty (20) percent of the transferred funds be used for the acquisition of real property, that the remaining funds be used for the development, maintenance, and operation of parks, that all revenues generated by the operation of parks and monies received for park purposes be transferred into the county park fund, that the amendment be effective for the 1987-88 and 1988-89 fiscal years, that the total annual appropriation limit imposed on the county by the California Constitution be increased for the 1987-88 and 1988-89 fiscal years in an amount authorized by the Constitution and in an amount reflecting the monies transferred into the county park fund ' during said fiscal years , and that this section shall not limit the amount of money which may be appropriated by the county for park purposes . Susanne Wilson, Chairperson Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Mary ee, Zairperson Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Commission Ja VJames, r or C' t, Ronaiden /Chief Executive Officer San Jose Chamber of Commerce L Loma ee Courtney, Chapte�V- i rman Prieta Chapter Sierra Club MUMENI MINK _L2.IEt QJQN QE E88K Q888IE3 EUN@@`: ngagUag 8 In 1972 Santa Clara county voters were asked to approve A county-, wide property tax of .$9. 10 per 0100 assessed valuation for acquisition and development of- ��� oP - parks system. This time the county Is back with a countyE�5 property tax of $0.015 per $100 assessed valuation but want to spend BOX of the money for maintenance and operation of this ...--.,._.,r park system. The remaining 20% for park acquisition is subject to determination by the Board of Supervisors, and must be in conformity with the parks recreation element of the general fund. This means that the county could ' spend 1007 of. p this tax on the maintenance and operation of these parks. What is wrong with this proposal is that voters are being asked to- approve a property tax instead of providing money from the general fund. The county argument is that " ,f eVb1 .e funds 0C2 flat rectric ed t__ to this Chart Eund.L the court8 dill 9112MI 12 EMLES these fund8 to 1ae Mt 20 gur 2vergtresser1 1911 1.ypJg 1 - Another quote r22Mh* gave no 12921 OaOdate 2MIS19e Qf QharteC C2Bu1r80entB and tiav_e _very fed funding CeaQgrgug_'- Since the imposition of this parks tax back in 1972, the county has Ibeen able to increase park acreage from 20,000 to 37.,000 acres today. The county states that there are 126 less employees on the parks payroll today than there were in 1972. This statement assures the voters that if this property tax money becomes available, it will be spent on employee "empire building in the county parks department ! ! We, the undersigned directors of UNITED TAXPAYERS urge a "NO" on this property tax proposal . jet the county take the Mnoney out $f ..... ... . . +Ite atntgai fWII01 fQE ttf Maintanangs end gesratign gf The ctaignal 6 Rick syltam lihigh ' E% RaLd fQC tY the Rcentcty Qh-ment Qf thig Q2lntY' 300 d s 44 b erector ted Taxpayers, Inc. ��Diijj t , United Taxpayers, ---s Director, Unit Taxpayers, Inc. The undersigned author (s) of the primary argument against the Proposed Amendment of Section 604 of the Charter of the County of Santa Clara, Measure A at the Santa Clara County Special Charter i Amndment to be held on Tuesday, November P . 1986 hereby states that such argument is true and correct to the hest Wofhs/her knowledge and belief,g Signed a ct� Date - - `�- -��- - - --------- -- ----- ----- ---------- Signed -- ----- • ---- Date _ _ � ----------- 0 f}�iV�2 S. ✓,��/iv Signed-0 - -- fir •. =_-------- Date_ __ _ 'r------------- Signed Date Signed Date Signed Date 6 Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure A AUG 2 1936 The opponents' argument is false and misleading. GEORGEA.MANN �SEWSM40 Of MOTW4 This is not a new tax. This is not an extension of an old tax. Measure A only relates to the portion of existing tax revenues which will be spent on our county parks. A Yes Vote on Measure A will authorize your county government to continue to set aside limited funds from the general fund to insure our parks are adequately maintained. The opponents seriously misunderstand the purpose of Measure A. Measure A absolutely guarantees that 20% of the park fund shall be used for the acquisition of new park land. The remaining 80% of the park fund shall be used for operation, maintenance and development. Our families deserve the opportunity to enjoy county parks in the future. Your vote for Measure A will preserve our county parks for years to come. VOTE YES ON MEASURE A. IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE AND DESERVES YOUR VOTE. The undersigned authors of the rebuttal to the argument against Measure A at the General Election for the County of Santa Clara to be held on November 4, 1986 hereby state that such rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Mary de a erson Santa C r Co y ar a ecreation Commission R 1 Ja ident Chief Executive Officer San Jose Chamber of Commerce Davi W. Mitchell Committee of 100 To Save The Parks Charter Fund I a THE COUNTY PARKS FUND INFORMATION SHEET • HOW IS THE COUNTY PARK SYSTEM FUNDED? In 1972 and again in 1978 voters by nearly a 3 to 1 margin approved an amendment to the County Charter. This amendment, which will sunset in June 1987, did not impose a new tax. It transferred a portion of the County' s property tax revenue into a park fund. The specified amount was $.10/$100 assessed valuation of taxed property in the County. Since Proposition 13 passed, $0. 02 of each property tax $100 is transferred from the existing revenues to the parks fund. • HOW HAVE THE SUPERVISORS SPENT THESE PARK FUNDS? 50% to Acquire 31 regional parks 20% to Develop diverse recreational opportunities 30% to Operate and Maintain parks for the County' s 1. 3 million residents who have visited- our parks up to 9. 2 million times in one year. SAMPLE OF TWO YEARS OF PARK FUND ALLOCATION OF REVENUES FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY PARKS SYSTEM AVAILABLE PARK FUND ALLOCATIONS Operations & Fiscal Acquisition Development Maintenance Year Total 50% 20% 30% 1984-85 $12,114, 604 $6,057,302 $2,422,920 $3, 634, 381 1985-86 $13,504 ,000 $6,752,000 $2,700, 800 $4, 051,200 COSTS FOR PARK OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 1984-85 $4, 408 ,573 (includes park revenues and fees) 1985-86 $4 , 653,869 (includes park revenues and fees) Parks Fact Sheet, page 2 *WHY DO WE NEED MORE FUNDS FOR OUR PARKS SYSTEM? There is nct enough money to complete many of the acquisition and development projects which are identified in the 1984-89 Five Year Capitol Improvement Plan. The passage of Measure A in November, would help to assure more money to ui oat ramps, provide places to fish, hike, picnic and camp. Funds also would be available to repair water systems, restrooms and build access roads and parking lots. In addition we can increase the recreational value of our parks by purchasing essential parcels to connect creekside trails and parklands adjacent to our urban core. Measure A would help to assure a pleasurable experience in a safe and clean area close to our homes. *WHAT PARK PROJECTS WON'T BE COMPLETED WITHOUT MORE MONEY? *North Coyote Creek Trail --Construct and landscape links to Bay trail and Penitencia Creek. *Guadalupe Creek Parkway-- County participation in development of trails. and landscaping. *South Coyote Creek Parkway-- Develop major public use areas. *Los Gatos Creekside -- Construct and landscape missing links through Camp:3ell and San Jose. *Uvas Creekside Parkway -- Acquire creekside parcels and develop trails and public use areas. *Bayfront Trail -- Acquire trail easements and construct missing links,i.e. Mtn. View to Sunny- vale and Coyote Creek to Fremont. *Almaden Quicksilver & Trail connections and parcels of land Calero and Santa Teresa-- to link the parks together. *Opportunity Purchases -- To "round out" County Park boundaries or link County Parks with other near-by publicly owned parks. * WHAT HAS BEEN THE ROLE OF THE PARK FUND IN ASSISTING THE CITIES TO COMPLETE PARKS? The County and the cities are demonstrating that they will share development costs. Cities can assist with the oper,%tion and main- tenance of lands purchased with the County Parks Funds. As an example, Mountain View' s Shoreline Park and Lake Cunning- ham Park were joint ventures with Mounta.;.n View and San Jose respec- tively. I i PROPOSITION 61. J 3 M 186 9 March The Gann Public Pray Limit: ' An Analysis Introduction ' increase from$47,480 to$52.500 per year. Code Sections 11550 through 11569.relating to Government is a laborintensive business •The salaries of members of the State salaries of various state officials. If costs of government are to be controlled Board of Equalization would decrease from Section II adds Section 26 to the Califor- salaries and benefits must be controlled $78.207 to$52.500 per year. nia Constitution.which sets"Public Salary Paul Cann, no stranger to initiative of a The salaries of at least 5.000 state.city. Limitations."It could limit a=*than salary. forts.is currently circulating apetition titled county,city and county,and special district Depending on interpretation. it could also the '-California Fair Pay Amendment."We employees.elected. appointed or employed limit some,and possibly all,fringe benefits. have given this proposal a careful reading, under contract, would decrease from what- It would limit state and local government and are have concerns serious enough to be ever their current salaries are to no more than ability to contract for services. made a matter ofpublic discussion at this ear- 80% of the Governor's salary,or$64.000. New Constitutions! W believe amendment could do 1Ystage e b ve the a en Thereafter.there would be no increase is serious lasting damage to the management Salary Limits jCalifornia state and local government. salaries of constitutional officers.Board of Equalization members.legislators.or judges Section 261s)provides that on the effective Campaign literature used in the signature- without approval by a statewide majority date of the amendment the salary of the gathering effort cites examples of 16 vote. Also, there would be no increase in Governor shall be 580,000-per year.and the outrageously excessive former constitutional salaries of local elected officials without lap- salaries of all other constitutional officers and officer retirement benefits.and as a solution proval by a majority of voters in affected members of the State Board of Equalization wo:"Id roll back the present salaries of all local jurisdictions. shall be set at S52.500 per year,subject to II'k public employees receiving more than 80%of Any increases in state or local elected adjustment as set forth in Section 26(c). a near amount proposed for the Governor, of- ficial salaries would have to be within the Section 261b)states that no elected or ap- This would require a salary cut on Novem- limit of$64.000.The 364,000 limit presum= pointed state or local employee. including ber S,1984 for at least 5,000 management and ably would apply to all income from public contract employees.may receive"compensa- technical staff in state and local government sources(including pensions)received by an tion" in excess of 80% of the Governor's for judges, and some elected officials There- employee who holds more than one paid salary. Under"special circumstances" the after, it could have some impact on salaries public position. Legislature "may appropriate funds for of all public employees Ironically, Gann's The initiative also limits contracts for ser- employee serves"contracted by state agen- initiative would actually increase the already vies that are in excess of 80%of the Gover- excessive retirement benefits paid the 16 vices. In one section of•the initiatives, the nor s salary.provided the contracts do not retired officials and their survivors But that Legislature would be prohibited from enact- exceed four years in length and are approved is only one small problem with theproposat in laws authorizing contracts for"services by a two-thirds legislative vote. of private subcontractors that exceed$75 The"California Fair Pay Amendment"is per hour. and that exceed two years In Comment decidedly not what its title suggests it is un- another section, the Legislature, by two. Is it sound public policy to establish that workable,poorly drafted,counterproductive thirds vote.could appropriate funds for state to good public management,and could poten- employee services contracts in excess of salary°f the Governor as the tog salary tially cost California taxpayers much more $64,000,so long as the contracts do not ex- in the stai, Should all other pubbliclic salaries than it ever might save in cutting and freer rs seed four yea . be in somas direct or induce t relationship to the ing salaries. Governors salary? Unless a constitutional State agencies would be prohibited from salary of the Governor is set initially at a very Description hiring outside counsel without a €ormial high level—one that is unnecessarily high fir declaration of conflict by the agency and the the office in itself— very serious problems If a constitutional initiative sponsored by Attorney General's office. The initiative could occur with respect to many other public Paul Galin qualifies for the November 4.1986 would also prohibit employees from ac- positions in direct and indirect relationship to ballot,and if the voters approve it,the follow- cumulating sick leave and vacation time ac- it.A top salary of 364.000(the 80%of$80.000 ing would happen on Wednesday.November cruals from one calendar year to the next. limit applicable to most state and local 5: employees,in Section 261b))would immediate- 0 The Governor's salary would increase Section by ly put California out of market competition for from S49.100 to S80.000 per year. Section Analysis top medical and legal professionals, for tox- ics experts,for a variety of other top technical • The salaries of state constitutional officers Repeal of Specified skills.and for the major public managers and would increase from$42.500(except the At- �+ administrators for which California is in na- torney General) to$52.500 per year. State Sat.'l"ii-g3 tional competition. • The salary of the Aiiomey General would Section 1 repeals California Government California is a worldt•lasi state.If Cahfor- aX lNaA6 4 nia were an independent nation.it would have compensation limits for all other state and under which contract work may be per. the eighth largest economy in the world.One local public employees,and sets these limits formed.and on whether the limit applies to of the factors that fosters and sustains at 800,'o of the Governors salary.In ordinary individual or group contracts.this could be California s economic,scientific and cultural usage,the two words can have distinctly dif- an area for substantial litigation. position in the nation and the world is its ferent meanings."Salary"usually refers to system of higher education.Three of the top the paycheck dollars received by the incum- Public employee unions are typically the five graduate schools in the United States are bent of a position."Compensation"is usually strangest opponents of contracting out public in California. Two of those three graduate a more inclusive term.embracing a position's services.It is therefore ironic to find such a schools are public U.C. Berkeley and salary.employer contributions to retirement. contracting out lurutatmn in a measure osten. U.C.L.A.The salary of the current President health and disability benefits, sick leave. sibly intended to cut public costs.Under this of the University of California is more than vacations.holidays and any other employee amendment,if the state found it could save 580.000 proposed for the Governor in the benefits.If the intent is to limit compenawr• money by contracting for certain state ser. Gann initiative. tion.then the limit on salaries is less than vices, rather than stand the higher cost of Is it sound public L to ex 80% of the Governor's salary. The salary permanent civil service employees, a two. P policy P�Califor- limit for each public employee could depend thirds vote of the Legislature would be re• nia to run a world-class university with a on the amount of compensation that is qui red if the cost of the contract exceeds the President who earns less than many college represented by their non-salary fringe constitutional limit. This provides a very football coaches. Proponents of the Gann benefnta. useful tool to those who oppose contracting initiative might counter with the response out in general.or may happen to oppose a that the state is now being run with a S49.000 If.on the other hand.the drafters intend specific contract proposaL Governor. While that is true,there has not that"compensation"and"salary"are the been a dearth of candidates for a 349,000 same thing, then all off-salary employer ' In extending its 564.000 salary}imitation governorship. California does not recruit to contract employees,would the initiative nationally for its governors.It does for its abrogate existing contracts?It does not ap- to va lidate contracts t'1S 1 S U existing at the t't o rill public P� uric university presidents.and thousands of other p polity of adoption of the amendment.This could lead public managers and technicians. to expect California to run to immediate litigation and possibly to dis- lead Also. Section 26(a and b) would create a world-class university ruptionof some important twntractsenices. havoc with respect to maintaining rational with a President who earns ' Presumably,the Legislature could act on salary relationships among the hundreds of less than (flany co9@ lle s job classes in existing state and local civil ser- " pecial circumstance'contracts as a first vice and merit systems. The immediate football coaches? order of business in January 1987. rollback of top salaries would produce a ' clustering of top management and technical Statewide votes on benefits are outside the limits of this amen d-salaries around the $64.000 level, merit—except for"sick leave"and"vacation Salary Increases regardless of relative skills and respon- time"carry-overs.limited under Section 26(e}. " sibilities.Salary compaction problems would Section 26(c)provides that n sal o in- extend far below the $64,000 level as This exclusion from the limit could became a cry crease for an constitutional officer,member massive loophole. ole generating Y P g 8 Legitimate pressures for salary increases grow of the State Board of Equalization.member over time. pressure for substantially increased fringe of the Legislature.Supreme Can.rt Justice. benefits.Public sector fringe benefit costs now generally constitute from 40iD.fr to 60% of Appellate Court Judge;or judge of a court Q Limit on "Salary" payroll.Some of these benefits.lice retirement. . of record"shall become operative"unless ap- or "Compensation?" represent huge cost obligations for future prover]by a majority of voters at a statewide generations of taxpayers. general election. Is this proposed amendment a"salary" Comment limit. or a "compensation" limit? Is it a ; salary limit as far as constitutional officers State Contract The voters at any time could adjust the and Board of Equalisation members are con- Service !.i mils Governor's salary by passing another arnend- caned and a compensation limit with respell ment.regardless of the intent of this amend- to all other state and local public employees? Under what"special dMumstaaces" Pu Y m Meanwhile. Pb sP� � eat.Mean hale.for future ears ' ell . y •specified No definitions are "appropriate rovided within the the Le Legislature funds for P 8nfats s officers and are locked in a judges t amendment. employee services that are contracted"that designated constitutional salary levels until Section 26(a) sets salary limits for the exceed 80% of the Governor's salary?The there is a statewide vote on the matter. Governor.constitutional officers and Board amendment does not specify,nor does it of- Unless the Governor's salary limit is of Equalization members.Section 26(b)sets fer,any gmdehnes as to Such Circumstances. simultaneously lifted,any increases must be Met is the actual limit on state contract within the$64.000 required by the Constitu- services proposed by Section 26(b)?Employee Ilan If the Governor's salary cannot be in- services contracts with state agencies era creased during a current term of office,then Cal-Tax Research limited to 80% of the Governor a salary. any increase above$64,OOo for a position or group of positions in a salary relationship to unless the Legislature by two-thirds vote per► Ca!Tar is a nonpartisan. nonprofit corporation mils that limit tobe exceeded.Such contracts the Governor must await expiration of the founded in 1926 to advance economy and efficiency Current Governors term of office in government through research, advocacy and are limited to four years. When must the public communications Col•Tax is supported by Legislature act?When the cost of services It should be noted that while the proposed membership contributions from business and in- from a group of employees under a single cony amendment mandates specific increases fr v dividual taxpayers, 921 lith Surer. Suite e0q tract exceeds 564,000,or when an individual current salary levels for the Governor and Sacramento. California 9mm 19m 441-049a employee contract exceeds an annual cost of constitutional officers and would require Cr.S. Reenders ............. .. ....President S64,000?The distinction is important.and decreases in salaries of hundreds of other of- Richard P.Simpson . Executive vice President the amendment is unclear. Because of the frcials to new maximums of 552.500 tin the Larry McCarthy .. ... Research Director lack of claritycircumstances on the-special " case of the Board of Equalization)or S64,000. vr3_ 6 applies to subcontractors,rather than prime extensive consequences.It will have a direct • Years of service,to a maximum of eight contractors.which could open new areas of impact on at least 5.000 elected and ap. years.are credited at 5% per year. litigation as to what and who is"sub"and pointed California public employees,and it • This amount(maximum 40``vl times the "prime."Viewed in this context,it could be will have indirect impact on thousands more. said that,at most.this provision does not ex- Are all of these employees examples of ex- current salary of the incumbent constitu- tional officer.(maximum 60%with 24 ears) o Y 'n v and the ability for cost-effective contracts cessive units pay? en the'proponents Heats P Y 8 P P Y P Po out and it could cut back on local government say that. *To this is added rnst-of-living(COLA)iw flexibility to choose the most cost-effective In the literature used in their campaign creases back to 1954.In 1985 this so-called way to provide services. to promote petition signatures, the pro- super-escalator provision increased the basic If. on the other hand. Section 26(h) is ponents cite obviously outrageous pension retirement benefit by 286.5%. found by the courts to be a legally effective consequences which exclusively relate to a The individual most identified with the limit on state and local contracting.it could group of 16 former constitutional officers and windfall retirement benefits is Bert Betts. pose serious problems for the conduct of their survivors.In the literature,they speak who served as state treasurer from 1959 to necessary contract work.For one thing,the of future pension payments to certain°t these 1967.His identification with this issue stems. contract limit in Section 26(h)does not ap- individuals that will amount to as much as from his successful law suit,initiated in 1974. pear to be limited just to salary of the private $150.000 to 3180,000. Such public pension to force the state to base his benefit on the contractor.It speaks of limiting"the contras- payments are.indeed,an outrage.and are in incumbent's salary. tual amount of compensation'of private sub- the process of being curbed, by another contractors to 375 as hour.This court apply Betts' highest salary as treasurer was S2L499. Winning the lawsuit meant his to compensation for the rental of equipment used in heavy construction of major public Does a levee district tell benefit would be based on the incumbent's projects or in emergencies.S75 an hour does flood victims it cannot salary which in 1985 was S42.500.The for- not rent much heavy equipment in today's. contract with heavy ! mils is: market. Does a levee district tell flood vic- ' base pension: equipment o operators to Liras it cannot contract with heavy equipment P I 8 X 5% _ 40%X$42.500 517,000 operators to close a levee break that is close a levee break that is super-escalator adjustment: flooding them out of their homes because the flooding them out of their $17.000 X 286.5% = S48.705 cost is over375 an hour?Does the State Divi° homes b¢cause the cost is tO�b sion of Forestry refuse to call for a borate i $17.000 + $48.705 s $65.705 drop in a forest fire because the airplane costs over $75 an hour?? ii 1 This is the maximum retirement benefit more than$75 an hour? Betts qualified for in 1985.The actual retire- Assuming that the$75 applies only to per constitutional amendment under considera- went payment was less because of optional sonal services,what does $75 an hour pur- tion for the November 1986 election. It is survivor benefits the former treasurer had chase in the way of some of the more perhaps the supreme irony of this total salary selected. specialized medical skills such as heart limitation effort that the Gann proposal surgeons and neurologists who are routine- would actually increase these constitutional Legislator's Retirement ly needed to operate on accident victims who officer pensions, beyond what would be The 1964 law that set u the su rescala. may be a public charge?Does the emergen- received under another proposal to be laid P for COLA provision.originally applied to cy room at the public hospital,to which most before the voters next November.To desce rib accident victims come, simply tell the vie- how this would happen requires a brief legislators as well as constitutional officers. times family that the price of treating the pa- historical excursion. In 1967, with respect to legislators. the tient exceeds a constitutional contract price COLA adjustment back to 1954 was reveal- limit? Windfall Benefits— 1983 ed-However.lawmW4i-"who served between 1964 and 1967 are eligit-l*for the special in- t The failure of the drafters to specify clear In 1963,over objections of the chief ex fiation adjustment,whirl)results in a 24.9%. ly whether the 26(h)contract limit applies to ecutive officer of the Public Employees increase in retirement benefits. salary or total compensation of private con- Retirement System. Governor Edmund G. tractors could be a serious flaw.The failure (Pat)Brown signed legislation that provide.. Retirement Amendments of drafters to make provision for contract certain California constitutional officers— i In 1974 the formula for determining payment of emergency services is an over now including Pat Brown — retirement retirement benefits for constitutional officers sight that could lead to multiple tragic con- benefits that far exceed salaries the officials was changed.All new constitutional officers sequences, depending on interpretation of received. elected after March 1972 have retirement this section. E benefts based on their own salaries,and cost- The bill,consisting of seven paragraphs. The Section 26(h) prohibition against w,=t through the Legislative without hear. of-living adjustments based on the CPI. hiring of outside counsel-by state agencies ings in the waning days•of the 1963 session. ? Constitutional officers elected before 1971 unless there is a formal declaration of conflict It provided a new cost-of-living adjustment continue to be eligible for cost-of-living ad- by the agency and the Attorney General dating back to 1954.without replacing the justments back to 1954 and receive benefits would not normally be considered a matter Ming inflation mechanism,which had been serious enough for constitutional treatment. tied to an incu zbent's pay raise. calculated on the incumbent's salary. 3 We have been advised that it relates, in According to the Public Employees' to experiences fproponents in court Retirement System PERS which adminis- part. pe o Retirement Y ( 1. initiative retirement 2 former con—propositions. Officer f"ormula stitutional vf,>rers and four survivoz% z f 7 As a result of the two-pronged formula, former constit: A officers receive rev:: What is the Problem. benefits for the affected group of state con- men( benefits :+1u a the same way as The Gann salary limit initiative is clearly stitutional officers are calcul.«led in the Betts'benefits. a major public policy proposal with serious. following way: Former Governor Jerry Brown.who was 5 the salaries of all other state positions and could not be added to or used in conjunction whole or in part from public funds,in excess judges Iisted in Section 26(c) are frozen at with the next calendar year's accumulated of 80% of the Governor's salary. their current level until there is a statewide credit.This has been verified in a call to the Comment vote.These positions primarily include state proponents. Iegislators and some judges. It is difficult to discover the intent of this The effect of this provision appears to be provision unless.in some obscure way.it is Local Votes on that on January I of each calendar year,each meant to eliminate pension double-dipping. California public employee regardless of years On its face.it could not apply to very many Salary Increases of service will have zero sick leave and vaca- individuals. How many people have more Section 26(d)requires that no increase in tion credit.The time to have an extended ill- than one paid public position? Clearly, it the salary of "an elected officer of a city. ness.sustain serious injury.or seek elective would not apply to an individual in only osa county.city and county.or special district surgery would appear to be December.and public position who happened to also receiver which establishes the salary payable to its not January. orie or more pensions from other public members"shall be effective unless approval Vacations.in private and public sectors. systems which brought him or her a"total of the increase has been secured by majority are taken at management's convenience.or aggregate compensation" (?) in excess of vote of the voters of the jurisdiction. are at least related in some way to the re- $64.000.Should the drafters have used the Comment quirements of the job setting. For a great past rather than present term in referring to variety of reasons.it is not always possible the public employee tie.. "any public This requirement for local popular majori- for employees to use all of their vacation employee_.who has served in more that one ty votes on salary increases of local elected paid public position..."►? officials is the counterpart of the statewide vote requirement on salaries of state officials. The effect of this Section Mg)allows the electorate of any Any such increases,however,would have to provision appears to be local government to override the limitation be within the$64.000 limitation. - in Section 261f).It also prohibits the enact- that on January 1 of each ment of any law restricting use of the in. Rollback of Salaries calendar year, each itiativeto change future accruals ofemployee California public employee benefits of,elected or appointed officials. Section 26(e) effectively states that on November 5.1986,the annual salary for all regardless of years of Comment elected and appointed state and local public services will have zero sick An override of the limit in Section 261g} employee in California shall be no more than 1@air@ and vacation Credit. as it relates to those scant-few individuals to 80%of the annual salary paid to the Gover• which it would ever apply under 26(f)simply nor as of that date.Thus,all salaries that ex- produces more constitutional clutter. The ceed $64.000 on November 5. 1986. would credit.Staff may be short,seasonal demands provisions with respect to use of the initiative have to be reduced to that level. may be present, emerge"ies or heavy to adjust future accruals of employee benefits workload may prevent the use of all of an are the gam of an important concept. It is Prohibition of Vacation employees vacation credit. Is it fair to unfortunate that it is contained in this other- a n d Sick Leave withdraw vacation from employees who have wise seriously flawed proposal. been prevented from taking a vacation due , Accumulation to requirements of the jab? Added Contract Limits Section 264e1 states: No elected or ap. Sick leave accumulations from year to pointed official or any employee subject to year have allowed as insurance against Section 26la s authorizing the! Legislature the provisions of this section shall be permit- long-terse illness 4tufred by long-time from exacting Iowa authorizing y public of - the to accumulate sick leave or vacation time employees.The employees who abuse the sick fcial to engage the services of private . from one calendar year to another. leave privilege never have sick leave to ae- ` contractors wherein the contractual amount cumulate from year to year. It is the exceeds$75 an hour or where the contract oz- Comment employ with large sick leave actumula- coeds exceed two years.In no event could the cw Perhaps the first key question is: re tract $64.000 Pm'yam.What tions who rarely abuse It and. it they a is the disposition of all accumulations of vaca- lucky.leave public employment with large ao• Section 2661 also proh0its state tion and sick leave for California public cumulations on the records.It is precisely from hiring outside counsel without a employees as of the end of calendar year these employees whom this initiative would declaration of conflict by the agency and C 1986? Are they completely eliminated? If punish.Ironically.it would have no impact Attorney Ctneral's Office. salaries that exceed$64,000 are roiled back upon excessive absenteeism and those who Comment on November 5, why wouldn't all existing abuse the privilege and never have any sick vacation and sick leave credit be removed leave in reserve. Review of these additional contract limit -from the books on December 31?If so,liters)- In another irony.limitation of sick leave with the proponents does not disclose " ly hundreds of law suits will be filed con- intent.They appear to conflict with the e ' testing validity of cutting of sick leave and to the way proposed is this ease initiative could limits is Section 26(b)which limit contrse,. vacation rights. also lead to pressures increase annual sick to four years.While Section 264h1 limits, leave 8llowances, making still more leave be designed to apply to all governmec�t i. "...From one calendar year to another,"' available to those who abuse It- ice worded in apply a��y as not we gather.means just that:i.e.. from 19$6 specific limit. Legislature is sire^ � ;�o- be 19c and from to 1988.What would A Dropped Double-Dip? hiSited from enacting a law that °nits be to accuu mulated froomm January to December in one year could not be carried over to the Section 26(f)states any public employee p.:vate subcontracting above$75 ax,:=ruur or for two years. next calendar year.As we read the provision. on the state or lrw-,l level who serves in more any sick leave or vacation time credited to than one paid p. ,is position in this state Read one way.Section 26(h)as it applies an employee on December 31 would be ex- may not receive a total aggregate compensa• to contracts does not appear to repeal any ex- punged from the employee's records and tion.including pension payments derived in isting laws or charter authority.Further,it T elected Secretary of State in 1970.is eligible Gann•s Fair 4) The initiative destroys rational salary for benefits based on the same formula,and setting due to the arbitrary limits it projections of his pension at age Pay Amendment i establishes and the compaction problems it high as S300.000. The Gann initiative would impact on creates with respect to salary structures. AB 2187 retirement benefits for Betts and the other 5) The management of California's public 15 former constitutional officers and sur business could suffer serious, perhaps ir- Legislation approved in 1983 1AB 2187 vivors because it sets pay for constitutional reparable damage as a result of the im- Papan)increased salaries of 300 elected and positions at$51,500. mediate"brain drain" the initiative would appointed state officials,including constitu- cause. tional officers.For the lacer,it was the first if enacted,the Gann initiative would ia- such increase is years. crease Betts'benefits in 1987,not nearly so 6) Existing contracts with public employees and private contractors may be in- The bill provided the following increases Gann could have validated by the initiative. for constitutional officers.beginning with the 7) Over time.the limits proposed is the new tam of office is January 1987: achieved the result he initiative will not work,they will be difficult suggests he is seeking in to change.and will have to await state and Salary his campaign literature local elections.A$64.000 limit today sotmds simply by unlinking generous.If the next 10 years sees inflation 1985 1987 like the last 10 years.364.000 will be worth constitutional officer $30.000 in 1995.To lift the$64,000limit will Governor $49,100 $85,000 pensions from incumbent' require v nt Governor's eq Attorney General 47,500 77,500 P salarY• salaries, How many times are the voters likely to in- Controller 42,500 72,500 crease the Governor's salary over the next Treasurer 42,500 72.500 decade? Board of Equalization 73,780 81,000 much as scheduled in AB 2187 but more than Is sib under 8) The initiative could increase. rather Board of Equalization members; annual possible n er SCA 32 The formula: 4u recMve cal oast- than reduce government costs. of-living adjustments. Salary for all other constitu- tional officer positions may be changed only with the a It would increase costs b seve rely _ Y beginning of a new temr. 8 X S96 4096 X$52.500 $21.000 limitingthe abilityto contract out state es supercalator adjustment: — 521,000 X 296.5°kt = $62,265 government services by requiring two-thirds The 16 recipients of special Betts benefits votes on service contracts that exceed are slated for big jumps in their retirement total: = specified limits.Higher-cost,permanent civil checks because their benefits will be $21.000 + $62,265 = $83,265 servants would have to be used rather than recalculated.based on the new salary for in- lower-cost contract services: cumbents.Betts'benefit will increase by 75% Reca as a result of AB 218Z The formula p Potential b) It would lead toa breakup oftechnical, base pension: 1987 Constitutional management. and supervisory jobs into smaller-paying jobs in order to evade the now 8 X 5% = 40% X$72.500 a $29,000 Officer Pensions limits. This would simply mean mom t super-escalator adjustment: a y to e"with salaries below the limit,4 and fi' $29,000 X 296.5%1 a $85.985 Example: Betts in benefits outside the limits; total: AB 2187 $114.985 $29.000 + $85.985 = $114.9952 Gann 83.E e) It would require frequent state and SCA 32 SCA7s.405 local elections to consult voters on overrides of the limit; Citing outrage at such potential windfall Gann could have achieved the result he d) By reducing the quality of pub- retirement benefits.Senator wadie neddeh suggests he Is seeking in his campaign He management it would reduce the quality introduced SCA 32 to preclude Betts-class literature simply by unlinking constitutional of public management functions. Cali- recipients from benefitting from salary in- officer pensions from incumbent salaries.The forma would get. literally. what it pays creases authorised by AB 2187. critical flaw in his initiative is that he failed for. to do this. 9) The initiative is poorly drafted.It is The constitutional amendment unties the p°O Y link between constitutional officer retirement unclear. contradictory, and occasionally benefits and salary increases foriacumbents. Problems with_the Gann, .obscure in its intent.The potential.for litigar.. If adopted by the Legislature.it will appear Fair Pay Amendment: Lion. aarticularty with respect to existing and on the ballot next November. future contracts,is considerable. 1) The concept of establishing the Gover- 10) The limits on contract services could If approved by voters. SCA 32 would nor s salary as a single salary standard and mean a S39,000 cut in benefits Betts would top public salary in the state is inappropriate lead tragic consequences due the failure otherwise receive.The formula: and unworkable. of proponents to consider their impact on emergency services. base pension: 2) The arbitrary limits set by the in- Ill The initiative represents overkill 8 X 5% = 40% X $42.500 = $17.000 itiative are in conflict with the marketplace p super-escalator adjustment: in which California must compete for in terms of the problem it purports to re- S 17.000 X 296.5%8 = $50.405 technical and managerial skills, solve.Outrageous pensions for 16 retired con- total: stitutional officers and their survivors can $17.000 + S50,405 = S76,4051 3) The initiative severely damages and will be controlled without the massive. California's competitive position in retaining counter-productive and ill-advised con- 1. assumes 5`:1 per annum inflation and attracting top talent to public service stitutional changes that the proponents 2. unrnudified by survivor options positions. present. Ca i 37X N-,,vs � e Gann Fair Pay Amendment, Initiative Constitutional and Statutory Amendment SECTION f:Sections 11550 through 1I569 of the California Govern- of that jurisdiction.All other sections of the California Elec- ment Code are hereby repealed. tions Code or a local jurisdiction's Charter shall govern the SECTION II:Section 26 is hereby added to Article XX of the Califon- process for such initiatives. nia Constitution: (h) After the date this section becomes effective,the Legislature Section 26. Public Salary Limitations. shall enact no laws authorizing any public official covered by this section to engage the services of private subcontract fa) On the effective data of this Section, the salary of the tors wherein the contractual amount of compensation exceeds Governor shall be set at 380.000.00 per year and the salary seventy-five dollars per hour and no contract may exceed of all other Constitutional officers and members of the Board two years in duration,and in no event may the total compen. of Equalization shall be set at 352.000.00 per year subject to sation for an individual exceed the amount set forth in subsea adjustment as set forth in subsection(c)of this Section 26. tion(b)of this Section 26. Furthermore,no state official or agency shall employ.hire,contract with,pay or otherwise com- (b) Notwithstanding Article III.Section 4 or any other section I pensate any attorney or legal firm to act on behalf of the state of this Constitution,but subject to subsection(g)of this Sea or any agency thereof is a plaintiff or defendant unless staff tion.no state,city,county,city and county or special district employee,elected or appointed,which shall include individuals i counsel for the rmall is question and the California Attorney working under contract,may receive compensation in excess General have formally noted a conflict in representing the of eighty percent of the Governor's salary.Under special cir- cumstances the Legislature may appropriate funds for (i) If any provision of this section or the application thereof employee services contracted for by agencies in state govern- to any person or circumstances is held invalid.such invalidity meat in excess of eighty percent of the Governor's salary if shall not affect the other provisions of this section which the contract or contracts in question do not exceed four years I can be given effect without the invalid provision or its is length and are approved,by both houses by a two-thirds• ! application and to this end the provisions of this section are roll call vote.Insofar as this section may conflict with a city,. ! severablc county.or city and county's power to set salaries pursuant to Article XI,Sections 3 through 5.this section shall take SECTION III.Article II1.Section 4(b)of the Constitution is hereby precedence,. repealed (c) No increase in the salary of any constitutional officer,member SECTION IV.Article V.Section 12 of the Constitution is amended of the Board of Equalization, member of the Legislature, to read as follows: supreme or appellate court justice or judge of a court of record shall become operative unless such increase has been approved ARTICLE V. Section 12 Compensation of the Governor. by a majority of the voters of the state voting in a statewide Lieutenant Governor.Attorney General.Controller.Secretary general election. ! of State.Superintendent of Public Instruction,and Treasurer shall be prescribed by Article XX,Section 26(a)and modified (d) Notwithstanding any city,county,or city and county charter I by the voters of the State of California pursuant to Article adopted pursuant to Article XI.Section 3 of this Constitution. XX, Section 26(c)of this Constitution. no increase in the salary of an elected officer of a city.county. city and county or special district which establishes the salary SECTION V.Article VI.Section 5 of the Constitution is amended payable to its members shall become effective unless such in. to read as follows: crease has been approved by a majority of the voters of the I ARTICLE VI,Section 5(a)Each county shall be divided into city.county,city and i county,or special district voting on the I municipal court and justice court districts as provided by question at as election. statute.but a city may not be divided into more than one (e) On the effective date of this section,the annual salary for those c district.Each municipal and justice court shall have one or employees and officials referenced is subsections(b)and(c) more judges. above. except the Governor. Constitutional officers and I members of the Board of Equalization.shall not exceed eighty Thee shalt id a ismunicipalacourt is each district of move percent of the annual salary paid to the Governor as of that than 0 rest residents and a justice number of is each district e date.No elected or appointed official.or any employee subject 40,000 residents or Less.The number of residents shall be to the provisions of this section shall be permitted to ado- i ascertained as provided by statute. cumulate sick leave or vacation time from one calendar year ; The Legislature shall provide for the organization and CO as°then• prescn'bed the jurisdiction of municipal and justice courts. (f) Any public employee on the state or local level who serve r It shall prescribe for each municipal court and provide for each in more than one paid public position in this state may not justice court the number,qualifications,and compensation. receive a total aggregate compensation, including pension subject to Article XX.Section 2614,of judges.officers.and payments derived in whole or in part from public funds,in employees. excess of eighty percent of the Governor's salary. (b)Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision la).any city (g) The electorate of any city,county,city and county or special in San Diego County may be divided into more than one district may,by initiative.adjust the salary of any elected municipal court or justice court district if the Legislature or appointed official in that jurisdiction in excess of the limits- determines that unusual geographic conditions warrant such lion set forth in subsection(f)of this Section 26.Notwithstan_d- division. ing.Article II, Section 11 or Article XI. Section 3, rw SECTION VI:Article VI,Section 19 of the Constitution is amended legislative body shall enact laws which restrict the electorate's to read as follows: right to use the initiative process to increase or decrease the compensation or the conditions of any future accruals of ARTICLE VI. Section 19. The Legislature shall prescribe employee benefits of their elected or appointed officials.Any compensation for judges of courts of record,subject to Article laws existing on the effective date of this measure which pur- XX.Section 26(c)of the Constitution. A judge of a court of port to limit the electorate's right to do so are wall and void. record may not receive the salary for the judicial office held Notwithstanding any other provision of law,tiv�signatures by the judge while any cause before the judge remains pending of not less than 10 percent of the voters of any jurisdiction and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for shall qualify the initiative for the next general election ballot decision. ArFNDA S-2 September 10, 1986 may.. A 10 a.m. SEP 1 5 1996 C O U N T Y A D M I N I S T R A T O R y 1221 OAK STREET SUITE 555 • OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94612 (4151 874-6252 STEVEN C. SZALAY MEt riNG -� COuti^•+..••ti5'+ATOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR '. September 8, 1986 Honorable Board of Supervisors County Administration Building Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Board Members: SUBJECT: Report on the Gann Initiative This is to provide your Board with a report on the potential impact of the Gann Fair Pay Initiative. The Initiative will appear on the ballot at the General Election of November 4, 1986 as Proposition 61 . In preparing this report it was assumed that if the Initiative is approved by the voters and is not invalidated by the courts, it will be effective November 5, 1986. Alameda County would be required to comply and implement its provisions immediately. What Gann expects to accomplish with this initiative is unclear. He sets arbitrary limits on salaries and benefits earned by elected officials and public employees. In doing so, he ignores legal relationships -- express or implied -- and excludes a class of employees from the free enterprise system on which compensation is traditionally determined. Apparently, Gann also wanted to curb large pension payments to those who have served in more than one paid public position. He cites "obviously outrageous pensions" which relate to 16 former State constitutional officers under a unique pension system linking their benefits to incumbents' salaries. Instead, his initiative actually provides those people with a pension increase. Gann could have achieved his desired results by simply unlinking those pensions from incumbent salaries. The critical flaw of his initiative is that this is not done. Further, our analysis concludes Proposition 61 will result in a net increase in the cost of government and jeopardize our ability to provide programs and services. As Governor Deukmejian stated in voicing his opposition "[It] could make California a second-rate state." Hon. Board of Supervisors -2- September 8, 1986 As indicated in the report, it is estimated that this Initiative could cost Alameda County between $50 and $57 million in the first year, primarily due to the potential buy-out of sick leave and vacation. The State Legislative Analyst has estimated that the total statewide cost associated with the passage of Proposition 61 could be as much as $7.0 billion. The Initiative may also have additional long range effects which are extremely difficult to quantify. Salary compaction could adversely affect the motivation of all employees. For persons with talent, marketable job skills, motivation and ambition this initiative may only reduce the attractiveness of public employment. Recruitment and retention of attorneys for our District Attorney and Public Defender offices, skilled data processing and computer personnel, doctors, nurses, and technicians for the hospitals and clinics, and law enforcement personnel for the Sheriff's Department are but a few exam.ples of the areas that could be affected. My office is currently working with Agency and Department Heads on possible contingency plans should Proposition 61 receive a majority vote on November 4, 1986. The key problem in developing such plans is that the Initiative is so vague and arbiguous that no one, with any degree of certainty, can say exactly what its means. No final decisions can be made on any alternatives until legal, policy, contractual and other practical aspects have been explored. While your Board and I have an obligation to comply with the law, we also have an obligation to protect the integrity of our County and our employees. We must try to meet both. obligations. Your. Board has already adopted a position opposing Proposition 61 by unanimous vote on August 14, 1986. Therefore, this report contains no recommendations nor am I requesting that your Board take any action on this issue today. Very truly yours, MEL RING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Attachment MH:DG:ng/13261 cc: All Agency and Department Heads Charles H. Cruttenden, Sacramento Legislative Advocate County Supervisors Association of California Each City Manager COUNTY ADM I N ISTRATOR i + '.z,,`►•' r• 1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 555 • OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94612 • 14151 874.6252 STEVEN C SZALAY MEL HING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THE GANN FAIR PAY INITIATIVE PROPOSITION 61 ALAMEDA COUNTY IMPACT REPORT SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 INTRODUCTION This is a report on the potential impact of the Gann Fair Pay Initiative. The Initiative will appear on the ballot at the General Election of November 4, 1986 as Proposition 61. The report was prepared at the request of the Chairman of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. The Board, at its meeting of August 14, 1986, voted unanimously to adopt an oppose position. The Initiative is complex, far-reaching, and, in important ways, vague and ambiguous. For purposes of this report, it was assumed that if the Initiative is approved by the voters at the upcoming General Election and if the Initiative is not invalidated by the courts, it will be effective November 5, 1986. Accordingly, Alameda County would be required to immediately comply with and implement the provision of Proposition 61 , BACKGROUND Currently, the state and local governments have discretion in setting the salaries and fringe benefits of elected officials and public employees; voter approval is not required. For public employees, state and local governments are able to pay the amounts necessary to attract and retain qualified persons. With regard to fringe benefits, virtually all public employees earn vacation and sick leave, and governments allow most of them to carry over at least some portion of unused leave from year to year. Further, state and local governments have the flexibility to contract with individuals and organizations for the provision of various services. While State statutes and local jurisdictional policies may place some restrictions on the kinds of services governments may provide through contracts, generally there are no specific limitations on either the amount or length of contracts. OVERVIEW The Initiative appears to have two primary objectives. First, it seeks to limit or cap the amount of money State and Local governments pay to their elected officials as well as all other employees and contractors. Second, it seeks to eliminate the phenomenon of large pension payments to persons who have served in more than one paid public position. -1- The Initiative revises the State Constitution and overrides or nullifies many existing provisions of the State Constitution, state statutes, county charters, city charters, local ordinances and memorandums of understanding. It also places restrictions on contracting that affect both state and local governments. The Governor's salary becomes a constitutional ceiling for computing the compensation for both state and local elected officials and employees and all private individuals and companies under contract to state and local governments. The Initiative adds a new provision requiring that salaries can only be increased in the future with voters' approval ; however, the new salaries still could not exceed 80% of the Governor's salary. LEGAL, FISCAL AND FUTURE YEAR IMPACTS LEGAL Legal opinion suggest that the Initiative may be defective on several grounds. It appears the courts could strike down the Initiative in whole or in part because it conflicts with several constitutionally established rights and powers such as due process of law, equal protection of the laws, the obligation of contracts and local home rule. The Constitutional revision proposed in the Initiative is pervasive, rigid, and clear in some elements and vague and ambiguous in other important areas. The Initiative clearly would: Set the Governor's salary at $80,000 per year and the salaries of other State Constitutional Officers and members of the Board of Equalization at $52,500 per year on the effective date of this Initiative. Limit the compensation of all other state, city, county or special district employee, elected or appointed, including those under contract to 80% of the Governor's salary ($64,000 per year). Private contracts are further limited to not more than $75 per hour nor more than two years in duration. The compensation limit is compounded by an existing section of the State Constitution which prohibits increasing or decreasing the Governor's compensation during a term of office (a four-year freeze). Prohibit the accumulation of sick leave or vacation time from one calendar year to the next by any public official or employee. Seriously erode home rule. -2- Not directly limit or restrict public pension benefits except for the unusual circumstance of an individual simultaneously holding two or more paid public positions and receiving a public pension (in which case aggregate compensation is limited to 80% of the Governor's salary) . Except in this unusual case, the Initiative's impact on pensions is only indirect because salary restrictions may translate to pension restrictions -- e.g. judicial pensions are based on current judges' salaries and most pensions are based on employees' pre-retirement salaries. Deprive the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of state government and the governing boards and executives of all local governments of discretion regarding the terms of compensation, sick leave, vacation time and contracting normally considered necessary to manage an organization and motivate its employees. Discriminatorily impact long term employees who are most apt to be at the salary levels and sick leave and vacation time accumulation levels which the Initiative adversely affects. There are other major areas of the Initiative that are vague and ambiguous. Major areas of ambiguity are: What is the actual effective date of this Initiative and what will the effect be on salaries? The Initiative does not specify an exact effective date. Legal opinion would indicate that the provisions would most likely be applicable as of November 5, 1986. This means that as of that date employee compensation is limited to no more than 80% of the Governor's annual salary. How will this be interpreted in terms of actual application? Unlike the sick leave and vacation provision which is specifically set to a calender year, the time frames for salary are not defined. Is it 12 months beginning November 5th or beginning January 1 , 1987? If one assumes January and the Initiative is in force November 5th, what happens to that official who has already received more pay than the limit allows as of November 5th? Could he or she receive no compensation then for two months? What effect will the Initiative have on jurisdictions who calculate compensation based on a bi-weekly system rather than annual? Generally, in interpretating such initiatives the courts have taken notice of the potential negative or harmful consequences that may flow from implementation and sought to minimize the effects through prospective rather than retrospective application. There is no reason to believe that this line of reasoning will be abandoned in favor of a more punitive approach in this case. Is the limitation on public official, employee, and contractor "compensation" to 80% of the Governor's salary meant to limit total compensation or actual salary to $64,006 per year? If the choice of the word "compensation" is afforded its most common meaning, the inclusion of non-salary benefits such as insurance and employer pension contributions could lower the maximum permissible annual salaries to as low as $49,000. -3- -- Whether the contract provisions contained in the Initiative, if approved, would be in conflict with and/or supersede the Contract Clause contained in the United States Constitution. -- If upheld, what is the extent and application of the hourly and annual compensation limits on private contractors doing business with state and local government? At the one extreme, it seems clear that a professional individual directly contracting with government to provide medical, architectural, legal, data processing or other services could not be paid more than $75 per hour or a total of $64,000 per year. At the other, it is conceivable although unlikely that the Initiative could prohibit government from contracting with a large corporation, such as IBM, merely because it had individual employees (assigned to the public contract) earning more than $64,000 per year. There remain numerous vague areas between the two- extremes. For example, would the Initiative forbid the County to contract with Kaiser Permanente to provide employee health care because Kaiser pays physicians and other health professionals (who may, all or part of their time, serve the County contract) in excess of $64,000 per year? -- What is the ability of local governing bodies to propose to their voters salary increases for other than elected officials? The electorate's ability to make such adjustments, even by initiative, although extensively discussed in this Initiative is so ambiguously and poorly drafted as to be vague and potentially ineffective. FISCAL By limiting compensation levels, the Gann Initiative may create a level of cost savings" which would be more than offset b cost increases in r g y ses other areas in the County's budget and by service reductions to the public, as shown on the following chart: FISCAL YEAR IMPACT COST FACTORS TIMM= D CR ASES (MILLIONS) - Compensation Rollbacks $(-0-) to $(6.6) - Outside Contracting $ unknown $ unknown - Sick Time Buy Back $ 39.6 - Vacation Time Buy Back $ 17.1 Subtotal : $ 56.7 $(-0-) to $(6.6) NET COUNTY COST INCREASE $ 50.1 to $ 56.7 -4- To finance this net cost increase, the County may have to consider reducing other expenditures equivalent to this amount, totally depleting all contingency and reserve funds, alternative revenue sources, or more probably a combination of the three. Because of federal and state mandates that the County must meet for health, welfare and justice programs and the threat of fiscal sanctions should it fail to do so, a major portion of these reductions would have to be borne by General Fund agencies and departments. In comparison to the County's budget as a whole, this could mean a disproportionate reduction for sheriff, fire, district attorney prosecution, indigent defense as well as recreational and cultural services. Compensation Rollback At present, there are a total of 9,668 Alameda County employees. This includes 1,837 in management classifications and 7,831 in non-management positions. Using an actual salary level of $49,000 per year, the Gann Initiative could impact 6% of all employees and 30% of management employees; if the $64,000 limit is applied, 2% of all employees and 10% of management would be impacted. The "savings," if any, from such a compensation rollback depend upon how the courts will interpret the $64,000 compensation limit: -- The commonly accepted definition of "compensation" is the sum of salary and employee benefits such as employer contributions for retirement and insurance. This interpretation of compensation would mean an actual base salary limit of approximately $49,000 per year and would result in a $6.63 million salary rollback during fiscal year 1986-87 for approximately 544 county employees. This would include approximately 103 attorneys in the Public Defenders Office, 138 attorneys in the District Attorney's Office, 10 Sheriff's Captains and Division Chiefs, 32 Municipal Court Judges, 47 physicians and nurses as well as most administrative Agency and Department Head. -_ If the courts limit the meaning of "compensation" to include only salary, then the Initiative has a salary limit of $64,000, which includes base salary, paid overtime, etc. This interpretation of compensation produces a $1 .3 million salary rollback for approximately 189 employees, including 29 doctors, 61 attorneys, and 33 Municipal Tourt judges. In legal memoranda filed by Paul Gann in response to the ballot argument lawsuit brought by the No on 61 Campaign, he stated that it was his belief and intent in drafting the Iniiiative that compensation meant only salary. Such a formal declaration, while not legally binding, may serve as a benchmark upon which future courts may rely in seeking to interpret the language of the Initiative. -- The courts could find that the wording of the compensation provision is so ambiguous and vague as to allow local governments some degree of flexibility to "restructure" the current system of payment to its high level management personnel . Given such a ruling, the impact upon local governments could be no net thane in the amount of funds paid to employees or, in other—Words, a -0- savings. Sick and Vacation Time Buy Back Most public employers permit the accumulation of sick time as a short-term disability pay system and the accumulation of vacation time to provide more flexible scheduling of employee work schedules. The Initiative prohibits public employees from carrying over unused vacation and sick leave from one calendar year to another. It is unclear, how'ever, whether this restriction would apply only to leave earned in the future or whether it also would apply to leave earned prior to this election. Given that the law generally has been interpreted to protect an employee's right to already earned or "vested" benefits, the courts probably would construe this restriction prospectively as applying only to future vacation and sick leave. Based upon such an interpretation, the courts would then most likely decide that an employee's already earned but unused time must be compensated in some manner. The County's liability for accrued vacation and sick leave is approximately $506.7 million as of June 30, 1986) . In other words, under the current employee benefit system, the County could have to pay every employee for their accumulated sick leave and vacation time. This breaks down to $17.1 million for vacation time and $39.6 million for sick leave. Alameda County currently utilizes the accrual method for employee sick leave and vacation time. Presently, an individual can only be paid for one day of sick leave in January, but could receive payment for 13 days the following December. With respect to vacation, the only time an employee could take a full vacation period would be in December since he/she would only have earned a portion of the vacation time in the preceeding months. It is possible that some type of alternative with respect to both sick leave and vacation may be more appropriate under the Initiative. Additionally, in order to conform to the compensation ceilings and the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the County may have to consider development of alternative staffing patterns and work schedules that will be less productive and more costly than those now in effect. This will create a double "Catch-22" because many local governments, such as Alameda County, have insufficient tax revenues to finance these cost increases because of Proposition 13 (the 1978 property tax limitation initiative). Many of the jurisdictions which do have tax raising authority and are close to their constitutional spending limit (Proposition 4 in 1979) could not comply with the Initiative's increased cost requirements without reducing other expenditures in their budgets. Service Contracts There are many services purchased by the County from private contra tars that cannot feasibly be performed by county employees. Many of these contracts could be prohibited by the Initiative. Under the provisions, public agencies are prohibited from paying individuals under contract more than 80% of the Governor's annual salary, $64,000. In addition, compensation is limited to no more than $75 per hour and cannot exceed two years in length. -6- This office is working with each County department and agency to identify the specific service impact if various contracts have to be reduced or terminated. A preliminary review of contracts which exceed the $64,000 annual limit show that there are a total of 66 that exceed the limit by $5.05 million. The Initiative states that "no contract may exceed two years in duration." . This will result in unknown long term cost increases for the County as many of the current contracts are for longer than two years and at a fixed rate. The forced renegotiation of contract terms would probably result in higher charges for services as vendors seek to recover their costs and may ultimately result in government losing any competitive edge that it may now have in the market place. It is difficult to estimate what the anticipated cost impact will be in this service contract area. The legal, economic and personal factors which must be considered cannot reasonably be predicted at this time. Some examples of contracts which potentially could be affected include: After major storm, the County contracts with operators of major volume loaders and cranes to clean out debris basins and other flood control facilities before the next storm hits. These contracts exceed $75 per hour. The physician and other medical personnel contracts that presently allow Highland and Fairmont Hospitals and community clinics to provide a wide range of surgical , obstetrical and speciality services to the community. Major data processing system developments as well as many equipment and maintenance agreements utilized by the General Services Agency. Major outside audits of county finances which are required by federal law (and the demands of the financial markets) as well as the use of bond counsels as with the Santa Rita Jail financing issue. Specialized private defense counsel for major lawsuits against the County as well as the use of expert witnesses in prosecution cases. Specialized architectural and design consultants as are being used for the Santa Rita Jail construction project. Maintenance, emergency/disaster repairs and hazardous substance ctean-up of streets and roads. Provision of food services to individuals being held in the County's jail facilities. -7- FUTURE YEAR IMPACT Relationship of Classification and Salary The basis upon which most, if not all, public and private organizations establish a personnel classification system are the recognition that as an individual 's duties and responsibilities increase so too should the level of compensation; and, that the existence of a career ladder serves to motivate, attract and retain employees. Regardless of the ultimate decision with respect to a definition of compensation, it appears likely that the mandate of any such arbitrary salary limitation may seriously erode the current personnel classification/responsibility relationships. This concept has long been recognized in Alameda County and is reflected by the various job classifications and salary ranges contained in the current salary ordinance. While placing a maximum limit on compensation, the Initiative is silent with respect to the treatment of salaries below the limit. To minimize the impact, local officials may be forced to re-evaluate their current classification and pay structures including the issues of merit and cost-of-living adjustments. Assuming the issue of a cost-of-living adjustment is raised as part of any collective bargaining process, any increase approved under the Initiative's limit would have the effect of reducing the salary differential among classifications within a maximum cap. This differential reduction is commonly referred to as "salary compaction." For an employee currently earning $2,500 gross per month, it would only take approximately 12 years (assuming a 5% annual COLA) for that employee to reach the $49,000 per year maximum salary cap earned by the Department Head. It would appear that lacking a dramatic change in the political and economic climates which exist in Alameda County and elsewhere, salary compaction among classifications is quite likely to occur. It is difficult to quantify the potential long term impact of such compaction, particularity in such areas as recruitment and retention of employees. Cost Increases for New Staffing Requirements There is a strong possibility that the Initiative could change the County's staffing requirements and thus increase the County's cost for maintaining public services -- if not next year then in the near future as salary increases are given to lower level employees. The reason for this is twofold: The County makes extensive use of paid overtime to maintain required staffing levels for law enforcement, fire, nursing and other public protection/regulatory services in lieu of hiring more employees to fill in for vacation and absences due to illness and to provide additional personnel during emergency situations. -8- , This paid overtime could put these employees over their Gann compensation limit and thus force the County to hire more employees to maintain services. This will happen immediately if "compensation" is taken to include employee benefits; this will happen in the near future if "compensation" is taken to include only "salary." In practice, the County would probably have to overhire (more than what is required to replace normal absences) for critical positions to ensure that sufficient personnel are available during emergencies. This increased cost requirement could jeopardize the County's fiscal position relative to the Prop. 4 spending limit. The prospect of a major earthquake in this area creates the same problem for many County departments such as Sheriff, Fire, Public Works, Health Services, Mental Health and Social Services. If the earthquake occurs at the end of the year, these departments must be able to use paid overtime to permit as many employees as necessary to respond to the natural disaster. If the earthquake occurs at the start of the year, these same departments may have employees who later in the year will exceed their compensation limits because of overtime paid earlier in the year. -- As previously discussed, the Initiative could substantially reduce the options available in both the collective bargaining process and the setting of managerial compensation. One significant remaining option would be the length of time worked for the allowable compensation: The County could end up having to permit doctors, lawyers and other highly skilled employees to work only part-time for their Gann-limited salaries with the understanding that outside employment will have to make up the difference for what their skills are worth in the open market. As salary compaction increases over time, more and more employees may seek to negotiate for a reduced work schedule. To the extent work schedules may be reduced, the County may have to hire more employees in order to maintain existing service levels. These additional employees would represent a net cost increase. Productivity Losses The Initiative could hamper the County's productivity programs in two ways: -- Salary compaction problems and the $64,000 compensation limit would adversely affect the motivation of all employees and make the implementation of pay-for-performance plans very difficult; and -- The prohibition against carrying over sick leave could foster a "use it or lose it" attitude among employees, resulting in an increase in absenteeism rates and a reduction in productivity. -9- The Initiative will affect the retirement benefits for these 16 individuals because it sets a for constitutional positions at 52 50 pay P $ 0 per year. This is a $10,000 increase from the current level and acts to actually increase their eligible benefits. -- Gann could have achieved the results he suggests by simply unlinking constitutional officer pensions from incumbent salaries. The critical flaw in the Initiative is that this is not done. CONCLUSION Proposition 61 is complex, far-reaching, and, in critical ways, vague and ambiguous. The language in the Initiative appears to go far beyond the objectives being put forth by the proponents while at the same time failing to be a remedy for any specific problem. Whatever the purpose of the Initiative is, it can be concluded that the Gann Initiative will, in all probability, lead to an increase in the cost of government, a reduction in services to the public, and a restriction on the ability of state and local governments to attract and retain the high quality of employees needed to provide governmental services and programs. The entire range of taxpayer-funded programs from fire and police protection; health, welfare and social services; streets and highway maintenance; universities, schools and libraries to cultural and recreational services may be adversely affected. All of these services are vital to Alameda County and California's economy and contribute to the quality of life enjoyed here. DG:ng/1327I 09/04/86 -11- Currently, Alameda County employees average annual usage rate for sick leave is 7 days. Under the present accural system, each employee earns sick leave at a rate of 1/2 day per pay period; with 26 pay periods per year this results in a total accured sick leave of 13 days per year. Should the Initiative foster a "use it or lose it" attitude among employees the result could be a doubling of the usage rate and a significant ,increase in annual County costs. It is very difficult to quantify the potential cost impact of the Initiative due to Productivity Losses. However, it can reasonably be concluded that there would be a long term cost increase to the County and that the dollar amounts would be substantial. Retirement and Pension Benefits The Initiative places no direct limit on either current or future retirement a except for the e unusual case of public employee P Y� P c who i Ps receiving a pension from public funds and who also hold two r m P s o o are public 'abs. In p � Alameda County, the Initiative indirectly limits future retirement benefits because its compensation limit, in effect, freezes the maximum salary amount upon which retirement benefits could be computed. Currently, Alameda County employees may use any consecutive twelve (12) month period for computing retirement compensation. However, many other pension plans use an employee's salary level during specified periods (last 12 months, average of last 36 month) to compute retirement pay. The Initiative would reduce retirement benefits for those employees who are now above the Initiative's compensation limit and who are planning to retire in the very near future. This reduction would apply to most if not all employees who will retire after 1987 and the amount of this reduction will significantly increase over time. In the literature used in the campaign to promote petition signatures, the proponents cited "obviously outrageous pension" consequences which exclusively relate to a group of 16 former constitutional officers and their survivors. The proponents speak of future pension payments to certain of these individuals that will amount to as much as $150,000 to $180,000. Such public pension payments may, indeed, be an outrage to some. However, they are in the process of being curbed by another constitutional amendment under consideration at the November 1986 General Election, Proposition 57-Limitations on Retirement Benefits for Nonjudicial and Nonlegislative Elected State Constitutional Officers. In 1963, Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown signed legislation that provided that certain California constitutional officers would receive benefits that far exceeded salaries the officials received. The bill provided a new cost-of-living adjustment dating back to 1954, without replacing the existing inflation mechanism which has-been tied to an incumbent's pay rai-se. It is referred to as a "super-escalator clause." In 1974, the formula for determining retirement benefits for constitutional officers was changed. All new officers elected after March 1972 have retirement benefits based on their own salaries and cost-of-living adjustments based on the CPI. Those officials elected before 1971 continue to be eligible for adjustments back to 1954 and receive benefits based on the incumbent's salary. -10- Gan: Fa!r Pay Amendments initiative Constitutional and Statutory Amendment h 115BQ of the California Lima of that jurisdiction.AD other soctlons of the California Else- SECTION I:Sections 2255C SEC Lima Code of s local jurisdiction's Charterer shall govern the t Cods are hereby rep*al+d. Process for such initiatives. SECTION I I:Sse!on 26 is hereby added to Article XX of the Califar nia Constitution: (W Ater the data this authorizing bring* e public official' covered shall coact ao taws auk theservices of private subcontrac ' r ,•--Lisnitations. by this section W engage (a) amount of compenastioll azeNds On the effective-ire of this Section. the salary of the tore exceed the contractual no non Govsrnor•zhall be set at S D00.00 par year mad the saleryr in duration.and in no event may the total cannpew' j of all other Constitutional officers and=A=bers of the Board two years a:Equalization shall be set at g52,000.00 par yeas subject to ratio►for an individual exceed the amount set forth is subast� no state official Or adjustment as set forth in subsection kl of this Section 26. tipb o employ �,him emad with.pay orftoOM& (b► Notwithstanding Article III.Section.4 or any other section pensae any attorney or legal firm to act an behalf of the state ration but sub' to subsection(g)of this Sec- or any agency thereof is a p of thin Co nst► >� taiatilf or defendant unless MAN Lion.no sun.dry.county.City and county or special for agency district the in quartian and the California A ttor'Mr employee elated or spl owtsd,which shall include individuals General have formally noted a conflict in relwesentiag the working under contraM may receive compensation in exceas may. t of the Governor's salary.Under special cir provision of this section or the application thereof of eighty percent *te funds for (i) if any pro cumatancss the Legislature may appropn mom or circumstances is held invalid.such invalidity employee services contracted for by ageaciss is state gav*rn• to any per meat in axes of eighty percent of the Governors salary if shall not affect a other provisions of this section which without contract or coatrwu in question do not ascend four years Can be gives effect without the invalid provision or eta en •;•?%,ved by both houses by a two-thirds application and to this and the provisions of this*action are -„-- - _ '- rou call vow Insofar as this section may conflict with a City, eevrabLr county,or city and couaty'a Power to WK salaries Pursuant tali SECTION III.Article III,Section 4(b)of the Constitution is hereby to Article XL.Sections 3 through 5 this section sh rope. No is the salary of nayoffices,00astitutional offices,member SECTION N.Article V.Section 12 of the Qxutitutim is amended (d r_. zliz tion. member of the Legislature. to read as follows: v. W4 ✓vw.w .... raw ',.. Of record ARTICLE V. Section 12 Compansstiaa of the Governor. supreme or appellate court justice or judge of&court shall become cgkaati"ualers such unease has bran approved Lieutenant Governor.Attorney GeoaraL Controller.Secretary by a majority of the voters of the state v in a statswids of State.Superintendent of Public Instruction.and Treasurer guness;sl+ctao. shall be prewribd by Article XX.Soction 26(s)and mOdifisd ti ,,,. dt cocnah•a City mad county charter by the voters of the State of Ceti fernia pwsuwa to Article (dF ti�Cwit_ t,,d:�nay y� XX.Section 20c)of this Constimaon adopted pursuant to Article XI.Section 3 of this Constitution. m0 unease in the salary of an elected 0f5esr of a city,county, SECTION V. Article VI,Section 5 of the Constitution is amended City and county or FpWal distrct which establishes the salary to read as follows payable to its members shall become elfsctiv*uabae such ia- creasehas been approved by a majority of the voters of the ARTICLE VI,Section 5(a) shall Each county be divided into city.county.city and county.or special district voting on the municipal court and justice court districts as provided by statute.but a city may not be divided into more than one question at as election- is) On the effective data of this section.the annual salary for thew dam Each municipal and justice court char?have one or more judges. employees and officials referenced is subsections and The shall be a municipal court in each district of more above. ezcept the Governor. Constitutional officers madd re 000 residents and a justice court in each district of members of u a Board of Equ m io the Governor ar of thacoed on.shall net" yi ��40.40.000 residents or less. The number of residenta *hall be , percent of the annual salary paid dace.No elected or appointed Official.or any employee subject ascertained as provided by statute. to the provisions of this section shall be permitted to no- lature shall vide for the organization and cumulate sick Lave or vacation time from one calendar year pr T�^�a jurisdiction of municipal and justice courts. .,, ..,., U— for each It shall proscribe,for each municipal court and provide (f) Any public arzployse on the state or local level who sovee justice court the number.qualifications.and compensation. in more th►u ours paid public position in this state may not sub„'met to Artiste XX. Section 20cA of judges.ohs,and receive a total aggregate Compensation. including pension emp;,oy ". payments derived in whole or in part from public tuade.in sites of eighty percent of the Governor's salary. (b)Notwithstanding a ions of subdivision(a) MAY City in San Diego Cou',V any be divided lotto more as-one . 16) The electorate of any city,county.city and county or spacial municipal court or justice court district if the Let,= -twe district may.by initiative,adjust the salary of any elected determines that unusual geographic conditions wanrwLa ouch or ap.-x inted effici&I in that jurisdiction in exc*%a of the limit&- division. tion eet fortis in subsection(f)of this Section 2 Otwkthxtmd• lag Article 11, Section.11 or Article XI. Section 3. no SECTION VI:Article VI,Section 1D of the constitution is am,, '�rrtl Leg aLtive body"enact,laws which restrict the alectorae's to read as follow= right to use the initiative process to increase or decrease the Legislature shall prr� coo itioms of any future socsusle of ARTICLE VI. Section 19.The of lot otcaurts of record.subject t ���W...►'r..,t ct+.ir eibd4d or appointed officials.A"V tacn judges_on the sagaive date of this tow=v try, X n 86(d of the Corratitu A judge of poet to tLe ZZdarate's rigs to do so err reap ri °'^ t r adw floe salary # Judicial' .t� rem& Notwirhs:arzizz Zy otter�of law.!kern b f F w j� r y ar:>a t�lsas b aubr c:tot bass t�.=10 pe.-tont-of the rots_s of any j and r 40 days *hall quaitttf tJ*lnhittia� %W tie noxt panarat elan °• ,lral4ot doeidas. stp I� PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND FAIR PAY What is Fair Pay? An initiative being circulated by Paul Gann requires us to addre ss ss this question. This initiative would, by constitutional amendment, set the Governor ' s salary at $80, 000 per year, set other state-wide officials ' salaries at $52 . 500 per year, and limit all city and county officials and judges' salaries to 64 ,$ 0 per year. 00 t Y Increases in any of these salaries would have to be approved by a majority of the affected voters. This initiative has misleadingly been labeled the "California Fair Pay Ame ndment. "t. " Gann s initiative has three major flaws. First it wo uld d unf airly air 1 y slash public officials sala ries, s, alread i Y below market, to even lower levels; second, would 5 � erlOpeteUSl impede our government ' s ability to attract and retain c Y public officials; and, third, it would create an unwieldy, nt costly and inflexible proced ure f e P or adjusting salaries. public employees Is a cap of $52, 500 on state officials ' salaries, and $64 , 000 on local offi cials ' salaries unfair? Such a capwould arbit rarily it and substa ntially antially reduce the salaries of thousands of state and local officials. The vast majority of these individuals are career public employees who se public Y serve the P in virtual obsc urity.. Man of Y y them have planned on re ceiving vin their heir current salaries and wi ll suddenly find themselves unable to meet fixed obligations, such as mortgage payments and education costs. Their plight would draw little sympathy if public officials were, in fact, earning excessive salaries. It is widely recognized, however, that most public officials are already paid less than they could earn in positions of comparable responsibility lit Y in the priv ate sector. Particularly hard hit by the Gann Initiative will be the justice system employees ployees - police, other public safety personnel, prosecutors, judges, and others, whose salaries will be reduced to $64 ,000 per year. The effect of such a wholesale slashing of salaries will be to lose many of the best such people to the private sector and crush the morale of the rest. The Gann initiative will also limit the pay of all city and county officials to $64 , 000 per affect city and county managers, P Year. This will g fire chiefs, police chiefs, city and count city attorneys, other local officials. Y Y p and Physicians, and many In Los Angeles County alone, at least 1, 488 positions c co uld be affected . 3 in the Sheriff ' s Department, 13 in the office of the Fire Chief and 722 doctors, physicians and medical administrators. Of 397 positions affect ed in h Los Angeles, at least 87 are sworn personnel in the ipolice department. They range from Chief of Police through Captain . 1/23/86 i Many hundreds of state employees would also be affected. These include officials.. of the state universities and colleges, members of the Goveirnorls staff, state civil service employees, and employees of the Judicial Council. Most, if not all, of these individuals could earn more in the private sector. They have chosen, however, to serve the public. Arbitrarily slashing their salaries can hardly be justified on the basis of "fair pay. " (A compil- ation of positions affected by the initiative is attached. Public service will become the domain of only the very rich and/or the very mediocre. In addition to its unfairness, the Gann initiative will make it difficult to attract and retain competent public officials. These of have already sacrificed to serve the public. Cutting their pay will make it financially impossible for many of them to forego lucrative private sector opportunities. While it is true that there will always be someone willing to fill these positions, it is equally true that it is —already difficult to at the truly talented, highly motivated, individuals the government desperately needs to fill the most responsible Positions. Furthermore, the freeze at the top will only serve to exacerbate the "compaction" problem of setting salaries for subordinates. A final problem with the Gann initiative is that it creates an impractical, unworkable, and expensive procedure for adjusting salaries. Any time a pay raise is warranted, voter approval will be required. This almost assures that pay raises will be unfairly infrequent, and will inevitably lag well behind inflation. In addition, requiring voter approval will result in pay raise proposals that affect a vast n�ii,�ber of public officials . State and local governments will no longer be able to adjust the salaries of individual positions to reflect alterations in the rapidly changing labor market. Finally, it is simply inefficient and unrealistic to require each voter to invest the time and energy periodically required to review and set salaries for hundreds of public positions. It is difficult to understand the Gann initiative. Any revenue savings from its passage will be minimal. Its harmful effect on public officials, however, will be severe. It is a foolish measure and should not be supported. 2 f PUBLIC OFFICES AFFECTED BY GANN INITIATIVE POSITION NUMBER OF POSITIONS ASSESSOR COUNTIES: Alameda , Los Angeles Orange, San Francisco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 AUDITOR COUNTIES: Alameda, Los Angeles San Diego, San Francisco, SantaClara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CITIES: Inglewood, Long Beach, SanJose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 BUREAU OF SANITATION DIRECTOR CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I� BUREAU OF STREET LIGHTING DIRECTOR CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 BUREAU OF STREET MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR j CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTIES: Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara Solano r , Sonoma, Stanislaus, Ventura. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ` POSITION NUMBER OF POSITIONS CITY ATTORNEY & COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTIES: Alameda, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Ventura. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CITES: Anaheim, Beverly Hills, Clovis, Concord, Culver City, Daly City, El Monte, Fremont,- Fresno, Garden Grove, Gardena, Glendale, Inglewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Rialto, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Leandro, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . . CITY MANAGER & COUNTY MANAGER COUNTIES: Contra Costa, Kern, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San �Mateo, Sonoma, Ventura. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CITIES: Bell Newport Beach Berkeley Oakland Beverly Hills Ontario Brea Orange Burbank Oxnard Camarillo Palm Springs Cerritos Palo Alto Chico Placentia Compton Pomona Concord Redondo Beach Costa Mesa Redwood City Culver City Richmond Daly City Riverside Downey Sacramento Escondido Salinas Fairfield San Diego Fremont San Jose Fresno San Juan Fullerton Capistrano Garden Grove San Leandro Gardena San Mateo Glendale Santa Ana Hawthorne Santa Clara Hayward Santa Maria Hemet Santa Monica 2 I f POSITION NUMBER OF POSITIONS CITIES CONT. Huntington Beach Santa Rosa Inglewood So. San Francisco Irvine South Gate Lompoc Stockton Long Beach Sunnyvale Los Angeles Thousand Oaks Merced Torrance Milpitas Vallejo Modesto - Ventura Montebello Vernon Monterey Park Walnut Creek Montain View Whittier Newark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 CLERK COUNTY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CITIES: Los Angeles, San Francisco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 COH UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COUNTIES : Anaheim, Inglewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Jose, Santa Ana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 DEPARTMENT GENERAL MANAGER CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTIES: Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco San n Joa quin, in San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, Ventura. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 POSITION NUMBER OF POSITIONS ENGINEER CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIRE CHIEF r COUNTY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 1 CITIES: Anaheim, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Torrance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g FIRE DEPARTMENT CH I E F ENGINEER, _ CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1 HEALTH OFFICER COUNTIES: Alameda, Contra Costa, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Lassen, Monterey, Napa, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 HEALTH-SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR COUNTIES: Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Ventura. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ INSPECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 JUDGES AND JUSTICES COUNTIES : All Municipal, Superior and some Justice Court judges; all Appellate Court and Supreme Courtjustices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1292 CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CITY: Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 i , pO�S-_ XM4BER OF POSITIONS PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNTIES: Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Ventura. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COUNTIES: Alameda-, Contra Costa, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, *Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Ventura. . . . . . , , , , 12 CITIES: Beverly Hills, Concord El Segundo, Hayward, Huntington Beach, Inglewood, Redwood City, Riverside, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana, Santa Clara; Santa Monica, Sunnyvale. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 PURC??.ASING DIRECTOR COUNTY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 R=G=STRcR OF VOTERS COUNTY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SHE?I F COUNTIES : Alameda, Contra Costa Kern, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, Santa Clara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SOCIiL SERVICES/WELFARE DIRECTOR j COUNTIES: Contra Cosa, Los Angeles Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, SantaClara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TR=:SZ:RE� COUNTIES : Los Angeles, Orange, SanFrancisco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 POSITION NUMBER OF x POSITIONS LIBRARIAN CITY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR II COUNTIES: Alameda, Kern, Lassen, Los Angeles, Ventura. . . . . . . . 5 PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR COUNTY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNTY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 POLICE CHIEF COUNTIES: Alameda, Contra Costa Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento. . 6, CITIES: Anaheim, Beverly Hills, Hayward, Huntington Beach, Inglewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redwood City, Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santa Monica, Torrance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER COUNTIES: Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY: Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 t w t' POSITION NUMBER OF POSITIONS STATE EMPLOYEES California state university and college employees and officials. . . . . . . . . . . 260 . . . . . . . . . . . . . State civil service employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,279 Other state employees (excluding judges) . . . . . . . 322 LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT r Chancellor, general counsel, vice-chancellors, presidents, and senior directors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3, 500 i f 7 e °s14 �; "� ♦ I X Y 'N�l'1�y�,•n....'.�„��..n:•v1�g�YRlft°'•, .^.'.'.." .+.."s.�' `� � �I� '%1►I+i� �"'"�('=-`MM+ i ��.:r,�,y�.�.. `.+w+r�.i+1' _riw7` .,� ��-� ��. :-.'. •w...�4.. I '. f c '1�i.1�� .� .Pµ•. ! .�� '., ���.rr.. �:fr +""� �� y� FadJ,�.'`� � / 1 ���'�+�6 e � .�.FiL � � }+w'l:.f"3,ar"`ww.� �� !-'""' f�" \i```` ` �. ��//�'�r .�A'•`� '/� WMI ,SX'„+�' q iY:, mow+ s� �-,�... >w ``,i�p � •+•--�•� � � s+ imiff" �. -/ ���I�� � �_� mar � �•�.t,. • � '~tom/'♦ 5 ��.� _ ly I sa r. r ' ,g$�ayg — alarie s� pensions are . . out of control By Paul Gann r 1 PROPOSITION 61 the .. R California Fair Pay t>>�,) i Amendment will simply give taxpayers control of the cost of high-paid "public servants" who are driv- in this count broke. :: e iz�t, , �• g country �Just look at the pension scandal uncovered by the ' - Sacramento Union.Next year,former Gov.Pat Brovin 41 t is expected to collect an annual pension of$157,693=- `(. - that's more than double what Gov. Deukmejian now makes. Incredibly, it gets worse. One former attorney gen- eral will get$101,723 a year,a former state treasurer will get $125,502 and one former Board of Equaliza- .-. tion member will get $187,839! Proposition 61 will put a stop to this madness. It will roll back the pay increase the politicians i gave themselves recently. This will stop the big pen- Times Tribune Illustration by Richard Sigbermon sion increases since the pensions are based in part on present salary.More importantly,Proposition 61 man- ` r ' dates that any pay increases for elected officials will ;E'i CON: state wou l,dpay�dearly, in dollars and in talent have to be approved by the voters. But the high cost of elected officials is only part of - , the problem. > y Bill Honig r ,, IN GATHERING SIGNATURES to place Propost- This"use it or lose it" provision would lead to con- 6'. Lion 61 on the ballot, Paul Gann called It a pension siderable employee absenteeism; even the most con- CALIFORNIA VOTERS face a major challenge In ; duction measure.It is nothing of the sort. scientious employee will use-his sick leave If it cannot LESSER KNOWN — and better paid — appointed ,.reA handful of former state officials are eligible for be carried over. It will be Impossible for managers to state and local officials are also wasting 8orting through the claims and counterclaims about g our tax 61- Initiatives on the ballot. Since an initiative is es- ;exorbitant pensions because of a formula basing their schedule vacations in accordance with their work .lars. In the Los Angeles Unified School district,for Antially cast in concrete once It is passed,it should be.;.`,pensions on present-day salaries, they now receive loads. What employee would put a vacation off if it Instance, the top dozen "administrators" engulf,$1 Clear and straightforward in Its purpose and effects,�:much more than they ever did in salary. would simply be lost at year's end? million of state tax money a year. They'even have w#th few hidden costs and potentially complex probe. chauffeur-driven limousines. leans =a'' The obvious way to solve the pension problem is to I'm very old-fashioned about schools. I happen"to Cut the link bet pension benefits and current sal- PROPOSITION 61 would have a profoundly nega- . Proposition 61 —the unfair pay limitation measure between p think our tax dollars should be used to educate our aries. Proposition 57.on the November ballot does tive effect on our schools -- an effect that our chil- on the November ballot -- fails that test miserably, It r children. ` is:'su supposed to save this, it will put an end to outrageous pensions — but dren.would ultimately bear. pp taxpayers money.--, but It does Proposition 61 will give the taxpayers the ability to Taut Gann opposes it. " ' � It would encourage teachers to use up sick leave riot.It will cost tax money,The independent nonparti- :: stop this waste. It limits all appointed state and local t'ian legislative analyst says that Proposition 61,could Proposition 61 places arbitrary and unrealistic they would otherwise save. If all teachers took only employees to $64,000 a year—80 percent of the gov- e four extra sick days per year, the cost of substitutes Ctj:It taxpayers$7 billion. limits on the salary and compensation of every public . would amount to $45 million annually. Substitute' ernor s pay. (Civil servants are not covered since they : purports to deal with public pensions ... . but It ,.' P J ee. It mould cut the salary and compensation teachers cannot provide the same level of Instruction •� does not.The large pensions being collected by some of police and fire personnel, prosecutors, talented as regular teachers. We would be saddled with lower- Please see PRO,A-11 s former public officials will actually Increase under school admini3trators and professors. It does not deal quality Instruction at much greater cost. Proposition 61, with the pension Issue —. it is a punitive measure ' Proposition 61 wilI virtually guarantee mediocre, aimed at every public employee. Proposition 81 would seriously set back our efforts 4'Inefficient government. And, It Is so ambiguous that It It affects all employees by prohibiting the carry- Paul Gann of Carmichael, the author of Proposl- r, will take years of litigation to determine Its precise over of earned sick leave and vacation time from Please see CON,A-11 tlon 61, has been an advocate of lower taxes and C kmeaning. one year to the next. The legislative analyst esti• lower government spending for several years. He co- Further—and most importantly, in my.estimatlon mates the cost of "buying out" these already-earned authored with Howard-Jarvls Proposition 13 in 1978 r it will derail our efforts to reform and rebuild Call benefits at $7 billion statewide — far, far more than Bill Honig is California's superintendent of pub- and wrote 1979's Proposition 4, which limits govern- 14 fornia schools. this ill-conceived measure could ever possibly save, lic instruction. ment spending. PRO ;i giving them a healthy,check worth two or threeCON damaged T Seriously--by Proposition 61, Y` months pay. J ; Proposition 61 is a singularly dangerous proposai.At would not save taxpayers money;it would,rather,cost,THE OPPONENTS argue that if this section applies them dearly, Many of our best and brightest public Continued from A•9 4 to all civil service employees it ( doesn't);and if every Contlaued!r9m A-9 lemployees in the areas of law enforcement, educe- 4 ;., are not appointed.) one has to be paid immediately for the vacation time at educational reform. California competes on a Lion, medical research and treatment, the judiciary The new limit is not carved in stone. The Legisla- that they have saved over the years (they won't), the tionwide basis for the best superintendents and prince- and others would be driven into the private sector,'oyt tore can approve salaries above that level with atwo- state will have to spend$7 billion in a one-time buyout ' pals, .About 3,000 of our most talented educators of state or into retirement. Its ambiguous and often- thirds roll-call vote—the same vote required of any of that accumulated vacation. It is a silly argument, would suffer immediate pay cuts under Proposition contradictory provisions would spawn a nightmarish appropriation. Highly skilled individuals — like doc- but it's all they have. gl, volume of iltlgaiion for years to come. ors at UC hospitals — would obviously remain at But let us assume that their farfetched argument is Under these restrictions, the superintendent of th@ Close Examination of Proposition 61 provides rea- i+ !ir high salaries above the limit. correct- If they defeat Proposition 61, what will hap- 690,OOo-student Los Angeles Unified School District son after reason to vote no. .The opponents of Proposition 61 —the bureaucrats pen to that alleged $7 billion in excess vacation time? would receive a salary comparable to that being of• and politicians who are on the gravy train at our ex Will the taxpayers have been spared that debt, as fered the superintendency of the 750-student district �> pense — are spending millions to defeat Proposition the opponents would have you believe? 61. Y 1n Skokie Ili. . .; Not on your life, It'll still be there. The taxpayers If we can no longer compete for#op talent,the goal. How do you feel about Proposition f l? Lef They claim this pay-cutting initiative will cost the will still have to pay it off as these employees cash in ity of our schools will inevitably reflect that loss,Nei- fern In reaction to this week's "PRO and CO N'� i taxpayers $7 billion In one-time costs, This ridiculous their vacations — and it'll continue to will be accepted until noon Thursday. They") grow as more they we nor our children can afford second-rate,•, argument relates to the section in Proposition 61 vacation time is accumulated, schools, must be origins/and no longer than 250 words,,1 " •. that prevents appointed public employees from car- The $7 billion argument is a lie.Proposition 61 will and #hey must bear the writer's signs#ore, ad see over their vacation time from year to year. It not cost the taxpayers anything. It will give taxpayers THIS SAME PRINCI)pLE affects eve dress and telephone number. Write to REAC-'ryi r seems many bureaucrats take vacations without re- greater control of how their money is spent and, ac- c _ every public agent T1ON,FdltorlaJ Page Fditor, Times TrJbune, 24$ 1 orting It—after all,they are their own bosses.They cording to the state legislative analyst,it will save you oificesppubliclysnpported ho ce and fire ospitals district listtgoeseo� then cash in all their vacation days when the Lytton Ave., Palo Alto, Calif.,9430). Y y quit— a quarter of a billion dollars a year. and on. The services they provide would all be. I Sri-ram.. �1...��-�-✓ �.::r2s�.iv�;wy>. '�.- - v M-86-76 (Meeting 86-23 Oct. 8 , 1986) dh e MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM September 29 , 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Scheduling of Special Meeting in November Based on the informal poll I took at the September 24 Regular Meeting, Monday, November 24 is the preferred date for a Special Meeting to substitute for the Regular Meeting that falls on the evening before Thanksgiving. Please reserve November 24 on your calendars. I also request you reserve Wednesday, November 19 as an alternate date for the Special Meeting, I I I i i M-86-77 (Meeting 86-23 October 8 , 1986) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM October 1, 1986 TO: Board of Directors FROM: N. Hanko and D. Wendin SUBJECT: Request for Further Study on Whole-Access Parking and Access Road at Alpine Reservoir On Monday, 28 September, 1986 we had the pleasure of partici- pating in a field trip at the Alpine Lake on Skyline Ranch. The purpose of the trip was ,to- view the route of the proposed road to be built to the whole access parking lot. We also had a chance to see how the potential underpass would give direct access to the lake for the physically impaired as well as the general public without the necessity of the proposed road and parking lot. When the costs of road maintenance (it will require extensive fill) and staff time for control of access to the parking lot are considered, the extra cost of the underpass may not be so great after all (an estimated $180 ,000 of capital cost; $250 ,000 vs. $70 ,000) . We urge that you delay approval of the whole access parking lot and road until staff has had a chance to further study the cost, ,safety and other issues relating to the underpass. In any case, each Board member should visit the site and view the proposed alignment before final approval is given to the proposed road and parking lot. A special meeting on site may be desirable after staff has given us further information on the underpass. A Itaster PlaOP for Glidd en Villaje w 11 , a The Ttust for Hidden Villa ,� -�` �` ' �;>•,- .0 Y�U� �;�a. 7. . ` � Prepared by: 2M Associates ! x ;�`"'�� Ea+••�«t c"w � x-+ -• / EDAW Inc. ERA f A. Harvey 3 Stanley Associates �i -t*! Y �_,T ��/ a, `� Jane L David . _• yr - 'L- rr a0 A j [ ✓, ' •Z _ ro:aG..� G 1 _ .�cor..ods t Ao�i.a sv - 1 c Ranch Legend - ,---✓ -' J �9 s� �. ® ExIsUnq Open Easements 1 1 Space - - NN _`,` \ ` — � PQUE 1 - OJT / _ _✓-''-`1v� _LAND OWNERSHIP & EASEMENTSNorth -. �-, •� , _ . : _ _ . ` � tt� r y sow •+t. 1 �c �� _ -x 13- O' soo, i O• i000' r..r• \ 1 Al 4 "'foc L . r A Mast ! } er P n for Hiddb n Vi a l The INst for Hidden Villa Fi-7 Prepared by: 2M AssociatesEDAW WC. ERAHarvey d, Stani i• ei - �.� / _Stanley Associates Jane L David l� -ter ! • �y� ,,� /I�a�.Fil� -•Y! - / Open - Space Pre", - _ = c-- -E. _,s1' ONKMT c ` —Rancho San AntoNo Ranch - " -_ Open space Preserve y (MRoao) / Lebend HS Hillside District (Santa Clara County) j f i RV-1 Very Low Density-1 Unit/Acre. - , �- .• s Altos Hills "�--(Los ) r OSR Open Space Conservation Area (Los Altos Hltis) HS r_ OS n Space Palo Alto O ( ) p Pe - v • .... ; • _ ,' _open�e Pr�ri} FiOSD 1 i(M 1 Mldpenlnsu a Regional � .• . Open Space District iBoundary. . o Alto C Pa! Altos Hills J l .. LosBoundary .. i•—._, * �. — _. .1 \ \ _ .c ,� .�U • `•ram* _� � • { SURROUNDING LAND - OWNERSHIP & ZONING -_ ' - ~� a � Jr Of mom J - r 7 - 4 4 ... ♦ ' \ -ram-_ A revs. 4 +\; ', `�YOfiM� •TV '^ 1- C �"\ _ r �= �z 1 Y j J iF,poeto, Al 7• _. ,. • _ . • �� — " `t) ) + r,F � rJ• --� w - '�Ay... _t� _�.���'•�'-'fV � �c14) •� 1"- ✓�,,. ., ,, _.! -''{ Fit. ` ,�f / 4 t' r1`•_•/ .' .f Irt -w A ' master Plan for .__. ._ Hidden _. Villan The Trust for Hidden Villa _ lre"rsd by. 2M Associates _ EDAW Inc. / i ERA Harvey i StaNeY Associates Jane L David / 1 / � Ana Adobe desk 'NN ItaiOM Oak Ca�►folwd ��`J s1oYrwM Flsid . oers Qro" / i "°'° Nor"Paton "°°''' P stor"s Area Areas Poultry Polsea ! Orchard♦ Met Lower \` � Upper vcrdon ar,v Paddocks ota Rrrci,House Hostel•camp Wood shed MobMensnes shed \ �Crw orrd an i"/ Creak Water Anks last TM Crook we — srtiM i Acre �'°° . Farm Area EXISTING CONDITIONS +� i -A Itaster Plan for Hidden Villa 1 The Trust for Hidden Villa i Prepared by- 2Y Associates EDA W Inc.. ERA Harvey A Stanley Associates Jane L David 11eeYe.r Co.* C,.r perry 7 / 1 L.a ratla,.N" ` �.� anr.ry NM / - -- i. \ ` r..b wed aem ape a pear qi. ........ ..»C..r - ' / / o..�.:� �..eew a..."O..,f.peep. t1 Te�spr,a.t raaatai,r \� © _ as}~ `�•1 � _� ►.rfy pO.e,ear.er♦eeay) e � -- ! perrr7r►arc. ^''-` w� 1� � ���\ � a.w.e.,.e -"� a CAN rsss a►ear. sree aft"Otur. \ l ar..oe.re ree.weer C \ ttr,we wa..e 41,weep C.." sere Caw: 1 pe,arop. bob-s,r I - .= -\�1�M at a `• �. y�AM a taw cw. r/ aaaw sw ` Saar came �-S / � araae,we �� ,. Js �-• At Ile y \F ti •7 Farm Area , Master Plan 1 0 OM Ape © peep a low 300• _=--►MearY.Twa D aaMpT,.e Cr.eaGwZ.-zz ft"N" ".WNW.a+rM Near.t..ar / .peers .Y,.�....,,.seer ea..Se..p.rir■ Month SCSI. 7 ACTS f ' �k Biological consultant 9699 Melton Road Manteca, California 95336 (209) 599-2726 i Oct. 5. 1986 Mr. David Hansen Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 201 San Antonio Circle; Suite C-135 Mountain View, CA 94040 Dear David: Del recently informed me of, several options now under consideration for the future use and parking space at Alpine and Horseshoe Reservoirs. As one who has been involved with the biological survey of these areas during the past year, I would like to offer the following views in hopes that they might be of same help- in arriving at a final use plan. Future use of Aloinft and Horseshoe Reservoirs i As I enter my concluding month of study at Horseshoe Reservoir, I am convinced that the original plan of making Horseshoe a public fishing and picknicing area and reserving Alpine for envirnmental studies and observations is the best plan. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: f 1. The greater size and shore contour of Horseshoe Res. are far more conducive to supporting what I anticipate will be fair to large numbers of weekend fisherpersons than Alpine Res. With a shoreline almost triple that of Alpine, Horseshoe Res. can support far more fishing decks and piers without apparent Physical or visual congestion. My studies so far have also revealed that Horseshoe is far better suited for sustained ! fishing that Alpine, and the only real management tool needed there is heavy annual cropping of the bluegill population which a well. managed fishing program will provide. 2. In contrast to the potential fishery at Horseshoe, Alpine Res. presents an ideal site for limnological study and habitat appreciation. It is a classic California reservoir lake in miniature, containing all of the various physical and biological properties of lakes 100 times its size. Of equal importance is that the specific interests of the angler and the nature observer usually do not mix. The angler needs shoreline access, and at such points he s p must be free to f lin his bait s,9 , clatter his tackle box, and even ocasionally verbally express his delight in catching a fine fish or displeasure in loosing same. In contrast, the docent with his or her binding or shoreline study group requires an undisturbed habitat where they may procede with quite and caution in order to maximize their natural experience. This then pretty much dictates that such an area be reserved for nature study only. It can also be assumed that with fishing the most popular sport in the United States, there will always be far fewer bird watchers than fish catchers using these two sites on any given weekend. It follows that the smaller of the two resources should be designated to handle the smaller use. - I The Possibe impact of a four car pAnki�n area at alpine Reservoir A large parking lot at Alpine Reservoir would certainly distract from its worth as a nature study area. However, the recently proposed small (40 x 46 foot) four car lot positioned between Alpine Road and the uphill burm area would have little impact. It would be positionedbehind an existing conifer tree screen which could be added to if necessary to created a complete visual screen. An additional barrier would be provided by the brum since it would absorbe the sound of car engines, slamming J car doors, etc. Although it would be ideal to have no parking anywhere in the proposed nature study area, the minimal four car parking site would, in the long run, allow more people to experience and enjoy this beautiful environmental studies site 'which is perhaps our most important goal in this overall project. In conclusions I suggest that Horseshoe Reservoir be reserved for public fishing and picnicing, with an adequate parking lot constructed in the highly disturbed Christmas tree farm area accommodating the visitors. I also continue to support the initial idea that Alpine Reservoir be preserved for - an environmental study area which would now include a small four car parking area well removed, and shielded from the lake - riparian edge site. I would be happy to present these views to any future meetings you may have on this matter. My free times this fall are Monday mornings, al day Tuesday, Wednesday a+ternoor, all day Thursday, and Friday morning. Yours Sincerely, AmM�cGiMnis OCT 7 1986 TOWN of LOS GATOS Department of Public Works 354-6863 Walter D. Goggin Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Old Mill Office Center Building C - Suite 135 201 San Antonio Circle Mountain View, CA 94040 Dear Mr. Goggin, In response to your letter of September 24 , 1086, please be advised that I will be recommending to the Town Council that we accept the portion of property adjacent to the Novitiate Park site. It is the Town' s intent to preserve a section of the old water flume for historical purposes. That portion of the flume to be preserved is located on land that is being acquired by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Sincerely, Ro ert J. yang Director Par , Fo stry and Maintenance RJB/dw CIVIC CENTER • 110 EAST MAIN STREET• P.O. BOX 949• LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95031 DistributeC t 10/8/86 Board Meetinq Whole Access October 7 , 1986 Ms . Teena Henshaw President , Board of Directors Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve Old Mill Office Center 1 201 San Antonio Circle Bldg . C . Suite 135 Mountain View, CA 94040 Dear President Henshaw: On Monday, September 29 , 1986 , 1 was invited along with several others to visit Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve to examine access- ible routes to Alpine Lake and the Alpine Lake Environmental Education Center being planned for the preserve. At that time , we were shown a possible whole access trail from a considered parking lot on the Alpine Lake side of Alpine Road . The elevation change from this spot to the lake is 75 ' ( 2275 ' at Alpine Road to 2200 ' at Alpine Lake) . Del Wood "walked this potential switchback trail of 3% (maximum) and after a few "loops" of the tightly wound spaghetti spiral , it was clear that this was not a reasonable solution . Next , he showed the planned route for a road that would go at a 10% grade to a level parking area at a elevation of 2220 ' . This would provide for several accessible parking spaces and would be relatively close to the lake . Apparently it would be possible to provide a relatively moderate level path of travel at this point . Another method for access was explained to us . The parking area being planned for Phase 1 , Stage 2 on the north side of Alpine Road could lead to an overpass/underpass ( ? ) such as the one recently completed by San Mateo County at San Bruno Mountain . Apparently this method could provide safe , accessible passage from the parking area to the lake for many people , including families with young children , and many people using wheelchairs as well . I would like to mention two important concerns of our organiza- tion . One concern is that accessibility be provided in ways that are as environmentally sensitive as possible . The other is that we en- courage providing opportunities for nature experiences that include 517 Lincoln Avenue Redwood City, CA 94061 415/363-2647 *415/363-2648 *Telecommunication Device for Deaf Communication Page 2 people with disabilities , but that do not exclude others . With this in mind , I would like to express my concerns about the pro- posed road : 1 . I am concerned that this method will polarize people by putting them into two extreme catagories . There will be able bodied people and very disabled people -- nothing in between . I am concerned about this approach for obvious reasons , not the least of which being that many people who would benefit from , for example , a safer path of travel to and from the site ( i .e . not crossing Alpine Road , which surprisingly to me is not as safe as I thought it was -- there is little visibility for pedestrians or from oncoming cars . ) , would not necessarily be included in the traditional category of "disabled person" . Also I can ' t help but worry that this approach would tend to emphasize differences be- tween so called "disabled" and "non-disabled" people . 2 . You people would know better than I , but is a 10% grade road down that hillside safe enough? 3 . 1 know that , to some extent , it is a matter of opinion as to how much environmental degradation would be achieved with this project . Naturally, we would all like a result that would bring no pain at all . I understand that it isn ' t always possible . The possibility of some kind of creative underpass situation seems worth investigating , and I believe it might have some other side benefits as well . If this approach would work , it could provide a central entrance/exit from the preserve as well as provide an inter- grated arrival site for the majority of the visiting nature lovers . ( I would still want to see some limited near-by vehicle access for sever-&ly disabled individuals and special groups , including those designated by District policies ) . I would again like to compliment the District and the Board for their continuing commitment to providing outdoor nature/recreation opportunities for people of all abilities in a very beautiful and challenging environment, The site at Alpine Lake must be one of the most lovely and peaceful locations that I have experienced in some time . Yours truly, PHYLLIS CANGEMI Excutive Director Whole Access PC/rew cc : Ms . Christy Holloway Ms . Rosemary Young Mr . Robert Augsburger Mr . Herb Grench Distributed b ted at /8/86 Board Meeting Biological Consultant 9699 Melton Read Manteca, California 95336 (209) 599-2726 Oct. 8. 1986 Mr. David Hansen Midpaninsula Regiorwal Open Space District 201 San Antonio Circle; Suite C-135 Mountain View, CA 94040 Dear David: Del recently informed me of several options now under consideration for the future use and parking space at Alpine and Horseshoe Reservoirs. As one who has been involved with -the biological survey of these areas during the past year, I would like to offer the following views in hopes that they might be of some help in arriving at a final .use plan. Fu ur use of Alpine and Horseshoe. Reservoirs As I enter my concluding month of study at Horseshoe Reservoir, I am convinced that the original plan of making Horseshoe a public fishing and picknicing area and reserving Alpine for envirnmental studies and observations is the best plan. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: 1 . The greater size and shore contour of Horseshoe Res. are far more conducive to supporting what I anticipate will be fair to large numbers of weekend fisherpersons than Alpine Res. ,.-With a shoreline almost triple that of Alpine, Horseshoe Res. can support far more fishing decks and piers without apparent physical or visual congestion. My studies so far have also revealed that Horseshoe is far better suited for sustained fishing that Alpine, and the only real management tool needed there is heavy annual cropping of the bluegill population which a well managed fishing program will provide. 2. In contrast to the potential fishery at Horseshoe, Alpine Res. presents an ideal site for limnological study and habitat appreciation. It is a classic. California reservoir lake in miniature, containing all of the various physical and biological properties of lakes 100 times its size. Of equal importance is that the specific interests of the angler and the nature observer usually do not mix. The angler needs shoreline access, and at such points he must be free to fling his baits, clatter his tackle box, and even ocasionally verbally express his delight in catching a fine fish or displeasure in loosing same. In contrast, the docent with his or her birding or shoreline study group requires an undisturbed habitat where they may procede with quite and caution in order to maximize their natural experience. This then pretty much dictates that such an area be reserved for nature study only. It can also be assumed that with fishing the most popular sport in the United States, there will always be far fewer bird watchers than fish catchers using these two sites on any given weekend. It follows that the smaller of the two resources should be designated to handle the smaller use. I The Possibe impact of a four car RACk-k—nS Area At Alpine Reservoir A large parking lot at Alpine Reservoir would certainly distract from its worth as a nature study area. However$ the recently proposed small (40 x 46 foot) four car lot positicmed between Alpine Road and the uphill berm area would have little impact. It would be positioned behind an existing conifer tree screen which could be added to if necessary to created a complete visual screen. An additional barrier would be provided by the brum since it vmLLId absorbe the sound of car engines, slamming car doors, etc. Although it would be ideal to have no parking anywhere in the proposed nature study area, the minimal four car narking site would, in the long run, allow more people to experience and enjoy this beautiful environmental studies site which is perhaps our most important goal in this overall project. in conclusion, I suggest that Horseshoe Reservoir be reserved for public fishing and picnicing, with an adequate parking lot constructed in the highly disturbed Christmas tree farm area accommodating the visitors* I also continue to support the initial idea that, Alpine Reservoir be preserved for an environmental study area which would nowinclude a small four car parking area well removed and shielded from the lake - riparian edge site. I would be happy to present these views to any future meetings you may have on this matter. My free times this fall are Monday mornings, al day Tuesday, Wednesday a+ternoor, all day Thursday, and Friday morning. Yours Sincerely, iam McGinnis r R IMY 2 3 1986. 2M May 21, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Christy Holloway, Ann Smith, Toby Montgomery cc: David Hansen & Del Woods, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District RE: Summary of meeting between Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Hidden Villa Planning Team - May 20, 1986 3:30-5:30 pm In attendance: David Hansen, MROSD Del Woods, MROSD Craig Britton (last 1/2 hour), MROSD Ann Smith, Hidden Villa John Stanley, Harvey & Stanley Kathy Lyons, Harvey & Stanley Harold Appleton, Harvey & Stanley Patrick Miller, 2M Jane Miller, 2M PURPOSE: Patrick Miller opened the meeting with an explanation to MROSD of the Hidden Villa planning process to date, finishing with a description of the the planning team's recommended preliminary plan. FARM AREA FACILITIES: Points of emphasis included: (1) farm facilities are to be mostly relocated and renovated to improve circulation, efficiency, and ease of operations; (2) only two new building facilities are recommended, which are the Interpretive Center and a new goat shed; and, The concept for the state grant-funded Interpretive Center which was supported by MROSD includes a multi-use classroom space, HVEP offices and storage, interior restrooms, and modest information area. Del asked if scaling down this concept from that initially proposed in the grant application posed any problem with state funding. Patrick answered that the planning team didn't believe there would be any problem; that the grant application was fairly generalized, subject to Interpretation, and that the current concept did fit into the parameters outlined on the original application. 2M Associates Landscape Architecture.Site Planning, Horticulture Box 7036,Landscope Stotion,Berkeley,Colifomio 94707 Telephone(415)524-8132 Co Lic 1842 May 21, 1986 Page 2 E (3) a new water system is proposed, which will connect with the Purissima Hills Water District's existing main along Moody Road, and will serve both fire suppression and domestic use purposes. BUS PARKING: David questioned handling of bus traffic. Patrick pointed out their proposed route, turn-around space, and parking area. FARM AREA CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Patrick raised the subject of the Conservation Easements held by the District on Hidden Villa's land. He explained that the "shuffling" of facilities, as proposed in the preliminary plan, is permitted under the current easement which covers the Farm . Del asked if the plan showed an increase in the amount of water taken from Adobe Creek for irrigation purpos es. The an swer is probable not; that although the capacity of the stream would allow for more water to be diverted, the physical facilities available to do so are the limiting factor. BLACK MOUNTAIN TRAIL: There was a rather lengthy discussion of the Black Mountain Trail. David indicated that the MROSD Board is interested in opening this trail to the public. However, as things currently stand, this would present somewhat of a management headache; the only patrol access is through Duveneck Windmill Pasture, and the District doesn't get there very often, mostly relying on Ray Gerard to be available when needed. Any MROSD .patrol would have to be conducted from the top downhill as things stand today. MROSD may be willing to take over management of the Black Mountain Trail, but is not keen on undertaking its reconfiguration and construction. Del pointed out that timing would be important. Kathy Lyons suggested that the trail be realigned from the top of the ridgeline to slightly downhill on either side; preferably to the east to protect the Adobe Creek watershed. Such placement would also help to shield Hidden Villa, a bit from the view of the general public using Black Mountain Trail, and thus not encourage increased public use of the ranch. Hidden Villa finds itself in the position of performing a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, although private land, it has been, and is, open to the public, and takes pride in its open- door policy to people from all walks of life. On the other hand, much of the special character and ambience which has always been so treasured at Hidden Villa may well be seriously jeopardized if the property is suddenly "discovered" by the casual public user, and becomes popular with those who may enjoy recreating in the outdoor environment, but may not understand and, most importantly, respect Hidden Villa's legacy and values. This dilemma of remaining open to the public yet not becoming an overcrowded nightmare is not easily solved. Kathy suggested possible revegeta*ion of portions of the existing trail, with provisions for a fuel break in certain areas. Del pointed out that if the trail stays completely on one side of the ridge, and does not afford vistas out from the ridgetop, then people will undoubtedly blaze their owns trails up to the ridgeline to gain views out. He recommended that the trail at a minimum provide some places where it does wind up to the ridgeline and back down to its new alignment; perhaps two or three spots would be sufficient. Further discussion focused on planning lookout points at specific locations along the trail. All present did agree that the public would likely find a way to obtain views out if they were not provided on the trail per se. May 21, 1986 Page 3 The understanding that MROSD might be willing to take over management and maintenance of Black Mountain Trail or at least work cooperatively with Hidden Villa on it was reiterated, but the actual needed rebuilding is considered a negotiating point to be handled by Craig Britton and Hidden Villa representatives. . Del said that if the District is managing both ends of the trail, what happens in between in not of such great consequence. If the Nery property is acquired, then maintenance vehicles will have access to Duveneck Windmill Pasture, which they currently do not. In terms of the Black Mountain Trail, Craig echoed what Del and David had earlier said: that MROSD was willing to take over the trail, but that they had hoped for a cooperative effort on the necessary construction effort, and also on the ongoing maintenance. He said this situation probably called for a "management agreement". FIRE MANAGEMENT: MROSD has talked with CDP on occasion about re-routing this trail for fuel breaks and the like, but no firm conclusions have ever been reached. There does exist interest in a long-term, comprehensive fire management plan for the whole Black Mountain area, including those portions controlled by Kaiser Permanente. A "shaded fuel break" was defined by David as being somewhat naturalistic in character, in contrast to a simple swath of cleared land which is devoid of vegetation. Shaded fuel breaks are attained by selective pruning of vegetation, some opening up of the area, and possible interplanting of fire- retardant species. John asked if there was any other place (PTM - than Black Mountain??) for a fuel break; David said no. Some earlier discussion items received further attention at this point: David, John, and Harold chronicled the past talks with CDF regarding fuel break plans which were not conclusive; Kathy re-emphasized a preference for the trail to be ke-routed on the eastern downhill slope of Black Mountain, especially since equestrian use is envisioned. It was agreed that CDF would likely want to continue to use the actual ridgetop as a fuel break. Harold then summarized his recommendations for a fire management ement program,ram as outlined in Harvey & Stanley's Resource Management Plan prepared for 2M Associates in accordance with the Master Plan for Hidden Villa. Prime emphasis is given to education about fires, suppression capabilities, and prescribed burns. John pointed out that perhaps a greater latitude is appropriate for fire control in agreements between MROSD and Hidden Villa than is customary, as so many people as dependent upon the Adobe Creek Watershed, which could suffer severe adverse impacts as the result of fire. Del pointed out that the areas being suggested for fuel breaks were not really protecting the areas of the watershed most vulnerable to the likelihood of fire hazard, due to their proximity to areas of Heavier human use, and resulting greatest danger of fires starting does exist. Harold explained the difficulty of prescribed burns taking place in those areas. John added that the area will burn, it is simply a matter of.when, and whether under the auspices of nature's or humans' terms. In response to John's question about progress on a regional (?) fire management plan, David and Del responded that for the District, Hidden Villa's involvement is probably premature. Adobe Creek watershed isn't the top priority - it's about number three. I _ May 21, 1986 Page4 PUBLIC USE AND MANAGEMENT: Currently, the District cannot direct people who are interested in hiking the Black Mountain Trail entirely through public Lands. The public is directed to obtain permission from Kaiser Permanente, the Nery's, or Hidden Villa. However, the District is hoping to acquire the Nery property, which would then become public land. As for not really encouraging further public use of Hidden Villa lands from the connecting downhill trail from Black Mountain, a few approaches were proposed. Patrick suggested that District "presence", in . the form of patrolling rangers, would help keep things orderly and respectful. Craig suggested that simply leaving the connecting trail off MROSD maps would likely keep some people from exploring. REMAINING CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO BE ACQUIRED BY MROSD: Craig Britton joined the meeting to answer some questions about the Conservation Easements and corresponding covenants. At issue is the restrictions on cutting of wood, and removal of dawned wood. From a practical point of view, Hidden Villa needs some wood to burn for heating of residences, and does not want to have to resort to future importation of firewood, especially when so much already exists on the ranch. Del pointed out that the District will remain firm on the requirement that any exceptions to this restriction be strictly under the domain of MROSD. Such limitations are already difficult to enforce, and over time the staff makeup of Hidden Villa will likely change. Why would MROSD wish to purchase Conservation Easements unless they were certain they could ensure the continued preservation of the resource? Del and David conceded that some areas of the ranch may have a high fuel load, and that some wood may need to come out for fire prevention, which is allowed in the easement agreements. However, the District will require total control of specifically what comes out. Harold continued with forest management recommendations. At present,- California bay trees dominate much of the vegetation, especially in riparian zones. One suggestion is to thin out the bays somewhat, replacing them with Douglas fir seedlings, to diversify the vegetation mosaic. Craig replied that timber removal was not envisioned, and all agreed that such a plan was likely not high priority. Craig did say that chaparral, however, is a different matter. It was pointed that in some areas of the back country, without some vegetation removal, existing grasslands would be overtaken by chaparral in a number of years. Craig indicated that the District Board would probably be willing to include in the easements provisions for future fire or land management plans, subject to MROSD approval, which might build a case for exceptions to some of the easements' restrictions. If the Board feels it does not wish to negotiate any of these points, then Hidden Villa will be locked - into- the existing conditions, but MROSD generally feels "reason will prevail", and saw now problems with the Board willing to be somewhat flexible, assuming the Master Plan and y subsequent resource management plans are a sound one, and in line with District goals. j - - May 21, 1986 Page 5 Ann said that land slated for the last Conservation Easement would probably be available for negotiation in another month or two. Craig stated that money to purchase that easement would almost certainly be put off a year, as allured in the existing agreement. Patrick suggested that Hidden Villa author a proposal of what would be desirable for the last easement and submitting it to the District might be appropriate, and Craig agreed, while also agreeing with John that making a provision for future management plans to be approved by MROSD was probably the only way to alter the master agreement. it The meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm. i � - I P k k 4 i A Zip �y - r r �y .. i. r r 't r1 snow" AII low too r� r s y� y 1 r0 :, d �}` rr11 `• ♦ y "",.° .- .rwG.. �"a'=�4t� -•) '�..C-'1, 1'.a"-". �'"" &�F,�+r+^ � },� x+fyjj"Sik'" k �„ Rom,/ ^M ,,,. ANNUAL REPORT renew the mind, body, and spirit in Hidden Villa Beginnings a non-urban setting. the Duveneck Family * To provide educational programs Many people ask, "What is Hidden Villa?" which reach out to diverse segments It is and has been so many things to so of the population to foster accep- many people over the last 60 years that. tance of diversity in human and the answer becomes a conversation. The natural communities, underscoring history of Frank and Josephine Duveneck the value of the individual in and the legacy of their great concern for society, and an understanding of all people and for the land has led to the environment in which we live. what Hidden Villa is today. * To provide a haven where indivi- Hidden Villa Ranch - 2,100 acres that duals and organizations within the included the Adobe Creek headwaters and community can focus on social, human- primary watershed was the place where itarian, and environmental concerns. Frank and Josephine Duveneck built their home and raised four children. They left Current Programs their gate open so others could enjoy the farm and trails. Their concern for Hidden Villa's first priority is educa- others and their interest in people from tion. The educational goals are met by all nations led to the first West Coast several programs: Youth Hostel, located at Hidden Villa in 1937. The interracial summer camp fol- Hidden Villa Environmental Program lowed in 1945. Their property was al- (HVEP) serves school children from 2nd ways shared. to 6th grades with a classroom presenta- tion followed by a full day at Hidden Hidden Villa Today Villa. Staff teachers and trained volunteer guides teach about the inter- What began in the 1930's and 1940's con- relationships of living things on the tinues today. The farm and wilderness farm and wilderness preserve. They areas remain open to those who wish to offer fun and creative hands-on exper- visit. The programs have grown and the iences so children can relate their lives need for this rural oasis is ever more to the land and each other. Program evident as the Santa Clara Valley evolves staff has developed an environmental from agriculture to industry and fills education guide entitled Manure, Meadow with homes and highways. and Milkshakes and a song tape. Both of these learning tools are used in other The Trust for Hidden Villa Mission programs throughout the United States and abroad. "To preserve and enhance Hidden Villa as a natural, historic, educational, Farm Tours serve children from pre- and recreational resource using the school through 1st grade and are usually natural setting, the farm, facilities the first experience for youngsters to and traditions of Hidden Villa to visit a farm to see that milk comes from teach social, humanitarian, and en- cows and wool sweaters from sheep. The vironmental values." 14` hour tour includes the food-producing gardens as well as a visit to various Goals farm animals. To preserve Hidden Villa as a The Hostel has been in continuous op- unique resource for future genera- eration since 1937. It has 24 beds in tions, to provide people in the San rustic cabins with a common room and Francisco Bay Area an opportunity to kitchen. The Hidden Villa Hostel is gain an awareness of the interrelat- affiliated with the American Youth Hos- edness of all living things and to tel (AYH) Association and is open to both individuals and groups from Almost all of the land will be covered September 1 through May 31st. by conservation easements in conjunction with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space The Horsemanship Program evolved from District (MROSD) . These easements state the use ofthe Duveneck horses at summer how the land can be used to protect III camp and the use of teh arena for a natural resources and ensure use consistent variety of horseshows. This program in- with the goals of both The Trust for cludes preparation of the horse for riding Hidden Villa and MROSD. Since most of as well as riding lessons. Trail rides the land surrounding Hidden Villa is owned were an option until October, 1985, when by MROSD this partnership ensures the they were cancelled because of lack of continuation of sensitive stewardship for liability insurance for that activity. the long-term future. The final easements Saddle Animal Liability is the hardest will he negotiated in 1986. kind of insurance to find during this time of "deep pocket" insurance crisis. Master Plan The 1985 Summer Programs included: Day Camp for 7-9 year olds; 5 days plus The need to plan for Hidden Villa's one overnight. future was evident long before Frank * Resident Camp for 9-12 year olds; 2 weeks Duveneck's death and much information living on the farm. had been gathered by the Board of Trus- * Farm & Wilderness Camp for teens; 2 weeks tees and staff. The need for a compre- living on the property. hensive master plan was great. With * Bay to Sea Backpack for teens; 2 week funding from the David and Lucile backpack trip from San Francisco Bay over Packard Foundation and the Oakmead the Santa Cruz Mountains to the ocean. Foundation, the 9-month planning pro- 0 Sierra Backpack/Whitewater School for cess began in November 1985 with 2M teens; two weeks in the Sierras. Associates as consultants. The Resident Camp has continued since its The Present inception in 1945 and all camps emphasize multicultural diversity. Our goal is to In 1985 the responsibility for Hidden offer scholarships to one third of the Villa shifted from the Duveneck family campers. to The Trust for Hidden Villa, a non-pro- fit corporation. The Trust now looks to These five major programs served over the community to share the responsibil- 17,000 children and adults from June ity for preserving this notable regional 1985 through May 1986. resource. The financial responsibility is great with a 1985 budget of over Hidden Villa's Future $400,000 with most assets in land. On September 2, 1985, Frank Duveneck died. The challenge is great. The Board of He was approaching his 99th birthday and Trustees, staff and volunteers are look- was still the central figure in the "Big ing to the future. Hidden Villa is one House". He left the entire farm to The of the greatest gifts a family could Trust for Hidden Villa with partial fund- give to its community. Hidden Villa's ing for two years. Two "wilderness" parcels gates are open - we invite you to take were deeded to The Trust in the early part in our programs and to continue as 1980's. In 1986 the final parcels will a member of the Friends of Hidden Villa. be deeded to total 1,650 acres under Trust Through our newsletter and special events ownership. The four Duveneck children we will keep our Friends informed about have retained the Duveneck home plus 40 Hidden Villa issues and activities. acres. Frank and Josephine's children and their children continue to work with The Trust to carry out Hidden Villa's goals. Mary C. Davey Ann Warren Smith President Executive Director Board of Trustees l The Trust for Hidden Villa Balance Sheet — December 31, 1985 ASSETS Net Investment In Property Total And All Equipment Funds CURRENT ASSETS Cash $ - $ 200,624 Accounts receivable (Note 6) - 31 ,344 Prepaid expenses - 99714 Total current assets $ - $ 241 ,682 INVESTMENTS (Note 4) - 285,615 PROPERTY AND EOUIPMENT, at cost or fair value at date of gift (Notes 2 and 5) 3,340,677 3,340,677 Total assets $3,340,677 13,867,974 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accrued sales tax $ - $ 202 Accrued payroll taxes - 1,950 Deferred income (Note 6) - 94,402 Total current liabilities $ - $ 96,554 FUND BALANCES Unrestricted: Undesignated, available for general activities $ - $ 430,743 Restricted: Net investment in property and equipment 3,340,677 3,340,677 Total fund balances $3,340,677 $3,771 ,420 Total liabilities and fund, balances $3,340,677 $338673974 SEE NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS s The Trust for Hidden Villa Statement of Support, Expenses and Changes in Fund Balances Year Ended December 31, 1985 Net Investment In Property Total And All Equipment Funds 1 Support and Other Revenue Support: Fees $ _ $ 165,311 Friends of Hidden Villa 72,841 Duveneck estate farm support (Note 7) - 28,000 Grants - 21 ,067 Contributions - 8,422 Total support $ - $ 295 ,641 Other Revenue: Sales $ - $ 2,892 Farm produce - 2,117 Expense reimbursement - 10,000 Investment income - 51 ,291 Miscellaneous - 5,221 Total other revenues $ - $ 71 ,521 Donated Land and Equipment (Note 3) $2,964,395 $2,964,395 Total support and other revenues $2 ,964,395 $3,331 ,557 Expenses Program Services: Summer programs $ - $ 114,820 Winter programs - 58,366 $ - $ 173,186 Facilities, Management, and General Support Services - 147,035 Fund raising expense - 21 ,142 Friends of Hidden Villa expense - 9 ,725 $ - $ 351 ,088 Excess of support and other revenues over expenses $2,964,395 $2,980,469 FUND BALANCE, beginning of year 376,282 790,951 FUND BALANCE, end of year $33340:677 $33771 ,420 SEE NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Notes to Financial Statem s 3. Donated Assets Donated land and equipment are presented in the financial state- 1. Significant Accounting Policies men ts at estimated fair values at date of gift. For the year ended December 31, 1985, donated land and equipment were contri- Nature of business: buted as follows: Trust for Hidden Villa is a non-profit organization created to Item Fair Value preserve Hidden Villa as a natural, historic, educational, and Donor Donated at Date of Gift recreational resource using the natural setting,"farm, facilities, Life estate of F. and traditions of Hidden Villa to teach social, humanitarian, and Duveneck 425 acres land $2,555,000 environmental values. Life estate of F. Duveneck Buildings 405,000 Fund accounting: Individual Dodge van 2,200 Individual Computer 2,195 The accounts of the Trust are maintained in accordance with the $2,964.345 principles of fund accounting whereby assets, liabilities, and fund balances are reported in self-balancing fund groups as follows: 4. Investments Unrestricted funds represent that portion of funds available for program and supporting activities. Investments are presented in the financial statements in the aggregate of the lower of cost or fair market value. For the year Restricted funds represent funds for which the use of ended 1985, investments are stated at cost. Investments are are specifically restricted by the donor. composed of the following: Net investment in property and equipment represents Coat Fair Market Value resources for property q and equipment.ent. Bonds $ 10 000 $ 4 402 Pm , U.S. Treasury notes 227,029 253,197 Accounting method: GNMA obligation bonds 48,586 51,895 Assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses are recorded under the $ 205,615 $ 314,494 accrual method of accounting. The Trust follows the practice of capitalizing all expenditures for land, building, and equipment in excess of $500. The fair value of donated fixed assets is simi- 5. Net Investment in Property and Equipment larly capitalized when of a signficant amount. All contributions are considered to be available for unrestricted use unless speci- A summary of property and equipment is as follows: fically restricted by the donor. Land $2,821,304 Donated land and equipment: Pool and pool house 64,979 Buildings and equipment 442,904 Donated land and equipment are reflected as contributions to Furniture and equipment 9,290 the Trust at their estimated fair values at date of gift when Auto 2,200 the amounts are significant and there is a clearly measurable $3,340,677 basis for their value. Intone taxes: 6. Restricted Fund Under applicable laws and regulations, the Trust has been deter- The Trust received funds which have been restricted in use for mined to be exempt from Federal and California income taxes. specific programs or projects developed by the Trust. These funds have been recorded as deferred income and are charged to current period income when used. 2. Depreciation The Trust does not record depreciation which is not in accordance 7. Farm Support with generally accepted accounting principles. If depreciation were recorded, accumulated depreciation would be 124,942, fund The Trust received 17,0011 per month for a portion of 1985 from the balance would be reduced by $24,942 as of December 31, 1985, and Duveneck estate for support and maintenance of the farm and its excess of support and other revenues over expenses would be facilities. In 1986, $84,000 is to be received from the estate decreased by $10,383 for the year then ended. for maintenance of the farm. To the Board of Trustees The Trust for Hidden Villa We have examined the balance sheet of The Trust for Hidden Villa as of December 31, 1985, and the related statement of support, revenue, expenses, and changes in fund balances for the year then ended. Our examination was made in accord- ance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. As explained in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Trust does not record depreciation for fixed assets. This omission is not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, except for the effects of the omission of recording depreciation for fixed assets, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the financial statements referred to above present fairly the financial position of The Trust for hidden Villa as of December 31, 1985, and the results of its operations and changes 1n fund balances for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applies on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year. ) i � March 3, 1986 Palo Alto, California FRANK, RIMERMAN & CO. I I NOTEBOOK A MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN VILLA The Trust for Hidden Villa 4.0 RESOURCES 4.1 Introduction The natural resources of Hidden Villa provide the Ranch visitor with a sense of remoteness virtually unparalleled in any other area on the Peninsula. That feeling is especially unique given the closeness of the ranch to urban development. The charge to the Trust in assuming responsibility over these lands and their natural systems is clear. The ranchlands of Hidden Villa, so fondly called "the wilderness", are to be preserved as open space and a unique resource for future generations. However, in contemplating the future of Hidden Villa's natural resources, consideration must be given to the difference which exists between management through benign neglect and management through active stewardship. 4.1.1 Background The lands of Hidden Villa have been occupied for hundreds of years. In fact, they likely have been 'managed' by man for just as long. The resources of Hidden Villa are not what they would be today if man had not been a visitor. The vegetative mosaic is a good example to demonstrate how what exists today throughout the farm and ranch does so, in part, because of man's use of the ' land. It also can show how our attitudes and activities will affect what exists in the future. When pre-historic Oholonean Indians occupied the region, they often copied nature's way of rejuvenating the landscape. . . they set fires. In the 18001s, western man probably logged Douglas Fir from the ranch. The valley was planted with grapes and other row crops, roads were constructed, lands were grazed, European grasses planted on the hillsides, and water systems developed. In the 20th century, many exotic plant species were introduced to the farm and surrounding lands, which have since seeded into the backcountry and continue to spread. Most importantly, nature's cycle of growth-fire-growth has been interrupted, not to protect or encourage the propogation of nature's bounty but to protect man's downhill investments. A current vegetation issue which demonstrates the effects of management choices are the dense stands of BayLaurelthroughout the ranch w which wil l likely y continue for some time to dominate and inhabit the establishment of other species. Other examples are the few open, grassy areas in the backcountry which are surrounded by chaparral. Unless something is done, these remnant grasslands will be invaded and eventually taken over by the adjacent brush. Balanced against the appeal of letting this succession occur must be weighed the value of encouraging and maintaining a diversity of plants and resulting wildlife on the ranch. To a great extent, as the surrounding Los Altos Hills have developed, Hidden Villa has become a refuge to displaced animal species. With a belief in ew r st a dshi for all living thins how habitat is man p g things, aged will impact the { quality of the refuge. 4-1 Looking toward future, it is important to re size that the Trust's une of the backcountry ranchlands of Hidden Villa, even if just for trail maintenN e, is a form of land management. Surely, if a wildfire starts on Elephant Mountain, attempts will be made to extinguished immediately to protect the farm area and surrounding urban development. That action, it should be remembered, manages the resource and permits a course of plant succession which is different than if the area had burned. So, whatever we do, the "wilderness" of Hidden Villa is a place that "seems natural" more than it is, from a perfectionist's perspective, untamed nature. 4.1.2 Mission and Goals The major overall issue for resource management at Hidden Villa concerns how much to let nature take its course versus how much human management should intervene. The Trust's adopted Mission is "to preserve and enhance Hidden Villa. ." with a general goal of fostering "acceptance of diverstity in human and natural communities. . ." Additionally, the Management Objectives for Educational Programs include "teaching the 'catetaker' philosophy of responsibility for active stewardship towards the land and all living things." Leaving the backcountry lands of Hidden Villa totally alone will likely not work toward maintaining for future generations the diversity which is so important to Hidden Villa's philosophy. Likewise, a total lack of active stewardship and resource management will, for the forseeable future, miss tremendous stewardship and educational opportunities for expanding Hidden Villa's resource base, be it vegetation, wildlife, earth or water resources. 4.2 Existing Ranch Area Conditions 4.2.1 Hydrology (See Ranch-Drainage Map and Fars-Flood Hazard Map) Approximately 90% of Hidden Villa Ranch lies within the Adobe Creek watershed which starts on top of Black Mountain. There exists a small strip of land to the east of the Black Mountain Trail which drains into the Permanente watershed system. On the Ranch, there are 5 significant subdrainages. These are: the main, branch of Adobe Creek, the only perennial stream on the Ranch; Middle Creek, sometimes referred to as Mineral Springs; the West Fork of Adobe Creek, also called Letcher Creek; Bunny Creek; and Blodgett Creek, which is a relatively small drainage area by comparison. In the farm area, the natural hydrologic regime of Adobe Creek has been altered, particularly with the construction of diversion structures and a drop structure under the entrance bridge. This has created both erosion problems and upstream sedimentation. As a result, during the late spring and summer months, the Creek will be running above the Ranch Manager's house, but travel underground for some distance, and resurface well downstream from the ranch property line. In the early 19701s, the Santa Clara Valley Water District mapped the expected 100 year floodplain of the Creek through the farm area. This is illustrated on the Farm Area-Flood Hazard Map. 4-2 4.2.2 Vegetatio4wee Ranch-Vegetation Map) Outside of the farm area, there are seven broad vegetation associations which can be identified in the backcountry. Of these, a Mixed Evergreen and Mixed Evergreen-Bay forest association predominate. Chaparral also covers a significant portion of the property. Small areas of Douglas Fir Forest exist in the upper reaches of Adobe Creek. Small areas of grassland remain on the south slopes of Elephant Mountain and along the Black Mountain Trail. Species observed from the Hidden Villa Trail system are outlined in Appendix 3-1. 4.2.3 Slope (see Ranch-Slope Map) The vast majority (85%) of Hidden Villa's lands are on slopes greater than 30%. Less than 10% of the property lies on less than a 10% gradient. These lands are mostly confined to the farm area, the ridge separating the main stem of Adobe Creek from Middle Creek, and the creek drainages. 4.2.4 Visual Character (see Ranch-View Relationships Map) Hidden Villa enjoys the advantage of being a visually contained environment. From the farm area, where most people form their impressions of Hidden Villa, only a small portion of the Ranch is actually visible. Except for houses built across Moody Road on the south facing hillside, one house near the top of Letcher Creek off Page Mill Road, and the PG&E transmission lines, the setting is totally natural in appearance. This carries over throughout the trail system, except for sections of the Black Mountain Trail which face east, and those along the Elephant Mountain trail which face north. 4.2.5 Access Trails (see Ranch-Trails and Road Map) Approximately 7.5 miles of trails exist on the Ranch. Of these, about 6 miles are open to the public. The Canyon Trail leading to the Upper Adobe Creek watershed above Boy Scout Camp is closed to public use. Most trail loops offer a relatively short duration trip for the avid hiker. However, for program purposes this is not such a constraint. The trails most used by Hidden Villa's programs, in general order of greatest use are: 1. Creek Trail (Adobe Creek) 2. Pipeline Trail 3. Hostel Trail 4. Grapevine Trail S. Bunny Creek to Disaster Trail 6. Bunny Creek Trail 7. Letcher Creek Trail 8. Toyon Trail 9. Ewing Hill Trail Generally, the public most often uses the Creek Trail and either Ewing Hill or Grapevine Trail to access the views from the ridges above. 4-3 I 4.3 Ranch Management (see Rancb-Management Plan Map) Throughout the trail system, a number of exotic plant species have been'- observed. Some of these, and in particular Broom, are extremely aggressive and a high fire hazard. These species should be mechanically removed whenever possible, particularly along trails and in backcountry camps. Serious trail maintenance at Hidden Villa has been deferred for a number of years. Almost all trails at Hidden Villa are in need of some sort of repair. Table 4-1 overviews general proposals for managing resources and use in the backcountry areas of Hidden Villa. Expanded explanations of some of these items are contained in the following sections. 4-4 NOTEBOOK A MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN VILLA The Trust for Hidden Villa MIISSION STATENENT To preserve and enhance Hidden Villa as a natural, historic, educational, and recreational resource using the natural setting, the farm, facilities and traditions of Hidden Villa to teach social, humanitarian, and environmental values. KEY COAT. G-1 To preserve Hidden Villa as a unique resource for future generations, to provide people in the San Francisco Bay area an opportunity to gain an awareness of the interrelatedness of all living things and to renew the mind, body, and spirit in a non-urban setting. G-2 To provide educational programs which reach out to diverse segments of the population to foster acceptance of diversity in human and natural communities, underscoring the value of the individual in society, and an understanding of the environment in which we live. G-3 To provide a haven where individuals and organizations within the community can focus on social, humanitarian, and environmental concerns. t KEY OBJECTIVE 0-W Wilderness: To protect Hidden Villa's wilderness area as a natural land preserve and wildlife sanctuary. 0-W-1 The land, including riparian corridors along creeks, will remain as open space and as a tranquil perserve for plants, wildlife, and people. 0 W-2 Impact on the wilderness area must be considered when planning programs or permitting unsupervised uses of the property. O-W-3 The Adobe Creek headwaters and fragile upper watershed are off-limits to the public to protect the domestic water supply. Special permission can be granted for research purposes or for small, guided groups. 0-W-4 Trails should be accessible to a wide range of people with emphasis on whole access where possible. f -2 NOTEBOOK A MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN VILLA The Trust for Hidden Villa KEY MANAGMENT OBJECTIVE O-FR Farm: To use the flat land area as a demonstration farm to teach ecologically sound methods of raising food and other products. 0-FR-1 The primary purpose of the farm is educational. 0-FR-2 The farm is an educational resource to teach about plants, animals, soil, food cycles, and farming methods. O-FR-3 A variety of crops and animals should be raised to demonstrate agricultural diversity. 0-FR-4 Farm products are to be used for programs, food for resident staff, and may be offered for sale. 0-FC Facilities: To have structures and areas available to meet the educational, operational, and recreational needs of programs and the farm. 0-FC-1 Changes to the infrastructure, facilities or land use should not damage the natural characteristics of the land and should be cost effective. 0-FC-2 New facility design and improvements to existing facilities should reflect the rural character of Hidden Villa. 0-FC-3 High standards for health and safety should be maintained to protect users. 0-FC-4 Facilities should be accessible to the handicapped where poysible. 0-H History and Traditions: To build on the traditions and values of Frank and Josephine Duveneck who made Hidden Villa a special place for all people. 0-H-1 Encourage active participation of Duveneck family members as Trustees and in programs and activities of Hidden Villa. 0-H-2 Look to Josephine Duveneck's autobiography Life on Two Levels as a record of Hidden Villa history. Encourage all new Trustees and staff to read this book to better understand Hidden Villa's heritage. l { NOTEBOOK A MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN VILLA The Trust for Hidden Villa KEY MANAGMENT OBJECTIVE O-E Educational Programs: To coordinate the use of the wilderness, the farm, and facilities for educational programs which support the mission and goals of the Trust for Ridden Villa. 0-E-1 Ensure that the primary use of the property is for educational programs. 0-E-2 Reach out to the community to attract participation and support from diverse segments of the population and make scholarships available to those who could not .otherwise take part in Hidden Villa programs. 0-E-3 Design programs that: a) teach the "caretaker" philosphy of responsibility for active stewardship towards the land and all living things; b) develop skills for cooperative and responsible community living; and c) teach natural processes and cycles through sensory experiences. r 0-E-4 Structure programs for operational efficiency and for programmatic content while recognizing the importance of flexibility in teaching the values of Hidden Villa. 0-E-5 Periodically evaluate the programs relative to educational value, cost, and benefit. 0-E-6 Make use of public lands and facilities for program purposes, not limiting the programs to the physical boundaries of Hidden Villa. O-P Public Use: To allow a diversity of individuals and groups to use Hidden Villa for activities such as hiking, riding, picnicking, and farm visits in accordance with the mission and goals. 0-P-1 Opportunities to familiarize users with the mission and goals of the Trust for Hidden Villa should be encouraged. 0-P-2 Use of the property carries with it the responsibility of active stewardship of the land and living things. 0-P-3 Users should be encouraged to support Hidden Villa through financial contributions. 1-4 I NOTEBOOK A MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN VILLA The Trust for Hidden Villa KEY MANAGMENT OBJECTIVE O-B Board of Trustees: To hold title and final legal responsibility for preservation and protection of Trust lands, assets, and organizational of fairs. 0-B-1 Serve as the policy-making body of the organization. 0-B-2 Establish, clarify, and periodically review the mission, goals, ;,and objectives. 0-B-3 Set management policies and administrative procedures for implementation of the mission, goals, -and objectives. 0-B-4 Approve and adopt the annual budget and be accountable for all Trust funds. 0-B-5 Hire, evaluate, and set the salary of the Executive Director. O-B-6 Review and approve personnel policies. 0-B-7 Select an auditor and review the audit of Trust accounts and business procedures. 0-B-8 Adopt an insurance program that meets legal requirements and is in accordance with prudent financial management. . O-B-9 Provide support and leadership for fund development activities. 0-B-10 Initiate outreach programs to promote both program participation and financial support for Hidden Villa, including use of a speaker's bureau, printed materials, press releases, and other suitable media. 0-B-11 Appoint and direct the activities of the Advisory Committee and other Board committees, as needed. 0-B-12 Promote involvement of community members to serve as Board Members for the Trust. 1-5 RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Board President Acknowledge/Respond Meeting 8 6-2 3 Director Acknowledge/Respond Oct . 8 , 1 9 8 6 Staff Acknowledge/Respond Draft Response Attached _ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft Response for Board Consideration per Board Directive(s) Other. No response _`___ necessary i 7 ck in Li l T .goad �'7 .c2��Gc�ueG� J a cfi vri e e ,�� G yS ale, 0// v J O � oli s /yjG WRITTEN COMMUN TION Meeting 8 S Oct . 8, 1986 RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF Board President Acknowledge/Respond Director Acknowledge/Respond Staff Acknowledge/Respond �` / /// ✓Draft Response Attached Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft Response for Board Consideration per Board Directive(s) _ Other L✓O u /ey/ Cc /cX1%l� �f A�-,rex / C,�i) ��i 1 7�//�7C'l 7�/�N �0 S�' Wa 1 i�► r�� /� , ell G� of Z/ C �G f l�'G {•�I Q�(,r/ /�i� !/�e e Cr G ��C��Ci�l a CC -t/^/�Pc✓ O r i�'I �o�P 1 Gtir/eiG-17e-e O' � �`► � p/�/ �l Cl/'CCr � / ��' o� f�Q b o�� ��-► c�C�Pi! j`f //C'P (o v�r NoeJIUMM AAL am MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Mr. Brian Galbreath 69 Paul Avenue Mountain View, CA 94041 Dear Mr. Galbreath: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors reviewed your recent letter concerning acts of vandalism and theft to your truck while parked at the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve parking lot. We are very troubled by this situation, which is the first of its kind on District land, We have initiated several measures to minimize potential reoccurrence of this problem, including the posting of a CRIME ALERT bulletin at both of our Page Mill Road parking lots, increased surveillance by District Rangers and Palo Alto Police, and numerous stakeouts (which to date have not been fruitful) . Your suggestion that the preserve parking lots be closed on weekdays was con- sidered by our planning and operations staff. However, based on the evidence and other information available, a clear pattern of days or times has yet to emerge. District staff will continue to work closely with the Palo Alto Police Depart- ment to attempt to identify and apprehend the individual(s) responsible for this problem. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Edward Shelley, President Board of Directors cc: MROSD Board of Directors Palo Alto Police Department 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 j WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 86-23 October 8, 1986 3as..NS-- ACTIOV PROPOSED BY STAFF Board President Acknowledge/Respond — _ Director Acknowledge/Respond Staff Acknowledge/Respond — Draft Response Attached _ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft 1 - - Resxnse for Board Consideration per - Soard Directive(s) Other September 20, 1986 I . 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board c/o Jean Fiddes, District Clerk Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 201 San Antonio Circle Mountain View, CA 94040 Dear Sirs: The above photograph shows Hale Creek as it crosses our properties this year. If the method proposed in the enclosed news articles is used to convert Neary Quarry to an over-900 foot deep lake, the creek would be totally dry at least nine years, with disastrous results. The proposal to change the ugly Neary Quarry into a beautiful lake sounds wonderful, incontrovertible...like motherhood, apple pie and the American flag. We're wholeheartedly for it, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't jeopardize Hale Creek, a year-round water flow which is the only outflow of water from the quarry, except local seepage. The headwaters area of Hale Creek involves the quarry. The upper part of the creek supplies water to an extensive greenbelt "open space" district and is the basis of the ecology of a great area. The "open space" includes a 9 1/2 acre strip deeded to the Town of Los Altos Hills by the Dawson-Damavandi subdivision of the Rancho San Antonio area. In this strip are a great number of fine, huge redwood trees whose roots have been directly in the creek for many, many years. Could they and the other trees and plants survive a dry creek and fast-falling water table if the creek was totally closed? The mosquitos and other insects are controlled by the frogs breeding in the creek. Would this becorne an infestation? Deer, squirrels, oppossum, red fox, bobcats, hosts of birds, and other animals live here and depend on the creek. Without the creek for several years to make a lake, the water table would fall rapidly, turning the greenbelt to desert dryness in a canyon that would develop maximal forest fire risk! As Hale Creek follows the line of conservation easements through many Los Altos Hills properties, other homes and churches on the West side of Magdalena, through parts of Los Altos and Mountain View to San Fransisco Bay, it provides much beauty, much pleasure, an important water table, and an extensive ecology. How much would be lost if the creek was dammed near its source? A lake where there's now a quarry is a fine idea, but blocking Hale Creek is not. There must be at least five other ways to make such a lake...to preserve and maintain Hale Creek and all that depends on it. We are a concerned group of property owners residing in Los Altos Hills. Some of us have been here a long time; although we support modernizing the Hills, it must not be at the expense of the rustic beauty that comprises the Hills. We are disappointed with the various authorities responsible for approving an unexplored and capricious method of generating this lake. Let it not be at our expense. We ask each of you to help us keep Hale Creek flowing as is. Cordially you Vs, oncerned Group of Residents ' f Los Altos Hills I WTL _ Dk CHAP►p RD j t yc !��q •T a ARBOIEDA c' DI T �q1 SEw iOpN '!�l GRIs�� y t CARNATION C LOS PAIAPt". GLEN ALTO = QP DR \ SNE q 9 y 2 GARDENIA WY _ j ti � � J LILAC LN � CT DR Y 5 h A DRCMD Pt 3 s y 3 0J 1 On r 4p c 4b ('pb RMITA � O �i = A!! x J i 4p r iy ER 3H 2 � c91 PfNDA D a D! r JESUII HARRINGTO Sp 9a OfpljE( �,� RETREAT I r 90 �\� ASiI a�� c� Cf AY A a HOUSE 84, qp AVON s WY A( ERRdAll ,P�P lOSEF LEC' sEVAiN' hQ� �. \ �rr�y. ��� CUE TA R a nA BSEAVATORY LAP `��� J DR W OR qy CO aim FOOTHILL �a J o5 ` J`a� �o� ao 0 oy 9 �F� S. V AW B[OO. \YOE�S L� `P rlp o�4 Cj 4, �r (f Z `� � ��o G 5 h ` COLLEGE COLLEGE LE v J /.3�ONEONTq x RD. ��4�0STUNEBROOK�� 10�0 ! HILLTpp H ILLTOP pR, c CSC f k Jtoo, W1tto`iN 1 �Q F�1;1 LA PONO C' �SPECT �yCEss ? z Ltd► QO Epq �� pe WflDD RD �D4(q �4\\ 9� TBRQp LPG PLATEAU \ dog pR-�. Ep REEF A,1 AV.pt -' ljj J [UNA PE �� P4 qyp= 3 ��0 LOS ALTOS c7 NEA ago WINDtn+�®\� s GOLF- PUij�c �P a Qrj r OR 2 r � f RAHCN Milt tics DR DNIO I pF �Q 91 � � ,fir I L C`\yE A[BFRTSY� p0 PO 9*y/9 Q cAlIrofy E,v NA lo cj k"ILMSBURY` �P ARV t - -C:Z/ �_ MOPA DR LL 1 RANCHO SAN AN N10 OPEN Sr-ACE PRESERVE t I t I i -a J I� TIMES TRIBUNE Sunday, August 10, 1986—A-3 OUAhhY Part of Neary Continued from A-S south of Los Altos Hills only limited development, accord- t' 7 ing to Raffi Sarkisian, county land �. development coordinator. bought by developer "Under H-S zoning,the minimum A t:. "h.. lot size (fora 360-acre parcel) would be 20 acres for a two lot sub- �s. By Mary T.Fortney outside city boundaries, but with= division and 160 acres for a cluster Times Tribune staff in the city's sphere of influence. subdivision,"Sarkisian said. 4 The city requires one-acre par- Zoning regulations permit two Tucked away among the hills cels for residential lots. acre lots in cluster developments, F Y south of Los Altos Hills is the Newry But it may not be eager for more but there is a requirement that 94 Rock Quarry, an unexpected sight development in that area. Council, percent of the acreage be left as to eyes accustomed to the elegant member Barbara Tryon noted that. open space. {� homes more common in the area. 1 a ' stair-step� Rough cuts into the the area is designated for open "There would be a maximum of p space in the town's general plan. 18 lots," he said. "But Vidovich a slopes show where decades of "The open space element can be could always ask for a zoning quarrying have sliced away a hill. Y 8 changed, but it would require a- change." Rube Goldberg devices carry the eat deal of public hearings," she k gray rock through processing pro- said. pid Los Altos Hills residents who live cedures,and huge trucks line up at along Stonebrook Drive have com- A fl i 4> traveling u n attempt to 978 by develop a weigh station before plained frequently about the noise r2 ,x deliver p er David Semaslto build on an- Stonebrook Drive to a iver their other portion of the quarry prop of the 100 or so large trucks daily loads. I going to and from the quarry along erty never got off the ground. The Neary quarry has been a the residential street. - fixture since the 1930s, but its fu- But Jack Estill sees the quarry Semas also wanted to make the ; ture is now in question. quarry into a lake, and to build differently. h houses 75 f g q uses on acres o property � Y A Sunnyvale developer,John Vi- Estill, the son of the city's first along Stonebrook Road and the 280 6' ^� dovich of DeAnza Properties, has mayor, grew up in Los Altos. At Freeway. Residents protested his yM bought a controllinginterest in 360 that time, he didn't even know the plan,and the proposal fell through. - , acres from owner George Newry. That property has since been ; quarry existed. Now he is vice The parcel includes the 40-acre president of Patton Bros. Inc., Daiwa House Indus- quarry and some hillsides over purchased by Santa Clara, which operates the - d <" try Co. of Japan. The firm has no A looking it quarry on a lease basis. Vidovich has not revealed much current plans to develop the land, Estill says he looks forward to according to Yukio Murata, assis- ; about his plans, but reportedly in- tant secretaryof Daiwa's U.S. sub- the days he can leave his office M tends to create a residential devel- and get out to the serenity of the sidiary, Daiwa House Corp. of 3 , opment there, transforming the quarry. America,Cupertino. quarry itself into an art x - ificial lake. He acknowledges It's not all x If Los Altos Hills doesn't annex �`s F He also reportedly is considering the property, Vidovich's develop- beautiful,with its dusty equipment, ¢ � n � seeking annexation of the parcel ment would come under Santa cone-shaped piles of gray rock and 3 ' �� fir, by Los Altos Hills. rattling conveyor belts. . Clara County jurisdiction as unin- , � Vidovich is expected to meet rp county But the y .: _ a ,,. Kx co orated coun land. quarry is surrounded b Times Tribune staff photo by Kenneth K.Lam soon with the city manager and County regulations would allow green, tree-covered hillsides, and Jack Estill, vice president of Patton Bros. Inc., Santa Clara, stands In the Neary Rock' city planner of Los Altos Hills to one sees a buzzard wheeling about Quarry. Patton Bros. Inc. operates the quarry on a lease basis. discuss his plans. The property is Please see QUARRY,A-4 in the sky. Below, at the base of the cut,are two miniature lakes of 4 drainage water. Estill hopes the quarry will be allowed to continue operating until the rock runs out- "I'd like to see us use up this re- source, rather than have it be lost forever." flotibeb 1JI U1JUa0rU tit UU W 1Z 1 I ICAAi Y W U"I Y V OA Lam. � By Mike McDevitt and the adjacent, undeveloped please residents and Town Hall, plan amendment and subdivi- Scarborough said it would be hillside at the end of Stonebrook In "a couple of months" sion application, among other "inappropriate to respond"now Coatinued from The owner of Neary Quarry Drive near Foothill College. Vidovich will submit a plan to things. to how many homes Vidovich z 1.3 loge wants to clsse the mining opera- George Neary Jr. retains a the city, he said, but he would Among the hurdles facing could build because of the lack r the extracted rock to form road 1 lion,fill thequarry with water to partial interest in the property. not estimate the number of Vidovich is a general plan of planning studies, but Town -1 gravel. form a rareation pond, and Patton Brothers Construction, homes he'll propose other than designation of most of the land Planner Nancy Lytle did say a W Over the last year there has build a grand residential com- which leases the 60-aere quarry to say there will be "less than for open space. A small portion that any development would be U 2 probably been a decrease in the munity in the hillsides south of to mine road gravel, has oper- 100." He added that be wants to is designated for low-density low-density because of the steep U amount of material they import Los Altos Bells. ated at the site since 1975. build the houses and close the housing. The owners will also terrain. to the quarry to mix with the ex- "What want to do very Residents of the Stonebrook quarry as soon as possible—"as have to complete an environ- Vidovich said his houses tracted rock to form road badly is t the quarry and neighborhood have complained fast as we can get{the plan ap- mental impact report which will would compare with the quality g gravel. build a fast-class residential for years about the truck traffic, proved)through the city." have to address the loss of the of those along Carmel's"17-Mile W Q "Over the last year there has development,"said John Vidov- and claim that the operators But City Manager George wildlife habitat. Drive." probably been a decrease in the ich, a general partner of De have increased the mining ac- Scarborough said the planning The environment impact will "To me, high-quality devel- amount ," countered Jack Es material that's been Anza Properties in Sunnyvale. tivity in violation of Santa Clara process will take"well over two be "negligible," Vidovich saiU, opment does not mean big, gi imported, Vidovich recently purchased the County regulations. Vidovich years." Involved is an annexa- and much less burdensome to gantic stucco boxes," he said. till, vice president of Patton controlling interest in the 360 said closing the quarry for resi- lion of the land from the county the community than the mining "It means some taste. High- Brothers. I acres that beludes the quarry dential development should to the city,a rezoning,a general operation. quality means things that blend Both Estill and Vidovich q declined to reveal how much in with the environment. i "We are more concerned rock the operation mines per ..;, with the aesthetics than the city year. LAM 1•,, is. And the neighbors are prob- "I've been instructed not to ably very concerned also," he give out that figure,"Estill said. added. According to a county ordin- - •- Vidovich said the quarry ae adopted in 1982, each ;. would be perfect for a lake quarry in the valley is required because of its shape and because to submit a reclamation plan, it is nearly impervious. The explaining how the land is to be quarry, shaped like a bowl, restored after the mining opera- would catch the water from the lion ends. In a preliminary reclamation plan that hasn't et surrounding hills. According to P Y a report submitted by Patton been approved by the county, ` Brothers to the county, the Patton Brothers proposes a five- quarry would fill up in about phase restoration schedule that eight years to a depth of 912 feet. ends in 1998. A release channel would be built Vidovich,of course,wants to to allow the excess water to flow build houses there before 1998, "• . into Hale Creek. and if his development is Vidovich said that if the town approved, the restoration of the does o v his develop qua will be speeded up. The .:: develop- ment het approve annexation contouring of the steep quarry e will drop then exation restoration ' proposal and apply with the conto g p quarry county to build homes. But slopes, seeding to reestablish the native vegetation,County Associate Planner Rans planting Bratton doubts that possibility, trees,and establishing the pond. since the county policy is to now Quarrying has continued at allow development in that hill- the site since 1934, when horse- drawn wagons were used. The a side area. ravel base of man A residential community, if g y roads in the county, and most of the roads in �# approved, is at least several Los Altos came from Neary years away, and in the mean_ time, the quarry anoperation will Quarry,Vidovich said. '•; continue, to the displeasure of , ,■ many neighboring residents. Dick Cashman of Oneonita Illh ��,,�"�� •_ �, '` '� ����' �"�^' - �z' �'t� "' ram. Drive has complained to Town Hall that iu recent years the op- erators have illegally increased ' 4 . :> :, : •� t__,. it 41f;, y, ". the amount of material they im- .. �.• .• ', �t.: �' - - - a�'�4'�i.1�. ��_ T. c —,+ 4n thv n,i�m 4n miv with i MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT N OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER BUILDING C SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 DRAFT FOR BOARD REVIEW Dr. Howard F. Martin 11666 Dawson Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Dear Dr. Martin: The District' s Board of Directors considered your letter of September 20 regarding Hale Creek at its October 8 meeting. A formal development plan for the quarry would, of course, be submitted to the Town of Los Altos Hills or Santa Clara County, and your concerns regarding the potential impacts of the proposal should certainly be transmitted to the responsible agency early in the review process. The District is particularly concerned about potential impacts of development of the large Vidovich-Neary property on the neighboring Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and District staff has been and will continue to be in contact with Mr. Vidovich and the responsible agencies as development plans are formulated. Sincerely, Edward Shelley, President Board ''.of Directors 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 DIRE <arar a WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Chapter 1379 Meeting 86-23 fSil Air Force Sergeants Association Oct. 8 , 1986 o ,The Mike Hammer Chapter" ► RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF September 18, 1986 V Board President Acknowledge/Res Director Acknowledge/Reapond Staff Acknowledge/Respond Board of Directors _ Draft Response Attached Mid-Peninsula Open Space District _ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft for Board Old Mill Office Center Boardnse Directive(s) Consideration per 2101 San Antonio Circle, #C135 other i r-?- Mountain View, CA 94040 r?t�rz "c.T, JE Every November for the past five years our organization has installed a star on Mt. Umunhumm as a reminder to the people of the Santa Clara Valley that there are approximately 2400 American ser- vicemen still unaccounted-for in Southeast Asia. Before our organization assumed this project the star was installed each year by military personnel of Almaden Air Force Station when it occupied the mountain top. When lighted at night, the star can be seen from virtually every location in the valley. The star on the mountain each year has become somewhat of a tradition; in the past we have had public officials of Santa Clara County and/or the City of San Jose officiate at a lighting ceremony. Attending these ceremonies were former Prisoners of War and the families of servicemen who still are in POW-MIA (Prisoner of War-Missing in Action) status. Each year we renew our dedication to continue to press for information on these POW-MIAs until their fate is known and verified, and our star is the principal symbol of this rededication. Not only to us but to those who have loved ones still missing; they will know we have not forgotten! We do not consider, nor have we ever heard of a single complaint or inquiry, that our star has any religious significance. To the contrary, we consider our star to have the same secular implication as do the 50 stars on the American flag. Also, we believe most people in the valley who have seen the star know its purpose; there are numerous local radio spots and an occasional article in the San Jose Mercury News. In the newspaper's Action Line, people ask about the star and are given the correct information regarding its purpose; in "Letters to the Editor," people comment favorably on the star. Despite Mr. Goggin's expression of the District Management Staff's mis-giving, we have yet to hear the first concern regarding the issue of separation of church and state. If one should develop, it is a simple matter to immediately extinguish and remove the star. We would like to continue to install the star as long as there are people unaccounted-for in Southeast Asia. Please consider this a request for access to the site and permission to install the star in early November and to remove it again in mid January. An early reply will be appreciated so that we may know whether to plan for its installation. Thank you in advance for helping us keep this project alive; we think you will agree that it is a very worthwhile project. If more information is needed, please call me at the number below. Sincerely, Tony Rollis President, AFSA Chapter 1379 nFrom a Whisper to a Shout" P.O. Box 147, NAS Moffett Field, CA 94035 5169 Bobbie Ave, San Jose, CA 95130(406)379-9604 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 86-23 10698 Mora Dri Oct, 1, 1986 Los Altos, Ca. RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF Sept. 29, 1986 Board President Acknowledge/Respond Director Acknowledge/Respond Midpeninsula Regional open Space District V Staff Acknowledge/Respond ir Board of Directors s Draft Response Attached 201 San Antonio Circle, Building C Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft Mountain View, Ca. 94040 Response for Board Consideration per Board Directive(s) Other VA A; 14 Dear Board Members , I attended the Sept. 24, 1986 meeting and wish to comment on the disposition of the upper house at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. The item was tabled until the next meeting, based on a tied 3/3 vote with board member Teena Henshaw absent at the time of vote. I would like to point out that my family and I rent the dis- cussed house and would, in some perspective, have a personal inter- est in the outcome of your decision. I also, however, work as a staff member for the City of Mtn. View at Deer Hollow Farm and feel my varied experiences on the preserve over the past three years give rise to a clear concern for the future well being of the preserve, unrelated to my own needs. It is in this light that I continue . Rancho San Antonio is unlike all the other preserves, primarily be- cause of it' s immediate access to the public. David Hansen made a comment at the Sept. 24 meeting that substantiates this fact. Traf- fic on Rancho alone is double the total traffic of the other pre- serves combined. MROSD ' s primary goal of preservation of open space through numerous acquistions is a reality for which I am gratefully appreciative. I understand that the need for land management fol- lows and at Rancho San Antonio that need is immediate. Rancho is our learning experience and will set valuable precedents for other preserves as the public reaches out to experience and use the land. My belief is that MROSD ranger/staff involvement in facilitating public use of Rancho will continue to increase and be more compli- cated. During the last year we have seen: an overnight campfire smoulder, an attempted rape of a runner, a broken bone from a bicy- cle fall and gun activity. These incidents paint a record of the seriousness of dangers, not to shadow the beauty and pleasure that thousands of people have in using the preserve , but to remind you of the constant and increasing need for immediate ranger access. I believe a conservative attitude toward retaining the available structures is warranted . Our future needs are unknown; be they a combination of 2/3 resident rangers, 1 DHF staff, office space, or enterprise dwelling. To remove part of the structure because of it' s negative visual impact is shortsighted. The house is clearly visible in it' s entirety from numerous sites on the preserve. A partial removal would not change that fact. In my mind, visual im- pact does not outweigh the need for more ranger residence. The ini- tial dual use as ranger residence/enterprise dwelling, as outlined in point A in D. Hansen ' s Sept. 19 report to the Board and voted in support of by three members, seems reasonable and provides the fore- sight of more options for our undetermined future needs. Sincerely yours, C4A.�h Christine wren FDirecto, CTION PRO?OSED BY STAFF WRITTEN C014MUNICATION ident Acknowledge/Respond Meeting 86-23 Acknowledge/Respond Oct. 1986 owledge/Respond onse Attached _ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft Response for Board Consideration per Harry H. Ha e u s s l e r, Jr. Board Directive(s) 1094 Highland Circle ✓ Other �EFElt Tit Los Altos , Calif. 94022 p4-e"T AlCe EIf/le Y September 24, 1986 Board of Directirs Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District Late today I received Assembly Bill No. 2674 which has just recently been signed by the Governor. This bill pertains to changes in the Government Code relating to local agencies, and amending the Ralph M. Brown Act. This letter is rperely to call this to your attention. Har y H. Haeussler, r. , ..' Assembly Bill wNo. 2674 Ch. 641 ,. 1 � misdemeanor sanctions for eac of a legislative body who C :641 knowingly attends a meeting of tbA&lslative body where action is taken in violation of the Ralph Me Brown Act. Existing law also An act to amend Sections 35144,,35145, 72121, and 72129 of the authorizes any interested perms`to commence an action by i Education Code, to amend Sections54956, 54956.5, and 54960.5 of, mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief to stop or prevent and to add Sections 54954.2,54954.3,and 54960.1 to,the Government violations or threatened violations of statutory provisions relating to Code, relating to local agencies. - open meetings of local agencies or to determine the application of those provisions: F. [Approved by Governor Aepte be 2, 1 Filed with Under existing law,as construed b the courts an action taken at Secretary of State September 2, i986.] g Y y a meeting in violation of the Ralph M.Brown Act is nonetheless valid. LEGISLATIVE COU�EL'S DIGEST This bill would authorize any,interested person to commence an AB 2674, Connelly. Open meetings: local agencies. action by mandamus, injunction,.or declaratory relief to determine (1) Under existing provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the if certain actions taken by the legislative body of a local agency and Education Code,the actions of legislative bodies of local agencies and the governing boards of school,or community college districts are # j governing boards of school and community college districts are null and void,as specified.It would require the interested person to required to be taken openly and their deliberations are r make a demand.of,the legislative or g body to cure or q F Y required to gu governin be conducted openly.Under these existing laws,the legislative body correct the action,-as specified, before commencing the action. It of a local agency and the governing boards of school and community would provide that the fact that a legislative or governing body takes college districts are not required to post an agenda containing a brief a subsequent action to cure or correct an action pursuant to this general description of each item of business to be transacted or section shall not be construed, or be admissible, as evidence of a . discussed at a regular meeting. Additionally, existing law does not violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. j prohibit any action to be taken,as defined,on any item not appearing (5) Existing law authorizes a court to award reasonable attorneys' on the posted agenda. fee to a plaintiff where A is found the local agency has violated This bill would make this requirement and prohibition, with provisions of law relating to open meetings, or to a prevailing certain exceptions, as specified. The requirement would impose a defendant in cases in which the court finds the action was clearly state-mandated local program. frivolous and totally lacking in merit. (2) The Ralph M. Brown Act does not require that every agenda This bill would authorize the award of reasonable attorneys' fees for regular meetings provide an opportunity for members of the in actions to determine null and void the actions of a local agency as public to directly address the legislative body on items of interest to described in (4) above. j the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the (6) The bill would also declare the Legislature's intent with legislative body. regard to the application of the Ralph M.Brown Act to the governing This bill would, except as specified, make this requirement and boards of school and community districts. would require the legislative body to adopt reasonable regulations, (7) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse as specified. These new requirements would impose a local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state-mandated local program. state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that (3) The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the legislative body of a reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims local agency-to give a specified notice of special meetings. Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $500,000 require a specified posting and make statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs � This bill would in addition r a conforming change. exceed 5500,000. 1 , Existing law requires that an agenda of special meetings of the This bill wauld provide that reimbursement for costs mandated by governing boards of school and community college districts be the bill shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and,if posted at least 24 hours prior to special meetings. the statewide cost does not exceed$500,000,shall be payable from the This bill would additionally require that the posted notice specify State Mandates Claims Fund. the time and location of the meeting. This requirement would people impose a state-mandated local program. e Th ea le of the State of California do enact as follows: (4) Existing law defines the term "action taken" and prescribes SECTION 1. Section 35144 of the Education Code is amended to read: 92 50 E --3 Ch.. 641 Ch. 641 4.�w Z 35144. A special meetin of overnin board of a school the Government Cade. Any izt g , g g person may commence an district may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the. action by mandamus or injunctionqx=uant to Section 54960.1 of the board, or by a majority of the members thereof, by delivering Government Code for the -purpose of obtaining a judicial personally or,by mail written notice to each member of the board, determination- that any actiow by the governing board in and to eacli local newspaper of general circulation, radio, or violation of this subdivision or subdivision (b) of Section 72129 is null television station requesting notice in writing. The notice shall be and void. -; delivered personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time of SEC.4. , Section 72129 of theE. =: tion Code is amended to read: the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall 72129. (a) Special meeting ,�.may be held at the call of the specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business president of the board or upon ai call issued in writing and signed by to be transacted_ No other busine� shall be considered at those a majority of the members of the board. meet ings by the, board] The written notice may be (b ) A noti ce of the meeting shall be posted at least 24 hours prior ` dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the to the special meeting and shaWspecify the time and location of the meeting convenes files with`the clerk or secretary of the board a meeting and the business to be=.transacted and shall be posted in a written waiver of notice.The waive may be given by telegram.The location that is freely accessible to members of the public and district written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is employees. actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes. SEC. 5. Section 54954.2 is added to the Government Code, to The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the read: :x special meeting in a location that is freely accessible,to members of 54954.1 ,(a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the the public and district employees . legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an SEC.2_ Section 35145 of the Education Code is amended to read; agenda containing a brief general description of each item of 35145. Except as provided in Sections 54957 and 54957.6 of the business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. The agenda Government Code and in Section 35146 of, and subdivision (c) of shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall Section 48918 of,this code,all meetings of the governing board of any be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the school district shall be open to the public,and all actions authorized r public. No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the or required by law of the governing board shall be taken at the posted agenda. meetings and shall be subject to the following requirements: (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may (a) Minutes shall be taken at all of those meetings, recording all take action on items of business mot appearing on the posted agenda j actions taken by the governing board. The minutes are public under any of the following conditions: records and shall be available to the public. (1) Upon a determination'by a majority vote of the legislative (b) An agenda shall be posted by the governing board, or its body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section designee,in accordance with the requirements of Section 54954.2 of 54956.5. the Government Code. Any interested person may commence an (2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the legislative action by mandamus or injunction pursuant to Section 54960.1 of the body, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a Government Code for the purpose of obtaining a judicial unanimous vote of those members present, that the need to take determination that any action taken by the governing board in action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in violation of this subdivision or Section 35144 is null and void. subdivision (a). SEC.3. Section 72121 of the Education Code is amended to read: (3) The item was posted pursuant to subdivision (a) for a prior x8 72121. Except as provided in Sections 54957 and 54957.6 of the meeting of the legislative body occurring not more than five Government Code and in Section 72122 of, and subdivision (c) of calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item,and at the Section 48914 of,this code,all meetingsof the governingboard of any prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action community college district shall be open to the public,and all actions is being taken. authorized or required by law of the governing hoard shall be taken SEC. 6. Section 54954.3 is added to the Government Code, to at the meetings and shall be subject IIo the following requirements: read: (a) Minutes shall be taken at all of those meetings,recording all 54954.3. (a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an actions taken by the governing board. The minutes are public opportunity for members of the public to directly address the records and shall be available to the public. legislative body on items of interest to the public that are within the (b) An agenda shall be posted by the governing board, or its subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body,provided that no designee,m accordance with the requirements of Section 54954.2 of action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless Ch. 641 Ch. 641 the action is otherwise authori2xi by subdivision (b) of Section (a) Work stoppageorotheFictivity which severely impairs public 54%42.However,in the case of a meeting of a city council in a city health,safety,or both,as dete6mined by a majority of the members or a board of supervisorscity county, g of the legislative in a ci and coon the agenda need not body. provide an opportunity for members,of the public to address the (b) Crippling disaster "!severely impairs public health, council or board on any item that has;already been considered by a safety,or bath,as determinea majority of the members of the J committee, composed exclusively of;members of the council or legislative body. board, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the However,each local newspopmr of general circulation and radio or' public were afforded the oportunity to'address the committee on the television station which has ` ed notice of special meetings item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the pursuant to Section 54956 shalt-be notified by the presiding officer of committee heard the item,as determined by the council or board. the legislative body,'or "'K thereof, one hour prior to the (b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable emergency meeting by telOphone and all telephone numbers 1 regulations to ensure that the intent ofsubdivision (a) is carried out provided in the most recent r t of such newspaper or station for including,but not limited to,regulations limiting the total amount of notification of special meetingsshall be exhausted.In the event that time allocated for public testimony oreparticular issues and for each telephone services are not functioning;the notice requirements of individual speaker. this section shall be deemed!'ivaived, and the legislative body, or SEC. 7. Section 54956 of the Government Code is amended to designee of the legislative body,'shall notify those newspapers,radio read: stations, or television station& of the fact of the ,holding of the 54956. A special meeting may be called at any time by the emergency meeting, the purpose of the meeting, and any action presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, or by a taken at the meeting as soon after-the meeting as possible. majority of the members of the legislative body, by delivering Notwithstanding Section 54957,the legislative body shall not meet personally or by mail written notice to each member of the in closed session during a meeting called pursuant to this section. legislative body and to each local newspaper of general circulation, All special meeting requirements, as prescribed in Section 54956 radio or television station requesting notice in writing. The notice shall be applicable to a meeting called pursuant to this section,with shall be delivered personally or by mail and shall be received at least the exception of the 24-hour notice requirement. 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The minutes of a meeting called pursuant to this section,a list of The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special persons who the presiding officer of the legislative body,or designee meeting and the business to be transacted.No other business shall be of the legislative body,notified or attempted to notify,a copy of the considered at these meetings by the legislative body. The written rollcall vote,and any actions taken at the meeting shall be posted for notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to a minimum of 10 days in a public place as soon after the meeting as the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the possible: x legislative body a written waiver of notice.The waiver may be given SEC. 9. Section 549W.I is:added to the Government Code, to by telegram.The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any read: z, member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it 54960.1. (a) Any interested person may commence an action by convenes.Notice shall be required pursuant to this section regardless mandamus or injunction for,the purpose of obtaining a judicial of whether any action is taken at the special meeting. determination that an action-taken by a legislative body of a local The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the agency in violation of Section 54953,54954.2,or 54956 is null and void special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of under this section. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to the public. prevent a legislative body from curing or correcting an action SEC.8. Section 54956.5 of the Government Code is amended to challenged pursuant to this section. read: (b) Prior to any action being commenced pursuant to subdivision 54956.5. In the case of an emergency situation involving matters (a), the interested person shall make a demand of the legislative upon which prompt action is necessary due to the disruption or body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in threatened disruption of public facilities,a legislative body may hold violation of Section 54953,54954.2,or 54956.The demand shall be in an emergency meeting without complying with either the 24-hour writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative notice requirement or the 24-hour posting requirement of Section body and nature of the alleged violation.The written demand shall 54956 or both of the notice and posting requirements. be made within 30 days from the date the action w>ts taken. Within For purposes of this section,"emergency situation"means any of 30 days of receipt of the demand, the legislative body shall cure or the following: correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in i -7 - Ch. 641 Ch. 641 g writing of its actions to cure or correct or inform the,demanding ` party in writing of its decision not to cure or correct the challenged reference to-Sections 54954.2 54960.1 of the Government Code action_ If the legislative body takes no-action within the 30-day in Sections 35145 and 721M of&e Education Code, as amended by period,the inaction shall be deemed a decision not to cure or correct this act,to-imply that other of the Ralph A Brown Act which the challenged action,and the 15-day period to commence the action have been construed as apply to meetings of the governing boards described in subdivision (a) shall commence to run the day after the a tho se a and community coll m districts shall not continue to apply 30-day period to cure or correct expirex Within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the legislative body's decision to cure or correct, SEC.12. Reimbursement agencies and school districts£or the expiration of the 30-day period to cure or correct,or 75 days from costs mandated.by the stat t to this act shall be made the date the challenged action was n, whichever is earlier, the pursuant to Part 7 (commen with Section 17500) of Division 4 of demanding party shall be required to commence the action pursuant Tide 2 of the Government dade and, if the statewide cost of the to subdivision (a) or thereafter be bmirred from commencing the claim for reimbursement do46 not exceed five hundred thousand action. doh ($500,000), shall be <; a from the State Mandates Claims (c) An action taken shall not be de' rmined to be null and void if any of the following conditions exists (1) The action taken was in substantial compliance with Sections 54953, 54954.2, and 54956. (2) The action taken was in connection with the sale or issuance x of notes,bonds,or other evidences of indebtedness or any contract, instrument, or agreement thereto. ' (3) The action taken gave rise to a contractual obligation, including a contract let by competitive bid,upon which a party has, I ' } .i in good faith, detrimentally relied. I" (4) The action taken was in connection with the collection of any tax. - (d) During any action seeking a judicial determination pursuant to subdivision (a) if the court determines,pursuant to a showing by the legislative body that an action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, or 54956 has been cured or corrected by a subsequent action of the legislative body,the action filed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be dismissed with prejudice. (e) The fact that a legislative body takes a subsequent action to cure or correct an action taken pursuant to this section shall not be O construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of this chapter. SEC. 10. Section 54960.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54960.5. A court may award court costs and reasonL'ale attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or 54960.1 where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency has violated this chapter.The costs and fees shall be paid by the local agency and shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the local agency. A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to a defendant in any action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or 54960.1 where the defendant has prevailed in a final determination of such action and the court finds that the action was clearly frivolous and ,totally lacking in merit. SEC.11. The Legislature does not intend,by including an express 92 210 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I. DATE: October 8 , 1986 SAVE SKYLINE October 1986 RUSSIAN RIDGE SAVED ! JOIN US FOR A CELEBRATION SUNDRY OCT. 12 MROSD DIRECTORS APPROVE N00TON " S DECK PURCHASE OF PETERS LAND �. CK 12 NOON :�.. 20002 SKYLINE Adele and George Norton invite you to attend a celebration of preservation of the most important Open Space aquisition on Skyline in recent years. The Midpeninsula Open Space District has agreed to purchase over 200 acres of prime ridge land overlooking San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. J" Come and see it this Sunday and Thank you for sauing rejoice in this wonderful addition to my habitat ! permanent Open Space. Where: 20002 Skyline 5.6 miles north of Highway 84 1.6 miles south of Page Mill Road Norton's Deck on Russian Ridge by the windmill When: 12 Noon Sunday October 12, 1986 Bring Your own Picnic and the family Liquid refreshments will be served Cancelled if rain or heauy fog Hike Russian Ridge Call (41 5) 851 -1 274 if in doubt County Government Center SANTA CLARA COUNTY East Wing,Eleventh Floor 70 West Redding Street San Jose, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL 408 299-24245i10 Established by Charter to address joint jurisdictional issues,and to develop cooperative relations between local agencies September 18, 1986 To: Trails & Pathways Committee Members and Other Interested Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals From: Don Weden, Staff Coordinator IGC Trails & Pathways Committee Re: RESTRUCTURING OF THE TRAILS & PATHWAYS COMMITTEE IGC Review of Its Committee s The Intergovernmental Council (IGC), the sponsoring organization of the Trails & Pathways Committee, has recently completed a review of its committee structure and committee membership. This has resulted in changes in the composition of most of its committees, including the Trails & Pathways Committee. Revised Structure of Trails & Pathways Committee When it was created back in 1974 by the Planning Policy Committee (the IGC's predecessor), the Trails & Pathways Committee had a formal membership of persons appointed to serve on it. Over the years, the Committee's membership has become increasingly informal as some of the original members became inactive and other unappointed trail supporters have stepped in to become active with the Committee. One of the goals of the IGC review of the Trails & Pathways Committee structure was to re-establish a more formal Committee membership, with closer ties to the IGC. To achieve these objectives, the Trails & Pathways Committee has been restructured as a nine-member committee consisting of 5 elected officials and 4 "at-large" members, all of whom are appointed by the Chair of the IGC. In addition, the Committee will have a number of Technical Advisors who will advise the Committee on an informal basis, i.e. there will not be a formal Technical Advisory Committee as such, but rather the Technical Advisors will be called upon from time to time to give the Committee the benefit of their expertise. These Technical Advisors will include local agency staff, former Committee members, and other local trail advocates and experts. (continued) IGC Members Elected Officials representing: Campbell Los Altos Milpitas Mountain View Santa Clara County of Santa Clara Santa Clara County School Districts Cupertino Los Altos Hills Monte Sereno Palo Alto Saratoga Santa Clara County Special Districts Gilroy Los Gatos Morgan Hill San Jose Sunnyvale Santa Clara Valley Water District Benefits of New Structure This new structure will provide a number of benefits to the Trails & Pathways Committee and its efforts to encourage and facilitate the implementation of the countywide Trails and Pathways Plan. Among these benefits will be: o Closer ties to the Intergovernmental Council and its member jurisdictions o Infusion of some adds energy 'additional en and expertise into the Committee's gY P , activities o Potential for higher public visibility for the Committee and its activities o New perspectives and ideas for facilitating the completion of the proposed countywide trails and pathways network Continued Involvement of Other Interested Trail Supporters One of the strengths of the Trails & Pathways Committee during the twelve years it has been in existence has been the involvement and support of individuals who may not have ever been formally appointed to the Committee but who have regularly attended the Committee's meetings, participated in its discussions, and supported its objectives. It is my sincere hope that those of you who have participated with the Committee in this way will continue to do so, particularly during this coming year which I believe will be one of the Committee's most interesting and productive years. Transition in Staff Support For the past 5 years, since Jess Smith retired, I have served as the Staff Coordinator for the Trails & Pathways Committee. This has involved activities such as preparing meeting agendas, answering public inquiries about the Committee, handling most Committee correspondence, representing the Committee on various other committees, organizing field trips, coordinating the reprinting of the Trails & Pathways Plan, etc. Starting in a few months, I will need to begin devoting a substantial amount of my time to coordinating a major review of the County's General Plan. In order to free up more of my time for the General Plan Review project, I have begun delegating many of my Trails & Pathways responsibilities to Cheryl Reid, a talented and energetic member of the County Office of Planning, staff. Although I will continue to serve as the Staff Coordinator for the Committee, advising the Committee and supervising the Office of Planning's staff support, Cheryl will be handling most of the Committee's day-to-day affairs. She is the one you should generally contact when you have questions about the Committee or items on its agendas, or information you would like to bring to the Committee's attention. Countyr Government Center East Wing,Eleventh Floor SANTA CLARA COUNTY 70 West Hedding Street INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL 4082ss=2424st�o Established by Charter to address September 16, 1986 iointiurisdictional issues,and to develop cooperative relations between local agencies IGC TRAILS & PATHWAYS COMMITTEE ROSTER Elected Officials Louise Dronkert (Councilperson, Los Altos Hills), Co-Chair 27431 Black Mountain Road, Los Altos Hills 94022 (415) 941-0400 Rod Diridon (County Supervisor) County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose 95110 (408) 299-2323 Curtis Harrison (Special Districts Representative) 20260 Carol Lane, Saratoga 95070 (408) 252-3206 Jack Lucas (Mayor, Monte Sereno) 17171 Zena Avenue, Monte Sereno 95030 (408) 395-6702 Emily Renzel (Councilperson, Palo Alto) 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 415 321-4165 At-Large Members Artemas Ginzton, Co-Chair 28014 Natoma Road, Los Altos Hills 94022 (415) 948-5362 Dick Forst 1690 Kevin Drive, San Jose 95124 (408) 264-9559 Barbara Green 1170 Crandano Court, Sunnyvale 94087 (408) 736-1141 Chris Svensson (San Jose Parks and Recreation Commission) 1468 Regalo Court, San Jose 95128 (408) 371-4219 For further information regarding the Trails & Pathways Committee, contact: Cheryl Reid or Don Weden, Santa Clara County Office of Planning, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110. (408) 299-2521. IGC Members Elected Officials representing: Campbell Los Altos Milpitas Mountain View Santa Clara County of Santa Clara Santa Clara County School Districts Cupertino Los Altos Hills Monte Sereno Palo Alto Saratoga Santa Clara County Special Districts Gilroy Los Gatos Morgan Hill San Jose Sunnyvale Santa Clara Valley Water District I II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PAST YEAR During the past year, the Trails & Pathways Committee has accomplished the following: o Obtained funding for the Urban Trails & Pathways Study, o Prepared a draft "Index to Local Trail Guidebooks", o Prepared a survey of trail implementation priorities, o Participated in numerous coordinating committees and planning studies, including: o Los Gatos Creek Committee o Guadalupe River Park Plan o Lower Coyote Creek Committee o Provided a forum for discussion of countywide trail issues, o Participated in an off-road bicycle study committee, o Provided information about the County's Trails & Pathways Master Plan to other agencies, jurisdictions, and interested citizens, o Participated in the development of the County's 5-year Capital Improvement Plan for Parks. III. MAJOR ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED THIS YEAR The major project of the Trails & Pathways Committee for the coming year will be the Urban Trails and Pathways Study. The basic purposes of that study will be: 1. To determine the extent to which the urban trails and pathways proposed in the Trails & Pathways Plan have been implemented; 2. To identify obstacles that may currently exist to the completion of the urban trails and pathways system; and 3. To identify potential actions to overcome the obstacles to completion of ._,._:.,_the uzban._.traJls and pathways system. For further information regarding the IGC Trails & Pathways Committee contact: Cheryl Reid or Don Weden, Santa Clara County Office of Planning, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110. (408) 299-2521. tp accom.aw I County Government Center East Wing,Eleventh Floor ,'S'ANTA CLARA COUNTY 70 West Hedding street INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL 4082ss 2424510 Established by Charter to address joint jurisdictional issues,and to September 10, 1986 develop cooperative relations between local agencies THE IGC TRAILS & PATHWAYS COMMITTEE I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TRAILS & PATHWAYS COMMITTEE The Trails & Pathways Committee, was established in 1974 by the Planning Policy Committee (PPC), the predecessor of the Intergovernmental Council (IGC). When the IGC replaced the PPC, the Trails & Pathways Committee became a committee reporting to the IGC. The countywide Trails & Pathways Master Plan prepared by the Committee was adopted unanimously by the PPC in 1978 and reprinted in 1982. It has subsequently been adopted as an element of the County's General Plan and is reflected in most of the cities' General Plans as well. The Plan proposes a countywide network of hiking, jogging, bicycling, and equestrian trails. Since the Plan was adopted, the Committee's general responsibility has been to encourage and facilitate the implementation of the Plan. Specifically, this has involved such activities as: o Participating in intergovernmental trail planning committees, o Serving as a forum for the discussion of trails and pathways issues (e.g. , trail user conflicts), o Proposing trail implementation priorities, o Publicizing existing trail facilities, o Reviewing parks and trail funding proposals (e.g. , the County Parks 5-year Capital Improvement Plan, TDA Article 3 funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities), o Sponsoring field trips to familiarize local officials and staff with trails and pathways accomplishments and opportunities, o Reviewing development proposals which may affect the implementation of the Trails & Pathways Master Plan. (Continued) IGC Members Elected Officials representing: Campbell Los Altos Milpitas Mountain View Santa Clara County of Santa Clara Santa Clara County School Districts Cupertino Los Altos Hills Monte Sereno Palo Alto Saratoga Santa Clara County Special Districts Gilroy Los Gatos Morgan Hill San Jose Sunnyvale Santa Clara Valley Water District TP OBJ 87.MP Santa Clara County *** DRAFT - SUBJECT TO REVISION *** Intergovernmental Council Trails & Pathways Committee September 18, 1986 DW OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED BY MAJOR PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ICC TRAILS & PATHWAYS COMMITTEE _....................................................--...........................=................................... ',.. BASIC OBJECTIVE FOR THE COMING YEAR: 'To encourage and facilitate the implementation of the urban trails proposed in the Trails in the Trails and Pathways Plan' EXPLANATION: To the right are specific SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES TO HELP ACHIEVE BASIC OBJECTIVE objectives that help achieve the Committee's =............................................................................. basic objective for the year. Below are the Committee's major projects and activities. 1. 2 3. 'XXX ' 4. 5. 6, indica tes that the objective above it Increase Publicize Publicize Encourage Publicize Increase is served by the project or activity awareness existing trails inter- benefits visibility to the left on that line. of Trails urban remaining juris- of urban of Trails & & Pathways trails and to be dictional trails Pathways MAJOR PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Plan pathways implemented cooperation Committee ........................................... ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- A. CONDUCT 'URBAN TRAILS STUDY' ------------------------------------------------ 1. Notify jurisdictions of Study XXX - - XXX XXX XXX 2. Issue news release re Study XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 3. Inventory existing urban trails - XXX XXX _ _ XXX 4, Identify funding sources - - - XXX XXX 5. Document 'success stories' - XXX _ XXX _ XXX 6. Prepare model ordinances/agreements - XXX - XXX - XXX 7. Publish/distribute final report XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 8. Issue news release re Study XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX B. DISSEMINATE TRAIL INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------ 1. Publish monthly 'Trail News' XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 2. Distribute monthly agenda XXX - XXX XXX - XXX 3. Make monthly report to IGC XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 4. Respond to public inquiries XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 5. Publish 'Trail Guidebook Index' XXX _ XXX XXX 6. Seek reprinting of Trails & Pathways Plan XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX C. ENCOURAGE TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION 1. Comment on trail funding proposals XXX - XXX XXX XXX - XXX 2. Casment on XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX projects affecting trails 3. Recommend trail implementation priorities XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX D. ORGANIZE TRAIL EVENTS ------------------------- 1. Conduct field trips XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 2. Sponsor a 'Trail Day' XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX ....----------- .........------------ .------ .------------ ..................----------- .------------------------ s-.-----.- I r SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAILS & .PATHWAYS NEWS Is sue sue #1 September, 1986 DEDICATION OF CAMPBELL AVENUE BRIDGE U D N ERCROSSING ON LOS GATOS CREEK TRAIL - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23rd A new bridge undercrossing extending the Los Gatos Creek Trail under Campbell Avenue will be dedicated at 12 noon on September 23rd. The dedication ceremony will take place at Campbell Park located at the comer of Gilman and Campbell Avenues in Campbell. A hot dog barbecue will be served following the ceremony. The Los Gatos Creek Trail currently extends almost 5 miles, from Campbell Avenue to Vasona County Park and Blossom Hill Road. SANTA CLARA COUNTY URBAN TRAILS TO BE STUDIED A study to determine what needs to be done to complete the urban trail system in Santa Clara County is about to be undertaken by the Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Council's Trails& Pathways Committee The study,which ch is expected ect ed to take approximately si months, he,will inventory urban trails that already exist and will recommend actions to help complete the missing sections of the urban trail network proposed in the countywide Trails&Pathways Plan. Future issues of this newsletter will follow the progress of the study. COASTAL CONSERVANCY APPROVES GRANT TO EXTEND BAYFRONT TRAIL Then goal f o constructing a continuous trail around the shoreline of South San Francisco Bay has moved a bit further ahead as the result of a$495 000 ant from the California grant o a Coastal Conservancy to San Mateo County. The grant will allow the extension of the Bayfront Trail from Runnymede Street in East Palo Alto to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's San Mateo Baylands Open Space Preserve at the end of Bay Road in East Palo Alto. Future phases of this protect are proposed to connect the trail north to the Dumbarton Bridge. The Bayfront Trail currently extends from Stevens Creek in Mountain View through Mountain View Shoreline Park and the Palo Alto Baylands,across San Francisquito Creek into San Mateo County,and t i n o is present at Runnymede Street 1n East Palo Alto,a total distance of approximately 6 miles. REGIONAL MEETING TO CONSIDER BAYFRONT TRAIL State Senator William Lockyer has scheduled an informational meeting to discuss the feasibility of extending a Bayfront Trail around the entire shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The meeting will be held on Monday,September 22nd at 10:00 am in the Auditorium of the State Building at 350 McAllister Street in San Francisco. The meeting is open to the public. A publication of the Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Council's Trails&Pathways Committee,County Government Center, 7th Floor,East Wing,70 W.Hedding Street,San Jose, CA 95110. (408)299-2521 i "Ry 2 3 1886.. . 2M May 21, 1986 i MEMORANDUM I TO: Christy Holloway, Ann Smith, Toby Montgomery cc: David Hansen & Del Woods, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District RE: Summary of meeting between Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Hidden Villa Planning Team - May 20, 1986 3:30-5:30 pm In attendance: David Hansen, MROSD Del Woods, MROSD Craig Britton (last 1/2 hour), MROSD Ann Smith, Hidden Villa John Stanley, Harvey & Stanley Kathy Lyons, Harvey & Stanley Harold Appleton, Harvey & Stanley I Patrick Miller, 2M _ Jane Miller, 2M PURPOSE: Patrick Miller opened the meeting with an explanation to MROSD of the Hidden Villa planning process to date, finishing with a description of the the planning team's recommended preliminary plan. FARM AREA FACILITIES: Points of emphasis included: (1) farm facilities are to be mostly relocated and renovated to improve circulation, efficiency, and ease of operations; (2) only two new building facilities are recommended, which are the Interpretive Center and a new goat shed; and, The concept for the state grant-funded Interpretive Center which was supported by MROSD includes a multi-use classroom space, HVEP offices and storage, interior restrooms, and modest information area. Del asked if scaling down this concept from that initially proposed in the grant application posed any problem with state funding. Patrick answered that the planning team didn't believe there would be any problem; that the grant application was fairly generalized, suject to Interpretation, and that the current concept did fit into the parameters outlined on the original application. 2M Associates L,c r_:scope Architecture.Site Planning, Horticulture Box 7036,Landscape Station,Berkeley,Callomia 94707 Telephone(415)524-8132 Co.Lie 1842 May 21, 1986 Page 2 (3) a new water system is proposed, which will connect with the Purissima Hills Water District's existing main along Moody Road, and will serve both fire suppression and domestic use purposes. BUS PARKING. David questioned handling of bus traffic. Patrick pointed out their proposed route, turn-around space, and parking area. FARM AREA CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Patrick raised the subject of the Conservation Easements held by the District on Hidden Villa's land. He explained that the -shuffling" of facilities, as proposed in the preliminary plan, is permitted under the current easement which covers the Farm . Del asked if the plan showed an increase in the amount of water taken from Adobe Creek for irrigation purposes. The answer is probably not; that although the capacity of the stream would allow for more water to be diverted, the physical facilities available to do so are the limiting factor. BLACK MOUNTAIN TRAIL: There was a rather lengthy discussion of the Black Mountain Trail. David indicated that the MROSD Board is interested in opening this trail to the public. However, as things currently stand, this would present somewhat of a management headache; the only patrol access is through Duveneck Windmill Pasture, and the District doesn't get there very often, mostly relying on Ray Gerard to be available when needed. Any MROSD patrol would have to be conducted from the top downhill as things stand today. MROSD may be willing to take over management of the Black Mountain Trail, but is not keen on undertaking its reconfiguration and construction. Del pointed out that timing would be important. Kathy Lyons suggested that the trail be realigned from the top of the ridgeline to slightly downhill on either side; preferably to the east to protect the Adobe Creek watershed. Such placement would also help to shield Hidden Villa a bit from the view of the general public using Black Mountain Trail, and thus not encourage increased public use of the ranch. Hidden Villa finds itself in the position of performing a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, although private land, it has been, and is,- open to the public, and takes pride in its open- door policy to people from all walks of life. On the other hand, much of the special character and ambience which has always been so treasured at Hidden Villa may well be seriously jeopardized if the property is suddenly "discovered" by the casual public user, and becomes popular with those who may enjoy recreating in the outdoor environment, but may not understand and, most importantly, respect Hidden Villa's legacy and values. This dilemma of remaining open to the public yet not becoming an overcrowded nightmare is not easily solved. Kathy suggested possible revegetation of portions of the existing trail, with provisions for a fuel break in certain areas. Del pointed out that if the trail stays completely on one side of the ridge, and does not afford vistas out from the ridgetop, then people will undoubtedly blaze their owns trails up to the ridgeline to gain views out. He recommended that the trail at a minimum provide some places where it does wind up to the ridgeline and back down to its new alignment; perhaps two or three spots would be sufficient. Further discussion focused on planning lookout points at specii �: locations along the trail. All present did agree that the public would likely find a way to obtain views out if they were not provided on the trail per se. ' P yge23, 1986 The understanding that MROSD might be willing to take over management and maintenance of Black Mountain Trail or at least work cooperatively with Hidden Villa on it was reiterated, but the actual needed rebuilding is considered a negotiating point to be handled by Craig Britton and Hidden Villa representatives. Del said that if the District is managing both ends of the trail, what happens in between in not of such great consequence. If the Very property is acquired, then maintenance vehicles will have access to Duveneck Windmill Pasture, which they currently do not. In terms of the Black Mountain Trail, Craig echoed what Del and David had earlier said: that MROSD was willing to take over the trail, but that they had hoped for a cooperative effort on the necessary construction effort, and also on the ongoing maintenance. He said this situation probably called for a "management" agreement". FIRE MANAGEMENT: MROSD has talked with CDF on occasion about re-routing this trail for fuel breaks and the like, but no firm conclusions have ever been reached. There does exist interest in a long-term, comprehensive fire management plan for the whole Black Mountain area, including those portions controlled by Kaiser Permanente. A -shaded fuel break" was defined by David as being somewhat naturalistic in character, in contrast to a simple swath of cleared land which is devoid of vegetation. Shaded fuel breaks are attained by selective pruning of vegetation, some opening up of the area, and possible interplanting of fire- retardant species. John asked if there was any other place (PTM - than Black Mountain??) for a fuel break; David said no. k Some earlier discussion items received further attention at this point: David, John, and Harold chronicled the past talks with CDF regarding fuel break plans which were not conclusive; Kathy re-emphasized a preference for the trail to be re-routed on the eastern downhill slope of Black Mountain, especially since equestrian use is envisioned. It was agreed that CDF would likely want to continue to use the actual ridgetop as a fuel break. Harold then summarized his recommendations for a fire management program, as outlined in Harvey & Stanley's Resource Management Plan prepared for 2M Associates in accordance with the Master Plan for Hidden Villa. Prime emphasis is given to education about fires, suppression capabilities, and prescribed burns. John pointed out that perhaps a greater latitude is appropriate for fire control in agreements between MROSD and Hidden Villa than is customary, as so many people as dependent upon the Adobe Creek Watershed, which could suffer severe adverse impacts as the result of fire. Del pointed out that the areas being suggested for fuel breaks were not really protecting the areas of the watershed most vulnerable to the likelihood of fire hazard, due to their proximity to areas -of heavier human use, and resulting greatest danger of fires starting does exist. Harold explained the difficulty of prescribed burns taking place in those areas. John added that the area will burn, it is simply a matter of. when, and whether under the auspices of nature's or humans' terms. In response to John's question about progress on a regional (?) fire management plan, David and Del responded that for the District, Hidden Villa's involvement is probably premature. Adobe Creek watershed isn't the top priority - it's about vumber three. May 21, 1986 Page4 PUBLIC USE AND MANAGEMENT: Currently, the District cannot direct people who are interested in hiking the Black Mountain Trail entirely through public lands-. The public is directed to obtain permission from Kaiser Permanente, the Nery's, or Hidden Villa. However, the District is hoping to acquire the Nery property, which would then become public land. As for not really encouraging further public use of Hidden Villa lands from the connecting downhill trail from Black Mountain, a few approaches were proposed. Patrick suggested that District "presence", in the form of patrolling rangers, would help keep things orderly and respectful. Craig suggested that simply leaving the connecting trail off MROSD maps would likely keep some people from exploring. REMAINING CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO BE ACQUIRED BY MROSD• Craig Britton joined the meeting to answer some questions about the Conservation Easements and corresponding covenants. At issue is the res trictions on cutting of wood, and removal of downed wood. From a practical point of view, Hidden Villa needs some wood to burn for heating of residences, and does not want to have to resort to future importation of firewood, especially when so much already exists on the ranch. Del pointed out that the District will remain firm on the requirement that any exceptions to this restriction be strictly under the domain of MROSD. Such limitations are already difficult to enforce, and over time the staff makeup of Hidden Villa will likely change. Why would MROSD wish to purchase Conservation Easements unless they were certain they could ensure the continued preservation of the resource? Del and David conceded that some areas of the ranch may have a high fuel load, and that some wood may need to come out for fire prevention, which is allowed in the easement agreements. However, the District will require total control of specifically what comes out. Harold continued with forest management recommendations. At present, California bay trees dominate much of the vegetation, especially in riparian zones. One suggestion is to thin out the bays somewhat, replacing them with Douglas fir seedlings, to diversify the vegetation mosaic. Craig replied that timber removal was not envisioned, and all agreed that such a plan was likely not high priority. Craig did say that chaparral, however, is a different matter. It was pointed that in some areas of the back country, without some vegetation removal, existing grasslands would be overtaken by chaparral in a number of years. Craig indicated that the District Board would probably be willing to include in the easements provisions for future fire or land management plans, subject to MROSD approval, which might build a case for exceptions to some of the easements' restrictions. If the Board feels it does not wish to negotiate any of these points, then Hidden Villa will-,be ,locked, into the existing conditions, but MROSD generally feels "reason will prevail", and saw now problems with the Board willing to be somewhat flexible, assuming the Master Plan and any subsequent resource management plans are a sound one, and in line with District goals. s t r - May 21, 1986 Page 5 Ann said that land slated for the last Conservation Easement would probably be available for negotiation in another month or two. Craig stated that money to purchase that easement would almost certainly be put off a year, as allowed in the existing agreement. Patrick suggested that Hidden Villa author a proposal of what would be desirable for the last easement and*submitting it to the District might be appropriate, and Craig agreed, while also agreeing with John that making a provision for future management plans to be approved by MROSD was probably the only way to alter the master agreement. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm. CLAIMS NO. 86-19 Meeting 86-23 Date: Oct. 8, 1986 Name Description 909$ 10.95 Publishing Horizon's, Inc. Resource Document 9099 250-38 Rent A Computer Computer Rental 9100 307.36 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc., Printing--Los Gatos Event 9101 4,370.00 E. R. Sheehan Trail Construction Services--Los Gatos Flume Trail 9102 286.41 Shell Oil Company Repairs and Fuel for District Vehicles 9103 1 ,323.00 Glenn Smith Consulting Services 9104 43.95 Rancho Cobbler & Cleaner Uniform Expense 9105 6u5.00 Real Estate Data, Inc. Microfiche Lease 9106 107.34 Clyde Robin Company Wildflower Seeds--Los Gatos Event 9107 101 .0€3 San Francisco Water Department Water Services 9108 161 .49 County of Santa Clara/Sheriff's Flume Demolition Expense Department 9109 554.26 Scribner Graphic Press Office Supplies 9110 150.00 Sic's Custom Upholstery District Vehicle Repair gill f.95 Susan Thomas Resource Document 9112 1 ,ono.00 True's Tractors Road Maintenance 9113 665.00 Valley Title Company Title Fees--Allen and Noravian Property 9114 150.75 West Coast Shoe Company Uniform Expense 9115 '400.013 Harvey Williams Repairs--Saratoga Gap Residence 9116 445.39 Del Woods Reimbursement--Office Equipment and Private Vehicle Expense 9117 203.20 Xerox Corporation Relocation Expense 911$ 1 ,050.00 Ortha Zebroski Landscape Architect Consulting Fees 9119 24.69 ZZZ Sanitation Company Sanitation Services 9120 106.23-% Goodco Press Invitation Letters--Los Gatos Event I %% Emergency Check Issued on September 26, 1986 CLAIMS No.86-19 Meeting 86-23 MIDPENINSuLA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: Oct. 8, 1986 C L A I M S Name Description 9065 7.42 AT&T Consumer Products Division Telephone Equipment 9066 53.50 Audio Visual Center Microphone Rental--Los Gatos Event 9067 59.82 Bruce Barton Pump Service, Inc. Pump Repair 9068 125.70 James Boland Reimbursement--Field Supplies and ` Meal Conference 9069 75.00 Brannons Rentals s Sales Inc, "Chair Rental--Board-Board Meeting 9070 2,000.00 Commonwealth Land Title Company Land Purchase--San Jose W6t"er Works 9071 775.20 Costco Field Equipment 9072 208.24 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies 9073 13.39 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies 9074 1 ,20.00 John Estes Caretaker Services 9075 3'0.00 Emergency Vehicle Systems Equipment Installation 9076 1 .753.39 Farrelle Communications Company Radios and Installation 9077 4.1 .20 Federal Express Corporation Express Mail 9078 1�;1 .72 Ted J. Fink Photography--Board/Staff/Docent Event 9079 550, 0 Foss and Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--September 4 9080 60.07 The Frogpond Meal Conferences 9081 36.28 Walter Goggin Private Vehicle Expense 9082 23.75 Graphistat, Inc. Artwork 9083 104.59 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Meat Conferences 9084 36.65 David Hansen Reimbursement--Conference Expense 9085 15. 15 Harbinger Communications Computer Expense 9086 150.00 Carrol H. Harrington Consulting Fee--Docent/Staff Event 90$7 825.38 Deborah Heuckroth Consulting Fee, Design and Map Production--Los Gatos Event 9088 576.30 Alton S. Lee and David A. Lee Architectural Services--Picchetti 9089 431 .25 Charlotte MacDonald Consulting Services--Los Gatos Event 9090 200.00* Charlotte MacDonald Supplies for Los Gatos Event 9091 166.03 ' Gail A. MacDonald Photography--Los Gatos Event 9092 121 .00 Marshall and Swift Library Documents 9093 85.61 Mobil Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 9094 307.73 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 9095 36.80 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Utilities 9096 738.33 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 9097 75.00 Pigeon Point Lighthouse Hostel Retreat--Land Management Staff Emergency Check Issued on September 26, 1986 CLAIMS -NO. _86-1 Meeting 86-23 Date: Oct. 8, 1986 REV 1.S.ED r Amount Name Description 9098 10.95 Publishing Horizon's, Inc. Resource Document 9099 250.38 Rent A Computer Computer Rental 9100 907.36 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc.. Printing--Los Gatos Event 9101 4,370-00 E. A. Sheehan Trail Construction, Services--Los Gatos Flume Trail 9102 286.41 Shell Oil Company Repairs and Fuel for District Vehicles 9103 1 ,323.00 Glenn Smith Consulting Services 9104 48.95 Rancho -Cobbler s Cleaner Uniform Expense 9105 685.00 Real Estate Data, Inc. Microfiche Lease 9106 107.34 Clyde Robin Company Wildflower Seeds--Los Gatos Event 9107 101 .08 San Francisco Water Department Water Services 9108 161 .49 County of Santa Clara/Sheriff's Flume Demolition Expense Department 9109 554.26 Scribner Graphic Press Office Supplies 9110 150.00 Sid's Custom Upholstery District Vehicle Repair 9111 7.95 Susan Thomas Resource Document 9112 1,000.00 True's Tractors Road Maintenance 9113 665.00 Valley Title Company Title Fees--Allen and Noravian Property ) 9114 150.75 West Coast Shoe Company Uniform Expense , 9115 400.00 Harvey Williams Repairs--Saratoga Gap Residence 9116 445.99 Del Woods Reimbursement--Office Equipment and Private Vehicle Expense 9:1.17 203.20 Xerox Corporation Relocation Expense 9118 1 ,050.00 Ortha Zebroski Landscape Architect Consulting Fees 9119 24.69 ZZZ Sanitation Company Sanitation Services 9120 106.23*` Goodco Press Invitation Letters--Los Gatos Event 9121 197.48 Petty Cash Seminar Expense, Meal Conferences, Office and Field Supplies, Postage, and Private Vehicle Expense zr Emergency Check Issued on September 26, 1986 CiAim N0.86-ig Meeting 86-23 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: Oct. 8, 1986 C L A I REVISED M S Amount Name DeSCripti.on 9065 7.42 AUT -Consumer. Products Division Telephone Equipment 9066 53.50 Audio Visual Ginter Microphone Rental--Los Gatos Event , 9067 59.82 Bruce Barton Pump Service, Inca Pump Repair 9068 125.70 James Boland Reimbursement--Field Supplies and Meal Conference 9069 75.00 Brannons Rentals Sales, Inc. Chair Rental--Board Meeting 9070 2,000.00 Commonwealth Land Title Company Land Purchase--San Jose W'ter Works- 9071 775.20 Costco Field Equipment 9072 208.24 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies 9073 13.39 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies 9074 1 ,200.00 John Estes Caretaker Services 9075 380.00 Emergency Vehicle Systems Equipment Installation 9076 1 .753.39 Farrelle Communications Company Radios and Installation 9077 41.20 Federal Express Corporation Express Mail 9078 181.72 Ted J. Fink Photography--Board/Staff/Docent Event 9079 550.00 Foss and Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--September 9080 60.07 The Frogpond Meal Conferences 9081 36.28 Walter Goggin Private Vehicle Expense 9082 23.75 Graphistat, Inc. Artwork 9083 104.59 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Meal Conferences 9084 36.65 David Hansen Reimbursement--Conference Expense 9085 15.15 Harbinger Communications Computer Expense 9086 150.00 Carrol H. Harrington Consulting Fee--Docent/Staff Event 9087 825.38 Deborah Heuckroth Consulting Fee, Design and Map Production--Los Gatos Event 9088 576.30 Alton S. Lee and David A. Lee Architectural Services--Picchetti 9089 431.25 Charlotte MacDonald Consulting Services--LosGatos Event 9090 200.00* Charlotte MacDonald Supplies for Los Gatos Event 9091 166.03 ' Gail A. MacDonald Photography--Los Gatos Event 9092 121.00 Marshall and Swift Library Documents 9093 85.61 Mobil Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 9094 807.73 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 9095 86.89 Pactftc-Ras-and-Efectr+c-eompanp dtitftfes 9096 793.33 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 9097 75.00 Pigeon Point Lighthouse Hostel Retreat--Land Management Staff Emergency Check Issued on September 26, 1986 CLAIMS N0.86-19 Meeting 86-23 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Dates Oct. 8, 1986 L A I REVISED - C M S = Amount Name Description 9065 7.42 AT&T Consumer- Products Division Telephone Equipment . 9066 53.50 Audio Visual Center Microphone Rental--Los Gatos Event 9067 59.82 Bruce Barton Pump Service, Inc. Pump Repair 9068 125.70 James Boland Reimbursement--Field Supplies and Meal Conference 9069 75.00 Brannons Rentals & Sales, Inc. Chair Rental--Board Meeting 9070 2,006.00 Commonwealth Land Title Company Land Purchase--San Jose Wi4ter Works' 9071 775.20 Costco Field Equipment 9072 208.24 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies 9073 13.39 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies 9074 1,200.00 John Estes Caretaker Services 9075 380.00 Emergency Vehicle Systems Equipment Installation 9076 1.753.39 Farrelle Communications Company Radios and Installation 9077 41 .20 Federal Express Corporation Express Mail 9078 181.72 Ted J. Fink Photography--Board/Staff/Docent Event 9079 550.00 Foss and Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--September 9080 60.07 The Frogpond Meal Conferences 9081 36.28 Walter Goggin Private Vehicle Expense 9082 23.75 Graphistat, Inc. Artwork 9083 104.59 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Meal Conferences 9084 36.65 David Hansen Reimbursement--Conference Expense 9085 15.15 Harbinger Communications Computer Expense 9086 150.00 Carrol H. Harrington Consulting Fee--Docent/Staff Event 0$ a Deborah $2 v 9 7 5 3 o ah Heuckroth Consulting Fee, Design and Map Production--Los Gatos Event 9088. 576.30 Alton S. Lee and David A. Lee Architectural Services--Picchetti 9089 431.25 Charlotte MacDonald Consulting Services--Los Gatos Event 9090 200.00* Charlotte MacDonald Supplies for Los Gatos Event 9091 166.03 ' Gail A. MacDonald Photography--Los Gatos Event 9092 121 .00 Marshall and Swift Library Documents 9093 85.61 Mobil Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 9094 807.73 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 9095 86-39 Pcctftc-Ras-and-Efectrrc-eompanq UtifftTes 9096 793.33 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 9097 75.00 Pigeon Point Lighthouse Hostel Retreat--Land Management Staff %, Emergency Check Issued on September 26, 1986 CLA!MS H0;' Meeting 86-23 ' Date: Oct. 8, 1986 Amount REV I.S-ED , j Name Description 9098 10.95 . Publishing Horizon's, Inc. Resource Document 9099 250.38 Rent A Computer Computer Rental 9100 907.36 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc.. Printing--Los Gatos Event 9101 4,370.00 E. R. Sheehan Trail Construction Services--Los Gatos Flume Trail 9102 286.41 Shell Oil Company Repairs and Fuel for District Ve.hicles 9103 1 ,323.00 Glenn Smith Consulting Services 9104 48.95 Rancho Cobbler Cleaner Uniform Expense 9105 685.00 Real Estate Data, Inc. Microfiche Lease 9106 107.34 Clyde Robin Company Wildflower Seeds--Los Gatos Event 9107 101.08 San Francisco Water Department Water Services 9108 161.49 County of Santa Clara/Sheriff's Flume Demolition Expense Department 9109 554.26 Scribner Graphic Press Office Supplies 9110 150.00 Sid's Custom Upholstery District Vehicle Repair 9111 7.95 Susan Thomas Resource Document 9112 1 ,000.00 True's Tractors Road Maintenance 9113 665.00 Valley Title Company Title Fees--Allen and Noravian Property 9114 150.75 West Coast Shoe Company Uniform Expense 9115 400.00 Harvey Williams Repairs--Saratoga Gap Residence p 9116 445.99 Del Woods Reimbursement--Office Equipment and Private Vehicle Expense 9:1.17 203.20 Xerox Corporation Relocation Expense 9118 1 ,050.00 Ortha Zebroski Landscape Architect Consulting Fees 9119 24.69 ZZZ Sanitation Company Sanitation Services 9120 106.23i* Goodco Press Invitation Letters--Los Gatos Event 9121 197.48 Petty Cash Seminar Expense, Meal Conferences_, Office and Field Supplies, Postage; ' and Private Vehicle Expense ** Emergency Check Issued on September 26, 1986