HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810114 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 81-01 Meeting 81-1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
A G E N D A
January 14 , 1981 375 Distel Circle, D-1
Los Altos, CA
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 10, 1980
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(7 :40) 1. Election of Officers - B. Green
(7 : 50) 2. Resolution of Appreciation - President
Resolution Commending Assemblyman Victor Calvo
for His Assistance to the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District and to the Environment of the
State of California
(8 :00) 3. "Our Vanishing Farmlands" - People for Open Space
(8 :40) EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations
(9 : 00) OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
4 . Thornewood Proposals Review Committee Activity
Report - D. Wendin, E. Shelley, and H. Turner
(9 : 30) 5. Deed Restrictions for Proposed Windy Hill Open Space
Preserve Acquisition - C. Britton
(9:45) 6. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Development Plan
Demolition Project Approval - S. Sessions
(10 :15) 7. Long Term Office Space Needs and Location - H. Grench
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(10: 30) 8 . Dedication Status of District Lands - S. Sessions
(10 : 35) 9. Revision of District' s Conflict of Interest Code -
S. Norton
Resolution Repealing Resolutions 78-14 and 78-22
(Which Adopted a Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant
to the Political Reform Act of 1974)
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,NonetteG Hanko,Richard S Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin
Meeting 81-1
January 14, 1981
Page Two
(10 :40) 10. Temporary Roof Cover for Picchetti Winery Buildings -
S. Sessions
(10 :45) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations and Personnel Matters
ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you're concuLned
with appeatz on the agenda, pteaze addtezz the Boatd
at that time; othetwize you may addtezz the Boatd
under Otat Communicationz . When Aecognized, pteaze
begin by ztating your name and addtezz . Concizenezz
iz appteciated. We tequezt that you comptete the
6otmz ptovided zo yout name and addtezz can be
accutatety inctuded in the minutez .
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT COMMENDING ASSEMBLYMAN VICTOR
CALVO FOR HIS ASSISTANCE TO THE MIDPENIN-
SULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND TO
THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Assemblyman Victor Calvo has been a longtime
friend of the environment through his efforts to preserve the
coastal, agricultural , Lake Tahoe , and other open space lands
of the State of California and
WHEREAS, from the very beginning, Assemblyman
Victor Calvo has supported and assisted the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District in its efforts to create a public
greenbelt for the citizens of this region and
WHEREAS, the quality of Assemblyman Victor Calvo' s
support and assistance to the District has verged on the parental--
ranging from attendance at its birth in the 1972 election, to find-
ing a home and an income for the infant agency in its first year
of life, to serving as an effective advocate of its welfare in
the State Legislature where he initiated and supported legis-
lation benefitting both the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District and the environment as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MID-
PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DOES RESOLVE TO commend
and express its appreciation to Assemblyman Victor Calvo for
his past and continued support of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District and for his invaluable concern for the land.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ,
1981, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote :
AYES, and in favor thereof :
Directors :
NOES:
ABSENT:
President - Board of Directors
ATTEST:
f
Secretary
M-80-105
6wieeting 81-1
January 14 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 26 , 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: "Our Vanishing Farmlands"
On January 14 People for Open Space, the San Francisco
based conservation organization for the Bay area will
be showing their new production "Our Vanishing Farmlands" .
The showing coincides with your presentation of a Reso-
lution of Appreciation to Victor Calvo, who worked so
hard in the Legislature to find effective and acceptable
mechanisms to preserve agrigulture in California.
M-81-2
oe (Meeting 81-1
940MM January 14 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
January 8 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Thornewood Proposals Review Committee - E. Shelley, D. Wendin,
and H. Turner
SUBJECT: Thornewood Proposals Review Committee Activity Report
Discussion: The first task that the committee set for itself was
to establish criteria for the evaluation of proposals. The initial
step was to review District goals which were applicable to the
evaluation. The goals considered, in approximate order of priority,
were the following:
-to acquire and preserve the maximum feasible open space,
-to provide public access and public trails,
-to preserve the house and grounds , and
-to minimize the District' s operations and maintenance
expenses.
The second step was to consider all options open to the District.
These included: long term lease, seven proposals were received;
exchange of property, one proposal was received; youth hostel ,
possible interest was expressed; hospice, the Midpeninsula Health
Service expressed an interest; MROSD retain as is for rental or
ranger residence; and demolish the buildings and return area to
a more natural state.
Lastly, we attempted to identify both the positive and negative
aspects of each of the options. Those we identified are listed
below under the respective options. It should be noted that these
are neither exhaustive nor quantitative, but are only representative.
LEASE
• House and grounds preserved at no direct cost to District
• Fee title remains with District
- After lease expires, District assumes "problem"
- Continue landlord costs
- Public; access/private use conflict
EXCHA14GE
+ House and grounds preserved at no direct cost to District
- To get back fee title would require dollars
+ T,7ould provide a trail link and other desired open space
property at no additional cost to District
- Same public access/private use conflict
- Some administrative costs required
M-81-2 Page two
AMERICAN YOUTH HOSTELS
+ House and grounds preserved at no direct cost to District
+ Provide access - no public conflict
- Auto/traffic problem
- Continued landlord costs
- Possible conflict with Town of Woodside
+ Would provide ongoing community service
MIDPENINSULA HEALTH SERVICE (HOSPICE)
+ House and grounds preserved at no direct cost to District
- Most restrictive public/private conflict
- Circulation problem
- Use permit/Woodside problem
- Need assurance of "on-going management/operations funds"
- Continued landlord costs
MROSD KEEP "AS IS"
+ Possible rental income to District
- Expense associated with stabilization of buildings
- On-going District management/operations costs
- Possible public/private use conflict
- Restoration would not be accomplished
DFJ11OLISH BUILDINGS
- Initial capital outlay
+ No recurring costs
+ Returns site to natural state
+ Reduce District management/operations costs
- Loss of valuable asset
+ No additional public/private use conflict would be created
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
Subsequent to the December 5 , 1980 deadline for receipt of lease
proposals, the Committee met on December 18 for the purpose of
discussing the evaluation criteria and to establish procedures
for reviewing the proposals that had been received. The Committee
met again on January 5 and received oral presentations from four
of the proposers. The material that follows is a summary evalu-
ation of each proposal. The proposals have been grouped into
two categories : those that are inadequate or unacceptable, and
those that deserve to continue through a process until a "best
and final" bid is received. The qualifying proposals (the short
list) are not ranked relative to one another. They are merely
a group of qualified proposals.
M-81-2 Page three
A. Proposals Not Accepted
1. John Dawson. This proposal does not address the
lease parameter requirements.
2. James Van Dyke. This proposal does not address the
lease parameter requirements.
3. The Friends of the Free Standing Hospice.
The Friends have not made a proposal to us. Their
initial letter to us asked us to delay our decision
until May, 1981. A phone call by the District to the
"Friends" has established that they intend to withdraw
because the project looks too expensive for them.
4. American Youth Hostels. The AYH has "regretfully
discontinued" its proposal.
5. David and Karlene Elder. The Elders have required a
lease term of 99 years. This feature disqualifies
the proposal. The Committee has agreed to evaluate
the proposal if the Elders will agree to a maximum
lease term of 25 years by Friday, January 9 , 1981.
The Elders have indicated some exceptions (e.g. ,
they do not want to provide liability insurance; they
would limit access to the BBQ area to six "permit"
uses annually) but these are not deemed by the
Committee to disqualify them from further negotiations.
6 . E.K. Fisher. Mr. Fisher' s proposal contains several
technical difficulties. If these exceptions can be
corrected by January 9 , 1981, the Committee has agreed
to evaluate his proposal.
B. The Short List
1. Tom and Claudia Gano. This is the only proposal for
an exchange of interest in real property. This pro-
posal commits up to $150, 000 investment in the reno-
vation within two years. It deviates from two of the
District' s public access criteria:
-one open house annually
-includes the BBQ area within the leasehold
2 . Bruce Ricks. This proposal offers to create a trail
through the property to the BBQ area and to provide
unrestricted open use of the BBQ area. It also proposes
using the house for meetings, receptions , and fund
raising events (e.g. , chamber music concerts) but
these uses may not be feasible.
3. Ken and Marge Pollard. This proposal "agrees to all
of the District' s parameters" .
4 . Franklin and Linda Means. This proposal responds to
every criterion and is in compliance with them.
M-81-2 Page four
Recommendations
The Committee observed at its first meeting that the Board' s
next step should be to decide which of several major alternatives
for the future of the Thornewood development should be evaluated.
Specifically, we believe that your next step is up to you to
select; it is not necessarily to seek a best and final renovation
and lease proposal . The alternatives, which have been outlined
previously in this report, are :
1. Exchange the developed portion of Thornewood for property
which will create a net enhancement of the District' s goals.
2 . Restore the entire developed area to its natural state.
3. Retain the developed area under the District's operating
management.
4 . Lease the property to a private party for use as a resi-
dential dwelling.
5. Lease the property to a specified non-profit business
enterprise.
We recommend that you select one of these alternatives.
M-81-5
(Meeting 81-1
January 14 , 1981)
Ji
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H . Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager
SUBJECT: Deed Restrictions for Proposed Windy Hill Open Space
Preserve Acquisition
Background: On Tuesday, December 30, 1980, you adopted Resolution
No. 80-51, approving and accepting an agreement to purchase the
537 acre Windy Hill property from Peninsula Open Space Trust (see
report R-80-68, dated December 22, 1980) . At that time, you direct-
ed staff to return at the meeting of January 14 , 1981 with exact
deed restriction language, as required by Clause 3 of the purchase
agreement, before proceeding with the purchase of the property.
Discussion: Attached is the latest and most complete draft of the
deed restrictions. A few of the details have not been agreed upon,
and it is anticipated that minor revisions will occur that will be
available the night of the meeting. Generally, there are three
categories of uses that are covered in the Deed Restrictions :
A. permitted uses limited to low intensity recreation and
open space uses such as hiking and
equestrian trails, picnicking, etc.
B. prohibited uses includes mostly uses that would not be
permitted under the District' s current
ordinances, such as use of firearms ,
fireworks, off-road vehicles , etc.
C. conditional uses- these are mostly park development type
of uses such as campgrounds, parking
lots, paved roads, etc. , that would
require advisory design review comment
by the Town of Portola Valley
Additionally, the 147 acre area designated as Windy Hill itself
could only be used for Category A uses without express permission
from the Town for Category C uses. This restriction is to assure
the future scenic and visual resources of Windy Hill, because of
its high visibility and impact on the Town and nerby communities.
The entire restriction agreement is very similar to the District' s
easement on the Edgewood State college site, a project where the
District also paid approximately one-half of the value as its parti-
cipation.
Page Two
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board approve the
Deed Restrictions, including the minor changes available at
the meeting, assuming they are acceptable, so that this critical
purchase can be completed.
Exhibit "B"
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
Running With The Land
Grantee hereby COVENANTS, for itself, its successors and assigns, that all
of the land hereby conveyed (the subject property) shall be forever used and
operated as, and maintained and managed for, open space, wilderness, park,
agricultural, watershed, scenic, or similar purposes (hereafter referred to as
permitted and conditional uses) and for no other uses or purposes inconsistent
therewith, all as contemplated by or coming within the following portion of
Grantee's Basic Policy as adopted by Grantee's Board of Directors on March 27,
1974, to wit:
"The District will follow a land management policy that provides
proper care of open space land, allowing public access appro-
priate to the nature of the land and consistent with ecological
values."
1. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses contemplated herein and which are allowed without
further restriction include, but are not limited to:
a) Pedestrian hiking trails
b) Equestrian riding trails
c) Casual public picnicking
d) Nature study
e) Photography
f) Kite flying
g) Scenery painting
h) Meditating
i) Wildlife observation
2. Prohibited Uses
Uses and development of the subject property which would significantly
change or compromise scenic or natural values shall be prohibited.
Grantee hereby covenants and agrees that the subject property shall
not be used for any of the following purposes:
a) Construction or maintenance on or within the subject property
of advertising signs of any kind or nature, except for identifi-
cation purposes consistent with the public use of said property
for parks, recreation, scenic and open space purposes.
b) Extraction of minerals or natural resources from the land.
c) Construction of any residential, commercial or industrial
structure including, without limitation, any hotel, inn, condo-
minium or rental apartment project, except for the possible
limited residential use by personnel engaged in maintenance
and patrol of the subject property.
d) Operation on the subject property of any motor bike, trail bike,
go-cart or other motor-driven or powered vehicles except those
motor-driven or powered vehicles reasonably necessary for the
Grantee herein to use, develop, patrol or maintain the subject
property or by the public to reach the recreational facilities
provided or in conjunction with public recreational activities,
but in accordance with the allowed uses pursuant to the terms,
conditions, restrictions and covenants set forth for the sub-
ject property herein.
2
e) Dumping or placing of any public trash, waste or garbage dis-
posal area, except in receptacles maintained by Grantee.
f) Use of firearms or dangerous weapons by the public.
g) Hunting or exploitation of natural wildlife.
h) Commercial cutting of standing timber other than for public
safety or park development purposes.
i) Intensive agricultural cultivation over substantial portions of the
property such as tree farming and row cropping.
j) Use of fireworks and pyrotechnics.
k) Playing or performance of amplified music.
3. Conditional Uses and Development
The use, development and management for the intended uses by Grantee
as provided herein shall be governed in the following manner:
a) It is the intent of this restrictive agreement to prohibit any
development or physical improvements which would impair the
visual resource of that certain 147 acre portion of the subject
property commonly referred to as Windy Hill, or San Mateo
County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 076-340-030 and 040, and
designated as Area A on the attached map marked Exhibit "C"
and incorporated herein by reference, and to limit the use and
development on this portion of subject property to those per-
mitted uses specifically enumerated in Paragraph 1 hereinabove.
All other uses and development on this portion of subject property,
except those already prohibited in Paragraph 2 hereinabove, shall
also be prohibited unless specifically considered and approved by
the Town of Portola Valley, by action of its Town Council.
3
b) Any use, development or management by Grantee for the balance
of the subject property for public park and recreation uses beyond
the scope of those permitted uses enumerated in Paragraph I here-
inabove shall be allowed only after consultation with the Town of
Portola Valley, subject to the provisions of paragraphs four and
five.
Subject to the foregoing, such conditionally permitted uses and development
may include, by way of illustration, but not limitation, the following:
a) Campgrounds and campsites
b) Picnic facilities
c) Paved bicycle trails
d) Hang gliding or parachuting
e) Communication antennas or facilities
f) Campfire pits or areas
g) Historical or memorial monuments
h) Paved roads
i) Utilities installation
j) Water supply and distribution facilities
k) Sewage treatment and disposal facilities
1) Park facilities, such as public service structures or buildings
m) Playground equipment
n) Public parking lots
4. Design Review
The Town of Portola Valley, a municipal corporation, through its Town Council
or any body designated by it, shall have the right of Design Review as
herein defined with respect to any and all park improvements as described
4
in paragraph 3(b) hereinabove, proposed to be constructed on the pro-
perty conveyed herein. This right shall not pertain to the open space uses
and development described in paragraph 1 hereunder or maintenance or
improvement of presently existing structures on said property. However,
any development of those uses enumerated in said paragraph shall take
into consideration the adopted trails and pathways plan of the Town of
Portola Valley. Design Review is intended to provide a process for re-
view by the Town of park development in environmentally and ecologically
sensitive areas in order to assure that park development will be harmon-
ious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with
environmental and ecological objectives, and the objectives and goals of
the Town's General Plan and desires of its citizens:
a) With regard to construction of any park improvements on the
property as described in paragraph 3 herein, an application
for design review shall be made to the Town. The applica-
tion shall include the following:
1) A schematic site plan showing the location of all pro-
posed buildings, structures, planted or landscaped
areas, paved areas, and other improvements, and
indicating the proposed uses or activities on the site.
2) Drawings or sketches showing the elevations of all
proposed improvements, sufficiently dimensioned to
indicate the general scale, height, and location of
such improvements.
b) Within 40 days from the filing of the application with the Town,
Town shall have the right to review the site plans and drawings,
5
and shall make its recommendations based upon the following
objectives:
1) To ensure construction and operation in a manner that
will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with
existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
2) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design
and ecological balance shall be observed.
3) To ensure that such development will be in accordance
with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and
policies of the Town of Portola Valley.
5. Right of Grantee to Accept or Reject Town's Recommendations
Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 3(a), the Grantee, for the
purpose of these restrictions, shall consider but shall be free to accept
or reject the recommendations of the Town of Portola Valley resulting
from the design review referred to above. However, nothing herein
shall limit the rights of the Town or other governmental agencies having
jurisdiction over the subject property as provided by law, ordinance or
other source.
6. Remedies Upon Default
a) In the event the Grantee, or any successor in interest of the Grantee,
breaches or violates any of the covenants, conditions, or restric-
tions contained herein, the Grantor, or any successor of the Grantor,
or the Town of Portola Valley pursuant to action by the Town Council
of the Town of Portola Valley, shall give the then record owner of
the subject property written notice of such breach or violation. Any
such notice shall specify with particularity the nature of the breach
6
or violation claimed and shall set forth in detail the action which
the party giving such notice requests be taken in order to cure
the claimed breach or violation.
b) If such breach or violation continues uncured for a period of ten
(10) days or more after the giving of such notice, the Grantor,
or the Grantor's successor in interest, or the Town of Portola
Valley shall have the right to prosecute any proceeding at law or
in equity against the then record owner of the subject property or
any other person violating, attempting to violate, or breaching
any of the provisions contained herein, in order to prevent the
violating or breaching party or any such person from violating
or attempting to violate or breach any of the covenants, conditions,
or restrictions contained herein. The remedies available under
this paragraph shall include, by way of illustration, but not limi-
tation, ex parte applications for temporary restraining orders,
preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions enjoining
or remedying any such violation or breach or attempted violation
or breach.
c) If the Grantor, or any successor of the Grantor, the Town of
Portola Valley, or the Grantee, or any successor of the Grantee,
shall bring an action against any of the other parties hereto by
reason of the violation or breach of any covenant, condition, or
restriction contained herein, or otherwise arising out of this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such suit or proceeding (as
determined by the Court) shall be entitled to recover its costs of
suit, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorneys' fees which
7
shall be payable whether or not such action or proceeding is
prosecuted to judgment, provided that no award of attorneys'
fees shall be rendered against either party unless the Court finds
that such party's action or inaction is willful and in bad faith.
7. Covenants Shall Run With The Land
All of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained herein shall
be binding upon the Grantee and its successors (by merger, consolidation,
or otherwise) and assigns, lessees, invitees, and all other persons ac-
quiring the subject property, or any portion thereof, or any interest
therein, whether by operation of law or in any other manner whatsoever.
All of the provisions, agreements, covenants, conditions, and restrictions
contained herein are for the benefit of the Town of Portola Valley, and
each of the other parcels of real property located in the Town of Portola
Valley, and the owners thereof, and their respective heirs, successors,
assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all other
persons at any time hereafter acquiring any of such other parcels of real
property located in the Town of Portola Valley. All of the provisions
hereof shall be covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law,
including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of
California. It is expressly agreed that each covenant, condition, or restric-
tion contained herein to do or to refrain from doing such act on the subject
property W is a burden upon the subject property and each portion there-
of, (ii) is for the express benefit of each other parcel of real property in
the Town of Portola Valley and is for the benefit of each of the owners of such
other parcels, (iii) runs with the subject property and each of the other
parcels of real property located in the Town of Portola Valley, and (iv) shall
8
be binding upon each successive owner during its ownership of the sub-
ject property, or any portion thereof, and each person having any interest
therein derived in any manner through any owner of the subject property or
any portion thereof, for the benefit of each of the other parcels of real pro-
perty located in the Town of Portola Valley and the owners thereof. Nothing
herein shall be deemed to create a right of action in any person or entity
other than Grantor or the Town of Portola Valley.
8. Mortgagee Protection
No breach or violation of any of the covenants, conditions, or restrictions
contained herein shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien
of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value encum-
bering the subject property or any portion thereof, but all of the covenants,
conditions, and restrictions contained herein shall be binding upon and
effective against each owner of the subject property, or any portion there-
of, whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, trustee's sale, or
otherwise.
9. Severability
Invalidation of any one or more of the covenants, conditions, restrictions,
or other provisions contained herein by judgment or court order shall
not invalidate any of the other covenants, conditions, restrictions, or
other provisions contained herein and the same shall remain in full force
and effect.
10. Amendment and Termination
This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of recordation hereof in
the Office of the San Mateo County Recorder, and may be amended in whole
or in part or terminated only by a written instrument executed by the
9
Grantor, or any successor of the Grantor (by reorganization or other-
wise), by the Mayor of the Town of Portola Valley pursuant to resolution
adopted by the Town Council of Portola Valley in behalf of and for the
owners and occupants of all other parcels of real property located in
the Town of Portola Valley, and by all of the then record owners of the
subject property, provided such instrument is thereafter recorded in
the Office of the San Mateo County Recorder. Nothing herein shall be
deemed to require the approval or consent of any other owner or occupant
of any other parcel of real property located in the Town of Portola Valley
for the amendment, in whole or in part, or for the termination of this
agreement.
11. Failure to Enforce Not A Waiver
The failure of Grantor or the Town of Portola Valley to enforce any of the
provisions contained herein shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the
right to do so thereafter nor of the right to enforce any other provision
hereof.
12. Discretion of Grantee
It is acknowledged by the parties that Grantee is a public agency
governed by an elected Board of Directors which is charged with
the management of its lands pursuant to the California Public Re-
sources Code (see, e.g. , Sections 5541, 5565) . It is not the intent
of the parties to limit said Board's good faith exercise of discretion
in its effort to enforce rules, regulations or policies pursuant to
this agreement upon or with respect to the subject property and,
- 10 -
Peninsula Open Space Trust requests that the last three lines on page 11
at the end of the Agreement be changed to read as follows:
"The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted
by taking this paragraph 12 into account in determining
whether any violation or breach of this Agreement has
occurred."
notwithstanding any other provision contained herein, no violation or
breach of this agreement shall be found unless Grantee's action or inaction
is willful and in bad faith.
ACCEPTED:
GRANTOR GRANTEE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST SPACE DISTRICT
Trustee President
Board of Directors
Attest:
Trustee
Dated:
District Clerk
Dated:
IV R-81-4
,4% I (Meeting 81-1
,04b oe January 14 , 1981)
eam
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
January 8, 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: S. Sessions, Land Manager, and
D. Woods, Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Development Plan
Demolition Project Approval
Introduction: The Monte Bello Open Space Preserve use and manage-
ment plan presented to you at your July 11, 1979 meeting contained
a recommendation to remove potential hazards, including the one-
room cabin partially destroyed by fire, the free-standing fireplace,
and an unused cistern structure (see report R-79-29 , dated July 5 ,
1979) . You preliminarily approved the use and management plan
and requested that staff research the historical significance of
the fireplace.
The plan then went through a lengthy review process with the
City of Palo Alto. In regards to the removal of these hazardous
structures, a determination was made by the City that there would
not be a negative impact from the demolition, that this portion
of the Monte Bello plan would be exempt from the site and design
process, and that permits would be granted.
The entire development plan has been submitted for funding by the
federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . The demolition
of structures has been delayed for the past year and a half,
awaiting City approval and anticipating LWCF project approval
and subsequent funding.
Discussion: The review process by the City of Palo Alto included
an assessment of all elements of the use and management plan. As the
the lead agency, they were responsible for the preparation of all
environmental documents. Attached to this report is a copy of
the Negative Declaration which contains specific remarks related
to the proposed structure removal. The City later determined
that structure removal would not require Site and Design Review
(see attached City staff report, dated July 17 , 1980) .
The Palo Alto Historical Society was contacted, and subsequently
researched the history of the property. Louis O'Neal purchased
R-81-4 Page two
the land in the 1880 ' s and shortly afterwards constructed the ranch
house. Additional buildings, including the long kitchen and prob-
ably the cabin, were built in the 1920 ' s. The remaining fireplace
was part of the long kitchen, known as the pavilion, and was used
for entertaining large groups. None of the activities or the
buildings are considered particularly characteristic of the period,
unique, or historically significant.
The fireplace and cabin continue to deteriorate. The fireplace,
because it is freestanding without any support, is highly unstable.
Both structures are attractive nuisances and considered hazardous.
The two cisterns directly above the pond have been inspected by
District staff, City of Palo Alto staff, and an engineer to deter-
mine the feasibility of removal. District staff is recommending
their removal because the large cistern along Page Mill Road is
the only required water source for future agricultural use. The
Palo Alto Fire Department expressed no interest in retaining the
cisterns because of the available fire hydrant in the area. Planning
staff from the City of Palo Alto recognized the potential hazard
of the cisterns and stated in their Initial Study that the in-
tegrity of the adjacent spring could be protected. A geologist/
soil engineer has verified this opinion and has been engaged by
the District to make specific recommendations for the demolition
process.
The demolition project is part of the Monte Bello Open Space Pre-
serve development plan submitted as an LWCF grant project in
July, 1980. As such, staff needs to secure approval from the
State grants people for advanced spending to insure that expendi-
tures for any work done now will be reimbursed as part of the
grant project. This process could take 30 days. Estimated cost
of the demolitions, which would be done largely under contract,
is $3500 .
Recommendation: It is recommended that you approve the demolition
portion of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve development plan
and authorize staff to proceed with demolition of the identified
structures.
STAFF REPORT WITH
NEGATIVE DECLARATIO
01 Tal 0�Ito P,0.Box 10250 (Presented on May 28 ,1980)
PALO ALTO, CAUFORNIA 94303
'i'o: Palo Alto Planning Commission
};ROM: Robert M. Brown
!)AU: May 22, 1980
SUBJECT: Updated Information
Address: 32100 Page Mill Road
Applicant: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Requested Action: Site and Design Approval, Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve
File No. : 79-D-1
Previous Staff Reports: September 21, 1979
Previous Update Memorandums: November 21, 1979; January 2S,
1980; February 19, 1980
GENERAL INFORMATION
At the September 26, 1979 meeting, the Planning Commission continued this
item to the November 28, 1979 agenda in order that NIROSD staff could work
with City staff to provide revised plans of the proposed parking lot. At
the request of MROSD, the item then was continued to the agenda of Jan-
uary 30, 1980. On January 30, the item was continued at the applicant's
request to February 27. At the February 27, 1980 meeting, the Planning
Commission continued this item to the lklay 28, 1980 agenda to provide
MROSD staff and Board of Directors an opportunity to re-evaluate the
location of the proposed parking lot.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Following further planning studies and Board meetings, the NIROSD has
reaffirmed its desire to locate its Monte Bello Reserve parking lot
in the location originally presented to the Planning Commission on
February 27, 1980. A supplementary letter from KROSD outlining the
reasoning behind their selected location is attached. A letter from,
John Olms'ltead,a nearby resident, which is also attached, suggest
an alternate location.
The continuance of this item from
- February .has, also_pr
ovided.,C. itY s-taff
an 92poqu�q to_cpnduct fuither S1L,C 1nVeStigatiQn5,___kas d_uponpubli
c
input from Trevious Planning Commission meetings on this liten i and these
,
field an addendum to the original environmental
-a s-s---e--s-smeiit--i-v--o-u-l-ci--
thpy_LQI.,qte to the physical environment. A negative declaration is
still, rec mm y this subsequent environmental docLmient, aj-th,0ugh
the re 4�tonsjhould- be more-apparentr-
NCO 2\' TIIXfJCN
Adopt a motion finding that the project will not have, a significant impact
on the environment.
Approve the site and design application of the INU4�peninsula Regional
i 'C'
Open Space District. Require the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to prepare a site specific soils investigation prior to issuance
C>
of a grading permit and to obtain a use permit for a proposed campincg,
activity in Area C; and forward the application to the ARB for design
review.
ATTACEAUNTS
Original and supplemental ElAs .
September 21, 1979 staff report
February 19, 1980 update memorandum
Letter from John Olmstead
Letter from Thomas Harrington, Novembor 7, 1979
Re ponscs from Fire Department and Parks Department
September 26, 1979 Planning Commission minutes
May 1, 1980 letter from MSD
January 15, 1980 letter from MROSD
July S, 1979 NMOSD letter
Plans (Commission and Council members only)
MPIES SENT TO
Applicant
S=inta Clara County Planning Department
San Mateo County Planning Department
Thomas Harrington
John Olmstead
51/22/80
-2-
0V'1R0,,NY.YrAL DO:.X—EN-IS PAW ALTO tu-73
MS
INITIAL STUDY*
2. Atc. ',4illl tl:'! proposal result in:
I. 7r-)Ject Title/Address 32100 Page Mill Road, Monte Bello Open
jtI.tI Air emissions or deterioration of
)q�:e Preserve, lidpe iTj§qjq Re lqaal en S ',,"Jto'at ALc quality?
District
Frojt.--t Dcscriptioo S�te q D 51 p-n rQvJ—ev—_qf b. The creation of odors?
-tcent, moisture or
C. Alteration Of air '=Q
mwiagemeiit plan
te-71perit,ire, or ZIAY cliari&e In ellm-Ate,
either locally Or regionally?
2150 3. ter. Will the provcesl C10131t in:
of .A—
Ill. Envircmental Settingc1hanges in nbt;orptioa rates, dC3LnA&e Patterns, Or
Andreas fault from Njojite Bella Ridge toSkyline -t of surface water runoff?
js�- the rate arxi
Boulevard. Former cattle ranch composed of grassl,g d, b. Alterations to the Or flow Of flood - �ters?
oaf �,00d1^n r �af an 1,
-a waters. or In any alt��ra
rel -'olrS� vanz cEmml- utlbs. --Com�oses C. Discharge into surface
lw��act cc at ( p anat on "i tioa of surface water quality.
(rti sNp
IV. IV2� yes ans',Ws are in including but rot
Section V) Baited to twperatu.e, dissolved oxygen or
MD turbidity?
TES1. Earth. gill the proposal result ir.: d. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow Of
ground waters?
o. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
substructures'. e. Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
b. Disruptions, displace=ents, cocpaction or
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
C. in topogr3ph*,, or ground surface
relief features? A. Change in the diversity of species, or our w: Of
T%e destruction, covering or codification any species of Plants (including trees, sh-- is.
any unique geologi: or physical features? grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants; ?
b. peduction of the nu_-hers of any unique, rZ-2 X
e. Any iacrease in wind 07 water erosion of or endangered species Of '.'Iants?
soills, either on or off the sit-1? C. Introduction of new specie-, of plants Into—
f. Exposure of people or pr^perty to aeologic area, or Ji a barrier to the nOj=I replou!�h-
haza.-ds such as earthquakes, landslides. =eat of existing 6pecies?
raud&1jecs, ground failure, or sii4lar hazards?
d. Reduction in acreage Of any agricultural crop?
*Aea;:td frou A7;--in.'tx 1, Callfornia Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA,
Dzcer.her 14, 1916.
irS ::rJ
YES No
i�
S. Anizil' _ _ t'. proposal result in., ii. 'FO�ulativti,/!'.ovsS :
., Cr.z ,e :`e _i�Ersity of species, or numbers of a. Will the proposal alter o e location, cistribu-
a-;: <- a-.ira:s (birds, land an1mals in- tien, density, or grcrath rate of the hu^t3n
c;.':fr ;-..A-,
.A-, fi3h end e!,e:Ifish, benthic Y pupulation of an area?
ecba:::scs. i-.sects or microfauna)? !`
b, Will the proposal affect existing !lousing, or
b, Pe!-.zt::n :f 'he -=bets of any unique, rare or v create a de:.and fer additional housing? v k
sreci's of animals?
_a 12. 7raertation/Circvlaticn. will the proposal
C. Inc:e'.._..... cf -.ev --pecies of animals into an res')" in:
area, :r resc:t in a barrier to the migration
or mcveaect of animals? a. Generation of substantial additional v>hicular
..:vetaznt? .-
1. Deteri:ra::_n t- existing fish or Wildlife
habitat? x b• E-``ects on existinn parking facilities, or
2es�.nd for new parking? _
6. No ire. :i:: t-.e ;:operal result in:
C. Al:<>racions to ;resent patterns of circulation
a. Increases in existing noise levels? or reverent of people andlor goods?
b. Ey;os'-ire cf reople to severe noise levels? d. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
._ bicyclists or pedestrians? _
7, I_Li.-t�3 ^_:ar=_. mill the proposal prcduce new 11ght yy
r,;are? L� 13. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered &overa-
o. Lary ",'se. ___ _`,e proposal result in a substantial mental services in any of the following areas:
a:terati:n s. :`.e ;resent or planned land use of an vv
-rea? a. Fire protection? _'
9. Energy_.'Sat:ral Pesources. Will the proposal result in: b. Police protection? AT
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural C. Schools?
resources?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resorrce? C. N.aintenance of public facilities, including
roads? x
C. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ?�
f. Other goverr."fental services! _
d. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development X 14. utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for nev
of n=_w stirces of energy? _ systen_s, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
1C. Risk of C,set. Does the proposal involve a risk of y
ar. explosion or the relcsse of ha.rardoua su'ustaoces a. Parer or natural gas? Q
cfncluding, but not 11aitcd to$ oil, p23ticides,
c,e.�icals er radistiva) in tb.e event of as accident D. C4 uaitations systems?
or upset conditions?) __ �.
YES NO
YES l:o
C. Rater? —
d. Does the project have environmental effects
d. Sewe: rtr saptic Minks? k which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
e. Stars water drainage. )C —
f. Solli waste and disposal?
... ::u;-an r.tatth. Will the proposal result in exposure
of F-1o,-'e to potential health hazards? k V. Explanation of yes" answers in environme:tal checklist.
:..esthr;:cs. Sail the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion o: any scenic vista or view open to the public, l(b�c,e and f) Earth. Creation of the curvilinear parking area pro-
or wilt tie proposal result in the creation of an '
aestnetically offensive site open to public view? — posed will result in soil compaction and minor changes to the existing
17. 3ecrcxtion. 1+ill tha proposal result in an impart topography. An aggregate base will be compacted to withstand the
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational weight of anticipated vehicles. Topographic chant es will be
opportunities? _ h limited to slope cuts not exceeding four feet in depth. These
18. Archocological/Historical. Will the proposal result changes will be restricted to an area less than 1/2 acre in
rn an e.reratior, o a significant archaeological or total size.
j
historical site, structure, object or building?
14. ?ia�dator_,.y,FirdinRs of SieniEicartce.
The change in ground surface material and soil compaction will
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade influence rain water runoff. Gravel surfacing will allow for
the quaihe o-` the environacr,t, substantially Some permeation of water. and will read Slow the velocity of
reur.� the habitat of a fish :r wildlife species, p greatly y
ca.s• a fish or viidlife }opLlation to drop any runoff. The lot will have a uniform slope of 4% and will drain
below self-suarainirb levels, threaten to
elicina;e a plant or animal eom,nunity, reduce evenly from the entire rear edge of the lot. This will prevent
the nucLer or restri:t the ranges of a rare or form, -on of an erosion gulley. 1,hile th1S site 1S part of theecdar.pe red plant or animal or ell-a pate irportant
exs--p.es of the ca;or periods nf calir^ ;,ia history Stevens Creel; watershed, rain water runoff from the lot is
or prehistory? k
— anticipated to be minimal. In addition, drainage from the lot
b. Does project have thr p�ter,tial i,p a,,Li -,c will enter a largo stand of oaks and r:ipar:Lan tree species which
short-ter., to tLe eiatdvar.tage or long-reran,
cavircn.e.,tal gcal�' (n short-tera, tr:i,s,, on will further Slott' the rate of flow.
the entiirornent is one which occurs in a relatively
rief, def.nit i.ve perad of tic,: while is:,,-tern
imp.=tb will a„dare well into the future.) — X lbe proposed parking lot is situated within the fault zone of the
San :`Andreas Fault. Very violent shaking would be likely in the
C. Lees L`.e yroject lave impacts which are individually 1
y evcilt of a major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. No
ii»iced, but cut,ilAC ively considczable? (A project � � g
ray irpact on two or more separate resources where Stnictures other than portable restrooms are planned. Barring
the impact on each resource is relatively s^all, i
but where the effect of the tutal of those itc-pacts surface: ruptoro, no Clanger should exist for use of the site for
on the environreat in signifi.cu t.) �j voli-ilcular p-rcki iii;. Groui)d instability in the area is apparent
by the existence of sag ponds caused by past earthquakes. No
such subs:iclnnce is evident in the area selected for the
-3- pcarkiri , facility.
3(a and C) Water. As previously discussed in 1(c) llbove, 111in;;oZil '](](AiLional A'ator run.of( is ;�jai.clp;itcd. '111c Velocity
o'f not result in significant waotaits of erosion. 'I'lic pre-existing dr iiii4,igo. 1)aLte.t,iis will not be altered.
rAir in preparation of this propei H R: E _pybc use is a j)L'oposaL -o remove two largo cciicrcto cisterns which
of Which only one is
17� .1ul ts wi '.>Uore Me =�� runo L to Lts 11('Itur a course.
1, 7 LOM is Spri��I: Reilluy'al of rile V, t 1 rc:
the sprim-i source.
( nco 41")1,11d be W I
,a) I)latit ]JEc. 'Elie proposed parking lot will reduce the area of by olmosL 1/2 acre. 111is is insignificant
given the size of the Open Space Preserve. Areas surrounding the lot, r,;hich are tlistlrbed during construction, will
be reseeded with native grasses. In addition, native shrubs will be planted to i(Ictitify the lot entrance.
8 Land Use. The property is currently zoned -to accon-aaodate rosidcntial use. NROSD intends to limit residential use to
one ���—ble ranger and retain the land for open space. Public enjoyment of the majority of this land in its und.oveloped
state will be facilitated by the proposed parking facilities.
13(a and b) Public Services. 'Ilse Preserve is in the hazardous fire area of Palo Alto, and is remote from both police
andMi�67S6S6c�5arters. Increased public use could increase t1he rossibility of wi.lCifiros acid threats to persons and
property. However, the California Division of Forestry located on Skyline has a reciprocal agrccMcnt with Palo Alto.
Additionally, users of the property will self-police, to a certain extent, and could serve as volunteer fire watchers
as well. MOSD personnel will continue to patrol the property, and stationing a ranger permanently on-site will increase
the effectiveness of this patrol.
'%Mov al of the cisterns will not reduce fire portection of the area since adequate emergency water supplies exist in
e sag pond adjacent to the existing fire road.
16 Aesthetics. The proposed parking lot is visible from Skyline Boulevard and the commercial tree farming operations
-1on tis lighway. The lot will not be in the line of sipht of Stevens Creek Canyon since it is sheltered by a grassy
1g
ridge to the east and a large stand of trees to the south below the,jot. The only projecting structures will be the
7
prtable restrooms, which will be located at the base of the grassy ridge.
i
July 17, 1980
[IONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Mid eninsula Re Tonal Open 5 ace District's Application for Site and
Design Review of Monte Bello O-en Space Preserve Improvements '
Members of the Council:
HistoryI
An application for Site and Design review of the 'Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve Use and Management flan was subnutted by the Midpenznsula
Regional Open Space District on August 15, 1979. The Plan included ;
three major elements: (1) a proposed 8S-car parking lot (with 30 of
these spaces in landscaped reserve) on Page Mill Road; (2) a network of ' 2
trails; and (3) removal of water cisterns and an abandoned building.
The application was continued by the Planning Commission on Septem-
ber 26, 1979 for redesign of the parking lot (minutes are attached) .
N ROSD requested three continuances to re-evaluate the parking lot design
and location, and the item returned to the Planning Commission on May 28,
1980 (minutes are attached) .
The parking lot design presented to the Planning Commission on May 28,
1980 was curvilinear to conform with the existing contours of the land, �
would accommodate 45 cars, and had an area of landscape reserve. The
Planning Commission once again questioned the location of the proposed
parking lot and unanimously recommended denial. The intent of the
Commission to recommend denial of the proposed parking lot is clear in
the May 28 Commission minutes. however, a motion to that effect was
never made. Therefore the CorLnission on June 25, after correction and .
approval of the May 28 minutes, adopted a motion clarifying their ear-
lier denial recorrunendation (see attached page 29 of the June 2S Commis-
sion minutes) . On May 28, the trail system was unanimously recommended
for approval by the Commission. The removal of structures and the
concrete cistern was not acted upon pending City Attorneys O z e—
vision. Subsequezzt clisc,u5slais ,tivlthx .tle_.a�tt�orneX_' Of.Iz .e clef, n
c z�ed..
tlarification of whether this was covered h the Site and Desi pro-
that the removal of structures, including concrete cisterns, does no
require Site and Design_ reviel4.
The Architectural Review Board approved the trail system at its meeting
of june 5, 1980 (minutes attached) .
GIR:354:0
Environmental Review
An addendum to the original environmental impact assessment was prepared
for the May 28, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. This assessment
recommenu'ing a negative declaration attempted to clarify many environ-
mental concerns raised by Commission members and the public.
Current Status and Recommendation
Given the opinion of the City Attorney's Office on the removal of struc-
tures, the Site and Design application now consists of (1) the proposed
parking lot and related landscaping and facilities, and (2) the proposed
trail network. Attached are two brief reports submitted by MROSD sub-
seclucnt to the May 28, 1980 Planning Commission meeting which explain
the selected parking lot location and clarify the construction tech-
niques and routing of the trail system.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a motion concurring with
the unanimous Planning Commission and ARB recommendations for approval
of the trail system.
If the City Council wishes to approve the proposed parking lot, the
parking lot and landscaping plans should then be forwarded to the ARB.
Respectfully submitted,
WBERr M. BROWN NAPHTALI H. R0X
Associate Planner Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments: July 15, 1980 letters from MROSD
June 25, 1980 Planning Commission minutes
June 5, 1980 ARB minutes
May 28, 1980 Planning Commission minutes
Original and supplemental EIAs
September 21, 1979 staff report
February 19, 1980 update memorandum
Letter from John Olmstead
Letter from Thomas Harrington, November 7, 1979
Responses from Fire Department and Parks Department
September 26, 1979 Planning Commission ion minutes
May 1, 1980 letter from INIROSD
January 15, 1980 letter from MROSD
July S. 1979 letter from MROSD
Plans (Commission and Council members only)
cc: Applicant
Santa Clara County Planning Department
San Mateo County Planning Department
Thomas Harrington
John Olmstead
(MR:354:0 7/17/80
-2-
R-81-2
(Meeting 81-1
January 14 , 1981)
•A,WW
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
January 6, 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Long Term Office Space Needs and Location
Introduction: At your meeting of December 10, 1980, you deferred
a discussion of this specific agenda item until the early part of
1981 (see memorandum M-80-98 , dated December 4 , 1980) , and pre-
viously, at your meeting of June 11, 1980 , you had accepted the
Budget Committee' s recommendation for the staff to re-analyze the
criteria presented in earlier reports on the issue of long term
office space needs and location. At the December 10 meeting, I
indicated that I would review previous discussions and material
prepared on the subject, but I would not undertake any new re-
search on the District' s long term office space needs and location
until the full Board could discuss the matter in 1981. It should
be noted that the 1980-1981 Action Plan called for the evaluation
of future office space requirements and alternatives.
Discussion: Since October 1, 1973, the main offices of the District
have been located in leased office facilities, expanding from their
initial 1, 080 square feet of office space to the current 3 ,180 square
feet of office space in Suite D-1 at 375 Distel Circle. In terms of
office location, there have been several recurring criteria that
have been discussed throughout the years (as far back as May 31, 1973) ,
and they are:
1. Adequate space and facilities
2. Setting and building - consist with image and aims of District
3. Proximity to District' s population center
4. Reasonable cost (space and services)
5. Access to major arterials
6. Proximity to geographic center of the District
7. Proximity to necessary services
a) County offices
b) Postal service
c) Office supplies
R-81-2 Page 2
8. Access by public transportation and non-vehicular traffic
9. Proximity to major portion of lands which the District will
acquire.
In addition, another recurring theme has been the question of
whether it would be more cost effective for the District to buy
or build its own office facility, and in August 1977 , Leonard Schwartz,
the District' s Financial Analyst at that time, undertook a major
analysis relating to the renting versus the buying of office facilities.
In his findings (see memorandum M-77-160 , dated August 16 , 1977) , he
noted that the long-term economics clearly favored purchasing office
space, however, buying or building a facility would affect the District' s
short term cash flow. The cash flow problem may be alleviated by legis-
lation passed last year which increased to $500,000 the maximum funds
which can be borrowed for revenue producing uses. Building or buying
extra space for rental and possible future expansion would produce
revenue.
Subsequently, a Board/staff workshop was held on November 2 , 1977 to
discuss the District' s office location and the ways in which the District
functions impacted this location, and staff was directed to develop
alternate plans to show costs to the District of purchasing, including
options such as:
1. Building or buying a building like the present office
space (375 Distel Circle)
2. Building an office building in a park-like setting
3. Building in a non-park like setting
4. Costs with and without a corporation yard
5. Buying part of the present building and then leasing
and selling
6. Costs to rent a school site
7. Construction costs on an arbitrary District site with
and without a corporation yard
8. Consultant costs
Although staff was directed to report back to the Board around
March 1, 1978 , other matters were of higher priority and then
Proposition 13 was adopted. As a result, no follow-up on the
workshop took place except in Action Plans and budget discussions,
and the issue of the District' s long term office space needs and
location has been a low priority item since that time. You did,
however, at your meeting of June 25, 1980 , authorize staff to
negotiate an extension of the District' s lease for its office space
in Suite D-1, 375 Distel Circle , for five years, or a part thereof
with renewal privileges.
R-81-2 Page 3
In light of the fact that the issue of long term office space needs
and location is a multi-faceted question, and since it has not been
discussed in any depth by the full Board since 1977, 1 feel that
your discussion of the issue on January 14 will help the staff de-
termine whether we should actively research the possibility of making
a purchase of property for the District ' s office needs. The dis-
cussion should also focus, as suggested by Director Bishop at the
December 10, 1980 Board meeting, on whether the present office space
is or is not adequate and at what projected point the staff will out-
grow its current facilities. If, in fact, a majority of the Board
indicates on January 14 that the staff should pursue the issue of a
permanent office space facility, then I would recommend (pending the
outcome of your discussion) that a committee be established to in-
vestigate the question.
As I see it, such a committee would have to review and augment the
financial analyses prepared in the past, investigate the alternative
plans discussed at the November 2 , 1977 workshop, and re-evaluate
and determine if there are any new factors (such as surplus school
sites) that must be considered when discussing office location at
this time. If established, this committee should report to the Board
on a regular basis so that all Board members would be involved in the
possible evolution of a major decision for the District to acquire
or build its own office space facility. I feel that process is very
important so that this matter does not seriously detract from the
main business of the District, namely, acquiring and managing open
space. one partial answer to this may be engaging a paid or volunteer
consultant(s) to coordinate one or more aspects of the total project.
Therefore, I feel that the committee should report back at an early
date with its recommendations on process.
If you do wish to proceed on the matter, then there are at least the
following two major policy questions to be answered early on :
- What is your preferred general location for a District
office facility?
- Do you wish at the least to acquire a site to hold for
future use?
Recommendation: I recommend that you authorize the President to
establish a two or three member Board Committee to make recommendations
to the full Board on the issue of the District ' s long term office
space needs and location.
The particular pressure I feel does not have to do with present adequacy
of the District' s office space. Rather, it relates to the acceler-
ating loss of potential sites to new development, particularly along
the El Camino Real corridor. Good planning may strongly indicate
that a site should be tied down in the not-too-distant future.
This agenda item could be deferred to the meeting of January 28 if,
due to the lateness of the hour that you would begin your discussion
on January 14 , you feel it would be more productive to postpone
the item.
R-81-1
(Meeting 81-1
January 14 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
January 6 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: S . Sessions, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Dedication Status of District Lands
I
Introduction: The District' s revised Dedicated Lands Policy
adopted on November 28 , 1980 (see memorandum M-79-146 , dated
November 21, 1979) requires that an annual report be made in
January of each year showing which District lands are in planning
reserve status and are not dedicated as open space land and
which lands are dedicated. During each year, the status of
each parcel of undedicated land is also individually reviewed
as part of the regular land use and management planning process
for the various planning areas.
The purpose of withholding lands from dedication, as stated in
the Dedicated Lands Policy, is : "Normally, undedicated lands
within the District' s boundaries will be held for future dedi-
cation to park or open space purposes, but only after the
necessary planning, boundary adjustments, provision for permanent
access and other changes in configuration, which may involve
the disposal or exchange of interests in all or portions of
such lands, have been completed. "
Discussion: The attached Table #1 shows the District lands
dedicated as open space land. Some 725 acres of land that was
acquired in 1980 is dedicated, increasing the total dedicated
lands to 7205 acres. An additional 758 acres is pending.
Two parcels of land were seriously considered for dedication at
this time. The 23 acre Fine property was acquired for a trail
corridor and, faced with the possible funding impacts if Propo-
sition 9 were passed, the District could have sold the balance
of the property. We feel that the property, in total, functions
as a trail corridor as well as providing a desirable resource
for future use. Staff will complete the trail assessment as
part of the planning process and probably make a recommendation for
dedicating the property during the use and management plan review
of the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve scheduled for April
1981. The second parcel considered for dedication at this
time was the Bridgeman parcel , which is part of the Long Ridge
Open Space Preserve. However, since the potential impact of
development of surrounding parcels needs to be studied further,
R-81-1 Page two
dedication recommendations for this property will be considered
during the use and management review of the Long Ridge Preserve
scheduled for June 1981.
The attached Table #2 lists the undedicated parcels comprising
some 1623 acres of land and gives the reasons they have been
withheld from dedication. The undedicated lands represent
170 of the acreage managed by the District.
It should be noted that District lands increased by 16% in
1980 with the acquisition of 3- 8 parcels totalling 1434 acres.
Three approved acquisitions still pending will add. another 758
acres, and will bring the total District holdings to 9586 acres.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you receive and accept
. tTFe—attached status report.
R-81-1 0
Table #1
Dedicated Open Space Lands
OPEN SPACE BOARD
PIAINING AREA PRESERVE FORMER OWNER APPROX. ACREAGE APPROVAL DATE
1. Hassler Area
2. West of Skyline (no District
Area preserves)
3. Los Trancos; Los Trancos Dahl 258 11/24/76
Watershed
Russian Ridge Crist 130 12/13/78
Williams 33 3/26/80
Schroeder 11 10/22/80
Subtotal: 174
Thornewood Sierra Club 87 9/13/78
Oswald (4) 7/9/80
(pending)
Windy Hill P.O.S.T. (537) 12/30/80
(pending)
Russian Ridge Coplon. (217) 1/14/81
(pending)
4. Foothills Area Foothills Blair 70 6/12/74
Crocker 90 5/28/75
Leonheart 10 5/25/77
Subtotal: 170
Rancho San Perham 394 5/30/75
Antonio
Roman Catholic 118 7/13/77
Church
Duveneck 430 12/14/77
Peterson 80 11/12/80
Subtotal: 1022
R-81-1
OPEN a —E BOARD
PLANNING AREA P E FORMER -ZER APPROX. ACREAGE APPROVAL DATE
5. Stevens Creek Saratoga Gap Chesebrough 136 10/9/74
Watershed Gunetti-Larrus 275 10/30/75
Subtotal: 411
Lang Ridge Nichols et al. 379 4/26/78
Monte Bello Avidano et al. 760 1/22/75
Boy Scouts 1 5/26/76
Picchetti 200 7/14/76
Eldridge 150 11/12/77
Burns 610 11/22/77 (SC)
Burns 13 7/26/78 (SM)
Stanford 684 9/27/78
Phil. Invest. 100 1/24/79
Swanson 11 3/26/80
Consigny 107 5/14/80
Maridon 169 6/25/80
Subtotal: 2805
6. Fremmnt Older Fremont Older Lyddon 266 5/14/75
Open Space Area RadinNcDonald 36 10/8/75
Cocciardi 5 3/3/75
Merkelo 6 6/4/76
Claitor 3 5/26/76
Gregory-Maurantonio 20 2/23/77
Mozzetti 216 2/23/77
Nellis 64 4/13/77
Garrod 118 6/25/80
Subtotal: 734
7. El Sereno Area Costanoan Way Saratoga School Dist 2 5/14/75
El Sereno Moore 967 10/30/75
8. Manzanita Ridge Manzanita Ridge Dieterich Trust 142 12/10/80
Area
9. Baylands North (No District
preserves)
10. Baylands-South Stevens Creek Leslie Salt 54 7/9/80
Nature Study Ared
TOTAL ACC DEDICATED: 7205
R-81-1
Table #2
Lands Withheld from Open Space Dedication
BOARD
PLANNING OPEN SPACE APPROX. APPROVAL
AREA PRESERVE FORMER OVUM ACRFAGE DATE REASON FOR WITHHOLDING
1. Hassler
Area
2. West of (no District
Skyline preserves)
Area
3. Los Russian Fine 23 4/9/80 To assess trail aligment
Trancos Ridge and possible sale re-
Watershed sulting from Proposition 9
4. Foothills Rancho San Roman Catho- 80 7/13/77 Possible trade with ad-
Area Antonio lic Church jacent property owner
(Kaiser)
Foothills McCulley 10 6/13/79 Possible boundary adjust-
Subtotal: 90 n-ent or exchange of prop-
erty rights including fee
title
5. Stevens Saratoga Gap Gunetti and 80 11/10/76 Possible transfer to Santa
Creek Larrus Clara County Parks for in-
Watershed clusion in Upper Stevens
Creek Park
Monte Bello McCone 40 1/24/79 Possible transfer to Santa
Clara County Parks for in-
clusion in Stevens Creek
Park
Melton 17 3/26/80 Isolated site with no
public access
Collins 8 4/9/80 Isolated site with no
public access
Long Ridge Bridgemn 55 11/28/79 Possible sale of one or
Subtotal 200 more subdivided lots.
Future pattern of private
development unclear
6. Fremont
Older Open
Space Pre-
serve Area
OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA PRESERVE FOF4klER OWNER
OPEN SPACE FORER OWNER APPROX. ACREAGE APPROVAL DATE
R-81-1
BOARD
PLANNING OPEN SPACE APPROX, APPROVAL
AREA PRESEWE FORS IER OWNER ACREAGE DATE REASON FOR WITMJQLDIW_,
7. El Serena El Sereno Moore 16 10/30/75 Parcels non-contiguous to
Area Preserve. Possible trade
with adjacent property
owner.
Lovell 35 4/9/80
Subtotal: 51
3. Manzanita Sum-Lit Road La Point 20 6/30/75 Possible transfer of prop-
Ridge Area Open Space erty rights since this
Easement easement is outside District
boundaries
Manzanita Kennedy 290 4/25/79 Possible transfer of
Ridge Trails density rights
Laye 137 6/13/79 Possible transfer of
density rights. Only
partial interest acquired
Fairweather 186 11/14/79 Possible transfer of
density rights
Bell 83 7/9/80 Possible transfer of
property rights, either
fee or easement
Mindling- 121 6/26/80 Possible trade of
Harrison development rights
Duffy-Barnes 44 11/10/80 Possible transfer of
property rights
Guadalupe 338 11/10/80 Parcel non-contiguous to
Rubbish Dis- Preserve. Possible use of
posal Co. development rights as tool
Subtotal: 1219
9. Baylands- (No District
North preserves)
10. Baylands- San Mateo Co. Westbay 40 11/12/80 No public access
South Baylands Associates
Reserve I I
TOTAL ACRES UNDEDICATED: 1623
R-77-52
SPECIAL ORDER OF
THE DAY
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
M-81-1
(Meeting 81-1
oe January 14 , 1981)
0 mwc
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
January 7, 1981
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Directors
From: Stan Norton, Legal Counsel
Subject: Revision of District' s Conflict of Interest Code
The District has been advised of a recently
adopted procedure of the Fair Political Practices
Commission intended to standardize (and shorten) the
individual conflict of interest codes of the hundreds
of local agencies in California.
The Commission has approved a new regulation
(2 Cal. Admin. Cd Sec. 18730, copy attached) whereby the
Commission, rather than the local agency, adopts the
revised code for the local agency in cases where a
local code has already been adopted.
Following receipt of Dwight Dickerson' s letter
of December 5, 1980 (copy enclosed) , and being assured
the new MROSD code would not differ materially from the
District' s previously adopted code, I told him to allow
the Committee to act on the revised code as scheduled
on December 16 - 17. 1 am informed it will be approved
by the Commission January 12, 1981.
The result is a MROSD 2 page "code" with a 2 page
"appendix" (copies enclosed) . The "standardized" material,
consisting of definitions, reporting requirements, and the
like, which appeared at length in our "old" code, are now
adopted by reference. (This is not included here, but is
on file with the Clerk and will be sent you later this
month with your disclosure statement material. )
The only substantial change is an April 1 filing
deadline for annual statements rather than the "month of
January, " as previously adopted by MROSD. The District
Clerk and I recommend that we continue to process disclosure
statements during January even though the Clerk need not
file them with the FPPC until the new deadline.
I also recommend you repeal Resolutions No. 78-14
and 78-22.
{
TITLE 2 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES GOh9S9iSSION § 18730
(Register 80,No.29--7-19-80) (p. 33 '1)
(b) \yJren a filer is required to re )rt income under Governmen Code
Sections S1200, et seq., the filer may elect to re tort any,honoraria re- ived on
a schedule established by the Commission for t1iat purpose. The set .dule shall
contain all the information that is required for reporting a gift an all require
a specific description of the services provided. The schedule s I not reqquire
the filer to determine or to state whether or to what extent e value of the
honorarium exceeded the value of the services provided. iler who elects to
use the schedule provided for in this paragraph for any 6norarium must dis-
close on the schedule all honoraria of$25.00 or more re c ' ed during the period.
(c) Any filer who does not elect to use the sehedu . described in paragraph
(b) must report art honorarium as a gift ttnless it clear from all of the sur-
rounding circumstances that the services provide represented equal or great-
er value than the Payment received. If it - clear from the surrounding
circumstances that the services provided we of equal or greater value than
the payment received, the honorarium is ' come, not a gift. When the filer
clairns that the honorarium is not a gift,h all have the burden of proving that
the consideration) was of equal or grea r value, unless the filer is a defendant
in a criminal action.
A prize or in ate and shall be isclosed as a gift unless the rize or award
is ieceked on the t7asis of a bo fide competition not relate( to the filers
official status. Prizes or ai kards )icl)are not di�clo.,,cd as gifts shall be disclosed
as income.
NOTE: Authorits cited Sect'),, 83112, GoNt- mnent Cade Ref,,jence section 87207,
Government Cfxie.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 0-24-75,effective thirtieth da) th«reafter (Register 75, No.43), i
2 Repealer and it v section filed 6-17-76 a,,an emerg-e);effective upon filing_Cer-
tificate of C;ornpli ce included (Register 76, No. 25).
IS729. Repo mg Capital Gain from the Sale of Capital Assets (87207).
Capital g• its realized on the sale of capital assets are reportable as income
pursuant . Government Code Section 87207; provided, however, that if by the
exercise )f reasonable diligence the filer does not k-nOw or have reason to f now
the is ntity of the purchaser of a capital asset, the capital gain need not be
rep led.
N TE: Authorn,v cited section 83112. CoNernment CtAe. Reference Section 87207,
overnment Code.
I,1sroR)
_I �e ction filed 4°' 70 effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76 No 40).
--IS730. Provisions of Conflict of Interest Codes (S7300,S7302).
(a) lnc-cn l�oratic1n 1,v reft=rence of the terms of this regulation along with the
de-stgnatioo of :and the formulation of disclosure categories in the
Appendix n4cited to lw1w,v, constitute the adoption and promulgation of a
Conflict of Interest C,crde v�ithin the meaning of Government Code Section
S7300 or the .amendment of a Conflict of Interest Code within the meaning of
Government Code Section 87307 if the terms of this regulation are substituted
for ternis of a Conflict of Interest Code already in effect. A code so amended
or adopted and p-11111 gated requires the reporting of reportable items in a
manner substant ialls equivalent to the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 7
of the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 et seq. The
requirements of a Conflict of Interest Code are in addition to ot17er require-
inents of the Political Reform Act, such as the general prohibition against
conflicts of interest contained in Govcrntnent C;cxie Section 87100,and to other
state or Jura) laws pertaining to conflicts of interest
18730 FAIR POLITICAL PRACr'ICBS COMMISSION TITLE 2 "1,1,11,1'. 2 FAM P(pIATICAI, PRACTI(:F,S CONINIISS'ION § IS730
(p. 331.2) (Register 80,No.29--7-1980) (Register 80. No.29--7.19861 (p ;331 2 1)
(b) The terms of a Conflict of Interest Code amended or adopted and pro- (gip) Section 5. Statement of Fconomic Interests: Time of Filing
rnulgated pursuant to this regulation are as follows: (A) Initial Statements. All designated employees etnplowd by the a rencv
(1) Section 1. Definitions. The definitions contained in the Political Re- on the effective date of this (,ode, as on Yinally adopted, promulgateod told
form Act of 1974, regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission (2 Cal. a()proved b the code reviewing body, shall file statements within tliitty dais
Adm. Code Sections 18100 et sell,), and any amendments to the Act or regula- ler the effective date of this Code. Thereafter, each person already in'a
tions, are incorporated by reference into this Conflict of Interest Code. position when it is designated by an amendment to this Code shall file im initial
(2) Section 2. Designated Employees. The persons holding positions list- statement within thirty (lays after the effective date of the arriendincut
ed in the Appendix are designated employees. It has been determined that (11) ASSntning Office Statements.
these persons make or (participate in the making of decisions which may fore- L. All persons assuming designated positions after the effective date of this
seeably have a material effect on financial interests. (,ode which are civil service or merit system positions shall file statements
(3) Section 3. Disclosure Categories. This (;ode does not establish any within thirty days after assuntin r the designated positions.
disclosure obligation for those designated employees who are also specific(' in 2 All other persons apJ)ointe(�Iprotnote(] or transferred to desi�rnatecl pnsi
Government Code Section 87200 if they are designated in this Code ill that tions after the effective (fate of the Code shall file statements within ten dais
same capacity or if the geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as after assuming office, or if subject to State Senate confirmation, ten days after
I
is wholly included within the jurisdiction in which those persons must report being nominated or appointed.
their financial interests pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 7 of the Political (C) Annual Statements. All designated employees shall file statements it(,
Iteforni Act, Government Code Sections 87200, et serf.' Such persons are cov- later than April 1.
erect by this Code for disqualification purposes only. With respect to ,(!) outer ll) Leaving Office Statements. All persons lvho leave designated positions
designated errs )loyees, the disclosure categories set forth in the Appendix spec- shall fill statements within thirty days after leavitt��T,, office.
if yy� which kinds of financial interests are reportable. Such a designated em- (fi) Section G Contents of and Period Covered fpy Statements of I".conoutic
ployec shall disclose in his or her statement of econornic interests those financial Interests.
interests he or she has which are of the kind described in the disclosure catego- (A) Contents of Initial Statements, Initial statements shall disclosc arty re-
ties to which lie or she is assi�rtied in the Appendix. It has been determined t�rat portable investments, interests in real property and business positions licld oo
the financial interests set forth in a designated ernployee's disclosure categories the ( Nective date of the Code,
are the kinds of, financial interests which lie or she foreseeably can affect (lit) Contents of Assuming Office Statements. Assuming office statements
materially through lire conduct of his or her office. shall(liscluse arty r(E,portabl( irtvestnpetrts,interests in real property and biv ow ,
(4) Section 4. Statement of Economic Interests: Place of Filing. The code positions held on the date of assuming office or, if sul!pject to State Senate
reviewing body shalt instruct all designated employees required to file state confirmation or appointment, on the date of nomination.
nients of economic interests pursuant to this Conflict of Interest Code to file (C) Contents of Annual Statements. Annual statements shall disclose -im
in accordance with one of the following procedures: reportable investments, interests in real property, income and busines, poisi-
(A) ,All designated employees shall file statements of economic interests tions held or received during the (previous calendar year provided, however,
with the agency. Upon receipt of the statements of economic interests of the that the period covered by all en1 plrryce n s first annual statertu-rif shall I>egio oilo
Ileac{of the agency and memlpers of boards or commissions not under a depart- the effective date of the Code or t�te date of assuming office whichever is later
ment of state or local government, the agency shall make and retain a copy of (1)) Contents of 1,eaviug Office Statements. Leaving office stateoicnts
each and forward the originals of these statements to the code reviewing body, shall disclose reportable investments, interests in real property, income an,
vAtich shall be the filing officer with respect to these statements. Suck state._ business positions held or received during the period between tfic closing datt
npents shall be forwarded to the code reviewing body within five clays after the of the List statement filed and the date of leaving officv.
filing deadline or five days after receipt in the case of statements filed late t 7) Section 7 'Manner of lteportjilt. Statements of economic interests
(I3) All designated employees shall file statementsof economic interests with shall be made on form, prescrilied by file Fair Political Practices Conimis,ii,n
the agency, which shall ntake and retain a copy and forward the originals to the and supplied ItV the ageocv, and shall contain the following information_
code reviewing body, which shall be the filing officer.
(C) All designated employees shall file statements of economic interests
with the code reviewing body.
Designated employees who are required to file statements of econornic interests
under any ether ageney's conflict of interest code, or under Article 2 fur a different
jurisdiction, niay expand their statement of econornic interests to covc-r reportal,le inter
ests in holh jurisdictions,and file conies of this expanded statement with lwth cniitit,5 in
lieu of filing separate and distinct stateruents, provided that each copy of smelt exttaucle,'
statement filed in place of an original is signed and verified by the designated emp!mvc
as if it were an original See C:overrmnent Code, Section 81otp1_
See Government Code Section 81010 and 2 Cal, Adm. Code Section 181 15 fit, tl,e
duties of filing officers and persons tin agencies who make and retain ruities of statvmcnrs
and forward the originals to the filing uffieer.
18730 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION TITLE 2 1''1Ili POIJ'I ICAI, 18730
(R 3312.2) 1 Register 90.No.29-7-19 801 (Register 80,No. 29--7-1980) 1 2
(A) Investment and Real Property Disclosure. When art investment or all 1) Tire name of I every person Irmo wItoill fill' husilles" vntity Wk,ck't'd 1`1a��-
interest in real property 3 is required to be reported,' the statement shall con- joents if tit(- filer's pro ratio share of'gross receipis front slich Pff-H \�it,
et ual
fain the following: to or greater thou ten thousand dollars W0,000)
1. A statement of the nature of the investment or interest-, (D) Business Position Disclosure. Whell Inisilless positions are required to
2. The name of the business entity in which each investment is held, and a be reported, it desi mated employee
ployce shall list file name and addleso! each
general description of the business activity in which the business entity is business entity it, o,,Ilicll lie Or she is a director, officer, partner, tl`llStCC elll-
engaged; ployee, urn which lie or she holds any position of dw'wri M011
3. The address or other precise location of the real property; oftile business activity in which the business entity is cligaged, and the uesr
4. A statement whether the fair market value of the investment or interest trated employee's position with the business entity.
in real property, exceeds one thousand dollars ($I,("), exceeds tell thousand (I" ,Pc I of �111
Ac(loisition or Disposal Dill-ing Reporting -iod. fit tit(' case
I inent or all intcrt.,t Ili rcal dollars ($10,000), or exceeds one hundred thousand dollars annual or leaving office statcInclit, il ill' invest
(11) Personal Income Disclosure. When personal income is required to 1)e property was partially or wholly iie(Inired or disposed of (1111-illo,' 11w 1-1i"I
reported,' the statement shall contain: covered by the statement, tit(. statement shall contain tit(, dote of jcqlw�,Itloll
I The name and address of each source of Income aggro ating two hundred Or disposa
,jreg
fifty dollars ($250) or more in value, or twe lars $25) or more of (S) Section H. J)isqtj�ljilicatioir No designated el"PI I)yce shall InAt" pal
value if the income was a gift, and a general deso�ription of t �usiness activity, ticipate-lit making, or use his or her official positions to ill flue"c'� ill(' lllilk 11 1
if any, of each source, 0! any governmental decision which will lows(IC11bly have it 111ilterial fill,illcli�l
2. A statement whether the aggregate value of income from each source, or 'disting gent rally, oil.
distinguishable front its elfect ()It tit(..puhlic g
Ill the case of a loan, the highest amount owed to each source, was one thousand i,A) Any business entit in �%'Jjiell the (IOSIgllated c I loyee has it dilcct oI
dollars ($1,000) or less, greater than one thousand dollars ($100, or greater ilu!ire(j juvestment %voiWi' inure Orion one thousand ($1,000",
than tell thousand dollars ($10000), (w Ali), real property in which the designated el"PloYee Ili's it ("r"'J or
3� A description of the consideration, if any, for which the income was re- dollars ( 1,Xii �
ceived; ill(lil-ect interest worth more than one thousand (10 ,rs I,$ ( ) , tit
( :) Any source of income, other thou loans by a C011in CrCiiil lending il"Iti
4, In the case of a gift, the narne, address and business activity of the donor tioll Ili the regular course of business oil terms available to the public s%101"tit
and any intermediary through which the gift was made;a descri�lltion of the gift; I-ev ill status, aggregating t\%,() hundred fifty dollars ($250) or Illolt,
Ile of jjr(j to official
file amount or value the gift; all( the (late oil which the gi t was received. its'value provided to, received by or promised to file designated
i4oiltCd CloPloV(-e
5. in the case of a loan, the annual interest rate and the security, if any, given within twelve months prior to the tillit, when the decision I" 111ade, or
for the loan. (D) Any business entity in which the designated vlllployv(' is a director.
(C) Business Entity Income Disclosure. When income of a business entity, officer, partner, trustee, 'I, or holds allY position of 11 lit llitt�cllwl it
including income of a sole proprietorship, is required to be reported," tit(, el flu
prevented from Illaking ol pill t w1pal i liv ill
No designated employee s lit 1 -1 statement shall contain: tit(- lililkilig of any
decision to the extent his or her pilltl( Jlatwll is
the
- )I it
I The name,address,and a general description of the business activity of the required for I v (�jsjon to be made. The fact that the V�)h dcsi natal
business entity., e niployee Who is on a votitilLy, body is heeded to break it tit, flocs not 111ac htii
or li,-r participation legally required for purposes
rposes of this section
For the purt>ost,of disclosure only (not disqualification), an interest in real property (9) Section 9 Milloler of Disqualification. kVilen it (Icsigil'itt'd
does not include the principal residence, of the filer, dete I rnifires that lit' or sin- s1101141 not milk" ;1 9"verlillient'll
derision l,ecaus,
Investments and interests lit real property which have a fair market Value of less than
$1,000 are not investments and interests in real Prolterty within the meaning of Ow lie or she has a finallcial illtt.le,.,t it, it, tit(, deterinination ,lilt to in-1 11110 ))e
Political Reform Act. However, investments or interests Ili real property of an fildividual i1ccolopililied by disclosure of I lit,financial interest. 111 the case Ill it \()I ing hody,
include those held by the individual's spouse and dependent children as well its it pro ratiothis determination and shall I)e trade part of fill, agency's oili,�i�il
Share.of any investment or interest lit real property VC Who is the head of all ag lot,,
of any business entity or trust in which ITCOrd� in tit(, case of•it p-licy, t
I 'i'de in �ivritills,
the individual, spouse and dependent children own, lit the aggregate, a direct, indirect determination and disC!0',lIrC shall tit, to his or her appoilltiw,
or beneficial interest of 120 percent or greater. alithoritv; and Ill the case of other designated employees, fill,, detelolillittioll
"A designated employee's income includes his or her community property interest it, and disclosure shall be illadt, tit writing to the designated C"'PloYet"s s"Pt'""
the income of hisor her spouse but does not include salary or reimbursement for exiwtist.,, sot'.
received from a state, local or federal government agency, (1()) Section 10, Assistance of fill, (,oloolission and Counsel. Ann dcsig
"Income of a business entity is reportable if the direct, indirect or beneficial interest natedelliploNee \\hoisillii Cite ol his or her duties under this Code llliiy
iiiluest
of the filer and the filer's spouse in the business entity aggregates a lopctk,,.ot ort'rvatt-F
;lssistMlcv lroill the Political Practices Coillillission purstlitlit it) G) eill
interest. 11,addition, the disclosure of persons who are clients or customers of it business inelit Code Section S:,l I I of born the attorney lot- his or her agency, plovitictl
entity is required only if the clients or customers are within one of lljvdisclosury catcgo- ill this ll"�tio requires the attorney iol 111(i a"t'llcy to ""tit, any
ries of the filer, Oult nothilit,
formal or infotnutl olMli011
r
IS732 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION TITLE TLE 2
(p. 334.2.4) (Register 80,No.23..._.7-1980)
(11) Section 11. Violations. This Code has the force and effect of law.
Designated employees violating an} provision of this Code are subject to the
administrative, criminal and civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform
Act, Government Code Sections 81(0(--91014 In addition, a decision in relation
to which a violation of the disqualification Error isions of this Code or of Govern-
ment Code Section 87100 has occurred may be set aside as void pursuant to
Government Code Section 91003.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section &3112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 87300-
87302, Government Cade.
HISTORY:
1. New section filed 4-2-80 as an emergency;effective upon filing (Register 80,No. 14).
Certificate of Compliance included.
2. Editorial correction (Register 80, No, 29).
18732. Filing Dates for Annual Statements Filed Pursuant to Conflict of In r-
est Codes (87,102).
(a) Wien a person assumes office or comes under the coverage of, lewly
effective conflict of interest code between October 1 and December 3 and files
an initial Statement of Economic Interests pursuant to the conflic of interest
code,that person need not file an annesal Statement of Economic 1 erests until
one Near fo lo"in r.r the (late specified in the code if the filing eadlne for the
�. p
,mm;al statement is April I or carlier
(b) If a person leaves an office Subject to a conflict of it ,rest code between
January I and the filing deadline for his annual Staten t of Economic Inter-
ests, the. leaving office statement may serve as that 1 - son's annual statement,
provided that prior to the deadline of the annual st ment, the person notifies
the filing officer in writing of his intention to fo aw this procedure.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 83112, GOVeFurrle Cade. Refc;cnce r+ection 87302,
Government Code.
fI ISTGP Y:
1. New section filed 12-27-77; effective thir eth day thereafter (Register 77, No 53).
2. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 6-2 8;effective thirtieth day 0" reJter (Regis-
ter 78, No. 25).
18733. Diselosrtre Categories fo Auditors, Investigators and Inspectors and
Parsons Similarly Situated (873 ).
(a) Code revic ing I dies av, in their discretion, approve conflict of inter-
est codes which p emit des' hated ernplo�ees of the IN pe described in subsec-
tion (b) of this rvgulatio o report their financial interests in the manner set
forth in subsection (c) ,f this regulation
(b) This regulatio is applicable to designated employees who satisfy all of
the follova ing crite a:
(1) The lest= ated employee is not a high level decision or policy maker;
(2) The de ' hated ernployee's job functions primarily involve case assign-
ments whie are drawn from a large number of persons, business entities or
parcels of eal property;
(3) T e persons or business entities which are the subject of the designated
ernpl ee's case assignments are varied in nature and are not selected from a
Sin e or limited number of industries, trades or professions;
tate of California
air Political Practices Commission
P.O. BOX 807 SACRAMENTO, 95804 • • • 1100 K STREET BUILDING, SACRAMENTO, 95814
Technical Assistance Administration Executive/Legal • • Enforcement Statements of Economic Interest
(916) 322-5662 322.5660 322-5901 322-6441 322-64"
December 5 , 1980
Chief Executive Officer
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open
Space District
375 Distel Circle , D-1
Los Altos , CA 94022
Dear Sir :
Please refer to our letter of September 16 , 1980 , con-
cerning the standardization of the Conflict of Interest
Codes of agencies subject to the code reviewing authority of
the Fair Political Practices Commission. Enclosed is a copy
of your agency' s Code in its standardized format. It will
be considered by the Conflicts of Interest Committee of the
Fair Political Practices Commission on December 16 or 17.
The Code will then be placed on the summary calendar of the
full Commission for final approval at its following meeting .
If you or another representative of your agency would like
to testify concerning your Code at the Committee meeting ,
please let me know and I will try to arrange to put your
Code on the agenda at a convenient time.
Finally, if you have any questions concerning either
the enclosed Code or this process in general , please do not
hesitate to call me at ( 916 ) 322-5901 .
Sincerely, �
Dwight Dickerson
Counsel
Legal Division
DED:kp
Enclosures
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE
MID-PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
The Political Reform Act , Government Code Sections
81000, et seq. , requires state and local government agencies
to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes . The
Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation,
2 Cal . Adm. Code Section 18730, which contains the terms of
a standard Conflict of Interest Code , which can be incorporated
by reference, and which may be amended by the Fair Political
Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political
Reform Act after public notice and hearings. Therefore, the
terms of 2 Cal . Adm. Code Section 18730 and any amendments
to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission,
along with the attached Appendix in which officials and
employees are designated and disclosure categories are set
forth, are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute
the Conflict of Interest Code of the Mid-Peninsula Regional
Open Space District, except as provided below.
Pursuant to Section 4 (A) of the standard Code ,
designated employees shall file statements of economic interests
with the agency. Upon receipt of the statements of the
Board Members and General Manager, the agency shall make and
retain a copy and forward the original of these statements
to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Exception: The portion of land located within the
District' s acquisition planning area or within two miles
used primarily as the residence of the designated position,
including up to three acres in area surrounding such residence,
shall not be considered an " interest in real property" for
the purposes of this Code and need not be reported , but the
rest of any such land shall be reported and its value declared.
2
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE
MID-PININSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
APPENDIX
Assigned
Designated Positions Disclosure Categories
Board Members 1, 2, 3
General Manager 1, 2, 3
Land Acquisition Manager 1, 2, 3
Land Manager 1, 2, 3
Legal Counsel 1, 2, 3
Controller 1, 2 , 3
Assistant General Manager 1, 2, 3
Disclosure Categories
Category 1
Interests in real property are reportable interests if :
A. The real property to which the interest pertains is
located in whole or in part within the land acquisition
planning area as shown on the District' s master plan ,
or within two miles of the area, or within two miles of
any land which is contemplated for use by the District.
B. The portion of land located within the District' s acqui-
sition planning area or within two miles , as hereinabove
set forth, used principally as the residence of the
designated position, including up to three acres in
area surrounding such residence , shall not be considered
an " interest in real property" for the purposes of this
Code and need not be reported , but the rest of any such
land shall be reported and its value declared .
Category 2
A. Investments in any business entity of the type which ,
within the last two years , has contracted with the
District to provide services , supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment.
B. Investments in business entities which engage in building
construction or design within the District.
C. Investments in business entities which engage in the
business of brokerage, acquisition or disposal of real
property within the jurisdiction.
D. Investments in business entities of the type which
engage in the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports
and/or land appraisals.
Category 3
A. Income fromany source of the type which, within the
last twelve months, has contracted with the District to
provide services , supplies , materials, machinery or
equipment.
B. Income from sources which engage in building construction
or design within the District.
C. Income from sources which engage in the business of
brokerage, acquisition or disposal of real property
within the jurisdiction.
D. Income from sources which engage in the preparation of
environmental impact reports and/or land appraisals.
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 78-14
AND 78-22 (WHICH ADOPTED A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL
REFORM ACT OF 1974)
WHEREAS, by Resolutions No. 78-14 and 78-22
the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District adopted a conflict of interest
code pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, and
WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices
Commission has, pursuant to 2 Cal. Admin. Cd. Sec. 18730,
recently adopted a "standard" conflict of interest code
for the District, a copy of which is affixed hereto and
by reference made a part hereof, which will supercede
said code previously adopted by the District,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby
resolve to repeal Resolutions No. 78-14 and 78-22, to
be effective upon the effective date of said new code.
M-81-4
A, (Meeting 81-1
'4S,610e January 14 , 1981)
3i a w
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
January 8 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: S. Sessions, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Temporary Roof Cover for Picchetti Winery Buildings
Introduction: Staff has been aware of the deteriorating state
of the Picchetti winery buildings, including the winery roof,
which suffered additional damage as a result of last year ' s
storms. The condition of the winery building roof was also
noted by individuals preparing restoration proposals, and one
proposer voiced concern about the roof' s condition at the
Picchetti Winery Proposal Review Committee meeting on Wednesday,
January 7 , 1981.
Discussion: The Committee asked staff to place an item on your
agenda to seek authorization to place a temporary cover over the
roof. This cover would reduce the chances of further water
damage until a restoration project can begin. The cover would
consist of black olastic laid over the roof and would be secured
with strips of wood lath. Material costs would be about $150 ,
and it would take two persons one-half day each to install the
cover.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board concur with the
Picchetti Winery Proposal Review Committee ' s request to cover
the roof.
C-8ti-I
J -ary 14 , 1981,
E
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name DescriPti( n
1704 47 . 26 Accountemps Temporary office fle1p
�1705 115 . 32 Alvord and Ferguson Uniforms
1 706 11 . 00 B & H Equipment Rentals Field Supplies
707 61. 50 Bay Microfilm Office Equipment Repai_r
708 91099 . 60 Louis Bordi Road Repair
709 25. 00 CPRS Conference Expense
1710 400 . 00 CA Advocates Legislative Consultants Fee
711 2 , 625 . 00 Earth Metrics , Inc. Hassler Health Home Study
712 187 . 38 CA Water Service utilities
713 176 . 00 Communications Research Radio Maintenance-December
714 300 . 00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture -Dec.
715 271 . 80 Dennis Danielson Repair-Ranger Residence
716 74 .02' The Dark Room Publicity Photos
-717 17 . 09 Day Timers Office Supplies
'718 292. 38 Department of Parks and Plumbing Skills Course-Danielson
Recreation-California
-719 292 . 38 Department ofParks and Plumbing Skills Course-Sanguinetti
Recreation-California
720 159 . 51 Dorn 's District Vehicle Expense
721 43. 29 John Escobar Ranger Uniforms
722 57 . 62 Field' s Ambulance, Inc. Medical Supplies
.723 600 . 00 FLAME Consulting Services-Nov. , Dec.
-724 19, 795 . 00 Flinn, Gray, & Herterich Insurance-General and MROSD Sites
725 2 , 720 . 01 General Electric Portable Radios
726 424 . 60 Harfst Associates , Inc. Computer. Services
727 19 . 54 Keeble and Shuchat Slide Library
728 10 . 50 Lawrence Tire District Vehicle Repair
729 31 . 74 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies
730 4 , 008 . 57 Marvin Church, County Clerk San Mateo County Election Expense
731 49 . 50 Ben Meadows Ranger Uniforms
732 323. 39 Mobil Oil District Vcdiriicle Expense
733 130 . 33 Monte Vista Garden Center Maintenance and Repair-Sites
734 25 . 00 National and Recreation and Subscription
Park Assoc.
Amount )tion
1735 $ 317. -A Orchard Supply Hardware FielCl, Supplies
1736 207. 55 PG and 1" Utilitv Service
1737 618. 12 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
1738 198. 48 Pargas Residence Mainten_7:,,-_
1739 51. 92 Pitney Bowes Office Equipment
1740 86 . 05 Peninsula Blueprint - Duplicating
1741 38 . 31 Rancho Hardware Field Ecuipment
1742 5 , 764 . 22 County of Santa Clara Santa Clara County -lection-
I Expense
1743 35. 01 San Jose Paints Drafting Supplies
1744 4.20 . 24 Sears Shop Power Tools
1745 301. 34 Shell Oil District Vehicle _-..se
1746 132 . 50 Sign of the Times Signs
1747 144 . 00 . Peninsula Times Tribune Advertising
1748 256 . 00 US Rentals Field Equipment Rent.-al
1749 128 . 48 Unographics Mapping Service
1750 150 . 41 Union Oil District Vehicle Expense
1751 288 . 00 Warren Webster Accounting Services
17321 55 . 60 Bill Upson Private VehicleExpense
1753 439 . 97 Xerox Maintena ace and Princi,pal and
Interest paid on Contract
1754 82 . 03 West Publishing Co. Books
1755 95 . 00 First. American Title Preliminary Title Report Fee
1756 95 . 00 First American Title Preliminary Title Report Fee
1757 40 . 14 Norney ' s Office Supplies
1758 500 . 00 Ginuny Valuation Services Appraisal Information
1759 34 .03 Victor CA Shop Supplies
1760 38 . 00 Collins Projection Screen Rent-al
.aary 14 , 1981
81-1
Revised
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
# Amount Name Description
1704 47 . 26 Accountemps Temporary office Help
1705 115. 32 Alvord and Ferguson Uniforms
1706 11. 00 B & H Equipment Rentals Field Supplies
1707 61. 50 Bay Microfilm Office Equipment Repair
1708 9 ,099 . 60 Louis Bordi Road Repair
1709 25.00 CPRS Conference Expense
1710 400 . 00 CA Advocates Legislative Consultants Fee
1711 2 ,625 .00 Earth Metrics,Inc. Hassler Health Home Study
1712 187. 38 CA Water Service Utilities
1713 176 . 00 Communications Research Radio Maintenance-December
1714 300. 00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture- -Dec.
715 271. 80 Dennis Danielson Repair-Ranger Residence
716 74 .02' The Dark Room Publicity Photos
717 17 . 09 Day Timers Office Supplies
718 292. 38 Department of Parks and Plumbing Skills Course-Danielson
Recreation-California
719 292 . 38 Department of Parks and Plumbing Skills Course-Sanguinett_`
Recreation-California
720 159 . 51 Dorn' s District Vehicle Expense
-721 43. 29 John Escobar Ranger Uniforms
722 57. 62 Field' s Ambulance,Inc. Medical Supplies
723 600 .00 FLAME Consulting Services-Nov. , Dec.
724 19 , 795. 00 Flinn, Gray, & Herterich Insurance-General and MROSD Sites
1725 2 , 720 .01 General Electric Portable Radios
1726 ' 424 . 60 Harfst Associates , Inc. Computer. Services
727 19 . 54 Keeble and Shuchat Slide Library
728 10 . 50 Lawrence Tire District Vehicle Repair
729 31. 74 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies
730 4 , 008 . 57 Marvin Church, County Clerk San Mateo County Election ExiDense
731 49. 50 Ben Meadows Ranger Uniforms
732 323. 39 Mobil Oil District Vehicle Expense
, 733 130 . 33 Monte Vista Garden Center Maintenance and Repair-Sites
-734 25 . 00 National and Recreation and Subscription
Park Assoc.
Revised
C-81-1
Janu-iry 14 , 1987.
8 1_1
Amoun! Name D�scrip tion
1735 $ 317. 58 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
1736 207. 55 PC, and E Utility Service
1737 618. 12 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
1738 198. 48 Pargas Residence Maintenance
1739 51 . 92 Pitney Bowes Office Equipment
1740 86 . 05 Peninsula Blueprint -Duplicating
1741 38. 31 Rancho Hardware Field Equipment
1742 5, 764 . 22 County of Santa Clara Santa Clara County Election-
1743 35.01 San Jose Paints * Drafting supplies Expense
1744 420. 24 Sears Shop Power Tools
1745 -301. 34 Shell Oil District Vehicle Expense
1746 132 . 50 Sign of the Times Signs
1747 144 . 00 Peninsula Times Tribune Advertising'
1748 256 . 00 US Rentals Field Equipment Rental
1749 128 . 48 Unographics Mapping Service
1750 150 . 41 Union Oil District Vehicle Expense
1751 288. 00 Warren Webster Accounting Services
1752 55. 60 Bill Upson Private Vehicle-Expense
1753 439 . 97 Xerox Maintenance and Principal and
Int.erest paid on Contract
1754 25. 00 CA Archaeological Site- Research Fees-Montebello
rvey
1755 95. 00 First. American Title Preliminary Title Report Fbe
1756 95. 00 First American Title Preliminary Title Report Fee
1757 40. 14 Norney' s Office Supplies
1758 500.00 Gimmy Valuation Services Appraisal Information
1759 34 . 03 Victor CA -Shop, Suppl.ies
1760 38. 00 Munday and Collins Projection Screen Rental
1761 548 . 48 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Repair
1762 500 . 00 WTtq, Inc. Site Prcpiration
763 117. 31 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense, Traj.n4rjr,
& Seminars , Meal Conferences,Po_st ,:-
Office Supplies, and Field
Supplies
Peninsula Community Access Television (CATV) Committee
Contact: Larry Williams or Genevieve Cory, Canada College, 364-1212
Bob Kingson, Foothill College, 948-8590
January 7, 1981
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Please note previously announced seminar date on page 2.)
An "all that glitters is not gold" warning about cable television
promises for the Midpeninsula was issued today by the new Peninsula
Community Access Television (CATV) Committee of citizens and
educators.
The warning -- being sent to all elected officials in the Midpeninsula
and to top public agency staff members -- is being made in response
to a dazzling array of promises about cable services that nearly a
dozen private cable firms are making to city officials in Mountain
View, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Atherton.
All five of those communities are considering awarding franchises
for cable television operation, and 11 applications have already been
filed in Mountain View.
-more-
CATV/2
The committee's warning urges the community leaders and others
to first ask one question before making any final decisions on
awarding franchises:
"What guarantees are there that any of the franchise requirements
being discussed would remain in the face of almost certain deregulation
of the cable industry, in one form or another, in the next year or two?"
Part of the answer to that question will be sought in a free
public seminar to be held Tuesday, January 13 , from noon to 3 p.m.
in the Stauffer Auditorium of the Herbert Hoover Memorial Building,
just south of Hoover Tower, at Stanford University.
The warning states that unless city officials "can provide
categorical, guaranteed assurance that the public interest requirements
of the franchise agreements can be sustained after deregulation occurs
then it would appear to be unwise for any franchise to be awarded to
a private operator, unless the officials desire to ignore and give away
the vast local potential of CATV programming in the fields of education,
community programming , creative arts and public access."
Unless such a guarantee can be devised , the communities should
explore alternative possibilities for cable service, such as public
ownership and private operation, or operation by a non-profit corporation
with a broad community base.
-more-
CATVj3
The January 13 seminar will focus on defining the potential
of cable television in a variety of areas , including education,
performing arts , its use by non-profit corporations and computer
use, and on possible threats to seeing that potential realized.
The seminar is being co-sponsored by the committee and the
Stanford University Office of Public Affairs , as a follow-up to an
October 30 seminar on the same subject at Canada College.
Jules Dundes , Stanford professor of communications and
coordinator of the summer Mass Media Institute , will moderate
and be the lead speaker, discussing "Cable Television and
Public Policy."
Other panelists and their topics will be:
• James F. Gibbons , Stanford professor of electrical engineering,
speaking on "Tutored Video Instruction."
• Carolyn Perkins of the California Public Broadcasting
Commission, speaking on "Access Non-profit Corporations."
• Charles McNeely, assistant to the city manager, Palo Alto,
speaking on "Implications of Deregulation."
• Matthew Allen, mayor of Mountain View, speaking on "The
Decision-Maker's Role."
-more-
CATV/4
• Constance Carlson, West Coast coordinator for the National
Federation of Local Programmers , speaking on "Public Access."
• Candace Barrett, director of the Academy of Media and
Theater Arts of San Francisco, speaking on "Cable Television and
the Performing Arts."
• Donald A. Dunn, Stanford professor of engineering and
economic systems , speaking on "Computers and the Cable."
• Leo Van Dusen, San Bruno public works director, speaking
on "Municipal Ownership -- the San Bruno Experience."
• Gordon Shriver, San Mateo County management analyst,
department of general services , speaking on "Alternatives to
Franchising."
The panel will be divided into two sections, with time for
questions and discussion after each.
The Peninsula CATV Committee was formed as an outgrowth
of discussions about cable television potential at Canada College
last fall, but expanded to cover the area where franchise decisions
are pending.
It has as yet taken no position on public ownership or private
franchises , but is seeking to promote a full and open discussion
of cable potential and the issues surrounding cable in the local
communities before any final decisions are made by the respective
city councils.
-30-
"ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD"
A cautionary warning to Midpeninsula public officials , citizens
and educators from the Peninsula Community Access Television
Committee:
There is one question that should be answered by the franchise
agencies (cities) before any further steps are taken toward
awarding franchises to private cable television system operators:
What guarantees are there that any of the franchise requirements
being discussed would remain in the face of almost certain de-
regulation of the cable industry, in one form or another, in the
next year or two?
Unless the city officials can provide categorical, guaranteed
assurance that the public interest requirements of the franchise
agreements can be sustained after deregulation occurs, then it
would appear to be unwise for any franchise to be awarded to a
private operator, unless the officials desire to ignore and give
away the vast local potential of CATV programming in the fields
of education, community programming, creative arts and public
access.
Any recommendations from schools, community groups or others
that relate to private cable operation franchises ought to be
premised on a guarantee such as above. If there is no such
guarantee, then there should be no franchise awarded until and
unless such a guarantee can be devised, and the Midpeninsula
communities should explore alternative possibilities for cable
service, where such guarantees can be sustained.
If some form of public ownership of cable appears to be the best
way to serve the public interest, care should be taken to assure
that the programming element reflects the broadest possible
community perspective and is adequately buffered from political
control of content. There are several ways in which this could
be done, including (1) contracting with a private operator, profit
or non-profit, for the installation and operation of the system,
(2) establishing a non-profit, community-based corporation to
be in charge of programming and community-access elements ,
with a board of directors representing a broad cross-section of
the communities to be served, (3) providing a strong charter
requiring independence of programming, with balance, fairness
and accessibility stressed throughout, (4) providing a guaran-
teed source of programming revenue from a percentage of the
overall system revenues or other method, and (5) investigating
ownership by more than one community.
`r
All I
�,aaaae.a �
MLDp�NjNSULA REGICNAL OPT SPr'�CE DISTPIC'i'
I
TO: Board of Directors
E
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT•For Your Information
s
DATED: January 9, 1981
4
i
t
i
i
1
't
i
71
c 04
!n. 1:lr C)
youT a -r- list. IIso r,.7, ncv, -,d6.-e,':
0�_p j -ro j
t 6 A S f cet.
_on fo-2 _')ToVj(-j4jj,.
t
ould. lil_- U"-) thnlyll�' cr-I-C 0 n
Tl(loci y Icl P,S r in 'i. r�i t-
f ecl in,-; J - -Cao-re are ,Dlerity of (level ored. - --,I V . 2?U z
e s ves -covi,�c. lcos *_--cas
ulte T&f o ucli open z-,T)-c r sei
:Co:: -people .';no Onose- to nature -.71-ithout i;-,ot-ox veh-i-cl�.:;. I :'ash
ex �.re o be include6 in tlrie a s
p
re "'),U ssiar 1-d d g q) vL_i ch c-111 -r)a--,0 v (3 e S-L 10 r tj v i i
C" . (sooty for -�!.I.otogD'a-.")Iny On a cle^?T d y
�7ve 7.,o.e_-'ed ,itl ?�ry -OLiblic -,,,Pencies ,( I vo Y'l'_ed 13 mounths J:or tie
i-:'- 11-i a C'o n s e ln'- _on Cores i r C al c voxp P, and Butte counties rancl
c�o-n ,v ith th e CcO.—`Loynia, De-)Pxt� ent of loxcrtiy in �-PnC.ocino
c O rtv
Of
c,,-_-.--tun:,,tel- rl.ostu in c
tht—JI :!�'-nd_ng c 2? r-..- I.r,- % - - -- _ U_. . j-
T:ijo,-t -:,-(.ncies thin!,, in ter-ras of -oolicnc- becr�us'-? r-.ao:,!e
U
_tttx�,ct -oeo-,ole -o-ro-bler—
.2?eas t,h_).nd thus ��3_1 "-, ei -ifay's ucco-;O
j O'i o 1.v e v e-r -7our' 2:.-,n-c;_r _�i?e, m6y-e like: lane:
in :LPW 0'11foyen-'ent
C,
-eh- thinki-n.- J.r, '7as, o U at'r0I7 ih,' and soe U
,o c o j c v -, !e complete 6. T attend the Santa Rosp JunioT Colle,c oTing in
moo?(,c"U T-echnology) i, fTiond of J_ne V','�� -ri- outdoor ' ecceation
0 J -
ra'- ng i-xi
sti ct n.:�.np-genent.
in 0,)On space U
OT.-anigrition which has -oyovided soTac
T v!ould like to 'uhvi,nk,
,cir.-th- T I-q�
U _,(I
e.
I gips.rips. I e-nolosin, P� T-,Qi, dollar che
U U
you w1l . .1 -,)U, to 'goocl. use.
Than' You
1.e n ?..'a i-g j.o t t
--e. -13 CheTrY Street S-rt!� 'Ir),rn-
-�10_,Rsc note c addxess
Cep i f o-c n ia, 95404.
In
first ,.,,grap i 1-rove
coved s i h r,c-1 1�9,P,6 recived a
nemll rite r from you.
k�
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTIZIC'I'
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1.LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
December 31, 1980
Board of Trustees
Peninsula Open Space Trust
3000 Sand Hill Road
Building 4, Suite 135
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Members of the Board:
I am pleased to reappoint Bob Girard, who has agreed to
continue as a P.O.S .T. Trustee for a three year term expiring
January, 1984 .
Midpeninsula residents are very fortunate that Bob, as well
as the other members of your Board, give your energies, ex-
pertise, and precious time to this endeavor.
The District is on the verge of completing a number of pre-
viously ' budgeted land acquisition projects and shortly will
also commit the remainder of this fiscal year 's new land
acquisition funds. Expected tax revenue next year will not
buy a lot of open space at today' s prices . As a consequence ,
the Trust' s open space preservation efforts will be needed
more than ever.
We look forward to working with you to accomplish our joint
purposes.
Best wishes for the New Year,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG: jc
cc : MROSD Board of Directors