Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19880309 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 88-06 Meeting 88-06 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7 :00 P.M. * 201 San Antonio Circle Wednesday Suite C-135 March 9, 1988 A G E N D A Mountain View, CA (7 :00) * ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION (Personnel) (7 : 30) ** APPROVAL OF MINUTES (February 24, 1988) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -- Public*** ADOPTION OF AGENDA BOARD BUSINESS (7:45) 1. Final Adoption of Interim Use and Management Plan for La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve -- D. Hansen (8 :00) 2. Adoption of the 1988-1989 Preliminary Action Plan -- H. Grench (8 :10) 3. Approval of Job Specifications for Volunteer Coordinator and Docent Coordinator -- D. Hansen (8 : 30) 4. Review of Policies and Plans for Relative Site Emphasis -- T. Henshaw (9:15) 5. Request for Authorization to Solicit Bids for Underground Gas Storage Tank at Skyline Ranger Facility -- D. Hansen (9:20) 6. Interim Report on Search for Permanent District Office Headquarters -- C. Britton (9:35) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -- Directors and Staff CLAIMS CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters) ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: 7 :00 P.M. Starting time for Closed Session. Public portion of meeting expected to start about 7 :30 P.M. **Times are estimated, and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. ** *TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you 're concerned with appears on the agenda, the Chair will invite you to address the Board at that time; on other matters you may address the Board under Oral Communications. An alternative is to comment to the Board by a Written Communication, which the Board appreciates. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to 3 minutes. When recognized, please begin by stating your name and address. We request that you fill out the form provided so that your name and address can be accurately included in the minutes. USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEWS A Use and Management Plan Review for the Reynolds Road Area of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, including consideration of an environmental education use proposal from the Youth Science Institute, is tentatively scheduled for March 23. Please send your written comments , ideas and concerns to David Hansen, Land Manager, by March 11 so that they can be considered in drafting the staff report. You may call the District office between March 21 and 23 to confirm that the item is on the agenda. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS There will be a Trail Use Needs Assessment Workshop at the District office on March 7 at 7 :30 P.M. for the purpose of gathering public information for the upcoming preparation of District Trail Policies and Standards. The Bay Trail Advisory Sub-Committee for the Peninsula/South Bay Area of the Association of Bay Area Governments will meet at the District office on March 10 at 7 :30 P.M. The minutes of the � meeting were approved as corrected. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 24, 1988 R. Bishop noted that the first motion in the minutes for the meeting of February 24, 1988 should be corrected to read "K. Duffy moved that R. Bishop be appointed Secretary Pro-Tempore in the absence of Secretary R. McKibbin" rather than in the absence of Secretary N. Hanko. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve the minutes of the meeting of February 24 , 1988 as corrected. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to © with N. Hanko and R. McKibbin abstaining from the vote because they had not been in attendance at the meeting. Meeting 88-05 Page two 2) A letter, dated February 11, 1988 , from Linda Fischman, 148 La Honda Road, Woodside, concerning the interim use and management plan for La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, and suggesting that more time be allowed to organize neighborhood meetings . With the concurrence of the Board, K. Duffy requested that the revised draft response be sent to the Pucketts . K. Duffy noted that no response was required for Mrs. Fischman s letter, and with the Board' s concurrence, stated that none would be sent . T. Henshaw said that she would be attending the February 28 picnic referred to in L. Fischman' s letter . i IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Beez Jones , 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, requested that the Board ask staff to mail minutes and agendas in envelopes to subscribers to ensure delivery. H. Grench said that a test mailing would be conducted to try to determine if the use of envelopes facilitated delivery. Douglas Lincoln, 100 Olde Drive, Los Gatos , asked the District ' s help in opposing the proposed realignment of the road across St. Joseph ' s Hill Open Space Preserve to the Sisters of Charity property. E. Shelley stated that the District, as a public agency, could not take an active position in circulating petitions , and suggested that the Lincolns might seek help from various trails groups and users . H. Grench said that permission must be obtained from the District to realign the road. V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA K. Duffy stated that a Special Order of the Day would be added to the agenda. K. Duffy stated that the revised agenda was adopted by Board consensus . VI . SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY D. Hansen announced that three District docents , Lily Estrada, Michael Garrison, and Jean Sorensen, were recipients of volunteer recognition award plaques from the California Park and Recreation Society District IV. K. Duffy thanked J. Sorensen, who was in attendance, and the other the docents for their efforts on behalf of the District. J. Sorensen offered to loan her plaque to the District to be displayed in the District office , and she thanked the Board and staff for their support. VII . BOARD BUSINESS A. Amendment to Contract with William Spangle and Associates Inc . (Report R-88-26 of February 1.9 . 1988) D. Hansen reviewed the history of the contract with William Spangle and Associates to update the District ' s Master Plan, and said that the project was close to coii,ip.l.etio.n. He stated that .an additional $19 , 800 was Meeting 88-05 �s a MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 i I REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS February 24 , 1988 MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Katherine Duffy called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 P.M. Members Present: Richard Bishop, Edward Shelley, Katherine Duffy, Teena Henshaw, and Gerry Andeen. Members Absent: Nonette Hanko and Robert McKibbin. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Mary Hale, Stanley Norton, James Boland, and Joan Combs . Motion: K. Duffy moved that R. Bishop be appointed Secretary Pro-Tempore in the absence of Secretary N. Hanko. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 to 0 . K. Duffy stated that the Closed Session scheduled for 7 :00 P.M. on the agenda had been postponed to a later meeting because of the absence of two Directors. II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 10 , 1988 Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the minutes of February 10, 1988 . R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: With the concurrence of G. Andeen, K. Duffy said that the second sentence in the last paragraph of page 7 should be changed from, "G. Andeen objected to the consideration of the motion, " to "G. Andeen insisted that there be a vote on the question. " The motion to approve the minutes as corrected passed 5 to 0 . III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. Combs stated that the Board had received: 1) A letter, dated February 4, 1988 , front Christina and Bruce Puckett, 1253 Golden Way, Los Altos , urging the District to acquire the Neary quarry property. Herbert Grench,Genera/Manager,Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andeen,Richard Bishop Meeting 88-05 Page four Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt Resolution 88-09 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property, Authorizing 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 Transaction (Coal Creek Open Space Preserve - Lands of Bach) . E. Shelley seconded the motion. Discussion: E. Shelley said that he supported the exchange and that he felt some development by Mr. Bach was acceptable -in h exchange for the valuable open space the District was obtaining as part of the Ih arrangement. The motion passed 5 to 0. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board tentatively adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations for the 100-acre acquisition as contained in the staff report, including naming the property as an addition to the E Coal Creek Open Space Preserve , and indicate its intention. to dedicate the property as public open space. E. Shelley seconded the ?potion. The motion passed 5 to 0 . H. Grench stated that it would be appropriate for the Board to pass a motion of intention to dedicate the remaining 44 acres of the former Bullis property. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board indicate its intention to dedicate the remaining 44 acres of the former Bullis property. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0 . The Board recessed at 8 : 45 P .M. and reconvened at 8 :52 P .M. C. Preliminary Action Plan for the Implementation of the y Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Fiscal Year 1988-1989 (Report R-88-23 of February 16 , 1988) H. Grench introduced the Preliminary Action Plan and reviewed the Open Space Acquisition Program. He said that the Negotiations Subprogram and Special Projects Subprogram had been combined into a single program. He noted that the only substantive change in the Open Space Acquisition Program involved the California Wildlife , Coastal and Parks Bond Act Initiative „ which will be on the June ballot. He said that if the Bond i Meeting 88-05 Page three required to cover additional costs, including replacing lost color-separation negatives of the original work. In response to a question from T. Henshaw, D. Hansen said that the contract concerning the Master Plan update did not include a study to define developed communities. H. Grench said that the question of developed communities had not been resolved and had been referred to the Land Acquisition Policy Committee. R. Bishop requested that a record be kept of individuals who wished to be notified of the Committee ' s meeting dates. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board authorized the President to execute the amendment to the I,4 agreement with William Spangle 'and Associates , Inc. providing an additional $19 , 800 to complete the . Master Plan update. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0 . B. Exchange of Portion of Former Bullis Property for Lands of Bach (Report R-88-25 of February 18 , 1988) C. Britton reviewed the terms of the proposal to exchange a 50 to 75 year interest in the developed portion of the former Bullis property in the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve for a parcel of private land } owned by Peninsula Open Space Trust adjacent to Coal Creek Open Space Preserve. He showed the properties on III the wall map. He said that the proposal represented a long-range solution for the 10-acre area and recaptured some of the District ' s original investment . He said that the District will be receiving in trade a 100- acre property, valued at $550, 000, including the rest of the closed section of Alpine Road, and noted that the 10-acre area to be traded would revert to the District in a minimum of 50 years and a maximum of 75 years . D. Hansen reviewed the preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations for the property. Discussion centered on a possible cooperative effort with San Mateo County to reopen Alpine Road to provide a pedestrian and bicycle access route to Skyline Boulevard. I David Ernst, currently a tenant on the 10 acre property, asked what notice would be given to tenants to vacate. C. Britton said that escrow cannot close until the property is vacant , and that the tenants would receive a 30 days notice to vacate. Discussion also centered on potential sites and methods for screening the proposed tennis court that Mr. Bach has indicated an interest in building. Meeting 88-05 Page six Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board tentatively adopt the Preliminary Action Plan. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. Discussion: K. Duffy said that item 2 on page 28 under Key Projects and Activities in General Management and Program Support should be marked with a triangle to indicate consultant assistance. The motion passed 5 to 0 . D. Status of Legislative Program for 1987-1988 Legislative Session (Report R-88-24 of Februc]��17 , 1988) H. Grench reviewed the three additions to the Legislative Program and their recommended priorities, and summarized the other items reviewed by the General Manager, Legal Counsel ,and the Legislative Committee. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt the three additions to the Legislative Program along with the recommended priorities . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 to 0. VII . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS D . Hansen reported that the equestrian stile had been completed at Coal Creek Open Space Preserve; that bids for the demolition of the old cable television facility at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve had been solicited and were coning in; and reported that Supervising Ranger David Camp was leaving the District. D. Hansen showed slides of recent weekend site use at several District preserves . T. Henshaw reported that the South Bay portion of the Ring Around the Bay Trail Advisory Committee would be meeting at the District office on March 10 . VIII .CLAIMS Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve the Revised Claims 88-04 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0 . IX. CLOSED SESSION S . Norton announced that pending litigation matters to be discussed in Closed Session fell under Government Code Section 54956 . 9 (b) (1) . The Board recessed to Closed Session at 10 : 10 P .M. X. ADJOURN14ENT The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 25 P .M. Joan Combs Secretary Meeting 88-05 Page five Act passes, the District would receive $11 million for qualifying projects, and that the first priority of the Open Space Acquisition Program would be to work on the qualifying Bond Act projects . K. Duffy requested that a second reading of the Preliminary Action Plan be scheduled because of the absence of two Board members . H. Grench introduced the Open Space Management Program, ' and said that some unsettled questions remained concerning site emphasis , the Five Year Staffing Plan, and Land Management budget guidelines, all of which relate to the Action Plan. D. Hansen reviewed Open Space Management Program' s proposed Action Plan, noting that there was a continuing focus on completing grant-funded projects at Skyline Ridge, Picchetti , and Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserves , as well as work on multi- jurisdictional projects . H. Grench introduced the Communications Program' s sections and said that several projects were close to completion, including the Land Acquisition Policy brochure and the Visitor ' s Guide. R. Bishop stated that he would like the Land Acquisition Policy Committee, which would be reviewing the acquisition policy brochure, to complete its work by June 30. H. Grench said that the project of a uniform graphic image was scheduled to be on a future agenda during the current fiscal year. Discussion centered on the desirability of publishing an open space newsletter. T. Henshaw said that a newsletter keeps the public updated as to District activities . M. Hale said that publications were closely intertwined with site emphasis and a possible new graphic image, adding that publications implement the Board' s directions for site emphasis . K. Duffy said that she would like the proposed public event with Peninsula Open Space Trust to be an on-site activity, similar to the 15th Anniversary Celebration and hike at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, as opposed to a dinner meeting. H. Grench reviewed the General Management Program, and said that the new element emphasizes long-range planning, which is reflected in the General Program Emphasis Statement for the coming year. J . Fiddes stated that an important activity would be elections in Wards , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 7 this year . • � cLAlr�s No. 88-a4 Meeting 88-05 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date:Feb' 24, 1988 REVISED C L A I M S _kmount Name Description 1007 175.00 ADP-Unemployment Comp Management Seminar Registration--J. Fiddes 1008 14.88 Arne riGas Tank Rental 1009 240.05 A T & T Telephone Equipment 1010 36.36 Bruce's Skywood Gas & Towing Fuel loll 50.00 State of California Note Investigation Fee Districts Securities Division 1012 210.35 California Water Service Company Water Service 1013 384.25 Camden Rentals, Inc. Equipment Rental 1014 18.00 David Camp Reimbursement--Demolition Permit 1015 23.02 Clark's Auto Parts Vehicle Parts. 1016 48. 12 John Escobar Reimbursement--Office Furniture 1017 39.25 Federal Express Corporation Express Mail 1018 80.00 First American Title Insurance Reconveyance Fees--Rose/Basich Company 1019 13.01 The Frogpond Meal Conference * 10020 138.33 Garcia Well & Pump Company Equipment and Supplies 't 115.71 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Conference Expense and Meal Conference )022 74.48 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense 1023 154.08 The Hub Schneider's Inc. Uniform Expense .1024 15.00 Lauren Langford Typesetting--Sign Artwork 1025 144.57 Langley Hill Quarry Base Rock 1026 -38.00 Thomas Lausten Reimbursement--Seminar Expense 1027 25.60 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental 1028 295.00 Los Altos Medical Clinic Pre-Employment Physicals 1029 500.00 Marer, Marer & Schuck Legal Services 1030 44.50 Meyer Appliance Equipment Repair 1031 56.64 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies 1032 112.35 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies 1033 - 50.00 National Association of County Park Membership Dues and Recreation Officials 1034 5.00 National Council of Teachers Subscription of English 1 217.25 National Recreation and Park Membership Dues and Subscriptions Association 1036 53.67 Noble Ford Equipment Parts 1037 85.00 North American Title Company Reconveyance Fees--Bertetta - Meeting 88-05 Date: Feb. 24, 19'. .Lu'zt Name REVISED �i Description 11( 147. 19 Northern Hydraulics, Inc. Equipment Parts 1039 322.69 The Office Club Office Supplies - 1040 578. 10 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies 10'-:l 337. 11 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities 1042 905.22 . Peninsula Oil Company Fuel f 1043 43. 13 - Precision Engravers, Inc. Ranger Badges 1044 200.00 Port-O-Let Sanitation Services 1045 43.95 Red::ood Office Products,' Inc. Office Supplies , 10 6 '89.71 Red rood Trading Post Uniform Expense 1047 35.60 Steve Reiling Design Symbols for Trail Signs I_104:8 1 ,110.23 .lane Saltman Planning Services ,­10'-t'9 321 .1142 Signs of the Times Signs' I • IC50 ':oS.OQ Special District Board Registration--R. McKibbin Management Institute III -I'051 104.96 Standard -Brands Paint Company Paint - 1052 E0; 00 United States Postmaster Postage 10��5''3 61 .45 =,.=;vocal Fuel -IQ 9':.00 Sandy Voorhees Reimbursement--Seminar- Registration and Membership Dues 1055 8,0.00 alley Titia Co7--D3'-1 Reconveyance Fees--Duveneck ;i-U56 20". _: el , Lawlor Ro3en & Black Legal Services 1057 145.OQ nos -ern Govarnrrv„tal Research Registration--H. Grench Association ' 1C.58 216.68 Dal Woods Private Vehicle Expense 10500 3:0 26 The Work ing-man's Emporium Uniform Expense 101 6Q 5.1a6 Yardbird Equipment Sales Equipment Repair 106I 249.27 Petty Cash Express Mail , Maps, Drafting and Office Supplies, Meal Conferences, and Private Vehicle Expense i .. 1P% TEN COMMUNICATION Distributed to and considered by Board of Directors at March 9 , 1988 Regular Meeting in conjunc- tion with Final Adoption of Interim Use and Managemert 148 La Honda Road Plan for La Honda Creek Woodside, CA 94062 Open Space Preserve March 8, 1988 Dear Members of the MROSD Board and Staff: This appears to be an appropriate time to present myself to you as a neighbor and one who completely supports the concept of Open Space. Your mandate to acquire and manage open space is respected and supported. Your goals are understood and we both are stewards of the Planet Earth. I speak as a property owner in the area; I speak as a published author of an environmental handbook for the American Association of University Women, as an former docent from Coyote Point Museun for Environmental Education, and as the organizer of an environmental group of homemakers which gained national recognition. But most of all I speak to you about the need for better communication and cooperation between public ' landowners and private property owners. Also, of the 40 adjacent property owners of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, I can freely say these things knowing I represent a large percentage of my neighbors. The following concerns were listed at a recent Neighborhood Picnic on February 28, 1988: Desire to maintain the status quo of scenic beauty Concerns regarding Dogs Trash Campfires Other illegal acts Need for Ranger protection Publication of emergency phone numbers Solution to problems due to lack of toilets Explanation of long range plans Potential connecting trails Parking Increased liability Trespassing and vandalism Privacy Boundary signs May I respectfully suggest you consider the following changes for the Interim Use Plan: 1 ) Sign boundaries AND notify owners of emergency phone numbers for Ranger protection; list phone numbers with Information and/or 911 2) Careful review of the Sheffield site parking a) potential problems, increase in traffic and accidents on Highway 84; b) liability due to steep terrain 3) Appoint member(s) of the La Honda Preserve neighborhood community to represent, advise and partake in development of Land Use and Management Plan. This would do a great deal towards improving communication between the District and its neighbors. It would assist the District in effective planning and enable the Board and Staff to be appraised of special concerns and needs of the neighborhood; and will also serve as a liaison between the Board and immediate community. 4) Assure the neighbors that any further acquisition is fully complied with pursuant to state disclosure laws; b) that any connecting trail that is now being considered be announced now or at any future time; and c) La Honda Creek Open Space preserve is low in the priority on the Site Management Plan. These issues are of great importance to those of us who live in the adjacent private lands. This matter is taken seriously and hopefully these concerns can be appropriately addressed. Respecfully submitted, Linda Fischman 1 R-88-31 Meeting 88-06 March 9, 19$8 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT March 3, 1988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; M. Gundert, Open Space Planner; C. Bruins , Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Final Adoption of Interim Use and Management Plan for La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the Interim Use and Management Plan for La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve as contained in report R-88-21. Discussion: The Interim Use and Management Plan for La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve was presented by staff at your February 10, 1988 meeting. The Plan included the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Sheffield property addition to the Preserve. No changes were made to the Plan at that meeting. However, Linda Fischman, a neighbor to La Honda Road portion of the Preserve, commented about the low attendance at the January 22 neighborhood workshop and offered her home for a second workshop to be held on a weekend afternoon. She wanted more La Honda Road neighbors to have the opportunity to participate in the planning process . A meeting was arranged by Mrs . Fischman and was held on February 28 . It was attended by approximately 15 people, Director Henshaw, and the Land Manager. One item discussed at the second workshop was the Highway 84 corridor, which is a primary route to the coast. Activities such as littering, dumping, and partying along the road have occurred. There were concerns expressed that these problems would be increased once a parking area is developed at the former Sheffield property. Staff felt that increased patrol of the area would alleviate any potential problems. No changes to the Plan were recommended as a result of the meeting, and no additional public comment has been received. R-88-27 lift (Meeting 88-06 March 9, 1988) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT February 26, 1988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of the 1988-1989 Preliminary Action Plan Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the Preliminary Action Plan you tentatively adopted at your February 24 meeting. Discussion: The Preliminary Action Plan for Fiscal Year 1988-1989 (see report R-88-23 of February 16, 1988) was tentatively adopted at your February 24 meeting. Since two Board members were not able to attend that meeting, President Duffy requested a second reading of the Preliminary Action Plan to allow for any additional comments or recommendations from Board members. The only modification made in the proposed Preliminary Action Plan was the placement of a triangle next to the second key project in General Management and Program Support to indicate the use of consultants in administering the District ' s personnel functions and initiating long-term organizational planning. R-88-28 (Meeting 88-06 March 9 , 1988) ac MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT March 1 , 1988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; J. Boland, Operations Supervisor; C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Approval of Job Specifications for Volunteer Coordinator and Docent Coordinator Recommendation: I recommend that you approve the attached job specifications for the one-half time positions of Volunteer Coordinator and Docent Coordinator. Discussion: At your June 10 , 1987 meeting, you eliminated the Coordinator of Volunteer Programs classification and approved the creation of the half-time positions of Volunteer Coordinator and Docent Coordinator. You also approved the filling of these positions, contingent upon completion and approval of the necessary job specifications (see report R-87-95 of June 5, 1987) . The new Volunteer Coordinator and Docent Coordinator classifications were assigned the salary range of Step Number 187 . 5 to 217 . 5 with a corresponding monthly salary of $911 to $1228 (based on 1040 hours per year) . As noted in the June staff report, the current Coordinator of Volunteer Programs would be reclassified to Docent Coordinator. The former half-time Coordinator of Volunteer Programs position was designed to handle the docent program, as well as other volunteer projects . The demands for coordinating the docent program grew over the years , and there was little time, if any, to handle or develop other volunteer projects . The need for a separate half-time Volunteer Coordinator position was thus addressed, and the position was included in the Open Space Management Five-Year Staffing Plan. The proposed job specifications for the Volunteer Coordinator and Docent Coordinator positions are attached for your review. The R-88-28 Page Two following section discusses the anticipated duties of each position: Volunteer Coordinator: While there has been considerable interest and discussion by Board and staff regarding the potential benefits from the addition of a Volunteer Coordinator, this position should not be considered a panacea for handling all the small volunteer projects that could help the District. Volunteers can only do so much and cannot substitute for regular professional staff . The position has good potential to meet a variety of diverse field needs. However, because of its half- time status, it is important to set realistic expectations for the position at this time. I envision that the Volunteer Coordinator will focus on developing a volunteer program emphasizing the following three areas: 1) organizing and coordinating an adopt-a-trail program, volunteer trail construction and maintenance, tree planting, erosion control and other field activities. These activities may involve the Trail Center, neighborhood volunteers , Scouting and school groups , the California Conservation Corps, corporate groups, clubs and organizations, and court-mandated crews . 2) Developing and overseeing, in cooperation with District Ranger staff, a volunteer patrol and trail safety program on preserves such as Rancho San Antonio, Monte Bello, Windy Hill, and Skyline Ridge, as well as other designated sites . 3) Recruiting volunteers to assist District staff with a variety of miscellaneous activities such as special events , surveys, publicity, occasional extra office support, and research projects. Special attention will be given to utilizing the talents and abilities from special populations such as the physically limited and senior groups. The Trail Center has been an excellent source of volunteer help, specifically on trail projects . Even so, the Trail Center can not handle the myriad of other potential field or office volunteer projects. The Trail Center will most likely continue to contract with the District for specific trail construction and maintenance projects , and will continue to advertise and promote District sites . The Volunteer Coordinator will work with the Center to set up other trail projects and programs, such as volunteer trail patrol or adopt-a-trail . Docent Coordinator: As mentioned earlier in this report, the demands of coordinating the docent program have grown to the point where there is little time for the current Coordinator of Volunteer Programs to do much else effectively. The small amount of time that will become available for the Docent Coordinator after the hiring of the Volunteer Coordinator will be devoted to mimproving docent recruiting and training methods , and developing a�n expanded assortment of docent-led activities . These MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 EXHIBIT A VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR DEFINITION: Under general direction of the Operations Supervisor, recruits and manages volunteers to assist with open space management, development, and other J ro 'ects Administers field volunteer program, and coordinates P volunteer activities with staff and the public. TYPICAL TASKS: Develops and implements field volunteer program. Recruits, screens, selects trains and supervises volunteer individuals and groups r P g P such as Scouts, service clubs , corporate employees, court-referred crews, and Conservation Corps . Organizes volunteers for projects such as trail maintenance and construction, site clean-up, vegetation planting, erosion control, exotic plant removal , special events , trail patrol , and office i c meetings d training` ses ions . Maintains tasks . Coordinates and conducts m ings an s n records; prepares newsletters and other written reports . Develops volunteer recognition activities and encourages volunteer participation. Schedules work assignments and organizes special field work days . Assists with planning and coordination of special events . Works with field and office staff to organize volunteer activities . Establishes and maintains liaison with local businesses, organizations, and special interest groups to develop support for District projects. Attends various community meetings . Works with Communications Coordinator to promote the volunteer program and assists with preparation of appropriate publicity. Makes public presentations . Assists Docent Coordinator as necessary; performs related work as required. EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS: Education equivalent to graduation from a four-year college with a bachelor ' s degree in recreation, human resources management, natural resources management, or an appropriate field, and two years experience working with the public and coordinating volunteer activities; or any equivalent combination of experience and education is required. Individual must be willing to work odd hours, weekends, and holidays and be in sound physical condition. A valid California driver ' s license, along with use of personal vehicle, is required. FJ1OWLEDGE OF: Community organizations and special group resources , and principles and techniques of coordinating and planning group activities , including organizing, supervising and evaluating such activities . Knowledge of resource management and trail construction techniques is desirable . Hands-on trail construction and maintenance experience is desirable. ITY O: Analyze District e d recommend and design programs to AH�IL T y ict needs, and g P g me r rant such needs ; recruit train, and supervise volunteers; communicate clearly and concisely orally -and in writing; establish and maintain effective working relationships with District staff and the public; and motivate volunteers . Herbert.Grench,General Manager,Board of Directors.Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andeen Richard Bishop R-88-28 Page Three activities may include more special programs such as the very popular moonlight hikes , increased outreach to school groups through environmental education, and potential staffing of District interpretive facilities such as the one planned for the Alpine Pond area of Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve. The Docent Coordinator may occasionally assist the Volunteer Coordinator as necessary on specific projects. Funding for both positions is included in the 1987-1988 budget. The Docent Coordinator position was funded for the full year, and the Volunteer Coordinator position was funded for six months . Staff anticipates a two to three month recruiting and selection period for the new Volunteer Coordinator. AN MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949.5500 EXHIBIT B DOCENT COORDINATOR DEFINITION: Under general direction of the Operations Supervisor, recruits and manages docents to conduct interpretive programs on District open space preserves . Administers docent interpretive program, and coordinates volunteer activities with staff and the public. TYPICAL TASKS : Develops and implements docent interpretive program. Recruits , screens, selects, trains and supervises volunteer docents . Organizes docents for activities such as nature walks , historical tours , natural history research, special events, and environmental education programs . Coordinates and conducts meetings and training sessions. Maintains records; prepares newsletters and other written reports . Develops docent recognition activities and encourages volunteer participation. Schedules work assignments and organizes special interpretive programs . Assists with planning and coordination of special events . Works with field and office staff to organize docent activities . Establishes and maintains liaison with local businesses , organizations, and special interest groups to develop support for the docent program. Attends various community meetings . Works with Communications Coordinator to promote the docent program and assists with preparation of appropriate publicity. Makes public presentations . Leads hikes with special groups as necessary. Assists Volunteer Coordinator as necessary; performs related work as required. EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS: Education equivalent to graduation from a four-year college with a bachelor' s degree in recreation, human resources management , natural resources management, or an appropriate field and two years experience working with the public and coordinating volunteer activities; or any equivalent combination of experience and education is required. Individual must be willing to work odd hours, weekends, and holidays . A valid California driver ' s license, along with use of personal vehicle, is. required. i KNOWLEDGE OF: Community organizations and special group resources , and principles and techniques of coordinating and planning group activities, including organizing; supervising and evaluating such activities. Knowledge of environmental education and interpretive techniques is desirable. ABILITY TO: Analyze District needs , and recommend and design programs to meet such needs; recruit, train, and supervise volunteers; communicate clearly and concisely orally and in writing; establish and maintain effective working relationships with District staff and the public; and motivate volunteers. Herbert Grench,General Manager,Board of Directors:Katherine Dully,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andean,Richard Bishop M-88-03 (Meeting 88-06 MR. March 9, 1988) IML 'V10f gm Ah 22M KC MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM March 3, 1988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Background Information on Site Emphasis and Related Policies Director Henshaw has placed an item on your March 9, 1988 agenda for a review of site emphasis policies (see report R-88-32 of March 3, 1988) . Staff will be prepared to summarize the site emphasis and related policies for you on March 9. The following documents are attached as background information. 1. Report R-82-19 of May 5, 1982 regarding Policy and Plan for Relative Emphasis of Use, Development, and Publicity of District Sites 2. Policies and Policy Decisions Relating to Site Emphasis, adopted July 8, 1981 and the basis for the May 5, 1982 policies 3. Open Space Use and Management Planning Process, as amended February 25, 1987 4. Publicity Guidelines Related to Site Emphasis Policy, adopted July 8 , 1981 N 9 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PUBLICITY GUIDELINES ' RELATED TO SITE EMPHASIS POLICY Adopted by Board of Directors a July 8, 1981 A. BROCHURES 1. There shall be at least one informational brochure that includes a brief. but clear explanation of the site emphasis policy and its underlying rationale. The brochure shall state clearly that all District sites belong to the public. It shall also make it clear that-an unemphasized site is neither "secret" nor "closed", but is simply an area where for one reason or another a great deal of public use cannot be accommodated. The reasons for the temporary closure of some areas will also be made clear. The brochure will include a map showing the location of all the District su ggest preserves, with a code or other graphic device to gg est degrees of de- velopment velopment or emphasis. 2. Brochures for specific sites shall reflect the site emphasis policy through their design, their distribution, or both. The amount of effort and ex- penditure that goes into a particular site brochure will reflect the degree to which that site is emphasized. There may be no brochures or maps pro- vided for some of the sites. The distribution of site maps and brochures shall also be matched to the site emphasis policy, with brochures for the most emphasized sites generally available--through mailings, distribution at libraries, by Docents and Rangers, etc. , and other maps available by request from m the District office. The level of distrib ution of maps s even for the most emphasized sites will also depend upon budget considerations and the numbers of visitors that can be accommodated. The kind and avail- ability of specific site brochures shall be considered at the adoption and biennial review of individual land use plans. i B. PRESS RELEASES j Press releases from the District shall reflect the site emphasis policy through the degree of detail devoted to particular sites and the activities on them. Unlike the meeting summaries and minutes, which provide the press with regular complete information about the District's activities, press releases will be considered as bids for publicity and as having the potential to increase site use and emphasis. C. OPENSPACE NEWSLETTER The Openspace newsletter shall be regarded as an informational device for clarifying the District's site emphasis policy to the public and as a forum for the discussion of questions and issues related to it. It can also help implement the emphasis policy through its choice of feature material . Page two D. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS ,. Slide shows and other public presentations shall reflect and clarl-1, the { site emphasis policy in the same way that press releases and newsletters k do. E. RADIO AND TV Radio and TV coverage often reflects or spins off from the subject matter of the District's press releases and publications. It also reflects the occurrences (sometimes outside the District's control) on various District sites. Clear communications with these media about the site emphasis policy and the reasons behind it shall be stressed. F. EXTERNALLY-GENERATED PUBLICITY 1. While the District has and desires no control over the "external publicity" given to District sites by the various media, it is recognized that a great deal of this publicity is based on information originally provided by the District. The best way to influence such publicity to reflect the site emphasis policy is to make sure that the policy is fully and clearly communicated to the press and the public. 2. The degree to which the District will encourage "externally generated pub- licity" about District sites from authors of books, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. will be consistent with the level of emphasis adopted for that site. i Wom"'t MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Open Space Use and Management Planning Process Adopted by Board ofr'Di ectors July 27 , 1977 Ame nded ed August 13, 1980 Amended July 14, 1982 Amended March 23 , 1983 Amended September 14, 1983 Amended February 25, 1987 A. Purpose and Scope of Planning Process MROSD lands are managed to promote the continued preservation of the natural and cultural resources while at the same time provide public recreation, environmental education, and agricultural use where possible. The Open Space Use and Management Planning Process has been established to address these management goals. The process encompasses an ongoing comprehensive approach to management, designed to respond to the dynamic changes of the environmental resources and public needs. B. Description of Planning Process The Planning Process is comprised of five planning categories which allow for a systematic approach to the development of management plans. The categories relate to various stages of site planning to which a preserve may be subject during its course of development and use. 1. Preliminary Use and Management Plans Preliminary Use and Management Plans consist of use and management recommendations developed and approved at the time of acquisition . These plans normally represent a status quo approach to use and management. Emphasis of the plan is on securing the site and establishing a timeline for providing public access. Although most sites are open to public use immediately upon acquisition, it is often necessary to address specific site improvements and their timing prior to encouraging public use through publicity and the availability of maps . The site improvements are designed to mini- mize public trespass on adjacent private lands and assist the public in locating and using the site. The Preliminary Use and Management Plan remains effective until 1) it is incorporated into an existing Comprehensive Use and Management Plan in the case where the site is an addition to an existing pre- serve; 2) it is incorporated into an Interim Use and Management Plan when the site is an addition to a preserve not yet having a Compre- hensive Plan; or 3)_ it is reviewed and expanded into an Interim 'Use and Management Plan when the site is not part of another preserve and is relatively small and isolated. The Preliminary Use and Management Plan was .originally referred to as the Interim Use and Management Plan. Use and Management Planni. Process Page two. 2. Interim Use and Management Plans The Interim Use and Management Plan is usually a refinement of a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, but in some instances is also an accumulation of Preliminary Plans for a number of acquisitions comprising a preserve. The Interim Plan is most commonly prepared for preserves which consist of non-contiguous parcels , have use limitations, or are likely to be subject to relatively frequent changes in boundary alignments. The Interim Plans respond more to immediate versus long range planning concerns and generally repre- sent a continuation of existing levels of use and management. 3. Comprehensive Use and Management Plan The Comprehensive Use and Management Plan is a detailed plan address- ing all aspects of use and management. It is prepared for preserves which have the potential for a substantial amount of public use, and/or have other critical land use issues which need attention. The Comprehensive Plan is based on a resource analysis and public i.nDut, and evaluates potential uses as well as historical and exist- ing uses. . It represents both long term (5-10 years) goals and short term goals (1-5 years) with the focus of specific recommenda- tions being the tasks to be completed within three years. The need and approximate timing for preparation of a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan may be determined when considering the Preliminary Use and Management Plan or when the Interim Use and Management Plan is adopted or reviewed. The specific timing for the preparation of the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan will be addressed in the annual review of the Relative Site Emphasis Plan. 4 . Preserve Master Plan for Development, Use , and Management The Preserve Master Plan is very broad in scope and is developed with the intent of providing a guideline for development of a pre- serve over a term of 1 to 20 years . Compared to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan, the Preserve Master Plan involves more extensive site analysis , a higher level of public involvement, and in most cases, explores a wider range of development and land uses. The Master Plan is usually designed to be implemented in phases over a long time period. Only a few select sites which lend themselves to higher levels of development and use, or have particularly complex planning issues to be resolved, have Master Plans prepared. Upon completion, the Preserve Master Plan serves as a guide in the formu- lation of or change to a preserve 's Comprehensive Use and Management Plan which reflects the more immediate phases of the Master Plan. 5. Use and Management Plan Reviews All Use and Management Plans are subject to the Board 's review. The purpose of the review is to examine changes in site use, resolve use and management issues as they arise, and address the progress of implementing existing plans . The time period for which a plan- is reviewed ranges from 1-3 years depending on level of use and antici- pated management issues requiring attention. Sites which are more highly emphasized and are experiencing sign if . cant changes in regard to development and use are reviewed most ( frequently within a two year period, while sites which are subject to few changes in use and management (normally less emphasized sites) are more apt to be reviewed every three years. Use and Management Plan; g Process Page three Review of plans for Conservation Management Units occur even less frequently and at the Board 's or staff's discretion. Regardless of the type of plan, the review may be accelerated when a use and manage, Pent issue arises which requires more immediate attention. Each year a schedule for Use and Management Plan reviews is estab- lished for the upcoming year. This schedule is reviewed and adopted by the Board at the time the Annual Review of the Relative Site Emphasis Plan is presented, which is targeted toward the end of the calendar year. C. Relative Site Emphasis d The Policy for Relative Emphasis of Use, Development, and Publicity of District Sites, adopted May 12, 1982 , guides the Board and staff in the planning for short and long term use of District preserves. This Policy is the basis for formulation of a Relative Site Emphasis Plan. Based on the assumption that it is neither desirable nor feasible to emphasize each site highly, the Relative Site Emphasis Plan ranks District sites, according to specific criteria in the Policy, for the purpose of compre- hensive planning for funding and project implementation. Specific infor- mation indicating the types of development planned for each preserve is provided. The Relative Site Emphasis Plan is updated annually, and at that time the long term priorities for emphasis are re-evaluated and the short term (1 year) funding priorities established for budgeting purposes This information is then reflected in the individual Use and Management Plans as they are prepared in the year to come. D. Use and Management Plan Format The Preliminary, Use and Management Plan and accompanying Acquisition Report contain a number of elements which focus on existing conditions and potential uses of the site. The elements include: 1. Description of Site Discussion to describe size, location, boundaries , topography, geology and natural landscapes . 2 . Planning Considerations Discussion directed towards identifying jurisdictional and zoning factors influencing site planning. 3. Current Use andDevelopment A description of current uses of the site including structures , roads, power lines, water systems , etc. 4. Potential Use and Development A conceptual look at the potential uses, including potential uses of structures and improvements . 5. Public Access and Site Protection These elements pertain to immediate plans to introduce public use to a site, protect the site 's resources, and ensure public safety. These elements include providing a timeline for implementation and costs . a. Access and Circulation Discussion and plans concerning public access , i.e, parking trail, and road system . Use and Management Plann " Process Page four ` " b. . Signing Discussion and plans concerning signing for boundaries, ' circulation information, regulations , etc. C. Site Brochure or Maps Discussion and plans for style and availability of map in accord-', ance with publicity policy. (Publicity Guidelines Related to Site Emphasis Policy, dated July 8, 1981) d. Structures and improvements Discussion and plans for all structural-type improvements including such things as residences, water systems, restrooms, fences and gates . Policies regarding disposition of major structures (i.e. , use, sale or demolition) is further addressed in Section E. e. Natural Resources and Agricultural Management Discussion and plans related to resource management such as discing, seeding, site clean-up; and agricultural. practices . ii. Compliance with CEQA Determination of potential project impact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 7. Site Naming Discussion and plan for the naming of the site either as an additl to an existing preserve or formulation of a new preserve name. 8. Site Dedication Discussion, plan, or status related to dedication of site, or portions thereof , . as public open space, including reasons for with- holding of any property from dedication. 9. Terms of Purchase Agreement A summary of major terms and conditions of the purchase agreement. The Interim and Comprehensive Use and Management Plans address the same elements as those contained in the Preliminary Use and Management Plan with the exception of current and potential use and development topics, and the terms of the purchase agreement. Both the Interim and Comprehensive Plans contain, in addition, a description of current public use including changing patterns of use and problematic uses. The degree of attention given to elements pertaining to public access and site protection is relative to the type of Use and Management Plan they are contained in with the most detailed information available in the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan. E. Major Structures and Improvements The disposition of major structures and other improvements is a primary concern throughout the planning process because of their potential resource value or deleterious impact. The process by which structure; are disposed of is in accordance with Policies Regarding Improvements \ on District Lands , initially adopted on January 11, 1978. Use and Management Planr. Process page five Preliminary use and management recommendations relating to existing structures and improvements will generally maintain the status quo un- less specific factors must be addressed due to the deleterious impact on the site or due to safety hazards requiring mitigation. For struc- tures and improvements being retained during the further planning process , potential use categories will be identified and a timeline will be established to return to the Board for the next decision point. When feasible, the next decision point should coincide with the next consideration of the site 's Use and Management Plan to ensure that the ultimate disposition is consistent with overall plans for the site. The Use and Management Plan will establish the parameters of poten- tial use for the structures and improvements which are compatible with all other elements of the plan. The plan will outline the procedure and timeline for the preparation of a specific proposal, whether it be confined to a staff proposal or possibly the solici- tation of public proposals . In the case of public solicitation, ill it is imperative that the parameters are wel l defined and consistent with open space goals and site plans. F. Conservation Management Units Conservation Management Units (CMUs) are areas within preserves , or possibly entire preserves , which because of certain criteria limiting their use, are planned and subsequently managed primarily for conservation and viewshed. The criteria used to determine if a particular area or preserve falls within this category are: 1. Severe public access limitations This occurs when the area is surrounded by private property and is not accessible by public roads or trails. 2. Resource conditions are stable The existing condition of the landscape is considered stable and does not require immediate attention. 3 . Remoteness causes management constraints The area's remoteness makes it difficult to provide a level of visitor and site protection, similar to that which is offered on the more accessible sites. 4. Undesirable for public use This can be the result of an area being too small or not having any particularly attractive features that are inviting to the public. Areas designated as Conservation Management Units will not be managed j for public recreation .until such time as use limitations can be sufficiently overcome. Public use will not be encouraged, patrol and maintenance will be at a minimum necessary for resource protec- tion and public safety, and site maps and signs (outside of the standard boundary signs) will not be available. Staff will monitor, the resource as conditions require . Maps contained in the acquisi- tion report and available to the public only upon request will clearly outline the access and limitations and adjacent private properties . The CMU determination is commonly made at the time of acquisition, but may occur or be modified during the review process. In most cases , a CMU status is only temporary until limiting conditions Use and Management Plann Process Page six improve, but it is conceivable that this status could remain -indefi- nitely. Areas or preserves designated CMUs will not be reviewed on a regular basis, but rather at the Board's or staff 's discretion. Areas over which the District holds open space easements are usually CMUs unless the condition-: of the easement permit public access. Although the level of planning for easements is similar to any other CMU, the management and method of monitoring may be different. In most cases, the District does not participate in the management of an open space easement area and is required to make special arrange- ments with the property owner for inspection of the easement condi- ti ons. ons G. Site Na min g When a site is acquired, it may be recommended that it become an addition to an existing preserve, possibly a specific area within an existing pre serve, or a preserve unto itself. If the property under consideration is � to become an addition to a preserve, that action should occur at the time of acquisition. If the site is to become a specific area within a pre- serve or a new preserve, suggested names should be considered at the time of acquisition with a final decision to follow at the next consideration of the Use and Management Plan. Guidelines for site naming are contained ) in the Site Naming and Gift Recognition Policies , adopted February 8 , 1978 As preserves grow in size and possibly merge with other District land, it may become necessary to modify existing preserve perimeter boundaries and names. Suggested changes in boundaries and/or names may occur at the time of acquisition, with a final decision to follow at the next consid- eration of .the Use and Management Plan. H.. Development Project Funded by a Grant A preserve 's Use and Management Plan may include projects which are ideal for develcpment under various grant programs . These projects usually significantly increase public access , have elements beyond the more trad_' tional types of development on District land, and have potential budget impacts that could divert funds away from the ongoing Open Space Management Program. In these cases , grant funds are sought as a means to implement the development phase without seriously impacting the overall program. When applying for a development grant, it is advantageous to submit plans which have already been through the CEQA process, publicly reviewed, and adopted by the Board. This ensures the granting body that the project can be implemented expeditiously and with little modification. For this reason, every attempt is made to incorpo- rate prospective grant projects into Use and Management Plans before the funding sources become available. When this is done, the ele- ments are identified in the plan and in budget preparation as poten- tial grant projects and, as such, are Inot anticipated to be developed solely with District funds . In some instances , grant opportunities arise unexpectedly, and a grant project may be formulated without prior inclusion in a Use and Management Plan, in order to take advantage of the funding opportunity. It is then imperative to incorporate the project into the Use and Man agement na ement Plan ~s P � g soon as possible to provide the necessary public review, Board adoptio. and CEQA compliance. Use and Management Plann. Process Page seven I. Open Space Planning Areas Each District preserve lies within one of ten ecologically and `geograph- ically coherent open space planning areas . This arrangement facilitates comprehensive site use planning and management. Use and Management Plans and reviews for individual sites within a given planning area are prepared within a short span of time so that the plans are consistent with each other. J. Public Review Public participation is an integral part of the planning process. Anyone inquiring about planningissues related to a reserve is n ra eti to e cou P g become involved by attending public workshops and hearings when the issues r discussed. 'are i c ssed. Interested artier may subscribe P Y �. to the District's agendas to keep informed of upcoming meetings. In addition , a notice of an upcoming meeting may be posted on the site to increase public aware- ness. P ness. All public notification is in accordance with the Public Notifi- cation Policy, adopted August 26 , 1981 and last amended on September10 , 1986. Site Use and Management Plans , reviews , and amendments are considered by the Board at a minimum of two public hearings at which the public may com- ment. The initial hearing is for the purpose of tentatively adopting the Use and Management Plan recommendations. In most cases, these tentatively adopted recommendations will be returned to the Board for final approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting. This will allow at least a two week period to receive public comment. There may be cases when additional time is required to resolve specific planning issues. If so, the final consideration of the Use and Management Plan may be deferred for a longer ` period of time. When specific land use issues under consideration may lead to signifi- cant changes in existing use and management of a site and generate a sub- stantial amount of public interest, a public workshop will be held. The public workshop will be an informal meeting held prior to a plan being presented to the Board in order to encourage public involvement in staff s development or modification of the Use and Management Plan. When special. use and management issues arise at -other times, public workshops or neighborhood meetings will be considered to resolve the issues and possibly modify the existing Use and Management Plans . These workshops will be held on or near the preserve when possible, and announcements will be sent to subscribers of the District' s agenda and local newspapers , as well as posted on-site. District-wide planning issues (e.g. , dog usage , trail use conflicts , etc. ) will be subject to the same planning procedures as site-specific issues. j A mailing list of interested parties will be maintained and used for public notification when public workshops or hearings related to the matter are scheduled. K. Policy Statements The Board has adopted the following Policies relating to the Open Space s Use and Management Planning Process . * Title Date Adopted 1. Policies for Relative Emphasis of Use, May 12 , 1982 Development, and Publicity of District Sites E Use and Management Plann� Process Page eightjt 2. Public Notification Policies August 26 , 1981 Revised September 14 , `y_ d3 Revised September 10, 1986 3. Publicity Guidelines Related to July 8 , 1981 Site Emphasis Policy 4. Open Space Management Budget Policy June 13, 1978 (Currently under review) 5. Policy for Dedication of District Lands February 14, 1979 6. Policies Regarding Improvements on January 11, 1978 District Lands Revised February 22, 1978 Revised March 23 1983 7. Site Naming and Gift Recognition February 8, 1978 Policies 8. Agricultural Use Policy Statement February 8 , 1978 9. Policies on Concessions on District May 10 , 1978 Lands 10. Procedure for Reviewing Special Use August 231 1978 Proposals of MROSD Lands and Facilities 11. Organizational Use Policy May 25 , 1977 * Policies are available upon request at the District office. II R-88-32 (Meeting 88-06 March 9, 1988) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT March 3, 1988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: T. Henshaw, Director SUBJECT: Review of Policies and Plans for Relative Site Emphasis At the recent all day workshop on Basic Policies it became clear to me that we cannot be all things to all people. I believe that the District has grown to the size it is and has such limited resources that we need to re-examine the Policies and Plans for Relative Site Emphasis. My intent to have the item placed on the agenda is to provide an opportunity for the Board and public to review the policies and to determine if they fit the needs of our District at the present time. This would further connect to the concerns of the Directors raised on the field trip last spring concerning the signing, parking, etc. along Skyline Boulevard. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Policies and Policy Decisions Relating to Site Emphasis Adopted By Board of Directors July 8, 1981 For purposes of discussion, emphasized and non-emphasized sites were defined as follows: Emphasized Site - a District site which is either (a) actively used by the public (example - Rancho San Antonio) or (b) promoted by the District for active public use (example - Los Trancos). Non-Emphasized Site - A District site which is either (a) not actively used by the public (example - Costanoan Way) or (b) not pro- moted by the District for active public use (example - Long Ridge). BUDGET GUIDELINES 1. Should any new policies on site emphasis and stewardship fit within the existing land management budget guidelines? Board reaffirmed Land Management budget guidelines; any emphasis policies adopted would only be guidelines for allocation of funds within those budget guidelines. SITE EMPHASIS 1. Should some District sites be emphasized for public use? Yes Should the emphasized sites be limited in number according to geographic distri- bution? Yes 2. Should some District sites be unemphasized for public use? Yes 3. Should there be a system which defines various levels of emphasis into which individual sites are placed? NO 4. Should the level of emphasis be decided for each site on its individual merits? Yes, according to the criteria in the present sixth paragraph 5. Should the District establish classifications for each. site (wilderness, etc. )? No i Page two, 6. What criteria should be used in determining emphasis vs. unemphasis of sites and should criteria be assigned priorities? The Board adopted the list of criteria with the provision that criteria should not be listed by priority and are not necessarily stated in order of importance. Staff is to work with the list of criteria and return to the Board if additional clarification was needed. Staff was directed to return to the Board in six months to one year with a suggested plan for the number and general location of emphasized sites. Staff should report back to the Board in March with a schedule for the suggested plan. a) manageability of site b) public need c) accessibility to public d) geographic distribution e) geographic location f) attractiveness of natural features 9) costs measured against benefits h) physical and psychological carrying capacity i) availability of existing facilities for public use j) other factors affecting suitability of site 7. Does the Board wish to adopt guidelines which address the following subjects? a) restrooms b) drinking water c) level of trail development d) provision of maps e) parking areas f) signs g) provision of camping facilities h) transportation (shuttle bus) Board requested staff return to the Board with a suggested set of guide- lines for items a, b, c, d, e, and f for further discussion by the Board; staff recommendations could be changed or referred to committee, if re- quired, by Board. Board will not adopt guidelines for items g and h, leaving them to a case by case consideration in use and management plans. 6. Is a master land management plan needed to implement adopted policies? Staff should not attempt to put together or create a formal written master land management plan document at this time, but it is important to think of the District as a whole when making planning considerations, Page -three 9. Should the District adopt publicity guidelines related to a site emphasis policy? If so, how will the level of emphasis be reflected in our publicity program? The Board tentatively adopted the guidelines in C. MacDonald's memorandum to H. Grench (Memorandum M-81-32, dated March 16, 1981 ) , asking staff to return to the Board with a restatement of the guidelines in the form of a policy statement. A recommendation on directional signs as a method of attracting people to sites was also requested from staff. 10. Should there be a policy to influence level of external publicity given to sites? (externally generated) The Board recommended adopting a policy on externally-generated publicity that stated the degrees to which the District would encourage such pub- licity so as to be consistent with the level of emphasis for a site. Staff should include the proposed policy with the other material being prepared for the Board to consider. 11. Should the District have a public relations policy on emphasis of sites not managed or owned by the District? The Board adopted a no-policy position, as it was premature to consider until an emphasis plan for District sites was prepared by staff and approved by the Board. SITE STEWARDSHIP 1. Do we need additional general stewardship policy statements beyond those con- tained in the basic policies? a No 2. Do we need specific policies on level of maintenance and patrol? No 3. Should policies be established regarding influencing stewardship of lands not managed by the District? Not at this time. I I _ - R-82-19 (Meeting 82-9 May "12, 1.982) (Revised version of ' report R-22-17, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT dated April 10, 1982 and revised April 14 1982) REPORT May 5 , 1982: TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager, and D. Woods, Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Policy and Plan for Relative Emphasis of Use, Development and Publicity of District Sites Introduction: During the past two years there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the question of site emphasis as it relates to desirable levels of use, development, and publicity for District sites. In February of 1980, a Site Emphasis Policy Workshop was held to discuss policy issues concerning the develop- ment of District sites. In April 1980 , the Board established a Site Emphasis Committee with the charge of identifying policy I issues that arose from the workshop. In December 1980 , the Committee presented to the full Board policy questions which arose from the Site Emphasis Workshop and the September Program Evaluation Workshop. Discussions of these questions at subsequent meetings culminated on July 8, 1981, when you approved a summary of your Policies and. Policy Decisions Relating to Site Emphasis (see M-81-47 , dated May 7, 1980) , and adopted Publicity Guidelines Related to Site Emphasis Policy. Pursuant to your directive of July 8 , 1981 , staff is now returning with a comprehensive plan for emphasizing sites which includes (1) refined policy statements derived from the adopted Policy Decisions Relating to Site Emphasis Issues and Questions (M-81-47) , and (2) guidelines for planning the number and general location of emphasized sites . Background: The District has acquired and made available to the public nearly 12 ,000 acres of open space over the past ten years. During this time, the use and management plans for each site have been developed on a case by case basis with the goal of maximizing public use consistent with budget guidelines and environmental restraints . As the District' s land inventory has grown, it has become more difficult to establish priorities for use development, P and publicity for one site as compared to another. As a result, staff has been requested to prepare draft policies, guidelines , and a plan to guide Board and staff in the future planning of District sites. R-82-'19 Page two The planning for sites is a complex task which initially takes its direction from the more general land use and management policies that have evolved over the past ten years . These are derived from the District's Basic Policy, from various policy refinements , and from site use plans . In summary, the policies include the following: A. All District sites will be open to the general public. It is recognized, though, that in certain cases where hazards or access problems occur, a permit system may be required. B. The development of sites will be consistent with the open space management budget, workloads, and priorities . Because the District is committed to maximum acquisition efforts, expenditures for development will be limited in types and quantity. Annual growth for open space management will be based on the adopted open space management budget guidelines. C. The protection of the natural resources, ecological balance, and promotion of a "good neighbor" policy will be primary con- siderations in the planning, development, and maintenance of District lands . D. Initial development will be primarily for low-intensity recreation, such as hiking, riding, picnicking (no developed facilities) , photography, and nature study. Agricultural uses and special uses such as historical preservation will also be considered and encouraged where feasible. E. The District will seek arrangements with other governmental agencies whereby other agencies will provide some or all development of facilities and supervision of public access . e i n e I protect The District will insure that such development will p o important natural values of the open space. F. The ongoing management of District sites will be a critical factor influencing future development plans. It is recognized that development plans can have a significant impact on the operations and maintenance program. Sites will be developed in such a way as to minimize management costs , so as to be consistent with the open space management budget guidelines . i Policies for Relative Emphasis of Use, Development and Publicity: The process of developing site emphasis policy statements, guide- lines for development, and a comprehensive plan has led staff to clarifying the site emphasis concept which has been discussed in the past. The following discussion includes a preamble, prepared policy statements (indented) , and other background information on each policy. Preamble All District sites are open to the public (and virtually all without permit) , but some deserve more relative emphasis in terms of use, recreational development, and publicity than others. Since it is neither desirable nor feasible to em- phasize each site highly, criteria have been developed to determine the relative emphasis for various sites . R-82 19 Page three 1. Policy Statement 1 All sites will be evaluated with respect to established criteria and assigned positions on a site emphasis spectrum. The spectrum shall represent all levels of use and develop- ment consistent with existing land use policy. The criteria to be used include public need, geographical location, regional significance, attractiveness , accessibility, availability of existing facilities, geographical distribution, manageability, cost benefits , and carrying capacity. Each site' s individual merits will be the primary factor in determining its position with those sites having high levels of use and development placed near the top of the spectrum. Each site will receive individual attention and planned for in accordance with its position in the spectrum. The concept of a site emphasis spectrum is being proposed because it is recognized that each District site is different and, there- fore, each has a different potential for use and development. The wide range of opportunities include sites that can easily accommodate large numbers of visitors and a variety of recreational amenities to sites that are isolated with informal access and trail system. The evaluation technique involves analyzing all sites with respect to the criteria adopted by the Board at its July 8 , 1981 meeting. (See Addendum 1 for definitions of each criterion. ) For planning purposes , the criteria have been examined graphically by developing site profiles. The profiles (an example is shown in Addendum 1) are based on a comparative analysis in an attempt to see relation- ships between criteria and sites . 2 . Policy Statement 2 : The criteria used for determining the relative emphasis of a site will not be prioritized or weighted. The criteria will be considered interrelated and each of the criteria will play a significant role in the determination process by providing qualitative and comparative information. Most sites will undoubtedly have some development limitations, and decisions should be as objective as possible . Two criteria, though, that should be considered critical factors to a site's potential growth are accessibility and carrying capacity. Both must be attainable regardless of the remaining criteria if a site is to be considered for increased use and development. 3. Policy Statement 3 The concept of the site emphasis spectrum should provide flexibility in planning and growth in use, numbers , and size of District sites. The process of site growth shall be dynamic, whereby sites may become more emphasized through changes in characteristics which influence positions on the spectrum. When a site's individual merits justify further use and development, then the site should move upward in the spectrum. This process shall not necessarily be accomplished in one step, but possibly through incremental changes. The specific methods by which sites are elevated shall be captained in the use and management plans. R-8219 Page four In an effort to maximize recreational opportunities , we wish to provide flexibility in our planning so as to utilize properly as much of the District's resources as possible. It is an important element of this plan to respond to changes in a site' s ability to receive increased use and development. These changes are most likely to occur by site additions, development of adjacent lands, or unpredicted public pressure. 4. Policy Statement 4 The relative emphasis plan shall be a comprehensive plan of all District sites , indicating the long term goals and order in which sites should be emphasized, and the more immediate plans for increasing use and development on selected sites. The plan will be used to guide staff in the preparation of use and management plans, Action Plan, and budget. Recognizing that the factors influencing a site' s use and development change over time, the relative emphasis plan should be reviewed and updated on an annual basis . The review will provide an opportunity to change the position sites currently have in the plan. The annual review should be toward the end of each calendar year to coincide with work on program evaluation and the Action Plan. In accordance with the Open Space Management planning process P—ub_1-2& participation will be encouraged prior to Board review. The comprehensive process will provide Board and staff with an opportunity to evaluate and project better the use and develop- ment on all District sites . By looking at the District as a whole, we will be able to make more rational land use decisions, to make more efficient use of available funding, and to provide maximum feasible public use of all lands . The annual review will establish the Board's yearly goals which give direction to the District' s existing site planning process. 5. Policy Statement 5 The number of sites selected for emphasis and the extent to which sites are developed for recreation shall be consistent with the Open Space Management Budget Guidelines. The Guidelines provide for a budget limit base with an annual growth factor that yields real growth beyond inflationary increases . Available funding will not necessarily be focused on fully developing a few selected sites but could be distributed to a number of sites to develop them incrementally. The needs of operations and maintenance to provide high quality stewardship shall be an important consideration in determining the scope of the development plan. The formulation of the relative emphasis plan will not only address the extent of increased use and development on selected sites , but also reflect projected increases in maintenance and operation costs associated with the plan. In most cases , development leads to an increase in use, which in turn requires an increase in maintenance and patrol. The objective of the plan is to accomplish the maximum amount of development without seriously impacting the operations and maintenance program - in other words , to create a balance in growth between development, operations, and maintenance. R-82- 19 Page five Policy Statement G Special. development opportunities that arise after the adoption of the relative emphasis plan shall be actively pursued, concentrating on the more emphasized sites These opportunities may take the form of grants, fundraising, or volunteer efforts. The District will explore these avenues as an initial step to site planning and budgeting. If unexpected opportunities become available and are not site specific, an attempt shall be made to develop sites already selected. If the opportunity is site specific and the site is not a selected site, the Board will re-examine the impacts the opportunity may have on the existing plan, taking into account the ,maintenance and operations costs. Short term opportunity gains should not override careful , ' consistent site emphasis plannina. The decision to utilize an opportunity whet er for a selected or non-selected site may require modifying the relative emphasis plan, and adjustments will be planned at the time the oppor- tunity is being considered. Development opportunities can have a variety of impacts on the relative emphasis plan. An opportunity which can be applied to a more highly emphasized site can result in existing development funds being distributed elsewhere in the plan. On the other hand, when an opportunity is used on a site not selected, the maintenance and operation costs associated with the project could preclude previously planned projects on selected sites from being completed. The re-examination of the relative emphasis plan in a comprehensive manner and at the time the opportunity is being considered can help ` identify the overall benefits and conflicts . Plan for Relative Emphasis of District Sites ; The following table represents both the long range plan for emphasizing sites and the short term or annual plan for prioritizing budget allocations, including staff time, for development projects. The list includes all District preserves (plus those where a decision has been made to acquire) and those sites operated by other agencies where the District participated in funding. A map is also attached. i The list of sites on the left indicates, in ranking order, the long term goal for the development of District lands. Over a period of time, sites shown near the top of the list should receive the greatest amount of attention because existing or potentially existing favorable conditions (profiles) warrant maximizing development of facilities for public use. On the other hand, sites near the b ottom of the list should not be viewed as good candidates for near-term development, although they should remain I open to the public. The ranking system is based on a semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis, as outlined in Addendum 1 , and, therefore, the position of a site on the list should not be considered precise . The approximate position of the site as it relates to the entire list is the important factor. The list is also subject to change during the annual comprehensive review. At that time, all sites will be re-evaluated by the Board and those having experienced a change (such as adjacent land acquisitions which increase the site' s accessibility) can be moved upward on the list. R-82-19 Page six The table to the right shows the more immediate approach to reaching the long term goals. It represents an annual projection of where development efforts should occur and a method of prioritizing these efforts. The development categories selected (parking lots , trails , signing, etc. ) are those considered most compatible with open space land use. Each category may offer a wide range of possibilities or level of development. Since the process by which a site becomes emphasized is transitional in nature, guidelines should be adopted for the upper and lower limits of development. (See Addendum 2 P P for these guidelines. ) The priority list, then, suggests in a general way which categories on specific sites should be expanded or improved, and an approxi- mate order in which they should be considered. This does not mean that a category receiving a low priority would be delayed until all high priority projects are completed, but only that, if time and funding are limited, not all low priority projects will be completed. This list would primarily evolve from existing use and management plans, but could also include projected plans for the year to come. What specific project in detail is to be accomplished would be dependent on recommendations in the use and management plans. The table represents proposed priorities for fiscal year 1982-83 . Starting this year and in subsequent years, the comprehensive plan will be reviewed in November/December in order to aid in the preparation of Action Plan and budget for the coming year. A planning priority column has been added to show where planning emphasis will be placed. Recommendation: I recommend that after discussion and possible changes you tentatively accept the report area tentatively adopt the Policies for Relative emphasis of Use , Development, and Publicity of District Sites (including Preamble) , the Plan for Relative Emphasis of District Sites (table) , and Addenda 1 and 2 (not including the profile) . I I i R-82-19 Page seven PLAN FOR RELATIVE EMPHASIS OF DISTRICT SITES Funding Priorities for FY 1982-83 j U�4Q1JQUgar-Term Priorities for EMhnsis � o N far 1. Skyline Ridge Open Space A y - A , Preserve 2. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve C D A A A A B A 3. Rancho San Antonio Open Space B D B D D D E E Preserve 4. Edgewcod County Park B San Mateo County Project 5. Las Gatos Creek Park - Not.yet Icquired 6. San Mateo County Baylands Reserve B - - - - - - - 7. Picchetti Ranch Area A E A* A* A* A* E E 8. Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve C E D D D D - - 9. Los Trancos Open Space Preserve C D B* B* D B - E 10. Windy Hill Open Space Preserve A D A* A* A A - - 11. Hassler Property Not yet ccuir 12. Fremont Older Open Space C D C B* D B - - Preserve 13. Loner Ridge Open SpacePreserve C - - - - B* - - 14. Russian Ridge Open Space - - - - - D - - Preserve 15. Duveneck Winanill Pasture Area - D D C* D D - - 16. Stevens Creek Shoreline C E D D B* D E E Nature Study Area 17. Lirw- iln Canyon Area C - - - - D - - 18. E1 Sereno Open Space Preserve - - - - D C - - 19. Foothills Open Space Preserve - D D - - D - - 20. Thornewood C - - C* - - - - 21. Kennedy Road Area - - - - D - - 22. Mt. t`munhum Area B - - - - - 23. Mt. Thayer Area B - - - - - - - 24. El Sombroso Area 25. Costanoan Vay Open Space - - - - Preserve A = High Priority D = Completed or expected to be completed in FY 1981-82 B = medium Priority E = To be provided by lease arrangement or adjacent facility C = Lora Priority - = Not in current or anticipated use and management plan *Not currently planned but anticipated Page eight N can Carlos -' r° Baysnoro 6 ° ast edwood City F. alo Alto r° ` 4 o° Atherton 3 \\ Palo Alto !M� Menlo Park Ro ' w^5s Woodside c y<a< o / Mountain Portola View Valley cac: Sa`' Los \ .w 2 Q o Los Altos z 6' °a 9v r c rn Altos o. e4Hills oo� u V e °° 6` SP wiJ iliY, \ •4Cupertino 0 G 14 3 yVv PkA— Gap i �a7 q yo C °' 13, Saratoga 13 5°r, 2 �Qs u P6 3a _ 8 a Oa 'I Monte ca'O+q 18 . Sereno .1 6 os Gatos 21) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Boundary of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 7 2 ® Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District open space preserves 22 Major city,county, and state parks and open space preserves 23 l R-82-19 Page nine Addendum 1 Site Analysis Analysis of District Sites The criteria to be used to determine the present and potential position of District sites in the site emphasis spectrum have been outlined by the Board in the adopted Policy Decisions Relating to Site Emphasis Issues and Questions. Since a discussion of each criteria as it applies to each site would be lengthy and confusing we have developed graphic profiles to observe relationships between various criteria and sites. There is no attempt on our part to present an absolute quantitative analysis , only a comparative one. The first step in illustrating site emphasis profiles is to define the criteria so that each can be applied to all sites uniformly. The criteria include: A. Public Interest Does the public express a desire, either directly or indirectly, to utilize the site? This may be evident by existing use which occurs regardless of land status and/or by interest communicated to staff or Board. B. Geographical Location Does or will the site receive high levels of use and pressure for recreational development due to its close proximity to the urban area? C. Regional Significance How significant is the site in relationship to other existing public lands , and does it serve as an important link (providing trail connections) between or leading to other facilities? D. Attractive of Natural or Developed. Features Are there features on the site (such as a unique landscape, historical building, Barking areas , trails , etc.) which are of particular interest and attractiveness or usefulness to the public? *E. Accessibility to Public Can the District' s general public (not only site neighbors) gain access to the property from public roads or adjacent public lands or if not,,. is there the potential for improving thisaccess (parking) on District or adjacent public lands? F. Lack of Existing Open- space Parklands for Public Use Are there no other nearny open space recreational experiences (including existing developed preserves) accessible to the public on a regional basis? Such facilities if:-accessjble and minimally developed would possibly alleviatethe need for development of the site inthe near future. y _ R-82- 19 Page ten G. Geographical Dis ibution How well does the site serve as a regional facility, and will its development better distribute open space opportunities throughout the District? H. Manageability of Site Can the site be readily managed presently and in the future if further development were to occur? This could be related to the number of access points and the adequacy of patrol routes, presence of an agricultural tenant, a renter, a Ranger residence, or other lease arrangement. *I. Costs Measured Against Benefits To what extent do the benefits to the public exceed the costs associated with development and management of the site? Some sites will tend to yield great benefits at little cost. *J. Physical and Psychological Carrying Capacity Is the site capable of providing open space experiences for large numbers of visitors without degrading the resource or psychologically reducing the quality of the experience? Is there the potential for 'expanding facilities such as trails without exceeding the carrying capacity? EXAMPLE SITE PROFILE - MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - • PICCHETTI RANCH AREA Low High A. Public In terest merest B. Geographical Location . :: ? .... :. ::: :::. : : ::z•.:: : . ,C. Regional Significance D. Attractiveness * S. Accessibility .............��';✓��������������������������� F. Lack of Existing Facilities G. Geographical Distribution j * H. Manageability * I. Cost/Benefit J. Carrying Capacity * On the example site profile, Criteria E, H, I, and J are viewed in two different ways. The light shaded area depicts the current status with respect to criterion, and the remainder darker shaded area illustrates the potential status if the site were to be developed further. R-82- 19 Page eleven i i Addendum 2 - Guidelines for Site Development The upper and lower limits of site recreational development and related matters such as publicity shall be consistent with existing District land use policies whereby there is particular concern for site protection and for uses which are compatible with the resource. These uses usally are relatively passive in nature, such as hiking, equestrian use, grass pic- nicking, photography, nature study, educational use, and agriculture. Higher levels of use are not provided because omen s_oace lands are Pro- tected as part of our natural heritage and, as such, do not lend themselves to intensive recre ational development which is Provided b state, , county, and city parks. Special uses inconsistent with these guidelines should be considered on a case by case basis. '] Guidelines for Most Highly EmphasizedSites: The upper limits for use and management shall include providing low intensity recreation, regional public access, and protecting and enhancing the resource. Guidelines to accomplish this include the following: A. Parking Areas will be developed on sites to provide regional public access when alternative nearby parking is not available. 1. Parking areas will be located to relate well to the site, near roadways and trailheads , and be -easily monitored for visitor safety. etY Design n criteria will include siting to minimize ze visual impacts, minimal land disturbance, graveled surfaces , low profile fencing, and proper drainage. 2. Parking areas will be developed primarily for passenger and bus vehicles. Morse trailers may utilize these areas informally, but preferential parking will not be provided. Where financially and physically possible, trailer parking will be incorporated into the design. 3. In addition to developed parking areas, areas may be ascertained and designated as parking areas for special events by the General Manager and used on a permit basis only. B. Trail Systems will be maintained and developed to optimize recreation- al and educational experiences. 1. Trails will be developed to distribute and circulate visitors throughout the site, providing them with a variety of experiences in length, grade, and landscape. 2. Trails will not be constructed in ecologically sensitive areas, and trails which tend to duplicate routes will be avoided. 3. Trails will be planned to integrate with adjacent public trails, private trails where the public is permitted, and planned public trails. 4. Multi-use trails for hikers and equestrians will be used when possible. If negative impacts appear and cannot be mitigated, alternative routes to the same destination will be explored. I' ' 's.ua a.««a mtwkprs -S«nuvo-,ma.wbwa' � R4& iew Rbns" •.., -aaaw.aw.+rrra:.,+.vw.k,mw.,...wr..' ..z.»er.e .i. ..wio.0 4u .a.r.'.'Mw. R-82- 19 Page twelve C. Signing will be provided to protect the resource, promote a good neighbor policy, increase visibility and awareness, and circulate visitors throughout the preserve. 1. An on-site identification sign will be installed to increase site visibility. Specific design will be done on a case by case basis. 2. Boundary plaques will be used for boundary identification and, in addition, private property boundary signs will be placed where trails lead to private land. 3. Residences , leaseholdings, and private property will be signed at boundaries to protect rights. 4. Regulatory signs will be installed at all primary access points and "Wildland" signs placed at other access trails. 5. Trail signing to assist in visitor circulation will be used to identify trail routes and destination points. D. A Brochure will be developed to inform visitors of District policies and site specific information. 1. The brochure will consist of a detailed map and interpretive information. It may be a simple folded 8k" x 11" sheet or a more complex format, depending on the size and complexity of the site and amount of information to be included. 2. Distribution will be consistent with adopted Publicity Guidelines, making brochures generally available through libraries , docents , and Rangers, and onsite. The level of distribution will depend upon budget considerations and the number of visitors that can be accommodated. E. Fences and stiles will be upgraded for site protection and to in- crease public awareness of District sites. 1. Fencing and gates along public corridors of high visibility will complement the landscape and promote public recognition of the Preserve. Multi-use stiles (equestrian/hiking) will be used in most cases . 2. New fencing and gates will be installed in areas of continual maintenance problems and designed on a case by case basis. Stiles will be located at all primary access points and will be highly visible. 3. Stiles will be provided at secondary access points , but will be low profile to allow public access but not accelerate use in areas which would be difficult to manage. F. Drinking rater will be provided for public use when convenient and practical . 1. Existing sources of potable water will be maintained if the costs associated with testing and treatment are reasonable. R-82-19 Page thirteen Y 2. When District lands are leased, and the leasees required to develop potable water for their own use, the the leasees will normally provide and maintain that source for the public as well. 3. Potable water will be developed on sites where extended use is encouraged and existing water sources can be improved, treated, and tested at a reasonable cost. 4 . If water is developed for an agricultural or equestrian use, a reasonable attempt will be made to make the water potable. Those responsible for developing the water would be responsible for signing it appropriately. 5' developed water which cannot feasibly be made .potable will not , be eliminated but will be signed appropriately. G. Restrooms will be developed and maintained on sites when needed to protect aesthetics and water quality or when required by local ordinance. 1. When the• District land is leased and as part of the lease agreement public restrooms are required, the tenant will normally permit the general public the use of the facility. 2. In cases where it is necessary for the District to install restrooms , semi-portable units will be used to allow flexi- bility in locating or relocating them. Screening will be used to minimize the visual impacts. Guidelines for Least Emphasized Sites : The lower limits for use and management shall consist of securing the site, continuing uses which are compatible, and providing some public use. Guidelines to accomplish this include the following: A. Parking Areas located on sites will be maintained for public access. 1. Parking will only be eliminated if it were determined hazardous or unmanageable, and the problems could not be mitigated. 2. Areas suitable for parking but not open on a regular basis may be used for special occasions by permit. 3 . New parking areas will not be developed. B. Trail Systems will be maintained for public use and patrol purposes. 1. Trails will only be eliminated if they duplicate one another or have a significant negative impact on the environment which cannot be reasonably mitigated. 2 . Trails could be closed due to hazards or significant tres- passing problems until such time as the problems can be mitigated. 3 . No new trails will be developed, but some may be improved to accommodate and enhance patrol , which in turn 'would 'accomodate and enhance public use . R-82- 19 Page fourteen C. Signing will be min(mal to protect the resource and promote a good neighbor policy. 1. Boundary plaques will be used for boundary identification. 2. Private property, private residence and leasehold signs may be installed at boundaries upon request. 3 . "Wildland" regulatory signs will be used at public access points . 4 . Trail signing. will only be installed in *unusual circumstances for user safety or site manageabilit D. Site Maps will be available upon request. 1. Maps will include identification of roads, trails , access points, and private property and ordinarily be the maps already prepared for a report to the Board. 2 . The District fact sheet will be included with map to acquaint visitors with District policies and management program. E. Fences and Gates will be maintained or installed to provide site security and informal access. 1. Hiking/equestrian stiles will be installed at public access points where management will not be a problem. 2 . The design and location of the stiles will be low profile to provide access without accelerating use. 3. Pipe gates and split rail fencing will be used in areas of continual vandalism. F. Drinking Water, if presently available and safe, will be continued for public use. 1. Water systems will not be improved or maintained specifically for this purpose. 2. If water is available and required testing is determined to be too costly, water outlets may be eliminated, but 'in such a fashion as to enable them to be reactiviatedin the future. 3 . Developed water sources not known to be safe will be posted non-potable. G. Restrooms will not be provided except for special occasions . 1. On such occasions, the facility must be portable and user group would be responsible for cost and management. The District may acquire sites with existing facilities of a type not on the preceding list which are not consistent with where the site is locat&d in the site emphasis plan. The facilities would not be removed unless they were in conflict with land use policies or were a signifi- cant management burden. If they do not reflect the District 's style or land use policies,, they .will be phased out when possible . Consideration will be -given to the , short-term benefits of-removal versus the potential for future use should the site b6come -more emphasized.' R-88-30 (Meeting 88-06 March 9, 1988) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT March 3, 1988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; J. Boland, Operations Supervisor; C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Request for Authorization to Solicit Bids for Underground Gas Storage Tank at Skyline Ranger Facility Recommendation: I recommend that you authorize staff to solicit competitive bids for the complete installation of one underground gasoline storage tank as described in this report. Discussion: In December 1983, you approved the temporary use of the Ranch Area of Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve by the Skyline ranger staff . This arrangement was to continue until the final outcome of the Skyline Ridge Master Plan implementation was determined (see report R-83-48 of November 18 , 1983) . The former Ranch Area was chosen as a ranger yard and fuel facility for three reasons : 1) Its proximity to several highly emphasized District preserves , including Monte Bello, Los Trancos, Windy Hill , Purisima Creek, and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves . It is also near several key intersecting roads which access other preserves. 2) The existence of a gasoline pump and several structures that could be converted easily and inexpensively into a ranger office, shop, and storage and garage facilities . 3) The presence of a ranger residence (the former ranch manager ' s residence) , which significantly increases the security of the ranger office and shop. The Skyline rangers used the existing gas pump until the winter of 1986 . The tank failed a routine pressure test, and the County of San Mateo R-88-30 Page Two requested its removal . The tank was removed by a licensed contractor in February, 1987 . In March 21, 1986, the District acquired the Bullis property, and the various improvements on the property included a 3, 000 gallon underground gas storage tank and pump. As an addendum to the purchase agreement, the District executed a letter agreement with the seller, and later with the short-term lessee. This agreement authorized the District ranger staff to utilize the gas tank and pump facility for an unspecified period of time. Rather than replacing the tank at Skyline yard in early 1986, use of the Bullis tank appeared to be the most cost effective temporary solution. Recently, three key factors have affected that source of fuel for Skyline ranger vehicles: 1) District rangers will no longer have access to the 3 , 000 gallon gas storage tank and pump facility on that site because of the recent exchange of a portion of the former Bullis property. 2) The Skyline Ranch building complex was initially identified in the Skyline Ridge Master Plan as a potential interpretive facility and small ranger yard. Due to difficult access from State Highway 35, this site no longer appears suitable for public vehicular access (see report R-86-84 of September 16, 1986) . The site now has the potential to continue as a long-term Skyline area ranger office and shop facility. The existing Master Plan includes a proposed small corporation yard and ranger office in the ranch compound. Therefore, neither the Master Plan nor the Use and Management Plan would have to be amended. It would be ideal to retain a gas pump at Skyline even if a more desirable location for a permanent main Skyline area ranger facility was found. However, the proposed tank could be moved, if necessary. 3) The only service stations in existence along the Skyline corridor are located in Skylonda. Typically, the cost per gallon is 20%- 25% higher than in the valley. The business hours of the two service stations vary widely from month to month, with both often closed after 6 : 30 P.M. The higher cost per gallon, coupled with the irregular business hours and extended commute time simply to "tank-up" a truck elsewhere, eliminates the Skylonda service stations as viable alternatives . Staff has developed tank specifications and informally surveyed the Skyline ranger compound for a suitable tank location. The design specifications call for a 2, 500 gallon, double-wall fiber glass tank which would be guaranteed against leaks for 30 years . The pump would have a vapor recovery design and deliver 15-26 gallons per minute. The bid price would include all materials including a concrete 12 foot by 20 foot pad over the buried tank, all necessary permits, and installation of the tank, pump, and monitoring well . Staff would return to you to request authorization to award a purchase contract after bids have been evaluated. The most appropriate site for the tank appears to be adjacent to the three- car garage located in the southeasternmost corner of the building complex R-88-30 Page Three (see attached plan) . This location would provide simple access for large gasoline delivery trucks. The site could be screened easily from the surrounding buildings and protected from any planned public uses in the area. The proposed pump location is in conformance with the original Master Plan (see plan excerpt attached) and the Use and Management Plan, as amended on September 24, 1986, when the changing nature of the farm area was noted (see report R-86-84 of September 16, 1986) . Informal estimates obtained for the project range from $12 , 000 to $15, 000. Specific funding for this expenditure was not included in the 1987-1988 Open Space Management budget. However, contingency funding is not requested because funds are currently available in the Open Space Management fixed assets account which will probably be underspent by up to $21, 000. Therefore, I feel that this item can be covered in the current Open Space Management budget. 2/88 SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE BUILDING AREA SKYC A g0 ��F�gRD p Sj I NORTH L FAl PROPOSED GAS PUMP & TANK LOCATION • 3 CAR GARAGE to • • •. YARD & • • . DUMPSTER • STORAGE SHED 0 ` GARAGE & SHOP ••• RANGER El* : SHED OFFICE • FORMER GAS PUMP LOCATION i • • BARN • NOT TO SCALE I r SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRE,-ZE V MASTER PLAN Mldpeninsuia Regional open Space District Y�� •: Views to Alpine Reservoir To ACM p...rvot and 1:r ACM Read IW+dc+GMd PArkhO.d Rowan wao ow sp. P--" • � ' Whole-Access 1 - and Intel32retiv@ Trail '+Old P. MR "°'d '" Observation. • r 1 Point Organization Room 1 • k'' 1; I %° ,z"�.: Picnic Area Ranger Office 717 i '�� l �� � �� / Environmental Education Center Pasture I•�'• . .. i. �..•. .� •1 I ••.1� TS�T"nd To H.no /�� y::.-::� ....:•::S Display Ou tdoor Class Contact Point LROMy �--� Tack R om / }. oi• y �^ `i lackithSho / Stora a a t1i Hay Lott /Stora e sm W D4 All-Purpose Trail \\ l I M n _ •, d Parking Preserve Corporation Yard (10 Cars) I. t: �.•;':' ,\,� r''r• / • ' Buffer Plant 00 0 Buffer :I' �' } rr/�: ••�\ v~o Planting T.Ho,*..no. .6—cor' rt M.In Puking Area. Pr...r.d ky: (D Pl.nl Prop.g.11.n Are. 2M A]9oclnte° EDAW Inc. Frahm nIS The Environmental Education Center - Upper Barn Area Harvey &Stanley ley As Fb Hnrvey L Slnnloy Aepocialoe F- y � I • Maintenance Facilities - A small Preserve storage and maintenance yard would be located behind the ranch barns. Facilities planned include a 1500 square foot, covered storage area, open storage and maintenance shop. A former tractor shed to the north of the upper barn would be rehabilitated and used for vehicles. The main barn area would be used as a tool and maintenance shop. The blacksmith shop of the upper barn would store educational displays and related equipment. The lower barn would be used as a working tack room, general storage, and hay loft (see Section 3.2.1, Environmental Education Center) . The entire area would be fenced (split-rail) and gated. Vegetative screening would be planted around its periphery. It is assumed that some of these facilities would be temporary and would be relocated to a Dis- trict satellite corporation yard located off the Preserve but in the Skyline area. However, it is likely that the need for a Preserve storage area would continue. Fire Sup ression Facilities - If not managed, increased presence of the public on the Preserve would by itself raise the risk of wildfire. In order to strengthen the current public fire suppression capabili- ties provided in the area by the California Division of Forestry, all District rangers who would be overseeing public use on the Preserve would undertake fire supression training. Those District rangers liv- ing on the Preserve would become active members in the South Skyline Volunteer Fire Department. In addition, other fire suppression facil- ities included in the program for the Preserve are listed below also Section 3.3.11 Prescription Burns) . (see • Fire-truck Access: to within 10 feet of Horseshoe and Alpine Reservoirs would be developed. • Fire hydrants: would be located in the Preserve at the central J parking areas, the hiker's camp, group camps and the Environmen- tal Education Center. { s • Equipment: during the later stages of Preserve development, a fire truck would be assigned to the Preserve and kept in the ' maintenance area. As this piece of equipment would be beneficial to District properties other than Skyline, it could be later IT moved to a District satellite corporation yard if that site were T more centrally located to other District lands. ` • Telephones: emergency ' 9 y phones at camping areas would connect directly to ranger residences. s Water Sup Ply - For the immediate future, while use on the Preserve remains low, a new water supply system will not be necessary. Howev- er, as use rises with the completion of initial facilities, the current system will not suffice. s A new water system utilizing Alpine Reservoir as a primary source with back-up capacity provided by either the existing spring now in use, or other sources on the Preserve which were historically used but require additional testing to determine their rate and frequency of flow, would be developed. Y R-88-29 (Meeting 88-06 March 9, 1988) A= elm MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT March 2, 1988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SUBJECT: Interim Report on Search for Permanent District Office Headquarters Recommendation: I recommend that you do not disband the Office Space Committee. However, President Duffy may wish to appoint a third Board member to serve on the Committee. Background: At your January 27 , 1988 meeting, President Duffy requested that staff provide an informational review of the District' s office space discussions and future activities in this area, primarily for the benefit of the newer Board members. She stated that the Board could determine whether or not to disband the Office Space Committee after receiving the staff ' s report. Directors Duffy and Shelley are the current members of this Committee; D. Wendin had been the third member. Discussion: You first began consideration of a location for a permanent District office headquarters in 1980. At that time, you decided to extend the District' s lease at 375 Distel Circle for the 5-year option period until October 31 , 1985. ASK Computer acquired that building, and District staff was advised of ASK's eventual need to occupy the District' s office space area. The Board' s Office Space Committee, established in 1981, then began to examine more closely the long-term office needs (see attached report R-84-20 of April 5, 1984) . This report included a comprehensive examination of the office space needs , as well as a financial analysis of the lease versus buy options . Based upon that report and the Committee ' s recommendations, the Board decided to direct staff to attempt to locate and propose purchase of a permanent site. Since this was to be a long-range project, it also became necessary to look for a more immediate solution for the requirement to relocate (see report R-85-14 of February 8 , 1985; report R-85-21 of dated March 8 , 1985, and memorandum M-85-152 of October 2, 1985) . When the District success- fully negotiated a lease for the current Old Mill Office Center location on the basis of an initial 5 years with an option for an additional 5 years, the permanent site search focused on the property owned by the City of Mountain View at the southwest corner of Bailey Avenue and Latham Street. R-88-29 Page two Since the immediate problem for relocation of the District office was solved by leasing the current space, the seeking of a permanent site became a lower-priority project. At the same time, City of Mountain View staff informed District staff that sale of the Bailey Avenue site for a District office building would only be considered after completion of a planning study of the Bailey Avenue corridor. The City' s planning staff feels that, although Bailey is a four-lane thoroughfare, there is a need to preserve the residential character and uses in the area. This study has had a relatively low priority for the City and has been in progress for the last two years. I was informed just recently that this Bailey Avenue corridor report will probably be submitted to the City Council after the April 12, 1988 election, as four seats are being filled and future uses of this corridor would appropriately be a concern of the new Council members. It is my reading of the situation that, while the District proposal may be acceptable, general office use along Bailey Avenue may not, so there would be a question about future District intentions. The planning study will most likely include a thorough examination of the area and use patterns without making specific recommendations. At this point, it would be up to District staff to continue to follow up with City staff members and testify at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings for final determination as to the appropriateness of the District use. If that process is favorably concluded, this project would then be returned to you for negotiations approval. Such a process would probably include appraisals and further study of the site by an architect and/or engineer. In the meantime, staff will continue to investigate alternative permanent office site locations on a low-priority basis and keep you informed of any progress. Several promising sites appear to be available. Office Space Committee: It has been very helpful to staff to have a Board Committee to work with to tour prospective sites and to discuss office space needs. This kind of activity should continue, albeit on a low- priority basis at the present time. R-84-20 (Meeting 84-08 April 11 , 1984) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT April 5, 1984 TO: Board of Directors FROM: K. Duffy, E. Shelley, and D. Wendin, Office Space Committee; and H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Long Term Office Space Needs and Location Introduction: The District has been leasing office space at 375 Distel Circle since August 25, 1977. The District's current lease expires on October 31 , 1985, and the owner-occupant of the office complex phas indicated that they will need all th.. District's spac e at that tim e. In fact , they have off ered r ed to buy-out t the District's lease..asQ as an incentive to advance our relocation tans. Therefore there P , is serious pressure on the District to find a new office location. The issue of Long Term Office Space Needs and Location was last before you as an agenda discussion item on January 28, 1981 . The attached report R-81-2 dated January 6, 1931 provided the basis of that discussion. Although the financial analysis clearly showed that in the long term there would be a significant cost savings to th-2 district to own space rather than to continue renting, the initial capital requirements might have diluted funds available for land acquisition, and purchase opportunities might be lost. Additionally, the project of finding a suitable site and poss;bly designing and building a structure could have taken substantial staff and Board effort at a time when those energies could not be spared from open space preservation activities. Therefore, you made the decision to continue leasing and, in fact, voted in 1980 to exercise the District's option to extend the lease term until November 1 , 1985. However, you also established a committee in 1981 "to review the long term location of the District's office and the question of buying versus renting." One of the Key Projects and Activities of the 1983-84 Action Plan calls for the Committee, full Board, and staff to work on this problem; a Key Project in the Preliminary Action Plan for 1934-85 calls for completing .ali necessary planning to move to different facilities by ovember 1 , 1985. ' Committee l;ork: Your Committee,currently consisting of Directors Wendin, Shelley, and Duffy, has met several times during the last few months to consider policy issues, such as preferred location, and technical matters , such as alternative methods of financing. The Committee has received valuable information on financing from your Controller, William Huck of Stone and Youngberg, and Jeffrey Higgins of Integrated Resources Equity Corporation. The Committee and staff approached its work as an information fathering and educational process in your behalf rather than trying to reach specific conclusions, which must be discussed and decided by the full Board. " P.-84-20 Page two Current Space and Cost: The following table shows pertinent data regarding the District's current lease of space at 375 Distel Circle: Expiration Date of Lease October 31 , 1985 Square Footage 3900 gross 3510 met Monthly Total Cost $3354 Monthly Cost Per Square Foot $0.86 gross $0.96 net Approximate Monthly Market Rental Value Per Square Foot $1 .50 gross Approximate Current Total Monthly Market Rental Value $5850 gross Considering the additions to office staff which are being discussed (see afore- mentioned Action Plans), the assumption is that by November 1 , 1985 the District will need about 5000 square feet of office space. Preferred Location: The present office is very close to the population center of the District according to calculations done a few years ago. It is also adjacent to the El Camino transportation and business corridor, which means that access, including public transportation, is convenient and that necessary business services are close at hand. The Committee considered the possibility of moving to present or new District-owned open space ar.d reviewed specific sites. The advantages would be that there would be no additional land costs, that the environmental setting would be pleasant, and that .the office as an information center would be convenient • to users of that preserve. One disadvantage is that there are no existing suitable buildings on District sites. Also, although a building could be constructed, the Committee felt that night access to District preserves is very problematical in terms of lighting, security, and public transportation. Additionally, office uses may be in conflict with current residential or open space zoning. Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve was con- sidered in some detail , for example. Finally, from the standpoint of day to day office business functions and accessibility to the public, District sites are not very functional . The Committee concluded that the preferred location would be either (a) Within approximately one block of E1 Camino Real between roughly Highway 85 in tbuntain View and Charleston Avenue-Arastradero Road in Palo Alto, or (b) Along Foothill Expressway between Interstate 280 and Springer Road in Los Altos. .10 priority was given to these locations. From an operational standpoint, I (not the Committee) would much prefer the E1 Camino Real corridor because it is close to needed services and has better public transpor- tation. In terms of the District's image as a regional agency, El Camino Real is perhaps more neutral than the Foothill Expressway option, which is strongly associated with a "particular city. Foothill Expressway has some advantage in being closer to District preserves than El Camino Real for office-field trips. As a practical matter in searching for space, there is little land zoned for office uses along Foothill Expressway compared to El Camino Real , and it would simplify matters if the Foothill Expressway corridor were dropped. Financing Alternatives: Many financing alternatives were investigated. The table ;i;hich follows shows the cost in terms of present value of a 20 year cash flow stream I or five of these options. R-84-20 _e Page three Initial Alternative Present Value Financing Requirements 1 . Continue to rent space $1 ,586,000 0 2. Buy the land and build 10,000 sq. ft. of space, renting out unneeded portions $1 ,019,000 $1 ,300,000 3. Same as No. 2 but 20,000 sq. ft. $ 751 ,000 $2,300,000 4: Buy the land, lease it to a private party who builds 10,000 sq. ft. of building in which MROSD rents space at discount - $1 ,073,000 $ 300,000 5. Same as No. 4 but 20,000 sq. ft. $1 ,073,000 $ 300,000 The assumptions are pessimistic in that the ownership costs are at the high end of the range and the revenues are at the low end. 1. Land cost = $15/sq. ft. 2. Construction cost = $100/sq. ft. 3. Lot size = 20,000 sq. ft. to support a one story 10,000 sq. ft. or a two story 20,000 sq. ft. building. 4. District leases extra space at $1'.75/sq. ft. , increasing 15% every three years. 5. Discount rate for computing present value = 10%/year. 6: District rents space it uses at $1 .75/sq. ft. (market rate, alternative no. 1) or at 12z% discount (alternatives 4 and 5). 7. District initially occupies 5,000 sq. ft. and adds 1000 sq. ft. every four years. 8. District .manages building at cost of 25% of rental value (alternatives 2 and 3) 9. Repair and upgrading = 2.5% of original building value (+6% increase each year) per year starting at year 4. 10. Appreciation of land = 10%/year. 11 . Appreciation of building = 6%/year for years 1-5 0%/year for years 6-15 -2%/year for years 16-20 12. Vacancy rate on excess space = 15% 13. Land lease is 1212%/year of land cost. 14. District issues 10 year, 1.0%0 notes for its initial cash requirements. The Committee concluded that there would be a substantial savings ($835,000 in today's dollars, for example, comparing alternatives 1 and 3) in buying the office site rather than continuing to rent. These savings could be put to good use for the public benefit in the way of additional open space acquisition, development of pre- serves for use, and preserve management. Sensitivity analysis shows the key assumptions to be the vacancy rate and building management costs. Choosing less pessimistic value for these variables yields a much greater advantage for the ownership alternatives. These simplified calculations show no advantage in alternative 5 over alternative 4,but further refinement should show some difference since the District should get some of the advantage of greater site utilization. k I „ t R-84-20 Page four Our investment banker indicates that financing for an office building project would be readily available through issuance of Certificates of Participation. Such certi- ficates would not count against the additional bonds covenant in the District's 1982 Motes. Financing for just the land could also be arranged in a. manner that did not impair the District's official debt capacity. Although these alternatives assume a raw site and a new building, that scenario is not a :specific recommendation of the. Committee. An available lot might conceivably already have a suitable building on it or one that might be remodeled. Only a site search would tell . The Committee favored an arrangement whereby the District did not manage the excess space, preferably not even indirectly through outside services. Interim Office Space: There probably is not sufficient time before November 19 1985 to locate a site, to arrange financing, and to erect a building. Therefore, one of the following interim arrangements would have to be made: 1 ) Extend lease on present space if owner's needs are not as great as expected. 2) Rent other space for an interim period. Clearly, an interim move should be avoided if possible since it would cause additional disruption and create an additional phase of problems for visitors trying to find the new off ice. . Recommendations: The Committee makes the following recommendations: 1 ) Staff should be authorized to retain a real estate consultant who would search for an office site in the preferred location along the El Camino Real or Foot- hill Expressway corridor as described herein and develop a financing plan for the land and building. (As stated earlier, I would prefer that the Foothill Expressway option be dropped. ) 2) Staff should be authorized to hire a financial consultant (perhaps the same person or firm as the real estate consultant) to complete the financial analysis of the alternatives, including minimizing the initial cash requirements which compete with open space acquisition. 3) Staff should *be authorized to arrange for rental of interim space, if required. I recommend that the Committee continue in existence to monitor progress and to help formulate recom endations to the full Board. We would return to you as the process went on with progress reports, for necessary authorizations for hiring of consultants (if any contract were to be for more than $5,000) , and later of course, for approvals for the site, architectural contracts, building design, construction contracts, etc. i i R-85-14 • w�� (Meeting 85-03 ��l ,, Feb. 13, 1985) QAmm"'W"C MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT February 8, 1985 TO: hoard of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SLr3JECT: Interim Report on Search for Permanent District Office Headquarters Background: At your meeting of April 11, 1984 (see attached report R-84-20 dated April 5, 1984) , you considered information on the proposed location and on alternative methods of financing permanent office space for the District. You approved the recommendations contained in that report, as follows: l) Staff should be authorized to retain a real estate consultant who would search for an office site in the preferred location along the F El Camino Real or Foothill Expressway corridor as described herein and develop a financing plan for the land and building. 2) Staff sho=.:la be authorized to hire a financial consultant (perhaps the same verson or firm as the real estate consultant) to complete ,. t the financial analysis of the alternatives, including minimizing the initial cash requirements which compete with open space acquisition. 3) Staff should be authorized to arrange for rental of interim space, if recuired. Discussion'. Since that time, staff has continued to work on solutions j to the permanent office space location question. After your decision, proposals were sent to some 17 possible real estate consultants. Unfor- tunately, all but a few wanted to work as an exclusive agent of the District on a 10% commission basis. The most promising group wanted $;'0, 000 to do the initial investigative process and acquisition. Because of the high cost, the real estate aspects of this project have been handled by staff working in conjunction with the Office Space Committee. Also, no financial consultant has yet been hired as it was deemed premature. ' Stat= identified 44 possible sites within or near the corridors selected. 0= these, 29 initial letters of inquiry were sent to owners of the second rrt.o--ity areas and direct contact was made with the owners of another 10 parcels of high interest. This activity produced seven sites which were s o n to the Office Space Committee. Although all of these prospects were of some interest, two "finalists" were chosen (others could still turn up) R-85-14 "' '`•~ Page Two 1) The vacant site owned by the City of Mountain View at the southwest corner of Bailey and Latham Streets. 2) The former Imperial Savings building located adjacent to the Crocker Bank building off E1 Camino Real near the San Antonio Shopping Center. The more promising of the two appears to be the City of Mountain View site since it is already off the tax rolls and contains over 37,000 square feet (which would allow room for a pleasing landscaped environment) . The City has already initiated a process to consider a rezoning in this area to accommodate a use such as the District might contemplate. It would be staff' s plan to continue to follow up on these two sites, the other sites considered by the Committee, and any others that can be found. However, because the Mountain View site appears so attractive, we would be hiring a consultant out of the current budget to analyze the site from an architectural standpoint (feasibility of fitting an adequately sized building, parking, and landscaping on the site) . Recommendation: I reco=,,end that you accept this report. Staff would continue to work with the Committee which would monitor progress and help to formulate recommendations to the full .Board. We would return to you with progress reports and necessary authorizations for the hiring of consultants if any contract were to exceed $10 ,000 . Please contact me i' you would like to see either of the sites suggested as "finalists" in this report.o iµ Ind it R-85-21 v >>, (Meeting 85--05 March 13, 19 8 5 � ��44\\'.' R1IDI'ENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT March 8 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FRO-M: H. Crench, General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager S B;JEC : ;nt.erim Report on Search fo r or Pe rmanent District Office Iieadauarters Disco . ssion: This agenda ?tern was originally heard at your meeting of February 13, 1985 (please refer to report R-85-14 dated February 8 , 1935) . During the discussion on February 13, 1985 , Director Bishop questioned the previous action taken by you relative to purchase rather than lease of a perm anent District office site. I have attached a copy of the minutes of the April 5, 1984 meeting for your review. Recommendat_^n: After my review of the previous reports and Board discussion, s would like to modify the recommendations from the February 8, 1985 report, as folloc,*s 1) Sta=T vould continue to work with the Committee which would . monitor progress and help to formulate recommendations to the fcull Board. 2) On a first priority basis, District staff would pursue the purchase of the City of Mountain View site at the southwest corner of Bailey and Latham streets. We would return to you with progress reports and necessary hiring of consultants if any contract were to exceed $10,000 . 3) On an equal priority basis , staff would seek to secure an interim office location, with the first choice being the Imperial Savings site. A lease with option to purchase arrangement appears to be the most advantageous situation from District perspective, if it can be negotiated. 4) On a second priority basis, staff will continue to search for other possible office site locations for permanent use. Please contact me if you would like to see either of the sites listed above, or the °other "finalists" mentioned in the body of report R-85-14. J �Y <. Neeting 85-05 Page 2 B. Interim Report on Search for Permanent District Office Space f Headquarters (Report R-85-21 of March 8 , 1985) C. Britton reviewed the previous action taken by the Board relative to the question of purchasing rather than leasing a permanent Dis- trict office site. He noted that he had attached the minutes from the April 11 , 1984 Board meeting and added that staff was proposing a modification in the recommendations that had been presented to the Board at the February 8 Board meeting. He stated that, on a first priority basis, staff was recommending that they pursue the purchase of the City of Mountain View site, noting staff would re- turn to the Board with progress reports and necessary hiring of con- sultants if any contract were to exceed $10,000. He said that staff was also proposing to negotiate a lease with option to purchase for the Imperial Savings location which staff was hoping to secure as an interim office location. R. Bishop stated that the Board had not yet made a decision on w•hethe the District should continue to rent or buy a piece of land and con- struct a building. He stated this was an important policy decision for the Board to make because of the costs involved, both in terms of dollars and staff time. Discussion focused on the Board's prior action regarding the question of buying versus leasing, and there was Board consensus that no decision to buy land and build an office facility had been made. D_ Wendin stated that he felt staff should proceed with having an appraisal done for the Mountain View site and with the hiring of a consultant to prepare a plan and estimate costs for constructing a building on the site, noting that, with this information, the Board would have some concrete cost information with which to address the { question of buying versus leasing. In response to a question from H. Grench, the Board indicated that cost estimates could be provided. . ) by experts in the field as opposed to having detailed studies and appraisals done. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board continue items one, two, and four in report R-85-21 and ask staff to return at an early date with a financial analysis of construction of a facility on the Mountain View site, including financing alternatives. R. Bishop seconded the motion. ,k Discussion: H. Turner requested that staff also address � . the question of staff time involved and ho,,.7 this use of staff } time would impact the District' s programs. R. Bishop noted cost estimates should include the costs of a staff person who would be responsible for inspection during the con- struction of a building. In response to a question from C. Britton, D. Wendin stated that he was expecting staff to return with an updated version of the alternatives con- tained in the April 5, 1984 report, specific to the Mountain View site and including the alternative of leasing. The motion passed 5 to 0 . Motion: D. Wendin moved approval of it_em. three of the staff report concerning the Imperial Savings site as a rental with an P attempt to obtain an option to purchase. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0 . 1 6 I M-85-152 (Meeting 85-28 4 October 9, 1985) d �3�eaw► �.y,....'a� MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM October 2 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Long Term Office Space Status and Request to Enter Into Negotiations for Short Term Office Space Background: At your meeting of March 8 , 1985, you considered my report, Interim Report on Search for Permanent District Office Headquarters (see attached report R-85-21 of March 8 , 1985 and attached minutes from March 20; please contact staff if you need copies of any previous office space reports) . You continued consideration of items one, two and four in report R-85-21 and asked staff to return at an early date with a financial analysis of construction of a facility on the City of Mountain View site, in- cluding financing alternatives . You also directed staff to seek to secure an interim office location, with the first choice being the Imperial Savings site. Discussion: Staff has pursued the possibility of purchasing the City of Mountain View site at the southwest corner of Bailey and Latham Streets. Since March, the question of the property's land use designation has been addressed by the Mountain. View City Council , and the site is still being evaluated as the location of a potential fire station. The Council has for now at least rejected the use of the site for multi-unit housing. At this time, it appears that the Mountain View City Council would, subject to the outcome of the fire station evaluation, seriously consider the District 's office space proposal. Staff will be continuinc, to pursue the Mountain View site, as well as continue to search for other passible office site locations for permanent use. In terms of short term office space, after an extensive search, staff worked on securing the promising Imperial Savings site; however, as discussions progressed, it became very clear that the District would not be able to lease the site as an interim office location. Once this was determined, staff again did a thorough search and came up with some 44 current possible office space locations. The list was subsequently boiled down to four possible sites. During a noticed Office Space Committee meeting open to the public I eld on ,Wednesday, September 25 ; Directors Wendin and Duffy toured the four potential sites with members of the staff. Based on their input, as well as analysis of the sites by staff, staff is ro osin p p g 2!-85-152 Page two . to pursue space possibilities in the Old Mill Office Center and in the Los Altos Office Center on a lease or lease-purchase basis, probably on a five year lease basis with options to renew under certain conditions. The Old Mill Office Center space offers approximately 4 ,600 square feet of space, and staff is also looking into the possibilities of securing some alternate space in the building which is currently vacant, but upon which an individual holds a right of first refusal. The Los Altos Office Center space, which fronts on El Camino Real a few blocks from our current location, totals approximately 5 ,700 square feet, a portion of which could perhaps be subleased until required to meet the District 's space requirements. In both cases, the office space is on the ground floor in multi-story structures. Some very preliminary office space designs for these two locations are being prepared for your review at the October 9 Regular Meeting if you wish to see them. If any member of the Board would like to visit the sites prior to the Board meeting, please contact me. Recommendation: I recommend that you: 1) Authorize staff to enter into lease or lease-purchase negotiations tiations for short-term s ort term of fice ffice space with agents for the Old Mill Office Center and Los Altos Office Center sites and to return to you with appropriate lease or lease-purchase agreements for- your consideration at the w earliest possible date; and 2) Authorize staff to continue to pursue longer term office soace locations, including, but not limited to, the City of :fountain View site I i i MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I. DATE: March 4 , 1988 l i i i MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135 201.SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 (415)949-5500 February 22, 1988 San Mateo County Planning Commission 590 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA 94063 SUBJECT: Comment on Burleigh Murray Ranch Proposal Dear Commissioners : The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff would like to support the State Parks ' proposal to open the Burleigh Murray Ranch to public use and develop a ten-car parking lot near the west entrance to the property. As you are aware, the District recently constructed a similar parking lot at the lower entrance to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve , located on lower Purisima Road two miles east of Burleigh Murray Ranch. Previously, the immediate neighborhood to the lower end of Purisima was a notorious party area, with drinking, shooting, off-road vehicles , vandalism, and litter problems. Since the opening of the lot coupled with regular patrol by State Parks, these problems have decreased significantly, the percentage of "responsible users" has increased, and the neighborhood is much quieter. Hiking trails attract responsible users, and their presence discourages irresponsible use. Opening Burleigh Murray to the public should benefit the neighborhood as well as provide access to a beautiful public property with attractive historic qualities and trail connections to Skyline Boulevard and our own Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space.-Preserve. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. incerely, avid Wm. Hansen Land Manager DWH:ds cc: vfi. Grench, General Manager Carol Nelson, District Superintendent Department of Parks and Recreation, San Mateo Coast District Herbert Grench,General Manager Board of Directors.,Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andeen,Richard Bishop I cad 's fired it Report Y Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, California (LOC: Fuji Bank, Ltd.) February 12, 1988 New Issue Revenue (Letter of Credit) sale: $12,500,000 Variable Rate Demand Notes, 1988 Series A(Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties,California) date: Sold February 9 Moody's Rating: Aaa/VMIG 1 Variable Rate Demand Notes,1988 Series A (Santo Clara and San Mateo Counties,California) (LOC.Fuji Bank,Ltd.) (Rating expires February 1,1993,upon conversion to fixed rate or earlier termination of letter of credit) opinion: The presence of a letter of credit from Fuji Bank, reflects Moody's evaluation of the creditworthiness Ltd. which provides for regularly scheduled princi- of the bank issuing the letter of credit,and is based pal and interest,as well as demand payments, on a structure which ensures both timely payments results in highest quality security.The rating to bondholders and adequate legal protections. key facts: Form of Letter of Credit: Direct pay. Tender Option: On or prior to the fixed rate con- Expiration of Letter of Credit: February 11, 1993. version date, upon seven days'notice at par. Initial Interest Rate Determination: Weekly as Alternate Interest Modes: None. determined by the remarketing agent based upon Mandatory Redemption: None. prevailing market conditions. Mandatory Tender: Upon(1)conversion to fixed Interest Payable: Semiannually each March 1 rate mode;(2)expiration and non-replacement of and September 1 or next business day thereafter letter of credit;(3)substitution of a letter of credit commencing March 1, 1988. which fails to maintain the rating. Conversion: Interest rate may be converted to fixed on any business day upon option of issuer. analysis: Ultimate noteholder security is derived from a let- period. No additional bonds are permitted under ter of credit provided by Fuji Bank,Ltd.The trus- this indenture. tee shall draw upon the letter of credit to make all Bond proceeds shall be used to provide funds for payments of principal,interest, redemption price the acquisition of lands and facilities within the and purchase price to the extent remarketing pro- district to preserve and use as open space.The ceeds are insufficient,as the same becomes due. letter of credit is an irrevocable obligation of Fuji Bonds will initially be marketed as variable rate Bank, Ltd. to pay full principal plus 210 days' obligations in a weekly mode. Upon option of the interest at 12%. The interest component of the issuer, the bonds may be converted to a fixed rate letter of credit will be automatically reinstated on i i I f i 4 aiw sisrwsrr� �sww 2 Revenue(letter of Credit) February 12,1988 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, California (LOC: Fuji Bank, Ltd.) the tenth calendar day or next business day thereaf- agent by 10:00 a.m. New York time on the ter. Failure to reinstate the letter of credit results in purchase date.Any nonremarketed bonds shall be an event of default and an acceleration of the bonds subject to redemption to the extent monies from the within seven calendar days. Draws for principal district are available to repay the bank. and interest presented by noon New York time Fuji Bank, Ltd. relies on a broad retail deposit base shall be paid by 2:00 p.m.New York time on the and extensive development of middle market and next business day. Draws for purchase price shall consumer lending to secure its place in the highest be paid by 2:00 p.m. New York time on the same rating category.The batik's asset quality is sound; business day if presented by noon New York time. however,domestic change and increased competi- Bonds may be tendered for purchase on or prior to tion may require careful future policy conversion to fixed rate upon seven days'notice to considerations. tender agent. Bonds must be delivered to the tender details of note Legal Name of Issuer: Midpeninsula Regional Paying Agent: Seattle First National Bank, Sale: Open Space District, California. Seattle. Security: Limited obligation payable from pledged Remarketing Agent: Prudential-Bache Securi- revenues and additionally secured by a letter of ties, Inc.,San Francisco. credit. Tender Agent: The Bank of New York, k Date of Notes: Date of delivery. New York. .' Denomination: S100,000 and integral multiples Delivery: February 11, 1988. thereof. Bond Counsel: Orrick, Herrington&Sutcliffe, Maturity 2/1 ($ 000) San Francisco. Year Amount LOC Enforceability Counsel' Lillick,McHose& 20081,71 $12,500 Charles,San Francisco. Bonds scheduled for mandatory Sinking Fund redemption at par on Foreign Enforceability Counsel: Logan, March 1.1994 and each March 1 thereafter through maturity. Okamoto&Takashima,Tokyo, Call Features: On or prior to fixed rate conver- preference Counsel: Orrick,Herrington&Sut- sion in whole or in part upon option of the issuer on cliffe,San Francisco. any business day at par. Managing Underwriter: Prudential-Bache Capi- Trustee: Seattle First National Bank,Seattle. tat Funding,San Francisco. l Registrar: Seattle First National Bank,Seattle. analyst: A.Clark 141161BOI ■ i P k !.fn,,sf.',lnsrstors Ser;icc,Inc.has used due care and caution in the preparation of this publication.The information herein has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and p p reh.ib:x.but t�cause of the possrhihty of human and mechanical error.its accuracy or completeness is not guaranteed.Moo dy's ratings are opinions,not recommendations to buy or sell, and t eer azuracy is not guaranteed.A rating should be wcightted solely as one factor in an investment decision,and you should make your own study and evaluation of any issuer w hose sxcccurines or debt obligations you consider buying or selling.Most issuers of corporate bonds,municipal bonds and notes,preferred stock,and commercial paper which are rated by Moodv%Investors Service.Inc.have,prior to receiving the rating,agreed to pay a fee to Moody's for the appraisal and rating services.The fee ranges from SI,000 to$125,000. Copyright ;1983 by Moody's Investors Service,Inc-publishing and executive offices at 99 Church Street,New York,NY 10007 CLAIMS No.88-05 Meeting 88-06 MIDPENINSULr_ �GIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRi__ Date: Mar. 9,. 1988 C L .A I M S TM Amount Name Description r 1062 96.14 A T & T Telephone Equipment 1063 18.30 Baker Graphics, Inca Map Enlargement 1064 112.47 Baron Melding & Iron Works Supplies for Signs . 1065 1 ,499.73 Big Creek Lumber Company Lumber for Soda Gulch Bridge & Walls 1066 1 ,488.70 Brian, Kangas & Foulk Engineering Services for. Undercrossing 1067 5,169.40 Dillingham Associates Consulting Services--Skyline Ridge Parking Area Plans 1068 25.01 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies 1069 42.00 Electro Painters, Inc. Cabinet Refinishing 1070 51 .29 Emergency Vehicle Services Radio Repairs 1071 983.33 Fabrizio Camera Graphics Artwork 1072 17.25 Federal Express Corporation Express Mail 1073 7,947. 15 First American Title Insurance Title Insurance--Hosking & Sheffield Company 1074 550.22 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Conference Expenses 1075 27.50 Nary Gundert Reimbursement--Topographic Maps ,1076 62.30 David Hansen Reimbursement--Meal Conference 1077 2,080. 10 Jeffries Banknote Company Printing--1988 Notes 1078 308.41 The Ed Jones Company Badges 1079 42.00 Landscape Architecture Subscription 1080 565.60 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental - 1081 397.09 Robert McKibbin Reimbursement--Conference Expenses 1082 30.92 Mobil Oil Credit Corporation Fuel 1083 55.63 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies ]084 15,000.00 Moody's Investors Service Bond Rating 1085 189.99 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Repairs 1086 55.00 Stanley Norton Expenses--November 1087 60,000.00 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Legal Services--1988 Bond 1088 1 , 146.01 -Pacific Bell Telephone Service 1089 121 .35 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities 1090 60.00 Park Rangers Association of California Membership Dues )091 34.00 PDA Publishers Corporation Resource Document 1092 38.89 Peninsula Blueprint Blueprints 1093 100.00 Price Club Field Supplies 1094 8.21 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies 1095 32.27 Redwood Stationers Office Supplies Meeting 88-06 Date: Mar. 9, 1988 ` mount Name Description 1096 101 .08 San Francisco Water Department Water Service 1097 299.60 Scotts Valley Sprinkler & Pipe Supply Field Supplies 1098 598.70 SheH Oil Company Repairs and Fuel 1099 623.79 Sign of the Times Signs 1100 20.04 Skyline, County Water District Water Service 1101 10,816.69 William Spangle & Associates Master Plan Update 1102 279.16 Linda Steputat Reimbursement--Educational Assistance 1103 3,838.00 Edward Tunheim Consulting Fees--Timber Evaluation 1104 29,86 Unocal Fuel 1105 708.75 Valley Title Company Preliminary Title Reports 1106 424.24 Xerox Corporation Maintenance Agreement and Supplies i 1 i k I CLAIM No.88CLAIM -05 Meeting 88-06 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: Mar. 9, 1988 REVISED C L .A I M S Ir Amount Name Description 1062 96.14 A T & T Telephone Equipment 1063 18.30 Baker Graphics, . Inc. Map Enlargement j 1064 112.47 Baron Welding & Iron Works Supplies for Signs . 1065 1 ,499.73 Big Creek Lumber Company Lumber for Soda Gulch Bridge & Walls 1066 13,488.70 Brian, Kangas & Foulk Engineering Services for. Undererossing 1067 5,169.40 Dillingham Associates Consulting Services--Skyline Ridge Parking Area Plans 1068 25.01 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies 1069 42.00 Electro Painters, Inc. Cabinet Refinishing 1070 51 .29 Emergency Vehicle Services Radio Repairs 1071 983.33 Fabrizio Camera Graphics Artwork 1072 17.25 Federal Express Corporation Express Mail 1073 7,947. 15 First American Title Insurance Title Insurance--Hosking & Sheffield Company 1074 550.22 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Conference Expenses 1075 27.50 Mary Gundert Reimbursement--Topographic Maps -•1076 62.30 David Hansen Reimbursement--Meal Conference 1077 2,080. 10 Jeffries Banknote Company Printing--1988 Notes 1078 308.41 The Ed Jones Company Badges . 1079 42.00 Landscape Architecture Subscription 1080 565.60 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental 1081 397.09 Robert McKibbin Reimbursement--Conference Expenses 1082 30.92 Mobil Oil Credit Corporation Fuel 1083 55.63 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies 1084 15,000.00 Moody's Investors Service Bond Rating 1085 189.99 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Repairs 1086 55.00 Stanley Norton Expenses--November 1087 60,000.00 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Legal Services--1988 Note Issue 1088 i , i46.0i -Pacific Bell Telephone Service 1089 121 .85 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities 1090 60.00 ' Park Rangers Association of California Membership Dues l 1091 34.00 PDA Publishers Corporation Resource Document 1092 38.89 Peninsula Blueprint Blueprints 1093 100.00 Price Club Field Supplies 1094 8.21 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies 1095 32.27 Redwood Stationers Office Supplies Claims No. 8 -05 Meeting 88-06 Date: Mar. 9, 1988 REVISED =ount Name Description 1096 101 .08 San Francisco Water Department Water Service 1097 299.60 Scotts Valley Sprinkler & Pipe Supply Field Supplies 1098 598.70 Shell Oil Company Repairs and Fuel 1099 623.79 Sign of the Times Signs 1100 20.04 Skyline County Water District Water Service 11Oi )0,816.69 William Spangle & Associates Master Plan Update 1102 279. 16 Linda Steputat Reimbursement--Educational Assistance 1103 3,838.00 Edward Tunheim Consulting Fees--Timber Evaluation 1104 29.86 Unocal Fuel 1105 708.75 Va-lley Title Company Preliminary Title Reports 1106 424.24 Xerox Corporation Maintenance Agreement and Supplies . 1107 15624 • Petty Cash Seminar Ex penses,enses Maps, Drafting I P � p ra tang and Office Supplies, Meal Conferences , and Private Vehicle Expense I E r i h i